Apple is now the modern Commodore/Amiga?

[Ami_GFX]

Where to get some great software for Ubuntu Linux

Yeah, I keep using Windows because I have so much software for it and I know the software well and it is a lot of time and money invested. I have Suse linux on this machine as well and it came with most of the software I'll ever need--kind of like a Mac in that regard. I've only added a couple of programs but these days, I seldom boot to linux on this machine. Wine works but not well enough for me.

[uncharted]

DonnyEMU wrote:
Yes I agree and I have a huge distaste for the platform religious these days.

Then why is it every single post you make sounds like a big fan-boy rant?  Seriously?

For example:

steal a unix clone and repurpose to get it either (or steal NeXTSTEP)

If paying $400,000,000 for something is stealing then Apple can steal whatever it wants from me.

[shoggoth]

guru-666 wrote:
hey it's easy to dodge the question. how is the mac faster?  technicality?  What so good about the os?

BTW, I use mostly linux because I LIKE the way it works.....

The question wasn't aimed at me, but I would like to comment. A bit of background info - I bought my Mac 8 months ago, after being a regular PC/Windows user for like 15 years. I was used to XP & 2000, and I consider myself to be a fairly technically skilled computer user. I didn't buy a Mac because I don't know how to use a computer - I got tired of virus infections, spyware etc. Also, I happen to like the power usually associated with a Unix-ish system. I'm no apple fanatic, but having used their products for a while, I tend to like them.

When it comes to raw CPU power, a modern Mac and a PC are equivalent. Modern macs are based on the same parts. Now, I think most of us, regardless of their OS preferences, agree that there are certain less flattering aspects of Windows; messy screen redraws where certain parts of the GUI isn't properly accellerated, the CD starts spinning for no apparent reason, network timeouts set to 5 years etc. We've gotten used to that kind of stuff.

Now, when I booted up my brand new mac, I discover that the GUI is completely GPU-accellerated, and everything *looks* really fast, even though it's essentially standard PC hardware. None of the typical Windows annoyances that one has gotten used to are there. Basically, we're talking about the "wow" effect - note my choice of words - since Vista wasn't available at that time.

The Amiga, had a typical CPU for it's era, but the system used custom chips to make stuff look fast. In terms of raw CPU power, it wasn't faster than anything else at the time (e.g. Atari ST)

While the comparison isn't entirely accurate, it's not necessarily completely inaccurate either imho.

-- Peter

[uncharted]

Ami_GFX wrote:

overpriced boutique G3 ibooks on eBay

Actually could have had one of those for a song on Ebay recently because a Mac owner got freaked out by a "kernal panic" message and just sold the whole thing as is with all the original CDs. Like, all he would have had to do would have been to insert one of them in his Ibook and reinstall the system and maybe he wouldn't even have to go that far. I guess I had better things to bid on, didn't tempt me too much. And those g3 Ibooks won't run skype but a 600mhz PIII will.

I'm still trying to work out WTF that has to do with my post.

[Ami_GFX]

I'm still trying to work out WTF that has to do with my post.

Just playing with one phrase--quoted. Just poking some fun at the mac and the lack of technical skills of some of it's users--definitely not all of them--and pointing out that the G3 Ibook is passee and if you want to make phone calls with your Mac using Skype, you need a 800mhz G4 with OS panther--a g3 just won't do the trick. Had more to do with my previous posts than yours.

[shoggoth]

Ami_GFX wrote:
Just playing with one phrase--quoted. Just poking some fun at the mac and the lack of technical skills of some of it's users--definitely not all of them--and pointing out that the Ibook is passee and if you want to make phone calls with your Mac using Skype, you need a 800mhz G4 with OS panther--a g3 just won't do the trick. Had more to do with my previous posts than yours.

Dude, a 1Ghz PC is passee too.

[Ami_GFX]

Dude, a 1Ghz PC is passee too.

Yeah, but I can still use it to make phone calls. And we're still using Amigas, how passee can you get? :-)

[vic20owner]

I think shoggoth nailed it.

The classic macs were pretty bad... the new macs (with OSX) are really really good.   My boss just dumped $15K on new macbooks after we gave him a 15 minute demo of how much easier our software development is on one.  He even got one for himself (he does a lot of C programming under linux).  Since you can run parallels (virtual machine) you can run windows and program in .NET at the same time... if XP dies, just replace the hd image with a backup of the original.

Before that he made fun of me for even suggesting it. No way he was going to listen (so he said). Boy was he wrong!  Glad he admitted it.

True it's not as much the hardware as it is the software.  Apple's software WORKS the way their hardware LOOKS.  Smooth , stable, and very well engineered.

[shoggoth]

Ami_GFX wrote:

Yeah, but I can still use it to make phone calls.

... and the point being what? That certain software doesn't run well on older macs?

Ami_GFX wrote:
And we're still using Amigas, how passee can you get? :-)

Touché

[shoggoth]

vic20owner wrote:
The classic macs were pretty bad...

Worse. OS7-9 sucked donkeyballs. Apple did the right thing ditching that OS and starting over from scratch.

[Ami_GFX]

 and the point being what? That certain software doesn't run well on older macs

Basically, that Macs age and become passee faster than PCs and that I could actually do something useful with a 7 year old 600mhz PIII. For some basic internet access and telecommunications, it was fine. The main issue wasn't processor speed but memory--128mb was fine for the software available in the year 2000 but Windows and Firefox gobbled all of it between them. Gave it some more memory and it blossumed. Just like an Amiga in that respect.

[guru-666]

so I basically hear that people FEEL that there mac is faster and generally a better OS than windows.  Personally I don't see anything about the MAC that is not true about linux.... maybe because the OS10 is based on BSD?
I don't know that the mac is the new Amiga,  I mean the mac was around when the Amiga was still being produced so IMHO by default it's competition not replacement.

BTW is the Amiga passee too?

[shoggoth]

Ami_GFX wrote:
Basically, that Macs age and become passee faster than PCs and that I could actually do something useful with a 7 year old 600mhz PIII. For some basic internet access and telecommunications, it was fine. The main issue wasn't processor speed but memory--128mb was fine for the software available in the year 2000 but Windows and Firefox gobbled all of it between them. Gave it some more memory and it blossumed. Just like an Amiga in that respect.

Nah, I don't agree at all. It all depends on which applications you compare.

[Ami_GFX]

BTW is the Amiga passee too?

Never, just us Amigans who still persist in using it.

I don't know that the mac is the new Amiga

I agree, there was only one Amiga and it was born in different time and computing culture. Do you remember when 16mb ram and a 100mb HD was a big thing that cost big bucks and 24 bit graphics was the wonder of age that only a few had access to. The computing world was still in flux, there were alternatives to the Mac and PC and the Amiga was one of them. Remember how bad Windows 3.1 was and how graceful the Amiga OS was in comparison. Things have changed a lot since then and I don't see any new Amigas around. The Mac is still a Mac and Mac culture is still like it was then in a lot of ways--and why not, a lot of Mac users from back then are still using Macs today. There's a lot of devotion and loyalty in the Mac community

[shoggoth]

guru-666 wrote:
so I basically hear that people FEEL that there mac is faster and generally a better OS than windows.  Personally I don't see anything about the MAC that is not true about linux.... maybe because the OS10 is based on BSD?
I don't know that the mac is the new Amiga,  I mean the mac was around when the Amiga was still being produced so IMHO by default it's competition not replacement.

BTW is the Amiga passee too?

The main reason I choose Mac instead of Linux is that I need to use certain commercial apps such as Cubase and Adobe CS. However, one could argue that certain parts of the OSX internals are technically superior, but some people may have a difference in opinion (monolithic kernels vs. microkernels, drivers in kernel space vs. drivers in user space etc.)

btw, iirc OSX is based on OpenStep, which uses the Mach kernel.. The BSD parts provides the posix stuff I guess..  Might be wrong though..
-- Peter

[guru-666]

neither Windows or OS10  uses a micro kernel.  In the end a mac and linux box are ALMOST the same thing.  I'm lucky they ported Maya to linux and I can use gimp or wine if I need some software, but I try not to use the overpriced stuff as much as possible. Other than maya I'm not hooked on commercial software at all, funny I used to worry about that but I find most free software is very good!
the main thing that mac and Amiga have in common is a fanatical user bases that is willing to ignore all facts and insist they have the best computer...... IMO not a cool thing....