Who called iLife crappy?

ianc

Yes, that is what I like about it. Earlier versions around 7.5 or so didn't even have an included ping utility.

ianc

Ha! . . you guys are Mac-fanatical.

Yes-yes, Mac's can have all sorts of programs ported over, as Unix based stuff in your examples. BUT, these types of programs are TOO DAMN SLOW to make it in the competitive real world of engineering.

Again, Mac product is sharply honed in on the average consumer. . . that's why so many like them so. --People prefer entertainment devices over work devices (as dd points out). So, I'm not saying Mac's can't run sophisticated programs . . .it simply is NOT the focus.

The richest man IN THE WORLD realizes one simple, although far reaching, thing -- it's the app's.

Now before you get your Mac-jammies in an even bigger twist . . . I will add, that the Mac's tighter standards MAY indeed be the proverbial tortise, in this harey OS race.

-- so, keep your hopes up, for all of us computer users.

geeze mac users are zelot freaks

maybe not the focus in your narrow little pointy-headed engineer world. :p

If you don't think ProTools, Avid, FCP, AfterEffects, etc are not "sophisticated" then I'm not quite sure what to say...dude, science and engineering is not the only metric for "serious" computing

Waaaaay back:

Name 1, just 1 application that the average consumer could want or need that is not cross platform or does not have a comparable equivalent on the Mac.

Battlefield2, and about half the decent games out there. Any average consumer needs BF2 - they just might not know it.

Phew, that was easy. Oh, and while you're at it, a decent video card a decent price would be nice. I see the G5 can get a 7800gt for a mere $400 upgrade... which is about $100 more than the 7900GT which has subsequently replaced it is selling for a PC.

I think it is great that if you can plug it into a mac, then it will work, but you pay for that privilege in the cost of the hardware and the lack of alternatives.

Seriously, it comes down to that a lot. If you're an enthusiast or wanna play games, Macs suck. Plus, if they break they suck x10 - I cannot believe the cost of replacement parts.

I've never understood the problem with PCs in a work setting. Most of the problems I've ever seen are due to the machines being underspecced for the tasks at hand. If they were specced higher - say to the same cost as a Mac - they would probably be fast. I am impressed that older Macs can hang in there and be stable (generally) though.

I've never had a virus or spyware problem. The only people I know who have are to blame themselves. Most problems of this kind are fixed by Firefox (IE is worthless).

I also don't understand how a single button mouse can enhance productivity ;)

The richest man in the world supposedly ripped off the idea for a GUI from Apple, and subsequently had it copyrighted before Apple. Which is why he's the richest man in the world.

Someone is not keeping up with the whittling down of Vista expectations.

I thought it was Xerox, and they gave it to Gates, no?

If I want to play games I'll use a console, xBox, PS2.

BTW, the original xBox 360 game developement kits are Mac G5's. They even used G5's to run all the games at e3 last year.

So Island, you are saying that NASA and the Air Force Research group went thru the trouble of developing a Mac version of their application so it could be run slower?

Makes sense to me.

And if you want to take cheap shots then do it, dont' hide it.

Here I'll do it for you.

Let's see, quote your last post, delete everything but the small text that you coded silver, change color to black and viola,

Yes, it was in fact Xerox. Apple had nothing to do with it,

ianc

Actually PARC. Apple had a lot to do with it after that though, as they were the first to get a sucessful commercial implementation.

The Palo Alto Research Center (PARC), a subsidiary of Xerox Corporation, conducts pioneering interdisciplinary research in the physical, computational, and social sciences. Building on a 36-year tradition of innovation, PARC today provides research services, technology, and intellectual property to Xerox and other strategic partners.

As the birthplace of technologies such as laser printing, Ethernet, the graphical user interface (GUI), ubiquitous computing, and many others, PARC has an established track record for transforming industries and creating commercial and scientific value.



PARC invited Apple over, effectively gave them the GUI. After that Gates basically pirated it. He has never developed an original piece of software. He is a marvelous, predatory businessman.


As for a PC. I only use one since Lockheed went away from MACs when Martin took over Lockheed. Now there is a monstous staff to support PC usage. Every day it seems I must load a new patch from Microsoft. There is little intuitive about Windows. If you are not a computer geek you can't configure TCP/IP by any of those icons.

The version I know is that they invitede Gates to see it and told him to "run with it". Much to the distaste of the PARC folks that invented it.

I've never heard that Gates stole the GUI, but I got my info from a documentary that could have taken liberties I guess.

Len, Jobs "pirated" it from PARC, Gates stole it from Apple. That is the lore at least. It is more complicated than that of course, but I believe that is the gist.

That's probably disputed by all sides I would imagine.

But I remember the scene in "Pirates of Silicon Valley" where Gates was in a meeting at PARC with his partners and they were showing him the GUI and said basically "we have no use for this, you take it". Then the designing engineers jaws hit the floor.

Now it was just a movie:)

i like that movie

Strange. I'm more attracted to women. This thing is just a tool. Like a fork. It's the food that's exciting.

No, in the movie it was Jobs and other Apple employees visiting PARC when they obtained the GUI. Gates got his hands on the Apple version of the GUI when Jobs invited him and a couple of other MS employees to preview the Mac and develop some apps for it.

Don't forget IBM's involvement. Windows for DOS was frightfully similar to IBM's OS/2 (which was actually co-developed as Microsoft OS/2 -- I still have a neat little propaganda binder so labeled). The collaberation continued, as I understand it, until early versions of NT. That's why OS/2 users complained about exactly the same things that NT users complained about -- no Win32 support, bad drivers, etc. That's also why OS/2 and WinNT looked identical, even down to variable names in the registry.

My understanding was always that Apple's involvement was somewhat secondary. Some neat ideas to use, but fundamentally different foundation. Like building a Cayman on a Fiero chassis -- sure, it could be mistaken for a Cayman, but it's really still a Fiero.

But I could be wrong; I haven't been a computer science major in 7 years... (edit -- fixed version number above)

Hey I was close.....sorta.....ok, maybe not:)