[rasmasyean]

Evildave is like an animal rights activist. He can't take the fact that everyone else likes meat and needs to eat it for a good source of protein and it tastes good. He's the kind that just vents and hates and blames the whole world for not conforming to his standards because somehow along the way he saw "the light". Except, in the case of animal rights activists, those are living things while computers are well...like wrenches.

[artzy65]

"... everyone else likes meat.."

Reminds me of the spot cartoon where God, perched on a cloud and looking down on a herd of cattle, says: 'Hmmm... now I'm going to have to make someone to eat you guys'.

[quackadilly]

"Windows still doesn't incllude DVD movie playback unless you buy the Home Premium or Ultimate versions.

You can't have it both ways. If OS X 10.5 is just one of many service pack type upgrades from 10.0, then so too is Windows 7 just one of many service pack type upgrades from NT 3.5."

But they do have it.......

If MS labeled Vista as XP 2.0 and Windows 7 as XP 2.5, those would be updates and I bet MS would not charge you for it. Let me lay this out for you again.

When you denote something as 10.4 or 10.5, that means that it is an updated version of 10.0. If they were new operating systems, Apple should/would be continuing with 11, 12 13 and so on.


OSX 10.5 is an updated update of an update which was updated from the update of OSX 10.0.



Compare the cost of a Mac user to a Windows user since 2001.....

[waldojim]

"
If MS labeled Vista as XP 2.0 and Windows 7 as XP 2.5, those would be updates and I bet MS would not charge you for it. Let me lay this out for you again.
"

But they did, and they have. Remember, Windows 2000 = NT5.0 Windows XP = NT 5.1 Windows Vista = 6.0 and Windows 7 = 6.1
However, that is still a far cry from the sheer number OS-X 'upgrades' from 10.0. Now I do not know how many of those were free, BUT I will say this. The only windows upgrade license (or OEM as the case maybe) that I will/have bought has been for my gaming rig. And I bought XP for all of them over the years. I never jumped onto the Vista bandwagon, and instead will opt for 7 for my current gaming rig. The point here though, My IBM Thinkpad shipped with win 2k, and win2k will continue to sit on it, as that is what runs best on there. Windows Vista is what came on my current laptop, and when the Win 7 beta expires, It will be right back on here, until the laptop gets replaced. I do not want to change my OS just because MS/Apple/Whoever says so.

[dearman]

You know that Microsoft and a number of third parties have solutions to your POSIX delima when developing on Windows.

The funniest part about you saying that, is how crappy alot of other vendors "FULL" POSIX implementation really is.

Ever try and port a piece of POSIX.4 complient code from lets say, Solaris 10 to HP-UX, or maybe to Linux ?

[asiafish]

quackadilly said:

"Windows still doesn't incllude DVD movie playback unless you buy the Home Premium or Ultimate versions.

You can't have it both ways. If OS X 10.5 is just one of many service pack type upgrades from 10.0, then so too is Windows 7 just one of many service pack type upgrades from NT 3.5."

But they do have it.......

No, they don't. XP Pro, Vista Business, etc, no versions of Windows except XP Media Center and the Home Premium and Ultimate versions of Vista and 7 can play back a DVD movie without a 3rd party application. Its still a feature that is missing.

Quote

If MS labeled Vista as XP 2.0 and Windows 7 as XP 2.5, those would be updates and I bet MS would not charge you for it. Let me lay this out for you again.

When you denote something as 10.4 or 10.5, that means that it is an updated version of 10.0. If they were new operating systems, Apple should/would be continuing with 11, 12 13 and so on.

And who the hell are you that you can say what numbering scheme represents an upgrade and what represents a new OS? For Microsoft, a full digit is a new OS (NT 4, NT 5, NT 6) and under Microsoft's scheme XP and 7 are both just upgrades.

Apple is not Microsoft, and Apple uses a different numbering scheme. Sorry they didn't get your approval for that numbering scheme first, but it is the one they use. A single decimal (as in 10.3, 10.4), denotes a new OS, while a second decimal (10.4.6, 10.5.7, etc.) denotes an upgrade. That Apple doesn't use your numbering rule has nothing to do with their OS and everything to do with an "X" looking cool on the box. OS X is "one operating system" in the same way that Windows NT is "one operating system". If you don't like it, don't buy it.

Quote

OSX 10.5 is an updated update of an update which was updated from the update of OSX 10.0.

No, 10.5 is a new OS that was updated seven times to date to reach the current 10.5.7.

Quote

Compare the cost of a Mac user to a Windows user since 2001.....

As much or as little as you want it to be. Most Mac users, like Most Windows users, use the OS that came on their computer until they buy a new one. VERY FEW computer users upgrade to a newer OS on older hardware.

When they do, for Mac users it is always $129. How much is an upgrade from Windows XP to Windows Vista? Depends entirely on whether you want to play a DVD or connect to a domain. If you want a fully featured Windows (Ultimate is the ONLY version that allows connection to a domain and still can play a DVD on your flight) you will pay a lot more than $129.

As far as XP, you didn't spend anything on an upgrade until 2007 because it took Microsoft forever to release one. With OS X, you had the choice of upgrading or sticking with what you have. Again, most Macs that came with 10.4 Tiger and still running 10.4 Tiger, but if they want to install Snow Leopard 10.6 next year, it will probably cost them $129, with no need to buy 10.5 first.

[asiafish]

waldojim said:

"
If MS labeled Vista as XP 2.0 and Windows 7 as XP 2.5, those would be updates and I bet MS would not charge you for it. Let me lay this out for you again.
"

But they did, and they have. Remember, Windows 2000 = NT5.0 Windows XP = NT 5.1 Windows Vista = 6.0 and Windows 7 = 6.1
However, that is still a far cry from the sheer number OS-X 'upgrades' from 10.0. Now I do not know how many of those were free, BUT I will say this. The only windows upgrade license (or OEM as the case maybe) that I will/have bought has been for my gaming rig. And I bought XP for all of them over the years. I never jumped onto the Vista bandwagon, and instead will opt for 7 for my current gaming rig. The point here though, My IBM Thinkpad shipped with win 2k, and win2k will continue to sit on it, as that is what runs best on there. Windows Vista is what came on my current laptop, and when the Win 7 beta expires, It will be right back on here, until the laptop gets replaced. I do not want to change my OS just because MS/Apple/Whoever says so.

Every major release (10.3, 10.4, etc.) was $129. Every upgrade (10.4.8, 10.5.3, etc.) was free. There, now you know.

Macs are the same as PCs in that your old OS will keep on working just fine on your old Mac. Replace it with a new OS if the new OS has something that you want, keep the old one if either it doesn't, or if you don't want to spend the money. Just like with a PC, the choice is yours as well with a Mac.

[artzy65]

"However, that is still a far cry from the sheer number OS-X 'upgrades' from 10.0. Now I do not know how many of those were free,..."

Updates (such as the 10.5.7 update from 10.5.6) to all mac os versions that I have had in my computing life (since 1996) have always been free. Upgrades are not free (Panther to Tiger to Leopard, etc). BTW, OS X was a complete rewrite from the ground up for the Mac OS wasn't it... and I understand that Windows still sits on top of the old DOS... is that correct? I don't know for sure... just asking.

[rgreen4]

None of the Windows NT line has ever sat on top of DOS. They do have a command line that "emulates" DOS so you can run some DOS programs, but it isn't 100% compatible. The last version of Windows that loaded on top of DOS after booting into DOS first was Windows 3.11 for Workgroups. Windows 95, 98 and ME all booted directly into Windows, although they had a DOS underlay.

[TechieXP]

Microsft since the release of Windows 98SE has said if your present setup works, you don't need to upgrade unless the new OS has features that you need. I think it is dumb to upgrade to an OS that is in the same immediate family. Example...Windows 95, 98, 98Se and ME we all the same family = 9x. To me Windows 98 or ME provide no benefit that couldn't have simply been added to Windows 95. Windows 2000 and Xp the same thing. XP to me is just WIndows 2000 with 'eyecandy' and the ability to run older applications. MSFT tried to add compatibility mode by patching it into 2K. But it never worked as good as the more update version in XP, because 16bit was added from the ground up..instead of just patching it in. Windows Vista and Windows 7 same thing...If Vista would have been fine...Windows 7 probably would have been another build starting with 7.0. Instead they used Vista's kernel to try to fix Vista's issues and instead of calling it Windows Vista Part Du...they simply called it Windows 7. Blackcomb which was suppose to be based on the 5.1 family would have simply been an incremental update to XP with a new look. It probably would have been 5.2. But instead being build on Windows Server 2003 SP1...they increased teh kernel build number. Apple is basically doing the same thing and for similar reasons. Many Mac fans where I read in other pl;aces didn't like the earlier versions of 10.x. It appears OSX really didn't get good until 10.4.

I personally only moved to Vista because I liked the look. I certainly miss XP to some degree and I still dual boot it. However it has simply lost its appeal...I am ready for new and Vista is it for me. I do like Windows 7 and plan to move to it. But again it is mostly for the same reason. I don't need 7...I am simply moving up because I like the newer look.

But I too am at the point of just sticking to one OS and not jumping on each new release just because I can. Even though in my case moving to seven won't be a problem at all, for those who are still trying to use outdated hardware, 7 will simply be Vista Part Doh!

[waldojim]

@ARTZY "Updates (such as the 10.5.7 update from 10.5.6) to all mac os
versions that I have had in my computing life (since 1996) have always
been free. Upgrades are not free (Panther to Tiger to Leopard,
etc). BTW, OS X was a complete rewrite from the ground up for the Mac
OS wasn't it... and I understand that Windows still sits on top of the
old DOS... is that correct? I don't know for sure... just asking.

No, just the Win9x/ME line sat on top of dos... NT/2k/Vista/7 uses NT loader, not dos.



@asiafish"Every major release (10.3, 10.4, etc.) was $129. Every upgrade (10.4.8, 10.5.3, etc.) was free. There, now you know.

Macs are the same as PCs in that your old OS will keep on working just
fine on your old Mac. Replace it with a new OS if the new OS has
something that you want, keep the old one if either it doesn't, or if
you don't want to spend the money. Just like with a PC, the choice is
yours as well with a Mac."

that would still make (soon to be) 6 paid updates correct?



Also, I never suggested that you did not have a choice with a mac... only stated that I chose not to.



@rgreen, windows 95 had the 'feature' to start into dos FIRST and then start win95 the same way you started windows 3. It did actually have more of a Dos underlay than future versions.



@TechiXP "Microsft since the
release of Windows 98SE has said if your present setup works, you don't
need to upgrade unless the new OS has features that you need. I think
it is dumb to upgrade to an OS that is in the same immediate family.
Example...Windows 95, 98, 98Se and ME we all the same family = 9x. To
me Windows 98 or ME provide no benefit that couldn't have simply been
added to Windows 95."

USB support. With 95(pre OSR 2 aka 95b) there was NONE. With OSR 2 and 3 it was limited. 98 took on full support, but included limited drivers. ME completed functionality with all basic devices, including generic drivers.



"Windows 2000 and Xp the same thing. XP to me is just WIndows 2000 with 'eyecandy' and the ability to run older applications."

that is a BIG feature for some people. Especially during the transisiton from win98/me to the NT line.

[artzy65]

" Many Mac fans where I read in other pl;aces didn't like the earlier versions of 10.x. It appears OSX really didn't get good until 10.4."

I heard that early OS X versions were brutal. I only moved to OSX machines in Jan 2008 (a G4 with Panther) but some neat 3rd party utilites (LazyMouse in particular) ran only on Tiger so I moved to that... I think I got it for about $70cdn in an eBay deal. I still use Panther on a couple of G3 machines; anything newer would be too slow. I use Leopard 10.5.6 (I'm taking a pass on 10.5.7 for now) on my G4 titanium powerbook.

[artzy65]

"Again, most Macs that came with 10.4 Tiger and still running 10.4 Tiger"

Don't forget there were 11 updates to get to 10.4.11 lol

[asiafish]

artzy65 said:

"Again, most Macs that came with 10.4 Tiger and still running 10.4 Tiger"

Don't forget there were 11 updates to get to 10.4.11 lol

Yup, and they were all free.

[asiafish]

artzy65 said:

" Many Mac fans where I read in other pl;aces didn't like the earlier versions of 10.x. It appears OSX really didn't get good until 10.4."

Its not that it wasn't good until 10.4 (actually 10.2 is the first version regarded as "ready", but that each version ran faster than the lat up to 10.4. With 10.5, older hardware slowed-down for the first time.

Quote

I heard that early OS X versions were brutal. I only moved to OSX machines in Jan 2008 (a G4 with Panther) but some neat 3rd party utilites (LazyMouse in particular) ran only on Tiger so I moved to that... I think I got it for about $70cdn in an eBay deal. I still use Panther on a couple of G3 machines; anything newer would be too slow. I use Leopard 10.5.6 (I'm taking a pass on 10.5.7 for now) on my G4 titanium powerbook.

10.5 was the only version of OS X that got slower on older hardware. If you were using Panther on a G3, you would find that 10.4 made the machine even faster, though you would have to disable dashboard on older video cards. Tiger really is a nice speed-boost from Panther on a G3, though you may need to use XPostFacto if your G3 is too old (Beige).

[Evildave]

artzy65 said:

Most print houses require QuarkXPress, Photoshop and Illustrator files for mac or pc... why would I use Linux?

Print houses (and office shops) don't have every version of every kind of software installed to open every conceivable file format. Pretty much NONE do.

Every print shop and office shop takes PDF files. Without exception. Print it at the intended resolution, burn it to a DVD if necessary, drag it in there, and ANY print shop will be able to print it.

And since you get a free PDF print driver with the free OS, it's a total win. Not that the GIMP can't read/write PSD, or Inkscape can't read/write AI files, or Scribus can't read/write QuarkExpress files. They do.

Apple most likely has the same CUPS PDF driver with a prettier window around it. Windoze lusers, can just pay Adobe $500 for that PDF 'privilege'.

[asiafish]

[quote name='Evildave']
>

artzy65 said:

> Most print houses require QuarkXPress, Photoshop and Illustrator files for mac or pc... why would I use Linux?

Print houses (and office shops) don't have every version of every kind of software installed to open every conceivable file format. Pretty much NONE do.

Every print shop and office shop takes PDF files. Without exception. Print it at the intended resolution, burn it to a DVD if necessary, drag it in there, and ANY print shop will be able to print it.

And since you get a free PDF print driver with the free OS, it's a total win. Not that the GIMP can't read/write PSD, or Inkscape can't read/write AI files, or Scribus can't read/write QuarkExpress files. They do.

The GIMP is also clumsy and a PITA to use, with a far steeper learning curve than PhotoShop and of course, its NOT THE STANDARD. Just like OpenOffice cannot read and write Word documents with complex formatting, which breaks and forces you to waste time reformatting on open, and forces Word users (the rest of the world) to reformat when they edit. No thanks.

Quote

Apple most likely has the same CUPS PDF driver with a prettier window around it. Windoze lusers, can just pay Adobe $500 for that PDF 'privilege'.

Apple includes PDF print with OS X, but its still not a substitute for Acrobat Professional (the $500 version). I have mostly Macs in my office, every single one of them can print to PDF, but we still use Acrobat Professional to deal with forms. It is the industry standard.

Linux forces the user to adapt to non-standard tools that are only partially compatible with the rest of the world. It also forces you to do a research project everything you want to make something work.

Again, no thanks.

[artzy65]

"Every print shop and office shop takes PDF files. Without exception. Print it at the intended resolution, burn it to a DVD if necessary, drag it in there, and ANY print shop will be able to print it"

Oops,I should have said magazine publishers. Although PDF workflow has become much more prevalent in the last decade, magazines that my clients advertise in always insist on quark, photoshop and illustrator files for pc or mac, although I always send a mid-res pdf file for hard-copy proof output. And for a brochure I just produced, the print shop required those pc/mac files. I do in fact send PDF files as final art to one of my clients... he then takes those to a local print shop, or uses his desktop printer.

Acrobat has really saved my business, given that my clients use only windows. I rank it right up there with photoshop as my most useful app.

I have no reason at all to try Linux?or windows for that matter?my time is best spent mastering the creative apps.

[Evildave]

Just read the reactions of people who can't stand to hear about free stuff that can save them from pissing THOUSANDS of dollars into the wind. Enough money saved on software you could buy Macs AND PCs for every desk.

rasmasyean said:

Evildave is like an animal rights activist. He can't take the fact that everyone else likes meat and needs to eat it for a good source of protein and it tastes good. He's the kind that just vents and hates and blames the whole world for not conforming to his standards because somehow along the way he saw "the light". Except, in the case of animal rights activists, those are living things while computers are well...like wrenches.

(Nah, I'm more like someone who watches the ignorant masses pay a LOT of their hard-won money for things they could have for free, to corporations that absolutely have no respect for them and their needs.)

Sure, I'll have a Mac soon, but I'll still use Scribus, InkScape, Blender, OpenOffice, the GIMP and ImageMagick. I'll still use BASH and the whole spectrum of GNU tools, including the GNU compiler collection. I'll still use jEdit and Subversion and quite a lot of other free tools, as well. Not to mention that since these tools are available cross-platform, stepping from Windoze<->Linux<->OS X is a trivial matter... except the Windoze versions of most of these tools suck, because they need some kind of 'compatibility layer' slathered on top of the Windoze API to function. I'm not locked into anything. No over-awing software investment to recoup somehow.

Most companies pretend that they are concerned about the bottom line, but when they get around to BUYING software, they habitually waste their budget on proprietary mass licenses that give other companies the RIGHT to barge into your business whenever they like, and make them account for every piece of software on every computer. Of course, where kickbacks are concerned, corporations can spend millions buying all the wrong things because someone who just got a suitcase full of cash, or promised the buyer a sweet new job in a couple of years, said so.

I guess the prevailing mentality is to just bend over and take it, and pretend to the shareholders that you're not being savagely raped.

[asiafish]

[quote name='Evildave']
Just read the reactions of people who can't stand to hear about free stuff that can save them from pissing THOUSANDS of dollars into the wind. Enough money saved on software you could buy Macs AND PCs for every desk.

>

rasmasyean said:

> Evildave is like an animal rights activist. He can't take the fact that everyone else likes meat and needs to eat it for a good source of protein and it tastes good. He's the kind that just vents and hates and blames the whole world for not conforming to his standards because somehow along the way he saw "the light". Except, in the case of animal rights activists, those are living things while computers are well...like wrenches.

(Nah, I'm more like someone who watches the ignorant masses pay a LOT of their hard-won money for things they could have for free, to corporations that absolutely have no respect for them and their needs.)

Sure, I'll have a Mac soon, but I'll still use Scribus, InkScape, Blender, OpenOffice, the GIMP and ImageMagick. I'll still use BASH and the whole spectrum of GNU tools, including the GNU compiler collection. I'll still use jEdit and Subversion and quite a lot of other free tools, as well. Not to mention that since these tools are available cross-platform, stepping from Windoze<->Linux<->OS X is a trivial matter... except the Windoze versions of most of these tools suck, because they need some kind of 'compatibility layer' slathered on top of the Windoze API to function. I'm not locked into anything. No over-awing software investment to recoup somehow.

Most companies pretend that they are concerned about the bottom line, but when they get around to BUYING software, they habitually waste their budget on proprietary mass licenses that give other companies the RIGHT to barge into your business whenever they like, and make them account for every piece of software on every computer. Of course, where kickbacks are concerned, corporations can spend millions buying all the wrong things because someone who just got a suitcase full of cash, or promised the buyer a sweet new job in a couple of years, said so.

I guess the prevailing mentality is to just bend over and take it, and pretend to the shareholders that you're not being savagely raped.

No, companies buy Windows and Mac systems and the prevelant applications because they work, because the other companies they interact with use the same tools, and they aren't willing to waste huge amounts of employee hours fumbling wiht inferior tools that require wasted time reformating and correcting on both ends of any file exchange just to save a few bucks on software licenses.

Linux is a geek toy. It has its place with hobbyists and on servers, but is nowhere near ready for prime time as a business operating system.

I too have absolutely no reason to try Linux. The tools required for my profession (Acrobat Professional, Microsoft Word) do not exist in native Linux versions and the free tools that are available are just efficient as substitutes.