Post by danielPost by Pete C.Post by danielPost by Pete C.There is nothing wrong with following a better strategy, however it is
one they should have looked at a long time ago. It also points to the
fact that Apple is a UI company above all else and that they would do
better to focus on their area of expertise.
Not just user interface, User Experience. Again, this is a philosophy.
One designes the entire "product" experience, or one says, I make this,
you make that, and lets see if they fit and maybe someone can use it.
But I think we will continue to disagree on this.
The user experience is different things to different people. To me I
find the MAC user experience to be frustrating - infuriating as I find
much of the UI design illogical and strongly dislike the lack of
hardware options. To those who are more abstract thinkers the UI
probably makes more sense and they probably don't care about the
hardware.
Post by danielPost by Pete C.The Dell (and others) systems meet those criteria as well. They provide
just as good a user experience as any MAC does.
Ouch.. I have both, and I do not agree on this at all. there is so much
more to set up on a PC than one must on a mac. But again, I am sure
will not find agreement here.
Again it comes down to the user type. Presumably you are more of an
abstract thinker and hence the MAC provides a better experience. I am
more logical and therefore I find the opposite.
Post by danielPost by Pete C.The fundamental difference is in the way the users mind operates. There
are essentially two types of user minds, logical and abstract. The
Windows OS is better suited to the logical type while the MAC OS is
better suited to the abstract type.
That really is the most bizarre argument I have heard, but OK.
Not at all, in fact it's exactly the same concept as Apple's "Think
different" ads.
The abstract thinker concept is often referred to as creative minds. I
don't use that term since technical minds are just as creative. It's
really closer to artistic vs. technical.
Abstract thinking, as you term it, has a negative edge...
However, I would agree that I am not normally going to pop-up the
terminal and start typing unix commands. Otherwise, there is no
fundamental or conceptual difference in the hierarchical file
organization on windows, linux, or OSX. All of them try to make
associations to real world structures. That is certainly an abstraction.
Not intending to put a negative edge on it, just pointing out a
difference I have observed many many times. I'm also not referring to
the way that the underlying file system operates, but rather the way the
user organizes their desktop where I have seen a clear differentiation
between the two user types regardless of the OS they are on. Presumably
the underlying file systems on all the OSs are going to be similar since
programmers are predominantly of the logical / technical type.
Post by danielPost by Pete C.Post by danielApple has always been a hardware company too. And has always built
outstandingly well engineered hardware. Remember it was apple who made
Firewire (IEEE-1394), CD burners, Laser Printers, WiFi, and BlueTooth
standard before most other PC hardware companies.
Note that I said companies with expertise in producing hardware. Apple
has indeed "done" hardware, but they have developed very little.
Being an early adopter of technology developed by others does not make
you a company with hardware expertise. Additionally a few of those
technologies they adopted did not work as advertised until a few version
had passed.
In fact, IEEE 1394 is an apple developed technology that they
opened-up. And being an early adopter set the market trends and made
life easier for users. By having Firewire, bluetooth, WiFi and other
technologies standard, it just makes for a simpler user experience –
and longer lived hardware. Of the 3 mac and (just re-counted) 4 PCs I
have, none of the PCs had Firewire, 1 had gigabit ethernet. Which are
being useful today? * macs and 1 PC. Granted, that is in part because i
do not want to wast e the time to upgrade all the machines to working
state again. Leave a PC off for 2 months, and there are about a half
days worth of update to make.
IEEE 1394 also did not work very well on either platform for the first
few incarnations.
Incorporating technologies that a great many end users may never use
also drives up the cost. Should all cars come standard with child seats
even though a substantial percentage of users will never use them?
How does not having gigabit Ethernet make a PC unusable? I work for a
large company with an enormous network infrastructure, and I can tell
you that gigabit Ethernet is only in use for links between switches
within a building. I have yet to see any penetration of gigabit Ethernet
to the desktop level, and not much to the server level either. On the
server side multiple 100mb likes seem to be preferred.
What percentage of users actually have a use for Firewire anyway? From
what I've seen the percentage is pretty small. Even my friends on both
PC and MAC do not use it, and this includes folks who do a lot of
graphics and video work. I'd venture a guess that of all the Firewire
ports out there, less than 10% are actually ever used.
The only folks using Firewire either have a fairly expensive pro-sumer
camcorder, or they like to hook up external hard drives and use Firewire
'cause it's there vs. PC people who use USB2 for that.
Updates to a Windows system after a 2 month span would only take half a
day if you are both limited to dialup and choose to install all
available updates. The PC is by no means unusable without those updates,
and the ones that could be critical (security) are all pretty small. The
"fat" updates are the ones to Internet Explorer or Windows Media Player
that are far from critical.
Post by danielPost by Pete C.Post by danielAnd hardware makes a Big difference. For example, if you want to edit
video, and your PC does not have Firewire connections, what do you do?
You adda card and drivers. On a mac, you get down to editing the video!
Every mac includes these by default. No user intervention = hardware is
important. This is why News organizations use PowerBooks and
FinalCutPro for field reporting - it is the combination of hardware and
software that makes that practical. It is much easier to engineer the
software when you know you have the best hardware, and it is easier to
define the hardware when you know what the software needs are.
Very bad example as I spent around 15 years in the professional video
world. The "real" video world does not revolve around firewire. It's
made some inroads, particularly as the "pro-sumer" cameras have reached
a quality level that is useable for some programming where absolute
quality is not as critical.
Additionally the quality of virtually all video I have seen that was
produced on a MAC with the standard components was full of technical
issues such as video glitches, audio level issues, etc. The only
"useable" video I've seen from a MAC was from systems using dedicated
video hardware.
The aesthetic quality of the MAC produced videos was on par with any
other amateur produced video produced on other systems. The same poor
shot composition, poor editing technique, excessive use of transition
effects, etc.
News organizations are one of the few in the professional video arena
where the pro-sumer equipment has an advantage. The small size and low
cost work well for field reporting where the content is far more
important than absolute quality. This advantage was first seen on a
large scale during the first gulf war where the pro-sumer gear was
considered disposable and allowed a large volume of coverage from very
dangerous situations (to the equipment).
If the $3k pro-sumer camera survived the desert heat and dust for a
couple weeks while providing useable footage to be edited on the "real"
equipment in a climate controlled facility and saved a $40k camera from
damage then it was a success. The compact size and ability for reporter
to also operate the camera helped to convince the military to allow them
to tag along on more missions as well.
The use of pro-sumer cameras and powerbooks for field reporting has far
more to do with cost cutting than any technical superiority.
Well, you have the direct experience. However, knocking pro-sumer fails
to see the trend. Apple has made real time video editing inexpensive
(relative to custom kit). You can, and people are, making product
quality work on Mac. I see I will not convince you, but I can give you
http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/finalcutpro/customerstory.html
http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/soundtrackpro/customertestimonial.html
Apple's promotion of video editing on their systems has had two main
results, one positive and one negative.
On the positive side it has provided more opportunities for people to
experiment with video and this helps lead those who have some talent
down the video career path.
On the negative side it has lead to a lot of people who have no talent
for video work to think they do and start small businesses which has
hurt the true professionals in the lower end of the field both by
drawing business away from the pros, and also by turning some potential
customers off after they have a bad experience with one of these
"hacks".
I've seen the results of this in some of my freelance audio / video
work. Power point has had similar results.
I've seen many instances where people who do not have the talent or
expertise have produced video or Power point presentations for a large
corporate meeting. They show up with big egos and then when their video
doesn't play properly from their MAC/PC or the text that looked great on
their desktop monitor is unreadable on the big $20k projector they
resort to trying to pass the blame to the A/V tech crew.
I saw one particularly egregious case where someone had a presentation
on their Powerbook (or whatever MAC variant) that we piped to the video
projector and the PA system.
The presentation slides displayed just fine, the audio played just fine,
but the video clips that they had embedded in their slides did not show
(black window). They blamed this on the video projector of course, but
anyone with half a clue knew this was pure BS since the entire rest of
the screen was displaying just fine, and of course the video also was
not visible on their MAC.
There are indeed some people who are producing quality video work on
MACs, but these are the same people who can produce quality video work
on PCs.
Those people understand the medium, the capabilities and limitations of
the system they are using and know how to work within those
capabilities. Above all else they understand that you can not reliably
playback a finished project directly from the computer unless it has
dedicated video hardware.
You can import video over Firewire from a suitably equipped camcorder
(or Digital VCR). You can edit that video on the computer, whether it is
a MAC or PC. You can output the finished video back via Firewire to the
camcorder (or Digital VCR). You can not directly output video reliably
from the computer without dedicated hardware.
The Firewire interface provides the buffering of the data stream from
the timing glitches that will be present from the computer. Because the
Firewire interface can move data faster than the real-time video stream
requirements it is able to mask those glitches in the same way a CD
player is able to mask read errors when the player experiences a shock
and has to reposition the laser optics.
Post by danielPost by Pete C.Point 1 is not really true these days in the Windows world. It was
somewhat true a few years back, but since W2K there is much greater
protection from this. The consistent use of proper install utilities has
largely eliminated the problem.
In the OS-X world it is really no different. It's the install utility
that provides the bulk of the safety for the installation, not the OS.
Poorly written code that doesn't use the proper install utilities can
hose a MAC just as easily as a Windows system. I have see this firsthand
with ISP provided software on OS-X that required a near complete rebuild
of the system to repair.
Ah yes... why is it that ISPs provide this stuff when all you need to
do is go to the control panel and enter some numbers into the network
settings. Yes, on a PC this helps a lot, but it is easier when ISPs
simply provide the info for the user to enter on a mac.
Rule #1 - *NEVER NEVER NEVER* install *ANY* ISP provided software on
*ANY* system, regardless of OS.
In either case for cable or DSL you should be using an inexpensive
firewall router both for security and to provide isolation from ISP
nonsense.
For dialup you only have a couple hardware firewall router options
(Netgear FVS328 is one) and they are a bit more expensive though still
under $200. Barring the hardware router for dialup, you should still be
using the OS's native dialup networking utilities and not any ISP
provided junk.
Most ISPs support folks are unable to provide the proper information at
all as of late. You can generally find the info for DNS, POP3, SMTP and
NEWS servers if you go to their support web sites though.
I more disturbing issue with ISPs of late is that you have to use their
software to do the initial account registration and setup on the ISP
end. Their support folks are unable to do these tasks anymore.
What this meant recently is that when my friend with the MAC moved to a
new apartment in a new area and needed to start a cable modem service I
ended up putting a fresh Windows install on a spare PC, bringing it over
to do the ISP registration and then just formatting it after the
registration was complete. There was no issue using the firewall router
with the ISP, and in fact the registration was done through the router,
but you had to use their software to do the registration.
The cable ISP where I live some 60 miles away did not have this problem.
On their system if you put up a new MAC address, be it a router or PC
their system just redirects you to a secure registration web site and
requires no special software.
This cable ISP even lets you register multiple MAC addresses if you
want. They understand the concept that you are paying for the connection
pipe, not the PC and as long as you aren't constantly maxing out the
bandwidth they have no reason to care what you have connected.
Post by danielPost by Pete C.Post by danielSee, that is the point. it is the user interface that makes it easy or
hard. You talk about making windows aligned. On a mac, you can set
Expose so that a quick mouse or keyboard action shows all windows , or
the desktop, or all of one applications windows, so that you can grab
something (text, image, video...) and instantly find the window you
want to drop it on. Since I normally have 5-10 applications running on
my mac at the same time, it is very fast and efficient. And because it
work everywhere, I never think twice about doing it. On a PC, that is
not possible, and it is harder to navigate to different windows or
applications.
Not true, auto-raise utilities have been available for Windows for ages.
I've used them and really don't care for them. Virtual desktop type
utilities are also available that give you larger desktop space and a
CDE like multi desktop ability. You can also readily do a multi display
seamless desktop on any of the recent Windows versions. I use a dual
display desktop on the system I do most CAD and similar work on.
I do not think we are talking about the same thing. give me a link for
this auto-rise thing and I will look. I suspect it is not the same and
not as elegantly integrated into the workflow. It is not the same as
multidisplay - it can instantly shrink and show all windows - so if I
have 40 documents open across 10 applications, I can show all
instantly, move the mouse over it, the name pops up, click and I am
there. Sounds slow, but it is much faster than picking tabs, or tabing
though programs to find what you want. Look at the animation on apples
site.
Well, showing all instantly sounds rather like what the Windows task bar
does, and it can be set to auto hide until you move the mouse cursor to
the very edge of the screen on whatever side you have chosen to place
the task bar.
With the task bar in auto-hide mode it doesn't take up any desktop
space. When you need to find that buried window you just move to the
edge of the screen, the task bar pops up and you select the window you
need from the icons on the task bar. Alt-tab does a very similar thing
by popping up a window for you to select from the active windows.
The auto-rise thing originates from the Unix world where the window that
you position the mouse cursor over gets focus without having to click on
it. You just roll over to the visible edge of the window and it pops to
the front. This feature is available when using eXcursion as well as
available in separate utilities. I don't know any of the separate ones
offhand since it is not a feature I use.
Post by danielPost by Pete C.Post by danielI know you may think, that Expose sounds like a gimmick -well, after a
few hours using it I cannot do without it. It is so useful - but it
must be used to understand.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/expose/
Ok, I still don't see that as any advantage. So Apple licensed PDF
generation from Adobe and bundled it into the OS. If Microsoft did the
same thing someone would sue them.
If I were to buy Adobe Acrobat I would have the same capability. I don't
because I find PDF documents are inappropriate for nearly every document
I might generate.
BUY acrobat. That is the point. Plus, acrobat does not work perfectly
form all programs. Since the underlying window and page descriptions
are based on PDF technology, it just works. everywhere. Nothing to add.
I'd buy it if I had a use for it, I don't so I don't. If MS was allowed
to bundle it into Windows I wouldn't need to buy it, but I still
wouldn't use it and I would have ended up paying a license fee for
something I didn't want.
Post by danielPost by Pete C.Post by danielNot missing at all. I use a 5 button itellemouse from Microsoft
(perhaps the one product I really like from MS). Just because the give
you a one button mouse does not mean you should use it! So all the
things you mention there are always available via the contextual menu.
Even if you have only the one button mouse, you simply press
Control+LMB to get the menu. This has always been there, even in OS 9.
Um, doesn't that break the rule of having to purchase additional stuff
to get the functionality?
No, because as I said, RMB is the same as Control+LMB. Most mac users
know that. However, I do expect that apple will change their dogma on
this one since I also agree that a multi-button mouse is more
productive.
Well perhaps they will at some point, but multi button mice predated the
MAC and it's been quite a while.
Post by danielPost by Pete C.Post by danielHmmm. That's true, Location profiles can be confusing and non-obvious.
However, I think I have not found that on my PC either. Seems that it
is not easy on a PC to have multiple network settings and switch
between them - one always kills the other. But then, I only had to deal
with that when other people come to work for me with PC laptops.
I haven't found that at all. I've used several different brands of WiFi
cards on Windows, each with their own drivers and in all of them I had
no problem saving multiple profiles, the encryption keys were called
encryption keys, the options to select different key numbers were there
which I didn't find on the MAC, etc.
Drivers are not the problem. In fact, it is very rare that one has to
instal anything on a mac when installing new hardware or printers.
What I have never figured out on a PC is how you can have multiple
network setting and quickly switch between them. On a mac, you simply
create a location, and make your settings. So for example, I have
Office, Home, Airport, Girlfriends house... simply select one from the
apple menu and away I go. All network settings change instantly and
reliably.
The multiple network setting thing is very much there in the PC world
for WiFi but it's part of the WiFi cards utilities, not Windows itself.
It never really materialized for hardwired networks since DHCP pretty
well took care of that.
Post by danielPost by Pete C.For hardwired network connections on Windows it is usually best to go
with DHCP which does just fine for 99% of the cases. When you are on
your home network you can configure your DHCP server to always assign
the same IP to make it easy to connect to the machine via FTP or
whatnot. The $75 broadband firewall router that you should have on your
network for security anyway will handle this DHCP task just fine.
In my case I user fixed IPs in my studio, but at home I have WiFi and
use DHCP. And yes, I have hardware with firewalls. In Switzerland
Broadband routers a weee bit more expensive than that....
If you have one PC that is always on in the studio, you can run the MS
DHCP service on it. Even when running DHCP in the studio you can still
have fixed IP addresses by registering the machines MAC address on the
DHCP server and assigning it an IP.
I use DHCP on all my machines, even the fixed hardwired servers and
assign the IPs via the DHCP server. It makes it easier to keep track of
what IPs are in use, and I still have a pool available for anyone
visiting who doesn't have a fixed assignment.
You can't just order a Netgear or Linksys router from Amazon or someone?
Get hit with import taxes or something? Ick.
Post by danielPost by Pete C.Post by danielIf the computer understands it, and knows it, why does the user need
to? Build the intelligence into the software, not add more information
for the user to learn or understand, that is the point.
Perhaps it's just me, but since you can name a file anything I like to
have an extension that indicates what the darn thing is. It can also
present a security issue as well. If you get a file attached to an email
and it's just a nondescript name it makes it more difficult to determine
the risk level.
If you have to click to launch it and rely on the OS to decide what it
is you're at risk. If I look and see that it's a .txt I know I can
safely open it with good old Notepad, if it's an .exe I know it's risky
and should get a good virus scan or just trashed.
If you are relying on the OS to decide what a file is and visually code
it's icon to match the type then you're still relying on the same
information as the extension.
Well, it is actually a bit of a non-issue now with OSX since you can
turn on show extensions. I guess I do not really mind them either, and
have helped explain certain issues to new users.
It's good if they give you the choice.
Post by danielRegarding security, when you download a file, and it is a program, OSX
asks if you really want it. Anytime you open a new document that was
not created by you, it ask if you want to open it for the first time in
application XXX. There is a lot of layers a hacker has to get through.
And I am sure they will try. However, it is ironic, that many of the
problems people had in OS 9 and even in OSX tend to be due to use of
virus protection software! If you friends have Norton utilities, get
rid of it ASAP. That is the WORST.
Yes, in the default configuration most antivirus software is
problematic. I run mine strictly on demand and don't have problems.
Oddly enough I also never seem to get any viruses anyway. My web server
gets attacked on a daily basis, but between the hardware firewall and an
additional software firewall it has remained safe so far.
No matter how many layers of "Are you really sure you want to do this"
you have, ultimately it is the naieve user who will click on that banner
telling them they just won something. That issue is there regardless of
OS unfortunately.
I particularly like the little popup with the warning that my computer's
clock may be wrong, especially since I run the NIST time client on all
my machines. It may be off a couple seconds since I use a 12 hr update
interval, but it 'aint off by much.
Post by danielPost by Pete C.Examples? I don't count choosing options during the initial purchase
adding hardware to match. It's the difference between ordering your car
in red vs. buying a blue car and having it repainted. I also don't
consider giving the purchaser few options a plus.
I think it is more like do you want the optional airbag, and perhaps
the steering wheel. But before you notice that you thought it looked
like a fully equipped car from the outside.
Actually I don't want the airbag, but that's another group and thread.
I don't know that that is really a good comparison.
Why should I pay extra for a DVD burner if I'm not going to use it? What
if I have more than one machine, why would I want a DVD burner on each
one? At some point the cost of the DVD burner is low enough that it
won't matter, much like CD-ROM is now, but until then why should I pay
the extra $50-100?
How about the hard drive? Do I really want or need the 300GB drive if
I'm just getting a laptop that I'll put on the little writing desk by
the kitchen and use to check email and lookup recipes?
How about RAM? If I don't do gaming, graphics or CAD do I really need
1GB? Isn't 256MB just fine?
Granted these are fairly small amounts individually, but if all you need
is email, web surfing and a word processor, those savings on what you
don't need can easily be hundreds of dollars.
Post by danielPost by Pete C.I get it by looking at the offerings of Apple, Dell, HP, etc. and
comparing the actual specifications and the prices.
OK, we disagree on the accounting and what is important.
If you are not in the US and the broadband routers are a lot more
expensive, then perhaps the ratios between Apple and Dell, HP, etc. are
also different. When I wander through my local CompUSA or Fry's I do see
a marked difference in the price for what you get.
Post by danielPost by Pete C.Post by danielThese guys probably know what they are doing.
http://www.apple.com/science/profiles/colsa/
I'm afraid I'm not impressed by one off custom configurations. Most any
company can do the same. What counts is how a companies off-the-shelf
standard systems perform. Take a look at the HP "Marvel" systems as an
example of extreme performance in an off-the-shelf system. Granted the
current Marvel systems are Alpha based, but the next generation to come
after Marvel is Itanium based.
http://h18002.www1.hp.com/alphaserver/sc_gs.html
Well, I am not an expert on these and I can not argue the details. My
point being that apple is having success with high end super computer
clusters. along with their other server and raid products. In part
because of technical benefits – everything from speed, ease of use, and
in these cases especially cost. (I was surprised to see how much the
reduced cooling cost makes a difference to these systems).
http://www.apple.com/science/profiles/vatech2/ (you may have seen this
one before)
http://www.apple.com/xserve/
http://www.apple.com/xserve/raid/
The power and cooling costs of all of these newer high performance
systems is significant.
I've done system replacement upgrades where I've tripled performance,
halved power consumption and BTU output and quartered floor space, while
at the same time reducing operational costs from lease and maintenance
contracts by thousands of dollars a year.
System uptime reliability doesn't change much since these systems had
multiple levels of redundancy and fault tolerance both before and after
the upgrades.
When you work in large data center environments you realize the amount
of power distribution and air conditioning that is required,
particularly when you are a hardware type and have an in depth knowledge
of those systems.
UPS systems feeding 600 amp three phase buss bars to multiple PDUs are
pretty damned impressive as are 4MW banks of diesel generators with
40,000 gallon fuel tanks, and that is at one of the smaller sites.
The big stuff is a lot of fun to play with.
Pete C.
Post by danielAnyway, time to go home here!
Cheers
Daniel
I will get of my high horse now.... there is some work to do too... :-)
