Mac or PC ?

[Jamesds]

Windows 3.1 was a joke

What? Windows 3.1 was a joke? Are you joking? By today's standards it is certainly worth little, but back then it was new and quite amazing stuff. Maybe it wasn't what it could have been, but I would certainly never call it "a joke".

 

[Zetetic Apparat]

I don't agree at all, at least as far as XP is concerned (I don't know if you meant Vista specifically). Classic MacOS was rather poor (didn't even have a CLI at all, let alone a decent one), and Windows 3.1 was a joke.

I apologize: hyperbole. Still I do maintain that Classic MacOS and Windows 3.1 were much more cohesive than both their modern counterparts are.

Apple are the worst offenders when it comes to not following the OS style when writing Windows applications! (Itunes, Quicktime.)

Oh, I agree. Safari is even worse. I suspect that with iTunes and Safari this may even be deliberate to let people test out a Mac OS X-esque interface. But I use Mac OS X for those and brushed-metal and whatever the hell iTunes 7 theme is, doesn't jar quite as badly there.

GCC exists on Windows.

MinGW, Cygwin? I'd laugh except I've used those. Stapling on a GNU/ development environment isn't really the same... Hey, in Vista in fact, MS broke almost anything which didn't memory manage using the Win32 API by forcibly limiting memory allocation to 32MB. Which kind of kills compilation on large things since GCC won't actually be able to do it...

Some Windows applications can be dragged and dropped too - but what really confuses me is why this is touted as being easier. I dislike it when I have to manually find a place for my application (and it's poorer imo from a user-friendly point of view). Much easier just to doubleclick on the icon.

Interesting point. Most Mac applications are distributed as disk images: Once the download is finished, the disk image automatically mounts (assuming that this hasn't been disabled in your browser settings) in Finder (same as Explorer) and appears as a fake disk/volume containing the app. You can usually then just drag-and-drop the app into /Applications (system folder for Applications), ~/Applications (Home Folder/Applications) which are usually found in the 'sidebar' of Finder windows. Or you can drag-and-hover the app over whatever folders (in the sidebar or otherwise) and it'll open and you can drop it in /Applications/Utilities/ or wherever. It certainly requires an interface change from what Windows currently does to be usable; understandably.

The registry is annoying, but I still prefer an installer.

I just don't understand why it can't have a decent, semi-human-understandable filesystem representation.

Mac OS X does have a built-in installer system using .pkg files which complex file-spraying apps use. What it really needs is a built-in utility which leverages the reciepts produced by the Installer.app and the identifier system (e.g. user preferences for MyCoolApp by The Widget Company are stored in ~/Library/Preferences/com.widget.mycoolapp.plist) to allow decent uninstallation.

All operating systems and GUIs are pretty horrendous. Vista just sometimes seems to take the piss...

 

[GVBN]

(MAC Addresses? Oh, right that's only available in the bolted-on CMD terminal that you try so hard to make me hate...)

Install wntipcfg.exe

 

[Zetetic Apparat]

I sincerely hope that's a joke.

 

[GVBN]

No need to open the command line

 

[Muzzway]

I like Mac, simply because I've used them all my life and am used to them, so I obviously think they are better (hey, that's what many PC people are saying too!). I would get a PC if they could run Mac OS X, but they can't, and Macs can run Windows for all my Windows needs.

 

[Zelig]

I would get a PC if they could run Mac OS X, but they can't

Yes they can, Apple doubtlessly doesn't like it, but google it for some simple hacks to install Mac OS X on regular x86 hardware.

 

[Muzzway]

Yes they can, Apple doubtlessly doesn't like it, but google it for some simple hacks to install Mac OS X on regular x86 hardware.

I guess I mean legally.

 

[Zetetic Apparat]

And reliably. I've played around with Mac OS X on 'commodity' hardware and, given the limited driver situation, unless you actually build yourself a clone of an existing piece of Mac hardware, it's not really usable. Heh, I complain about Apple becoming a consumer electronics company and then note that one reason Macs are worth the (significant) markup is that they supply the whole widget; more reliable, better support. I'm don't believe anyone at Apple really believes that the Mac OS X86 project etc. is a threat to sales of Mac hardware...

 

[mdwh]

What? Windows 3.1 was a joke? Are you joking? By today's standards it is certainly worth little, but back then it was new and quite amazing stuff. Maybe it wasn't what it could have been, but I would certainly never call it "a joke".

Ah but he _was_ comparing it today, saying that Vista was "a trainwreck of usability and cohesiveness compared Win 3.1".

(And even at the time, I viewed Windows 3.1 as a joke; I was happily using AmigaOS back then, and there were loads of other alternatives, most notabily MacOS. I'm not sure what was new and quite amazing in Windows 3.1?)

 

[mdwh]

I guess I mean legally.

I wouldn't consider it an ideal solution, for reasons of support or reliability - but I don't see why legality is an issue (and no, I don't care what their EULA might say - the Government decides the law, not Apple).

 

[GenMarshall]

Windows 3.1 is not a joke. It runs perfictly fine in DOSBox and I can store it in a USB Flash Drive .

 

[Heretic_Cata]

PC

Reason: computer games

 

[Kranden]

Mac: Hi! Im a Mac I can do tons of Media things that PC cant do Because im waaay cooler, I mean how awesome is my mouse it only has one button!

PC: Are you on crack? I can do everything your mac can do and I can play all the latest games. So whens Beyond the sword coming out for the mac?

Mac: Sniff... JERK!

However if your this kind of person http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20021126 A Mac is right up your alley!

 

[Chairman Meow]

However if your this kind of person http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20021126 A Mac is right up your alley!

As a redneck and a Mac user who recently graduated with a degree in Physics:

 

[Kranden]

As a redneck and a Mac user who recently graduated with a degree in Physics:

I can say one good thing then for you.

At least you wont get distracted by all the awesome computer games.

 

[Chairman Meow]

I can say one good thing then for you.

At least you wont get distracted by all the awesome computer games.

Nah, I have Alpha Centauri, SimCity, and now Civ3 running in VMWare, so I still get to waste time.

 

[Kranden]

hah I kid the mac users, I think this is how most of us feel now

http://www.pvponline.com/article/2721/Tue-May-16?y=2003

poor linux

 

[Asher]

I apologize: hyperbole. Still I do maintain that Classic MacOS and Windows 3.1 were much more cohesive than both their modern counterparts are.

Sure, but think about what you're saying. Classic MacOS and Windows 3.1 were incredibly tiny...it's not hard to be cohesive when all you do is draw a couple boxes on the screen and pretend its a fully functional OS.

MinGW, Cygwin? I'd laugh except I've used those. Stapling on a GNU/ development environment isn't really the same...

Patently false. GCC is open course and multiplatform. I've used it reliably on MacOS X, Solaris, AIX, Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows 2003, Windows Vista, and umpteen Linux distributions. There is nothing inherently inferior about it, or any substantive differences.

Hey, in Vista in fact, MS broke almost anything which didn't memory manage using the Win32 API by forcibly limiting memory allocation to 32MB. Which kind of kills compilation on large things since GCC won't actually be able to do it...

Please don't spread lies if you do not understand what you are talking about.

First: 16-bit memory allocation changed in Windows 2003 -- not Vista.
Second: Win32 API is deprecated in Vista. Obsolete. Use is discouraged. Which makes it a pretty amusing statement to say that if you don't use Win32 API all you can allocate is 32MB. Clearly that's patently absurd, wouldn't you agree?
Third: This was reported a while ago by some tool using a 5-year old version of GCC. He is using protected-mode DOS, something that was hacked into Windows NT (2000/XP/2003) in the first place, and was no longer officially supported as of 2001. If you use 64-bit versions of Windows, this wouldn't work at all -- nevermind the 32MB allocation limit. There is no reason, at all, to be using this today. This is FUD.

I just don't understand why it can't have a decent, semi-human-understandable filesystem representation.

Filesystems -- a great example.

/etc/hx93491/5902.cfg and /bin/cp are far more logical than, say,
\Users\Dave\Documents

As for the registry, it's not supposed to be read by humans. That's the entire point of it -- it's an internal system registry, not a human-readable configuration editor.

 

[Jamesds]

As for the registry, it's not supposed to be read by humans. That's the entire point of it -- it's an internal system registry, not a human-readable configuration editor.

True! The only time we need to edit it is if the system can't do it properly - which happens more often than it should...