Why Does Windows Still Suck?!

[Sid]

Good article:
Why Does Windows Still Suck? (http://sfgate.com/columnists/morford/)

[Sid]

Major Patch Day Planned (http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,119593,00.asp)

Stacy Cowley, IDG News Service
Friday, February 04, 2005

Microsoft is expected to release 13 new security patches on Tuesday, February 8, including several "critical" updates.
The release, part of Microsoft's regularly scheduled monthly security update, is the company's biggest patch roundup in months. Included will be nine Windows updates, with at least one rated "critical." Also in the update bundle will be a "moderate-risk" update for Microsoft's SharePoint Services and Office; a .Net framework update rated "important"; a "critical" update affecting Office and Visual Studio; and a "critical" update affecting Windows, Windows Media Player, and MSN Messenger.

Microsoft announced the number of planned patches in a security bulletin advance-notification message posted to its TechNet Web site. The company has adopted a schedule of releasing security patches in batches on the second Tuesday of each month.

Details of this month's patches will be available when they are released on Tuesday. Microsoft will host a Webcast at 11 a.m. Pacific Time Wednesday to outline technical details of the updates, followed by a question-and-answer session. This month's Webcast has been extended by an hour to allow extra question-and-answer time.

[mr nutso]

We just got a new old PC from my wifes work (Unisys). It's a significant upgrade in hardware, and has the latest version of XP plus service packs installed. From a use standpoint, XP is great, except for wanting to do things I'd rather have 3rd party software do.

From a security standpoint, I can tell you that that Unisys won't let anyone access their intranet from outside with out installing THIS (http://www.sygate.com/). I the new system came with it installed.

We have installed a hardware firewall on our router (not sure how good it is), Sygate software firewall, and Norton Anti-virus, all actively work. I check regularly with the triple protection of Ad-Aware, Spybot and CWShreader.

[TheBigBradWolf]

IT guys like to keep in work:-)

[mr nutso]

Major Patch Day Planned (http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,119593,00.asp)

Stacy Cowley, IDG News Service
Friday, February 04, 2005

Microsoft is expected to release 13 new security patches on Tuesday, February 8, including several "critical" updates.
The release, part of Microsoft's regularly scheduled monthly security update, is the company's biggest patch roundup in months. Included will be nine Windows updates, with at least one rated "critical." Also in the update bundle will be a "moderate-risk" update for Microsoft's SharePoint Services and Office; a .Net framework update rated "important"; a "critical" update affecting Office and Visual Studio; and a "critical" update affecting Windows, Windows Media Player, and MSN Messenger.

Microsoft announced the number of planned patches in a security bulletin advance-notification message posted to its TechNet Web site. The company has adopted a schedule of releasing security patches in batches on the second Tuesday of each month.

Details of this month's patches will be available when they are released on Tuesday. Microsoft will host a Webcast at 11 a.m. Pacific Time Wednesday to outline technical details of the updates, followed by a question-and-answer session. This month's Webcast has been extended by an hour to allow extra question-and-answer time.

Anybody know if this happened?

[SamuraiCatJB]

Anybody know if this happened?

don't know how many items... but I just got and installed a security roll-up (multiple patch).

[mr nutso]

Where'd you get it? Windows update or somewhere else?

[RMCF]

I don't have anything in my Windows update on my Sony laptop (and haven't so for a good amount of time yet). Is this coming?

[Cyker]

I had a good laugh today.

Me and a colleage at work were setting up two boxes - He grabbed the faster one because he wanted to install XP and not "Crappy Win98".

I finished the install about 30-40 minutes after starting, and then WindowsUpdate'd all the patches, installed the needed apps etc., and was done by lunchtime.
My mate also finished the install, but when the compy was loading after the first reboot, the computer flashed up a dialog before the login screen had even finished coming up saying "NTAUTHORITY blah blah Shutdown in 30s".

It was hilarious :P

In the end we used ICS on Win98 to give a properly firewalled 'net connection to the XP box :P

[SamuraiCatJB]

Where'd you get it? Windows update or somewhere else?

hard to know... either windows update or an auto push to windows update from our MIS servers. It was waiting for me to install about an hour after I logged on. It wasn't there when I logged on and the machine was on all night, so it had to be within the first hour of the day.

[Gizmo]

I don't have anything in my Windows update on my Sony laptop (and haven't so for a good amount of time yet). Is this coming?
It's here. (http://www.microsoft.com/security/default.mspx)

[mr nutso]

Sweet. Thanks.

[SuperSaiyan]

I got the updates as soon as they were released.
I thought that article was just hilarious :p
I'm still waiting for any of my 3 XP pro boxes to crash and burn from all the evil Windows viruses, trojans, and worms. I should most certainly be infected to the gills by now LOOL. Simply put, any noob that takes the time to properly protect him/herself from internet junk can avoid getting nailed almost everytime. :rolleyes:

[zackepceo]

I know enough about Windows to make my PCs pretty solid and secure, but my macs are simply fab out of the box.

[SuperSaiyan]

I know enough about Windows to make my PCs pretty solid and secure, but my macs are simply fab out of the box.
- and I concur. The apple laptop I was given at work is just great and no need to tweak it. However, I do not agree with the article where the author suggests that it is a myth that hacks do not code viruses, etc. to target mac and linux OS'es because it is a relatively small target. I know many software engineers and "coders" that say that is exactly the case. A lot of work, a lot of risk, and very little return. I'm told that there not an OS in existence that cannot be brought down if the incentive is there to do it. I tend to believe that.

[madmaxmedia]

Yes, but the Mac OS is also much more secure than Windows. That's not to say you can't target a Mac, but it is harder.

I mean if Macs had 95% market share you may still have viruses and exploits, but I don't think it would be on the scale that you see on PC. It's hilarious when I read about peoples' computers being turned into porn servers...

[Cyker]

<rant>
I don't know enough about Macs to really press the point, but I reckon Macs would be as crackable as any other compy if someone put their mind to it.

Even Linux has it's vulnerabilities. The biggest reason Linux has hard to crack is because the average Linux user knows what they're doing - They are 'hackers' (Original meaning, not press-bastardised meaning) themselves. Because of this, they can armour their system up to the hilt.
A badly configured Linux system would be far more deadly than a Mac or Windows system, because it's *designed* for people that know what they are doing. It's a lot easier to shoot yourself in the foot with Linux if you don't know what you are doing.

By contrast, Windows and Macs are targetted at people who don't know or just don't care, and just want to get on with their work. Because of this, the vast majority of users (Not all, but most) don't generally armour up the system - It's done for them, but if a flaw is found in this armour they have never learned how to repair it and then they are screwed.

This is the crux really - In the old days, when the world was BBS's and the Internet was only accessible through 300baud modems by Research and Academic institutions, we had a saying: Practive Safe SEx, where SEx was a contraction of Software Exchange.

It's basically what most of us experienced users would call "Common Sense". However, it's not as common as one would hope: Very few people does this anymore, they just trade files, download stuff, click YES! every time a popup appears, and then wonder why their computer has got the electronic equivalent of AIDS, Ebola, Chicken Flu, and a touch of the Black Death for good measure.
The WORST thing about it is they don't *care*, and they don't *want* to learn. That is why there is so much crap on the 'net these days - It went downhill when people that couldn't be arsed to learn the skills and netiquette started using it.

We've always had people coding worms and viruses, and a lot of the early ones were a lot more well written and cleverer than some of the modern ones, but back then such malware usually had a hard time surviving because people were less thick.
Now we're having a bit of a malware renaissance, because the number of people that don't know or care any better has hit a critical mass. You know you're in trouble when someone who doesn't even know how to use a computer properly is given access to the biggest information resource in the world and still doesn't care to learn...

[SamuraiCatJB]

<nitpick>
you forgot to </endrant>
</nitpick>

;) ;) ;) ;)

I personally agree. I've always said the most dangerous thing "actively" is a person who thinks he knows more than he does. But the sheer presence of someone who knows nothing and doesn't care to learn is a dangerous thing.

[JackAxe]

Buy a Mac, or use one long enough to truly become accustom to them, instead of just assuming they are limited like Windows or other opertating systems. :)

I own and use both Macs and PCs. I started with DOS and have used PCs way longer then Macs, so I'm not a tard when it comes to them. The OSX Mac IMHO is a much better computer and it might as well be an impenetrable bank when compared to Windows security in its current state.

The biggest difference between Windows and OSX, is that OSX was built with security in mind. For windows it was only an afterthought. Beside OSX is a way more advance OS then Windows, only Longhorn will begin to touch what OSX has and not OSX now, but OSX 1.0 from 2000.

OSX has the benefiet of UNIX BSD(Any OS built on this has been declared the most secure.) and then Apple has its own security layers on top of that. Windows in it's current state can and will never be even remotely as secure as OSX. Maybe this will change with Longhorn, but when you implement a non-secure browser(IE) into every aspect of your OS, you're only asking for trouble. In theory this is a good idea, but in practice it's Window's biggest flaw. Tis why Windows is so plagued by Spyware and Viruses. This is quite the oppisote on a Mac as it has no Spyware or Viruses and not because nobody cares. I'm sure there are quite a few peeps that despise the Mac and would delibrately target a security risk if given enough time just to be the first one. And who knows if it hasn't already been attempted.

All I know, is if I were to open an e-mail, or just out of the blue OSX asked me for my Admin Password, I wouldn't allow it. OSX requires a password to install anything, so a Virus would need my permision to execute.

OSX also has the benifiet of being tigtly integrated with Apple's hardware, if and when they find holes, they are patched with in a week. It only took Apple 3 days to release a patch that addressed a critical hole found through Safari's Help system. PCs do not have this luxary. MS needs to test way more factors than Apple, so they could never turn around a security update that fast.

You can't build your house on sand and then expect a few supports here and there to make it as secure as a house that was built on a solid foundation with pretty much all the supports put in place. Hmm, which OS was built on sand? I'll give you a hint, Windows. :)

<]=)

[zackepceo]

Windows NT (XP) was pretty much directly forked from XENIX code back in the early 90s. UNIX security back then was pretty much abysmal.

[SuperSaiyan]

You can't build your house on sand and then expect a few supports here and there to make it as secure as a house that was built on a solid foundation with pretty much all the supports put in place. Hmm, which OS was built on sand? I'll give you a hint, Windows. :)<]=)
LOL .....Well I guess I have some pretty damn good sand under my XP pro box because I've never had any virus, trojan, worm, etc issues :rolleyes:

[jjesusfreak01]

LOL .....Well I guess I have some pretty damn good sand under my XP pro box because I've never had any virus, trojan, worm, etc issues :rolleyes:
Some people like us are lucky. Either that, or everyone else is stupid and downloads funny email attachements. :)

[JackAxe]

When an OS is easily hightly susceptible to a virus, spyware app that can effect the kernal, or "pop-up windows" that can appear behind a desktop window it is "fundemntally flawed." Having to constantly maintain an OS such as Windows by defraging and running a *bulky* background apps like anti-virus app to prevent infections is crude. There is a better way(OSX) and MS has taken note of it and are developing the PC wannabe equivelent(Longhorn) or at least a much earlier version of it.

I've never owned a virus app for OSX, nor will I ever need one. Yes, I can buy a virus cleaner for my Mac, but it's not because OSX has viruses, it's only purpose would be to clean e-mail of PC viruses that could effect our PC friends. :p

Hey, my parents aren't stupid. Guess what I moved them to the Mac and they've been spyware and virus free since then. ;)

<]=)

[SuperSaiyan]

I'm curious. With the Mac OS being light years ahead of Windows in every respect and impervious to viruses, spyware, etc., etc. Why are sales not even close to Windows? Mac is not an obscure OS that no one is aware of nor is it frustrating to setup and maintain like Linux. I've occasionally used Macs at work for years but they have always been dwarfed by the numbers of Windows PC's. I know why I chose Windows XP Pro over Mac OSX but why would so many others do the same when there is no logical reason to?

or is there? ;)

[JackAxe]

Ignorance. :p

Oh the PC is a business machine. *LOL* How can anything as anti-productive as a PC be good for business? ;)

*yawn* That must be why PCs are so great. Yes when countless people flock to something because it is cheap and their friend just gave them the OS and loads of "free" software, that automatically makes it the better choice. Well for most peeps it is, since they consider anything over $10 expensive. Games also help sell systems. But when someone doesn't know any better, because of blind ignorance, they'll go with what they know, hence Dell does well.

And I wouldn't say light years ahead of Windows, 6 years is more realistic.

Hmm, let's see who were market leaders for any given year(s) over the past decade or so. I remember Compaq was on top, Zeos(What happened to them,) even Pacard Dell, HP, Gateway, IBM and of course Dell... Oh and even Apple with the iMac.

Emulation is a form of flattery and just look at how the PC industry always leaches off Apple's innovation. Wihout Apple, a parisite like Dell would have no life. :p

Speaking of market leaders, because of the iPod I've seen 2 of my friends and my brother-in-law switch to the Mac since last summer. My friend's works also just switched entirely to Macintoshes. They always say that before OSX Panther Mac's weren't cool. They just never used Macs before that, Jaguar was also an excellent OS. :)

MS has come to a grinding hault when it comes to innovation and has been rotting for the past few years. It has severyal cash cows like Office to keep if afloat, so why improve on a product when it's a guaranteed sell.

And just for reference, I have nothing agains PC hardware, it's not the flawed part. WinXp Pro still needs help. It's the best PC OS thus far, but if it were a great OS like OSX, then it wouldn't need to be replaced by Longhorn. XP is better then OS9 in practically all areas, but that's not saying much since OS9 wast the last of it's generation.

<]=)

[SuperSaiyan]

So........the jest of your point here is that in order for a product, like an operating system, to be successful (to the extent that Windows has) it has to suck first because the ignorant masses are somehow attracted to products with the most flaws?

As I stated before, the problem is choice - whether it be informed or uninformed, we have all been free to choose with respect to OS's. I find it difficult to believe that the so called ignorant instinctively go with Windows unless you attribute this to bad PR on the part of Apple. I tend to doubt this as most hollywood movies these days are pushing Apple's when a scene requires a PC.

I'm not a Mac-hater. There are many aspects of Mac's that are very appealing to me. However, I have always been turned off by the fact that the OS is tied to the hardware and a high-end Mac is still too expensive as compared to other high-end systems. You can call it cheap but most of us common-folk want more bang for our buck. Mac's are obviously just not there yet. That's not to say that Apple can't get there.

[Cyker]

No, people still go for WinPCs because they are the majority market.
Macs are in the same boat as Linux in that there is relatively little software for them. Both Linux and Mac excel in business for small niche markets where there is some really kick-*** software for them (If you want to do anything Adobe, Macs rule. Servers? See Linux ;)), but the shear range of software for PC's is what attracts people to them. That and compatibility - Since PC's are the majority, it's generally easier to inter-op them.

You ever tried making a hetrogeneus Linux, Mac Classic, MacOSX, Win98, WinNT, Sun, AIX network run? You're better off asking your best mate to flush your head down the toilet while kicking you in the arse. It's less painful.

Personally, I'm gonne be a PC dude for the forseeable future - One thing PC's have that no other computers have is Open Specs - All other systems are proprietory. I can't build a Mac from scratch and tailor it to my tastes and spec - It's Job's Way or the highway.

If I wasn't such a stickler about that kind of thing, I'd probably have stuck with my old Amiga (I luved that machine *sniff*) back in the day instead of buying a 286 (Talk about a step backwards!), or maybe nicked one of the Ultra 2/5's my uni was throwing out...

[JackAxe]

No software, high-end Macs are expensive, are you peeps stuck in the ninties? :D I guess if you're comparing consumer PCs (non workstation components) to a workstation and would like to play the latest game, then those statements could be construed as true. :D I'll ramble more about this later.

Where to begin. :confused: :p

First off, no I do not think that PCs are doing well because their OS sucks (Afterall, that is my opnion.). Masses are attracted to affordability and what they know of. So if their friend has a PC, chances are it's what they'll go with. And as you stated, bang for the buck. There are 2 common myths now days and both you peeps stated them above. Those are both examples of the ignorance that most PC peeps still believe and are a couple of the reasons why most peepholes will generally discard the Mac as a viable choice. :) Believe me when I tell you my parents didn't switch to the Mac right away. I wouldn't have even considered it right when OSX was first released and it took several other opinions before they finally did make the switch earlier this year. They thought why should they buy a Mac. It's too expensive and they won't be able to run the software they need. I had to bring over my PB more then few times before they started to see it's clear advantage for the areas they needed a comp, pretty much all general use.

In the past Apple's were quite expensive and they really didn't have the software that the majority of consumers wanted and needed. 20 years later and PCs are the market leader, what a suprise. :D Thankfully this is null now days. I didn't consider Macs back then, because I couldn't afford them, nor could most of my friends. For much less then the price of an entrly level pizza box Mac in the mid ninties, I could assemble my PC with all the goodies I wanted and that's exactly what I did. I also assembled most of my friend's PCs and gave them the help they needed to make it work. PCs were were quite affordable at the time and consumer PC components still are now days. Unfortunately ignorance dictates that Mac is still this way.

Apple's had the wrong PR over the years and specifically targeted pro users. That's also another factor of why they didn't gain consumer market share and it wasn't really their objective for the longest time. When I saw a Mac in a movie, I though cool, I wish I could afford that. It wasn't until Steve Jobs came back that this all changed and he specificallly targeted the average consumer. Hence the iMac and hence the fact that peeps still generally regard the Mac as only good for graphics. (There's allot of truth in that statement, but it's only one area of OSX's many strengths.)

And to get back to price. In order to compare a high-end PC to a high-end Mac, you'll need to compare their components. Mac mobos are made by a PC manufacture, so they rely on the same basic parts. High-end Macs are workstations. The only PC CPU that is comparable to a G5 is an Opteron. (Both have their strengths, note that an A64 is not in the same class.) Additional memory slots and PCI-X all cost more. Price out a 64-bit workstation mobo with 8 memory slots, dual proc support and PCI-X. Guess what, that right there will cost about $500+.(Hmm, that's a Mini or an entry level Dell, or my Athlon last year. ;)) Now price out an Opteron CPU, just one of them. Price out an 850, since most peeps go by clockspeed, it's a 2.4Ghz. You're looking at $1130. So 2 Opterons and one mobo will cost about $2800. Now we need ram, the OS, the case, software and so on. If you follow where I'm going, high-end Macintoshes are priced as they should be now days. Their prices are very competive for workstations and for certain high-end applications cost less then a PC counterpart. I only paid $2299 for my DP 2.5. I got it at a developer price. :)


A High-end consumer PC is not the same thing. Tis why a fully loaded A64 or P4 looks so affordable in comparison. Great game machines, just not workstations.

I agree that hardware wise, consumer level PCs have the best bang for the buck, but for included software, the Mac is the clear leader. Nothing on the PC is remotely close to iLife and it ships free with all Macs. You can do more wtih a Mac Mini out of the box then a PC costing 4x as much. Apple's tight control over its hardware and software has made applications like iLife possible. MS would need to make their own PC and then spend tons of money on R&D to come up with something close. (That's not going to happen, since they lack innovation. :p) Choice is great for hardware prices, but on the other hand it limits true integration which all Macs have. This is Apple's greates strengh and not a weakness. Like I've mentioned it's why they're not plagued by viruses and spyware. All PC manufactures are striving for this, but because there are so many of them it's happening very slowy. And even though most PC peeps say they like choice, they have their specific ones,(My friends only buy ASUS.) the ones that are proven reliable and the most compatible. With the Mac I don't need to look and compare, I already know its parts are grade A and they'll work as stated. (I'm not saying that all their hardware is bug free, nothing mass produced is, this is the exception. But I've never personaly owned a lemon from Apple, mainly because I avoid first rev Macs.)

So is an Open spec PC one that that needs to comply to Windows. :D In a sense PCs are just as propietory as Macs, they just have more manufactures to choose from when buying ATI or NVidiast latest GPU offering as an example. But every X800 needs to comply to a set of proprietary standards. Apple uses the same ram, same GPUs, same HD's pretty much everything is the same when it comes to hardware, so they really aren't proprietary. The OS is a different matter, but you'll find virtually all the same apps for both OSs, or comparable counterparts. ;) If Jobs were driving the Mac in a directtion that was bad, I woul've moved back to the PC for all areas. But fortunately his vision and determination for excellence are things that are making my life easier. So I'll gladly travel down his road. :) He is the main reason why OSX and the Macs are so great now days. With MS's various updates things have only slowed down, with Apple's updates, things have always got faster.

I loved the Amiga, it wasn't until I got a 386DX 40 that I could even begin to touch what my friend's A500 had done for years. Talk about bad PR. Commadore used some kind of stealth marketing. I still recall walking into Amiga stores with my paying friend and not getting any service. The store nerds were to busy playing with the new Amiga that came in. :o I had a XT with a VGA video card and monitor when the 286 was out. I was jelous of its power. :eek:

<]=)

[jjesusfreak01]

Windows users should download the Microsoft antispyware beta program. It looks like a pretty good spyware scanner, and it updates itdelf regularly. In addition, it provides live protection against spyware installation, and unauthorized port access.

[SamuraiCatJB]

As a programmer, I have been in the PC market since very early on. There was an honest and viable reason for this. Programming on an Apple prior to OSX was right up there with my ex in survivability. Yes, I saw the hypercard stuff (gag), a guy in a library was trying to debug his hypercard program and in only 10 minutes of explanation, I pointed out his flaw in logic. I learn computer languages easily, and still apple programming was a royal pain.

You can brag about how great OSX is, and how everyone should have dropped everything they ever owned and operated to jump ship as soon as OSX shipped. Life doesn't work that way. Just as Windows is bolstered by the popularity (perceived or not) because it has been around for ages, Apple is hurt by the fact that before OSX the OS was a hindrance to their popularity. Given a choice between programming on an Apple or programming on a PC, PC won hands down. Apple found niches of people who already had Apples and preferred apples, so programmers wrote software for them like performing appendex removals on yourself. Still that is what kept Apple around.

[Sid]

As a programmer, I have been in the PC market since very early on. There was an honest and viable reason for this. Programming on an Apple prior to OSX was right up there with my ex in survivability. Yes, I saw the hypercard stuff (gag), a guy in a library was trying to debug his hypercard program and in only 10 minutes of explanation, I pointed out his flaw in logic. I learn computer languages easily, and still apple programming was a royal pain.

You can brag about how great OSX is, and how everyone should have dropped everything they ever owned and operated to jump ship as soon as OSX shipped. Life doesn't work that way. Just as Windows is bolstered by the popularity (perceived or not) because it has been around for ages, Apple is hurt by the fact that before OSX the OS was a hindrance to their popularity. Given a choice between programming on an Apple or programming on a PC, PC won hands down. Apple found niches of people who already had Apples and preferred apples, so programmers wrote software for them like performing appendex removals on yourself. Still that is what kept Apple around.

I'm not a programmer, but my understanding is that Hypercard was not really programming for the Mac, as in coding an app from scratch, but was intended for non-programmers to use.

[Sid]

Dell Sued Over Bait & Switch Tactics (http://news.com.com/Dell+sued+over+bait-and-switch+charges/2100-1047_3-5587443.html)

Excerpt:
A California law firm has slapped Dell with a class action lawsuit charging the computer giant with "systematically deceiving" its customers.

The suit, filed in San Francisco County Superior Court on Feb. 14, seeks class action status in California and accuses Dell of "bait and switch" practices, false advertising, fraud and deceit in sales and advertising, and breach of contract. The law firm behind the suit, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, publicized it on Wednesday.

The case centers on the allegation that Dell advertises low prices for its computers, but people who try to purchase a machine at the advertised price find it's no longer available for that price. Often those customers wind up with another computer, the suit said.

[SamuraiCatJB]

I'm not a programmer, but my understanding is that Hypercard was not really programming for the Mac, as in coding an app from scratch, but was intended for non-programmers to use.

it was, the theory is since they couldn't lure programmers to the Mac easily, they would make a language that anyone could program.... It still was a horrendous idea. :) I saw C for the Mac too and the massive overhead to write for a Mac.

[Sid]

it was, the theory is since they couldn't lure programmers to the Mac easily, they would make a language that anyone could program.... It still was a horrendous idea. :) I saw C for the Mac too and the massive overhead to write for a Mac.
Why do you think it was that way? Was it because of coding for the PowerPC chip instead of the Intel?

[SamuraiCatJB]

Why do you think it was that way? Was it because of coding for the PowerPC chip instead of the Intel?

no chip really makes very little different in high level code. it was actually that there was very little assistance put for writing to the Apple OS API for screen/video/audio manipulation. Today, Apple, Unix, or Windows use various types of "assistant" tools to help you design GUIs, those had already started on Windows and Unix systems (though only in visual basic for Windows at first, C was left cold except by Borland and 3rd parties). Simply because Windows had the larger support base of larger numbers of machines sophisticated development sets were made rapidly by 3rd parties for Microsoft systems.

Apple also suffered from their extremely rigid "Apple Blessed" strategy. You basically were not allowed to make hardware/Software for the Apple without sending a copy to Apple and having them "bless it" in the beginning. Apple eventually dropped that for software, and got better about hardware.

If it were just running Unix that makes a good OS. All PCs would be running DesqView X today. But marketing mistakes, advertising problems, and legal battles with the giant Microsoft killed the makers of Qemm who also made DesqView X for the PC (which was like running co-linux today, windows, DOS, and Unix on the same machine).

Apple is better today because of a number of decisions.
A) design, visual appeal is a new niche
B) effort in making better API development tools for programmers, to encourage software development.
C) leveraging Unix to widen base of support for development/tools/security.
D) advertising, Mac used to brag about holding small community niches like elderly, musicians, artists, not "the average person" now they have changed their marketing.

and others... software development aids simply discouraged software production, not elliminated it. But even discouraging it is bad. But there is no one reason why the Apple vs Microsoft distribution, there is a long history of reasons.

[SamuraiCatJB]

This like any argument can go on forever. But Apple can never hope to reverse the Apple/PC distribution percentage (percent of available market) without first getting first run distribution on software.

The question needs to be asked, why wasn't Doom 3 released for Apple before PC? It is OpenGL based, so graphics wise is portable (code wise doesn't work that way).

Then, why was HL2 written in Direct3D rather than OpenGL (thus limiting it to microsoft platforms without a rewrite)?

These first run products make a difference. If you walk to the shelf and pick up a game you like and it says "Windows only" that is advertising for Windows wether you like it or not.

This is exactly how Mac first held 100% of the personal (or small production house) music business because you walk to the shelf for music software, you saw Cakewalk Pro, and it was "Mac only". So for a few years Mac held 100% of the personal and small business music shops. It doesn't matter at that point which is "better" it only matters which you can find for what you want to do. If it is available for only one platform, for what you want to do, all other options are irrelevant.

[SamuraiCatJB]

and I see Jack is on... so I turn the floor over to him.... ;)

[Sid]

Thanks for yor answer Jeff. Speaking of Doom 3, I have pre-ordered it and am waiting.

[JackAxe]

Games go where they'll make the most money, that's a given.

Take a further step back and notice that the XBox is now taking precedence over the PC for some of the more exclusive titles. Now look at it from this persspective; Since MS's X2 is based on a PowerPC and their development platform is a G5, where does this leave the X86 PC?

And to touch on one other thing, in many instances, when parents are buying compupter for their kids and that kid was given a choice, do you honestly think little Timmy would ask for a Mac when his buddy next door already had a PC and could easily set him up with a boat load of "free" games? I know that when I was younger, most adults played the naive ticket when it came to computers and it was their kid that was genius.

And on the price again. My aunt and uncle bought a Sony VAIO the other year, they spent $2500 on it and when I showed them how easy it was to get the photos from their camera and do many other things that were a pain for them to do with their PC, not only were they impressed, but said; "We would like a Mac, but we couldn't afford one." What? :eek: This is all ignorance!!! And it still hinders sales, but I'm hoping the Mini has broken that ignorance barrier, since I'm talkig to more then a few PC peeps that are buying one.

Apple is only around now, because Jobs targeted consumers. Because of him, we now have the iPod iMac and iLife. 3 very consumer friendly products that have given Apple much success. If Apple hadn't hired him back on, then Apple would be no more in my honest opinion or just another clone.

Apple's attitude towards developers as you mentioned, was not a friendly one. Instead of giving the devs what they needed, Apple had an allmighty you should be privlaged to develop for us attitude. Nintendo has this attitude right now. Because Apple has embraced it's bread and butter the developers and consumers, it's now a vastly better computer because of it. Tis why I only refere to OSX Macs as being a better choice.

Exactly about you buy a system to do what ya want to do. My point is that most peeps really don't have specific needs on a system and will just use it for word processing, e-mail, internet and other similar tasks. Those peeps generally think that Windows is the only choice for that and believe that a shoddy OS is a given when there is a better choice for the majority of them. And until this thick layer of ignorance is wiped away, most peeps who could and would greatly benifiet from an OSX Mac will only continue to work wtih mediocrity that is Windows, because it's the only choice they've known.

<]=)

[zackepceo]

The architecture of the mac's processor is vastly supereor as well. There are a few points to that. RISC vs. CISC is the main one.
CISC is what you're using right now if you're on a PC. The CISC architecture relies heavily on having a long time to calculate complex equasions. It takes a problem, say, x+3y/4=x^2 and calculates it as it is. RISC, on the other hand, was built for scalability and performance. It would take the same problem, break it down into base components, and then process it. That alone makes RISC inherently more effecient, because the least amount of stages you could effectively have for RISC is 4 instead of 7 for CISC. RISC is the definite winner here, no question about it. At the heart of every Intel, AMD, VIA, and Transmeta processor made since about 2000 beats a RISC core. CISC is kept as compatability deadweight, and also presumably to thinly veil the fact that CISC is dead.
The other big point is the direction that the PPC makers vs. x86 makers have gone through. Here's a quick question for you. How many real enterprise/server sucesses has Intel had? I'll answer it. One: Xeon, which is really nothing but marketing hype attached to a Pentium 4 with extra cache and SMP support. IBM has the series of POWER chip designs derived from the supercomputers of ancient computer times, while Motorola had expertise in streamlined systems and DSP chips. The original IBM-Apple-Moto alliance created the PowerPC, a very nice chip design that didn't have enouhg L1 cache. All the problems were fixed, and over the years it has been redesigned with Altivec and 64-bit. (Maybe one day I'll share my opinion of 64-bit, but I digress.) Compare the age of PowerPC with x86 (11 years versus over 25), and you can see why x86 is so hard to make better. People are obsessed with compatability, and unfortunately a large amount of base NT code is still coded for the 386.
Ohh, that brings me to Intel's fallacy: NetBurst. Quoted as saying they would reach 12 ghz by 2007 or something, they're flat out wrong now. PPC's approach of effeciency over 'speed' clearly is victorious. AMD looks to be trying to dig itself out of the backwardsness of the whole architecture, with its much better x86-64.

I lost my train of thought now. Too bad...

[zackepceo]

And on the price again. My aunt and uncle bought a Sony VAIO the other year, they spent $2500 on it and when I showed them how easy it was to get the photos from their camera and do many other things that were a pain for them to do with their PC, not only were they impressed, but said; "We would like a Mac, but we couldn't afford one." What? :eek: This is all ignorance!!! And it still hinders sales, but I'm hoping the Mini has broken that ignorance barrier, since I'm talkig to more then a few PC peeps that are buying one.
That's sad.. no, nevermind. Sony has higher margins than Apple; now THAT is sad.

[SamuraiCatJB]

Games go where they'll make the most money, that's a given.



exactly... but people buy what they are going to use. So you have a lot of games/software making money off the already saturated market of PCs vs. the much smaller Apple market. And you have a lot of people buying hardware because that is where all their software is. It is more than just ignorance here.

How do you convince A) developers B) Consumers to "jump ship". That takes time, that takes marketing, that takes a lot of incentives. You can't run around saying, oh it is sheer ignorance that someone buys a PC instead of a Mac. I couldn't do my job, **YET**, on a mac. So as a developer, this is very VERY important. How do you get me to switch sides, which also brings along all the people who use my software? If I switch sides without bringing along my customers, I risk loosing all my money. That's not ignorance, that's risk management.

Step 1) Co-development. Convince the developers (or better yet, assist the developers) to make portible code so they can co-release on Apple and Mac. That is "starting to happen" but isn't there yet. When step 1 is finished, Microsoft and Intel should be very VERY worried.

Step 2) Choice. You've got all the major developers doing co-releases and getting benefits from both markets. They no longer care who has what, they can choose freely and enjoy the benefits. Now comes a massive marketing point of the benefits and who is best. If you can get Doom 4 on Mac or PC, and HL 3 on Mac or PC, office software (that is backwards compatible to what was had, OpenOffice for instance is already on the Mac), and any other software is available on both. Now you can compare price vs performance vs. quality. Now you can prove you are better.

Until Step 1 is fully done, ignorance has nothing to do with holding back from Apple. If anything, if you "need" a market that hasn't been duplicated on a Mac, you'd be ignorant for buying a Mac even if it is a better machine. You'd be broke, out of work, and be auctioning that better machine on ebay to pay your rent. :D

[SamuraiCatJB]

and yes, I am currently moving my software to OpenSceneGraph in hopes of co-release on Windows/Linux first, but also Mac/SGI/Sun/IBM/AnythingInTheWorld :)

[zackepceo]

Amiga. :)
10.

[JackAxe]

And what about my TI 99. :p

The PCs are definately saturated with games compared to the Mac, we just need to wait a few months longer for the popular games to be converted, but for all other software, you can get the same app and comparable apps for both. Besides a few very specific apps, it's all the same now days. Both platforms are equally saturated in the apps that count. And 90% of the peeps out there only use Office anyways.

I'm the one calling everyone ignorant, since we all are in one area or another. Fortuanately Apple hasn't taken my less-than-tact tactics and are doing quite a few things to make developing on the Mac a good option. I don't recall the number, but Apple's number of developers about trippled since 2003. So they're finally doing something right.


I had a thought about Doom 3 and why it wasn't released at least with the Linux version and that would be Tiger. It's going to be out next month if I recall and not only does it finally include optimized driver for the 6800s, it has updated the graphic engine in a few areas. So taking that into account, it probably made more sense to hold off on a release until after Tiger is available. Plus testing and optimizing it for the next Major OS release would be important.

But then again, I'm also thinking that Jobs asked them to deliberated hold off so that he can reveal it with the next major hardware upgrade, which I'm pretty sure will coincide with Tiger's release. So either way, I'm thinking Tiger is to blame. An example of this, is that my Dual Layer DVD burner has been intentially crippled by Apple, so that they can pull it out of their hat as some great new feature for the Macs when Tiger is finally released. I'm pretty sure it will also be part of the new G5's "WOW" specs. It all comes down to showmanship, SJ is a showman afterall. :)

<]=)

[zackepceo]

Right, a CEO can only micromanage so much. Steve doesn't pick out the features and everything of everything Apple makes, it makes too much stuff. All he does is orchestrate the company and do a yearly keynote at Macworld.

[SamuraiCatJB]

But then again, I'm also thinking that Jobs asked them to deliberated hold off so that he can reveal it with the next major hardware upgrade, which I'm pretty sure will coincide with Tiger's release. So either way, I'm thinking Tiger is to blame. An example of this, is that my Dual Layer DVD burner has been intentially crippled by Apple, so that they can pull it out of their hat as some great new feature for the Macs when Tiger is finally released. I'm pretty sure it will also be part of the new G5's "WOW" specs. It all comes down to showmanship, SJ is a showman afterall. :)

<]=)

very possible in all respects. Some of those decisions, hurt however. Everyone makes them. Microsoft made the decision to nearly ignore security until XP, now they are starting to feel pressure from Linux and Apple. :)

I have had a DL drive for a while now. ;) I don't have to wait. :D

Intel is doing one of those surprise releases too, seems they have been dumping 64bit extension P4s onto the market secretly as standard pentiums. Supposedly they will throw a switch in their offices and all of a sudden every P4 sold after a certain date will turn 64bit. :) its mostly media circus because most people won't know what to do with 64bit... so not all of these decisions are smart. :)

[JackAxe]

Intel is smart. ;)

If I wanted to, I could flash the drive in my PC, then run a patch some monkey wrote to allow the DL drive to work in OSX appls like iTunes. But I would need use Toast to burn, so I'll wait. I didn't thinkg I was getting a DL, so it was a pleasent surprise.

<]=)

[zackepceo]

Ok.. I'm about ready to tell my opinion of 64-bit. Jack, I see you're here, think this is a good idea?

[zackepceo]

Oh, yeah. Thanks Jack. :p

Anyway, 64-bit is a huge WASTE. Why have 64 bits? I think 64 adds too much overhead in relation to 32-bit. 48-bits are perfect for at least the next 10 years. Memory addressing of 281 TB is a *lot* of memory. You would be hard pressed to construct a RAID with acceptable latencies that passes 281TB. The overhead.. oh, the poor processors. They won't be used to their full potential until at least 20 years.

[JackAxe]

Doooo it. Espcially since most of the PC solutions don't have the same flexibility as the PowerPCs in this area. :D

I'm all for 64-bit, since it will improve rendering performance for me and allow my images to be loaded completely into ram. I'm already benefitting from it, since I can run two apps with 2 gigs of RAM each and a gig for the system. And when 2 Gig chips drop in price, I'm going to eventually add 8 gigs more and probably allocate a large chunk of that to a RAM drive.

<]=)

[JackAxe]

Oh, yeah. Thanks Jack. :p

Anyway, 64-bit is a huge WASTE. Why have 64 bits? I think 64 adds too much overhead in relation to 32-bit. 48-bits are perfect for at least the next 10 years. Memory addressing of 281 TB is a *lot* of memory. You would be hard pressed to construct a RAID with acceptable latencies that passes 281TB. The overhead.. oh, the poor processors. They won't be used to their full potential until at least 20 years.

It's only a waist if your apps don't process larger then 32-bit integer, or your files fit nicelly into the 32-bit constraints. :)

<]=)

[SamuraiCatJB]

Oh, yeah. Thanks Jack. :p

Anyway, 64-bit is a huge WASTE. Why have 64 bits? I think 64 adds too much overhead in relation to 32-bit. 48-bits are perfect for at least the next 10 years. Memory addressing of 281 TB is a *lot* of memory. You would be hard pressed to construct a RAID with acceptable latencies that passes 281TB. The overhead.. oh, the poor processors. They won't be used to their full potential until at least 20 years.

and 640K should be enough for anyone.... ;)

you should be careful about putting timelines and limits on usefullness.

Not that I could construct it or even find a seller or motherboard to support it, but I could actually USE all that memory tomorrow. I have never found a natural hardware limit I couldn't meet or exceed within a week if you let me use it. :)

[JackAxe]

You'll just write a virus that dupilcates your files over and over in memory until it's full. Cheater. :D

<]=)

[SamuraiCatJB]

It's only a waist if your apps don't process larger then 32-bit integer, or your files fit nicelly into the 32-bit constraints. :)

<]=)

which is half the problem... shipping around 32bit floating point numbers (single precision) is one thing, but most CPUs process all math in double precision, but have to send it as two words. 64bit improves performance in double precision math, reduces performance a little in single precision math but I know very few people still using single precision math on a CPU, if they are they need to move it to the GPU where single precision math is up to 50x faster, but no double precision math exists.

I have hit every manufactured limit since 1990 at full speed and rebounded with a bloody nose. I am even struggling with the 2.5tb limit on SCSI. I am more than happy that they pushed the limit out far enough I won't hit the wall tomorrow... give me a few years though.... :D

[JackAxe]

I look forward to the day that my secretary has 16 exabytes of RAM just for a word processor. OK, I look forward to the day I have a secretary. :)

You and your single double combo meal FPU thingy. :p If it speeds up rendering, I want it.

And the reason Altivec is so freaking fast, is because it processes 128-bit. :eek:

<]=)

[SamuraiCatJB]

You'll just write a virus that dupilcates your files over and over in memory until it's full. Cheater. :D

<]=)

nope, every one of my applications that hit the manufacturer limits has been real. In 2000 while the range was arguing over the usefullness of 1 terabyte of disk storage they asked me if I could realistically fill it. I looked up at the ceiling did a few quick figures in my head. NM is 6x6 degree cells, with imagery of 1m and approximately 110km per degree, a 3D landscape of the whole state is over 1Tb.

We have requests for resolutions much, much smaller than that now. Given a multi-state playing area of 8x12 cells... well, you get the idea. I can use up any amount of graphics, memory or disk space you give me. Please give me. :D

[SamuraiCatJB]

I look forward to the day that my secretary has 16 exabytes of RAM just for a word processor. OK, I look forward to the day I have a secretary. :)

You and your single double combo meal FPU thingy. :p If it speeds up rendering, I want it.

And the reason Altivec is so freaking fast, is because it processes 128-bit. :eek:

<]=)

which is why I wouldn't turn down a 256bit processor tomorrow. :D

I don't have a secretary, but I share an admin asst with 49 other people. :D

[JackAxe]

You should hoard all of her time. :)

I tend to suck up most of my resources, but not terabytes of RAM or HD. I have sucked up 300 Gigs in the past 2 months though.

<rambles>
Where are the Quad layer DVD burners? I remember reading about them and the dual layer drives in the ninties for freak sake. I have a couple of files that won't fit on a dual layer.
</rambles>

<]=)

[zackepceo]

I can agree with double-precision for 64-bit, but Altivec isn't that fast because it's 128-bit (not really, anyway). It's a vector processor.. you know, those relics from the early 90s... Cray ring a bell? :p The altivec is like an ultra-RISC that does well with rediculous numbers like sqrt(sin(7))^984932739458477383 or something.

But samcat.. think of a RAID that's 100 times the size of your SCSI limit..

I just think that 48-bit would be more effecient than 64-bit, but considering almost everything is still in 32-bitland now it's a little pointless. If I have the chance to produce my own processor architecture, it would be 48-bit with 128-bit extentions.

[zackepceo]

You should hoard all of her time. :)

I tend to suck up most of my resources, but not terabytes of RAM or HD. I have sucked up 300 Gigs in the past 2 months though.

<rambles>
Where are the Quad layer DVD burners? I remember reading about them and the dual layer drives in the ninties for freak sake. I have a couple of files that won't fit on a dual layer.
</rambles>

<]=)
Oh man I can relate.. I'm using all of the hard drives in the house, and my biggest file is only 15 gigs!
Oh, I feel so infereor. :p

and you know.. you guys can send me all the old crap you want...

[SamuraiCatJB]

You should hoard all of her time. :)

I tend to suck up most of my resources, but not terabytes of RAM or HD. I have sucked up 300 Gigs in the past 2 months though.

<rambles>
Where are the Quad layer DVD burners? I remember reading about them and the dual layer drives in the ninties for freak sake. I have a couple of files that won't fit on a dual layer.
</rambles>

<]=)

forget quad layer.... where the heck is blue laser??!!! give me a 20 gig blue laser disk and 40 gig with dual layer. :D

[SamuraiCatJB]

I can agree with double-precision for 64-bit, but Altivec isn't that fast because it's 128-bit (not really, anyway). It's a vector processor.. you know, those relics from the early 90s... Cray ring a bell? :p The altivec is like an ultra-RISC that does well with rediculous numbers like sqrt(sin(7))^984932739458477383 or something.

But samcat.. think of a RAID that's 100 times the size of your SCSI limit..

I just think that 48-bit would be more effecient than 64-bit, but considering almost everything is still in 32-bitland now it's a little pointless. If I have the chance to produce my own processor architecture, it would be 48-bit with 128-bit extentions.


and I would fill your 48bit machine as fast as someone built the hardware to. What I am saying is I appreciate pushing the physical need to place an "arbitary wall" quite far in the distance. I'd rather it be far than near. :)

I think a lot of the manufacturers have had to deal with all the arbitrary bounds we've set over the years and got a little bit tired of them. We've gone 8bit, to 16bit (passing through 12bit RLL), we had 24bit addressing, 32bit. SCSI is held back at 2.5 terabyte because of their addressing mode (48bit?). I would rather it be astronomical than reachable in the next few years.

[JackAxe]

Oh man I can relate.. I'm using all of the hard drives in the house, and my biggest file is only 15 gigs!
Oh, I feel so infereor. :p

and you know.. you guys can send me all the old crap you want...

Would you mind if I stored this file on it? It's only about a 9 minute clip and I have more. :D
http://www.bainne.com/fun/monkeybyte.gif

<]=)

[JackAxe]

forget quad layer.... where the heck is blue laser??!!! give me a 20 gig blue laser disk and 40 gig with dual layer. :D

I thought that DLs were the new Blue Laser. I need to do some more research. I heard about the BL at the same time as the dual and quads back in the days of primitive computing. :)

But I would gladly take a 40Gig DVD. That would be awesome, since the DL is still too small for my average project.

<]=)

[SamuraiCatJB]

No, DL are essentially what commercial disks have been. It is the reason why when you finally get around to decrypting a commercial DVD that you see it takes up 9.3gig and you can't figure out how to put it on a 4.7 gig DVD on your burner.... you scratch your head and wonder how they managed to fit 9 gig on that disk when you can't. As commercial industries are "supposedly" preparing for blue laser movies we were supposed to get blue laser disks too. that way everyone can play them. :)

Blue laser was going to address concerns from Lucas and others over the claim that DVD just wasn't big enough to really make a good movie on (high quality THX sound and better than superbit video). Add to that HDTV and newer digital formats, and the movie industry wanting a new encryption format so we can't copy movies. ;)

Audio CDs were supposed to move to DVD media in the new super cd audio format. Even clearer audio.... so far, all I have seen is demos at conventions... no sign of either.... :(

[SamuraiCatJB]

Oh man I can relate.. I'm using all of the hard drives in the house, and my biggest file is only 15 gigs!
Oh, I feel so infereor. :p

and you know.. you guys can send me all the old crap you want...

Ask around... I have sent my old crap to people. :) Ocelnuri, a member at cliesource was building a computer for a friend who couldn't afford one. I thought I had 90% of a computer, turns out I had a whole one. That was a couple years ago though.

[JackAxe]

Sting had one of those high quality DVD audio discs. :p H.264 can provide those movie peeps the quality that they need and want on an existing DVD disc.

They're probably going to hold back on releasing blue laser burners to the consumers as long as possible to prevent piracy.

<]=)

[zackepceo]

and I would fill your 48bit machine as fast as someone built the hardware to. What I am saying is I appreciate pushing the physical need to place an "arbitary wall" quite far in the distance. I'd rather it be far than near. :)

I think a lot of the manufacturers have had to deal with all the arbitrary bounds we've set over the years and got a little bit tired of them. We've gone 8bit, to 16bit (passing through 12bit RLL), we had 24bit addressing, 32bit. SCSI is held back at 2.5 terabyte because of their addressing mode (48bit?). I would rather it be astronomical than reachable in the next few years.
SCSI would be something like 38-bit then. 48-bit is 281TB.

[SamuraiCatJB]

SCSI would be something like 38-bit then. 48-bit is 281TB.


we have an off-line proposal for a 128 TB random access tape library archive... :) we're still too close for comfort.

plus our holographic memory storage is ... well, rather large... so again we are coming close... :) I still say better to run it out far.

[zackepceo]

Which is why I would choose 128-bit extentions instead of 64.

[JackAxe]

I have a holographic bum, it stores lot's of processed food. :p :D OK, I'll shut up

<]=)