Watch, and laugh and laugh and laugh, then taunt mac users

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-10-05 01:39pm

Master of Ossus wrote:I was using OS 9, but I've seen people with OS X and it seems like a similarly ridiculous interface.

I love the fact that every program has a little button at the bottom of the desktop, perfect for cluttering up everything and making it difficult to find the program that you want.

They look similar from a first glance but they're far different. Case in point: I hate OS 9, and ESPECIALLY OS 8, with a passion. I love OS X.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-10-05 01:40pm

Rogue 9 wrote:Okay, the computer lab in the music department uses Macs. I would just like to say that yes, they suck. The damn things are so fuggin' counterintuitive it's not even funny.

Your computer lab is still using OS 9?

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-10-05 01:48pm

Praxis wrote:
Spanky The Dolphin wrote:May be old, but it's the first time I've seen it, so I thought it was hilarious. Like tears bad.

I'm simply not a Mac user. They're GUI has never really been very intuitive for me, and especially now has too much candy to make sense.

Oh, and Final Cut's user interface in particular definately sucks the proverbial wenis...
For Mac, are you referring to 9 or X?

For FC, are you referring to the old or new?

Mac: Either/or. It's all the same damn candy to me.

EDIT: Actually, I remember that I specifically used OSX on a Mac once in the Main Library computer lab, and hated it.

FC: Just Final Cut Pro, I think. Don't remember, exactly. I know it's old, but that's all U of I has in the Modes computer labs. All I knew was that I hated it, because I couldn't just simply do what I wanted to do and it took about 2-5 times as long to do it their way.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-10-05 01:50pm

Praxis wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:Okay, the computer lab in the music department uses Macs. I would just like to say that yes, they suck. The damn things are so fuggin' counterintuitive it's not even funny.
Your computer lab is still using OS 9?

Possibly. I'm not sure; I go elsewhere to one of the Windows labs unless I absolutely have to use that one (the only instances where that's necessary are when I need to use a music processor.) I'd say it's probable, given how much of the budget Governor Fletcher slashed last year.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-10-05 02:28pm

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:
Praxis wrote:
Spanky The Dolphin wrote:May be old, but it's the first time I've seen it, so I thought it was hilarious. Like tears bad.

I'm simply not a Mac user. They're GUI has never really been very intuitive for me, and especially now has too much candy to make sense.

Oh, and Final Cut's user interface in particular definately sucks the proverbial wenis...
For Mac, are you referring to 9 or X?

For FC, are you referring to the old or new?
Mac: Either/or. It's all the same damn candy to me.

EDIT: Actually, I remember that I specifically used OSX on a Mac once in the Main Library computer lab, and hated it.

FC: Just Final Cut Pro, I think. Don't remember, exactly. I know it's old, but that's all U of I has in the Modes computer labs. All I knew was that I hated it, because I couldn't just simply do what I wanted to do and it took about 2-5 times as long to do it their way.

Well, 9 and X, while they have "Mac" before them, are 100% completely different. OS X is the FreeBSD core and UNIX, with Apple's stuff on top. OS 9 is a completely different OS. OS 9 crashed EVERY DAY I used it, every TEN #@$% minutes! OS X almost never crashes. I can tell the difference.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-10-05 02:29pm

Rogue 9 wrote:
Praxis wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:Okay, the computer lab in the music department uses Macs. I would just like to say that yes, they suck. The damn things are so fuggin' counterintuitive it's not even funny.
Your computer lab is still using OS 9?
Possibly. I'm not sure; I go elsewhere to one of the Windows labs unless I absolutely have to use that one (the only instances where that's necessary are when I need to use a music processor.) I'd say it's probable, given how much of the budget Governor Fletcher slashed last year.

Okay, here's how to tell. Is the bar on the top...
1) Grey with a colored Apple logo
2) White or striped with a blue apple logo

1 is crappy OS 9, 2 is X.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-05 02:36pm

OS-X can't be all bad; it's FreeBSD after all. Solid as a rock, although I've heard that FreeBSD's multi-CPU handling sucks.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-10-05 02:56pm

Praxis wrote:Well, 9 and X, while they have "Mac" before them, are 100% completely different. OS X is the FreeBSD core and UNIX, with Apple's stuff on top. OS 9 is a completely different OS. OS 9 crashed EVERY DAY I used it, every TEN #@$% minutes! OS X almost never crashes. I can tell the difference.

You know, that might actually mean something to me if I understood just what the hell you said.

All that matters to me is that I find Mac's OS, whatever it may be, to be physically counterintuitive, style over substance in graphical/fuction implementation, and really fucking ugly.

It could be as stable as a God damn mountain and I'll still be apprehensive to use it because I don't know how the hell to do half of anything and the other half takes 2-5 times as much effort as it should.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2004-10-05 03:56pm

although I've heard that FreeBSD's multi-CPU handling sucks.

If it does, I wonder if it carries through to OSX, since Apple seems to push their multi-procs pretty hard, in the high end.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-10-05 04:11pm

Darth Wong wrote:OS-X can't be all bad; it's FreeBSD after all. Solid as a rock, although I've heard that FreeBSD's multi-CPU handling sucks.

OS X is actually quite a hodge-podge of difference Unices. The kernel has some FreeBSD in it, but it's ultimately the Mach microkernel at the core. (Darwin being the underlying Unix.)

As to multi-processing, OS X does a great job with it. As SPOOFE said, Apple pushes dual-processors in the high end, and their OS reflects that.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-10-05 04:16pm

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:
Praxis wrote:Well, 9 and X, while they have "Mac" before them, are 100% completely different. OS X is the FreeBSD core and UNIX, with Apple's stuff on top. OS 9 is a completely different OS. OS 9 crashed EVERY DAY I used it, every TEN #@$% minutes! OS X almost never crashes. I can tell the difference.
You know, that might actually mean something to me if I understood just what the hell you said.

Okay, to simplify it...
Take Windows and Linux. Give Linux a Windows-style GUI. Which OS will run better? Are they exactly the same because they look similar? Nope. The difference between OS 9 and OS X are DRASTIC at the core level- they just look *somewhat* similar on the GUI (except that OS 9 is downright UGLY, while X is beautiful), but the actual OSes are COMPLETELY different. You can't even run OS 9 programs natively (though the compatibility mode runs the programs at full speed, perfectly).

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-10-05 04:19pm

Darth Wong wrote:OS-X can't be all bad; it's FreeBSD after all. Solid as a rock, although I've heard that FreeBSD's multi-CPU handling sucks.

Actually, OS X is pretty well know for good multi-CPU handling. The entire OS is multithreaded and will distribute apps across both processors. After all, Virginia Tech uses 1,100 dual processor PowerMacs in a cluster running OS X Server...it can't be bad at multiple processors if it handles 2,200

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-10-05 04:24pm

Praxis wrote:Okay, to simplify it...
Take Windows and Linux. Give Linux a Windows-style GUI. Which OS will run better? Are they exactly the same because they look similar? Nope. The difference between OS 9 and OS X are DRASTIC at the core level- they just look *somewhat* similar on the GUI (except that OS 9 is downright UGLY, while X is beautiful), but the actual OSes are COMPLETELY different. You can't even run OS 9 programs natively (though the compatibility mode runs the programs at full speed, perfectly).

Let me rephrase:

I don't KNOW what you said, because I don't CARE...

To me Mac is Mac, and Mac is crap, no matter what shit-coloured candy bow you wrap it with. You still haven't given excuse as to why Macs are a pain in the ass and a waste of time to use.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-10-05 04:41pm

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:To me Mac is Mac, and Mac is crap, no matter what shit-coloured candy bow you wrap it with. You still haven't given excuse as to why Macs are a pain in the ass and a waste of time to use.

Because you don't know how to use them, and don't care to learn.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-10-05 05:03pm

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:FC: Just Final Cut Pro, I think. Don't remember, exactly. I know it's old, but that's all U of I has in the Modes computer labs. All I knew was that I hated it, because I couldn't just simply do what I wanted to do and it took about 2-5 times as long to do it their way.

What did you have problems with, specifically? I was trained on Adobe Premiere and Avid and in the small amount of messing around I did with FCP, I found it quite intuitive. Yes, there was a learning curve but it wasn't very steep.

Durandal wrote:OS X is actually quite a hodge-podge of difference Unices. The kernel has some FreeBSD in it, but it's ultimately the Mach microkernel at the core. (Darwin being the underlying Unix.)

As to multi-processing, OS X does a great job with it. As SPOOFE said, Apple pushes dual-processors in the high end, and their OS reflects that.

SMP on the Mac is good and FreeBSD has typically had good support for 2-way processing, but it remains to be seen if OS X's kernel will scale as well as, say, Linux (or even Windows) does.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:All that matters to me is that I find Mac's OS, whatever it may be, to be physically counterintuitive, style over substance in graphical/fuction implementation, and really fucking ugly.

I thought that MacOS in versions 9 and earlier had one of the best user interfaces on the market. It was a bit rich with that bevelled gray interface, yes, but it was consistent throughout the OS. Apple once had a Human Interface Group that did an extensive amount of research on user-interface design and it showed.

Then OS X came in with lots of pretty flash but its UI is remarkably inconsistent in places. Apple's HIG had been disbanded before OS X came in and it showed here as well. Unlike before where Apple had a single unified UI, now they have three major ones (Aqua (the white one), Metal and Pro (for their professional applications).

Praxis wrote:Actually, OS X is pretty well know for good multi-CPU handling. The entire OS is multithreaded and will distribute apps across both processors. After all, Virginia Tech uses 1,100 dual processor PowerMacs in a cluster running OS X Server...it can't be bad at multiple processors if it handles 2,200

That statement would be true if VA Tech's cluster was a single image machine. It is not, it is a cluster -- and one that has experienced some serious problems lately. You might note that it is not on the Top 500 list.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-10-05 05:30pm

phongn wrote:SMP on the Mac is good and FreeBSD has typically had good support for 2-way processing, but it remains to be seen if OS X's kernel will scale as well as, say, Linux (or even Windows) does.

Well we'll know when Apple releases a quad-processor G5, won't we?

I thought that MacOS in versions 9 and earlier had one of the best user interfaces on the market. It was a bit rich with that bevelled gray interface, yes, but it was consistent throughout the OS. Apple once had a Human Interface Group that did an extensive amount of research on user-interface design and it showed.

Then OS X came in with lots of pretty flash but its UI is remarkably inconsistent in places. Apple's HIG had been disbanded before OS X came in and it showed here as well. Unlike before where Apple had a single unified UI, now they have three major ones (Aqua (the white one), Metal and Pro (for their professional applications).

Well, give OS X some credit. One small thing they did was create a universal "application" menu, where the Quit, Hide and Preferences options resided in every application. I can't tell you how many apps on Windows and Mac OS 9 had me hunting around menus for "Preferences" or "Options" or "Settings" or "Customize" or whatever the vendor preferred to call it. But that was a big deal to me.

Also, the Aqua toolbar has helped third-party application developers keep a consistent look across their apps. OS X has the most consistent interface across applications of any OS I've ever seen.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-10-05 05:35pm

Durandal wrote:Well we'll know when Apple releases a quad-processor G5, won't we?

How about dual 8461Ds on an superpowered iBook or PowerBook?

Well, give OS X some credit. One small thing they did was create a universal "application" menu, where the Quit, Hide and Preferences options resided in every application. I can't tell you how many apps on Windows and Mac OS 9 had me hunting around menus for "Preferences" or "Options" or "Settings" or "Customize" or whatever the vendor preferred to call it. But that was a big deal to me.

Also, the Aqua toolbar has helped third-party application developers keep a consistent look across their apps. OS X has the most consistent interface across applications of any OS I've ever seen.

Two steps forward, yes -- and great ideas. But they've taken other steps back and while they've been incrementally improving the OS X GUI they need not have thrown out much of what made OS 9 good.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-10-05 06:00pm

Well you and I differ on the opinion of whether spatial browsing is a good thing, but there are some things about OS 9 that I miss, like customizable grid spacing. But a lot of OS 9 UI has been sacrificed in the name of cross-computer consistency, which appears to be a big theme on OS X. Wherever you go, OS X will look and act the same, right down to the (horrible) way the Finder arranges icons.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-10-05 06:06pm

Spanky The Dolphin wrote: Let me rephrase:

I don't KNOW what you said, because I don't CARE...

To me Mac is Mac, and Mac is crap,

Ah, I understand now. You want to think that Mac is crap, no matter what it really is. Typical bias.

no matter what shit-coloured candy bow you wrap it with. You still haven't given excuse as to why Macs are a pain in the ass and a waste of time to use.

Do I have to say it again? OS 9 is a pain and waste of time to use. OS X is in NO WAY a pain (almost never crashes, beautiful GUI) and certainly not a waste of time (fast, responsive GUI, excellent performance, easy to figure out and use). But of course, the word Mac is synonymous with crap for you, so what's the point of explaining?

On a different note...while we're talking about multiprocessors...when the dual core G5's come out, do you think the dual G5 PowerMac will become dual core G5, or do you think they'll replace EACH G5 with a dual core (aka dual dual core) to make a quad processor machine?

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-10-05 06:08pm

Ummm, I've found every Mac OS (including OS X) to be much harder to use than Windows. The lack of right-clicking, and my Ctrl+__ functions pisses me off. That, and I can't find the Options or Preferences menu in anything.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-10-05 06:08pm

Durandal wrote: Wherever you go, OS X will look and act the same, right down to the (horrible) way the Finder arranges icons.

Actually, you CAN make Finder retain your settings. My Applications folder always comes up in listing view instead of the normal view.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-10-05 06:13pm

StormtrooperOfDeath wrote:Ummm, I've found every Mac OS (including OS X) to be much harder to use than Windows. The lack of right-clicking,

Has nothing to do with OS X, just the mouse that comes with the Mac free...plug in a two button mouse and right click. Bam. Just like Windows. Or hold Ctrl and click. Bam. Right click.

and my Ctrl+__ functions pisses me off.

Eh? So you're saying it's bad for them to include keyboard shortcuts?

That, and I can't find the Options or Preferences menu in anything.

Honestly, how much have you used OS X? Because its ALWAYS in the same place. The menu bar for the program is on the top instead of right underneath the bar. Click on the first button, click Preferences. Here's a pic of someone I know's desktop:

http://www.appstate.edu/~lh59281/laptop.jpg

All you'd have to do is click on the top on "Safari", then Preferences. Just like in Windows you'd click on Tools -> Options in IE or Mozilla, or wherever the developer chooses to put it in other programs. It's EASIER on the Mac, because Preferences is ALWAYS in the same place on almost every Mac program.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-10-05 06:19pm

Praxis wrote:
and my Ctrl+__ functions pisses me off.
Eh? So you're saying it's bad for them to include keyboard shortcuts?

That should read "lack of my"

http://www.appstate.edu/~lh59281/laptop.jpg

All you'd have to do is click on the top on "Safari", then Preferences. Just like in Windows you'd click on Tools -> Options in IE or Mozilla, or wherever the developer chooses to put it in other programs. It's EASIER on the Mac, because Preferences is ALWAYS in the same place on almost every Mac program.

I used to have that backgroud

. And I guess I'm just too ingrained into Windows to pick up the Mac UI eaasliy :

:

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-10-05 07:18pm

StormtrooperOfDeath wrote:
Praxis wrote:
and my Ctrl+__ functions pisses me off.
Eh? So you're saying it's bad for them to include keyboard shortcuts?
That should read "lack of my"

LOL

Actually, that's cause you use the Command key (see the one with the Apple pic on it) instead of the Ctrl key. It's got all the same stuff

Command-C is copy, Command-V is paste, Command-W closes a window, Command-Q closes a program, Command-T opens a new tab...etc. All the shortcuts

http://www.appstate.edu/~lh59281/laptop.jpg

All you'd have to do is click on the top on "Safari", then Preferences. Just like in Windows you'd click on Tools -> Options in IE or Mozilla, or wherever the developer chooses to put it in other programs. It's EASIER on the Mac, because Preferences is ALWAYS in the same place on almost every Mac program.
I used to have that backgroud . And I guess I'm just too ingrained into Windows to pick up the Mac UI eaasliy ::

Understandable

longtime Mac users have similar problems on Windows, and even some Windows users in Linux. I even heard a Linux user tell me that for him it is far easier to use Linux than Windows.

(no offense to the Linux users- Linux is a far superior OS to Windows, but it IS know for being more complicated to setup and use)

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2004-10-05 11:32pm

"I don't like Macs."
"Oh, yes you do, you're just not familiar with them yet."
"No, I just don't like Macs."
"Macs are more intuitive, once you take the time to learn them. And they're easier, eventually."
"Look, I just don't like Macs, okay?"
"Oh, but look how pretty it is! It's much better than Winblows! It's got a cooler name, and look at how bright and vivid the colors are! It's like an acid trip... in a computer!"
"Hey, buddy, I just don't like Macs. My computer is fine."
"Heh, no it isn't, I don't get any viruses or crashes or hacks and chicks just flock to me, at least they will when they see all my message board posts about how much I love my Mac."
"Dude! Just leave me alone! I don't like Macs!"
"Yeah, I get it. Typical bias. You fucking asshole."

They're like Mormons...