Wow, OS X just really sucks!!! XP looks better... |
October, 13, 2003 11:19 PM |
macguruguy |
Just cannot get this god forsaken OS to run right. I've switched machines -- tried to update versions -- and there's always a MAJOR problem with something. Why the heck did apple decide to do this? There are so many little generic files floating around in this OS that it's impossible to tweak it without major research, there's no extension manager, and with so many files -- there's bound to be problems!!! It's NOT user friendly. Steve Jobs said it would be more stable -- but it's much LESS stable -- even on machines that were made for it. I'm seriously considering building a PC machine and putting my current piece of crap up for auction on ebay. I thought I would NEVER say this ... but I'm starting to like XP better!!! |
. |
Wow, OS X just really sucks!!! XP looks better... |
October, 15, 2003 11:06 PM |
lyonsdj88 |
. |
Your right, Dell is not lossing money. |
. |
RE: Wow, OS X just really sucks!!! XP looks better |
October, 15, 2003 3:37 PM |
mjoecups358 |
. |
Dell is losing money? Do your homework and quit blabbing. Marty |
. |
Wow, OS X just really sucks!!! XP looks better... |
October, 15, 2003 12:13 PM |
lyonsdj88 |
. |
BTW; It just does not serve Apple to do x86 as they can not 'controll' the price of the HW. In this market where the #1(Dell) is losing money hand over fist Apple can ill afford to lose controll over pricing. Now I'm not saying the market is bad because the economie is down. I'm saying that x86 hardware is over produced way way over produced. This leads to sell it at a loss. It's not just the PC market. Way to much is made, we are not going to buy it just because they build it. If my old TV, MAC, washer, works for me I'm not running out to buy anouther one.......unless, Now you get me a washer that loads itself or does something to save me real time. Now if that 200mhz or 1.5ghz saves me time ,when time is money, sure. But most home users could care less about 100+ more FPS in Q3 when they get 150+ now. You don't see APPLE speed bumping the MAC at 500mhz at a time every 3 weeks, some would say that they would if they could, but use your head. If I sell you a $2000 mac are you going to upgrade before it IS too slow to do what you want. Market share don't mean squat when you sell 100,000 $2000+ G5's in 3 weeks, mind you that none of them had even shipped yet. Think, Apple and La Steve-o Know what they are doing 6 billion in the bank while Dell bleeds red ink. x86 not a chance you'll see 68000 @4.5 ghz before that ever comes to pass unless Apple can 'controll' the pricing of the HardWare. |
. |
Wow, OS X just really sucks!!! XP looks better... |
October, 15, 2003 11:53 AM |
lyonsdj88 |
. |
I hate to say this ,but to be fair............Window$ is not all that buggy or unsafe compaired to Unlix/Linux it has less to do with software and more to do with 90% of the blackhat type hacker doing it to Window$. That is the trade off for 90% of the market. Micro$oft could do alot of things better, but with the sheer #'s hacking at them even if they went Unix they'd still have to patch 10x more than any other OS. Nothing wrong with having a PC or only a PC, but that was not the point of the post that started this. Hell XP is 500% better than 95,98 in most ways. Myself I never used 3.1 on back and HATE 95-98, XP has some large drawbacks most of them are update........update........update. Now, you want to talk trade OS X for XP that is nuts, far be it for me the pot to call the kettle black. I may be nuts, but I do know my SW and HW and I'll give you facts to backup what I say on what IS better and why. That is what MACGURUGUY is lacking, fact. He started this thread just so folks would reply the way we have, and hell why not. |
. |
p.s: |
October, 15, 2003 11:26 AM |
voxxdigital |
. |
It doesn't even looks better. |
. |
RE: Wow, OS X just really sucks!!! XP looks better |
October, 15, 2003 9:19 AM |
voxxdigital |
. |
BTW, I'd like to say that there is no point on starting a holy war about how OSX and UNIX are good (or not) and how XP is flaky. The only good point I saw in this thread is that a lot of expert people posted their valuable opinions here (despite of the fact that macguruguy may need to seek professional help...). |
. |
RE: XP looks better??? |
October, 15, 2003 9:10 AM |
voxxdigital |
. |
Wow, I was reading this thread, and I think I should thank macguruguy for setting this forum on fire, just for a change... hehe, just kidding... ;-) I was remembering, PC users had their chance to use a rock-solid, small, preemptive multi-tasking, object-oriented OS other than Linux, a few years ago. Anyone remember the deceased OS/2 from IBM (may God have his soul)? But of course, M$ marketing squashed it like an insect. But it was years ahead of its time - so much so that IBM still supports and updates it for corporative use only. I was thinking myself of assembling a cheap, fast XP computer as a support machine on my studio. Where I live, a G4 upgrade card goes for the price of a reasonable PC. If I like the idea? I'm frightened to death. I'm considering seriously to keeping it away from the Internet. I really wish I could afford a G5 right now. Why does it have to be so expensive? Why does OSX can't run on cheaper Opteron systems? (Oh, well, this is going off topic). WinXP is another white elephant from Micro$oft (as everything they make), enormous, full of bugs, and a lot of more bugs to be implemented in future versions, and always needs a better computer than you have. M$ have no interest at all on making a bug-free software. What would they make their profit of? OK, I believe I already talked too much. |
. |
Wow, OS X just really sucks!!! XP looks better... |
October, 15, 2003 3:58 AM |
lyall.moffitt |
. |
This is so obviously a troll... OSX runs on machines that are 5 years old, and using XPostFacto even older... So, no you don't have to keep replacing your hardware. And it's not incompatible with the hardware. Otherwise it wouldn't work on ANY machine. Go troll elsewhere... |
. |
RE: Wow, OS X just really sucks!!! XP looks better |
October, 15, 2003 1:01 AM |
smwalker |
. |
Average computer user? None of us here are average or we wouldn't be installing an OS which is not supposed to work on these OLD WORLD machines. I'm writing this on a 7500 I bought for $30 and put a 7600 mobo in that I got free, helping a computer reseller put OS 8 on an old powerbook. If "we" were average computer users,"we" would have OS 8.1 on my machine, or we would have a nice NEW WORLD Mac that is supposed to run OS X. I've actually enjoyed getting an old machine to run the new OS. I have much to thank Ryan for: Thanks Ryan, and maybe macguruguy isn't mac or guru, but just guy. I have a 9600 that was tough getting OS X to run on, but eventually I found out I needed to replace the stock video card Apple put in it and "voila" ... the installer worked finally. No, I don't think "we" are average computer users here. I use windoze too ... but I like my macs much better. In fact, I think I love them. Especially the beige ones I can get OS X running on. |
. |
YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN OSX IS NOT SUPPOSED TO WORK |
October, 14, 2003 9:31 PM |
fixitjc |
. |
Macgurooogy please go play somewhere else This forum with all it's challenges is for the serious (tho entertaining) pursuit of running OSX on our unsupported machines. You obviously want some one else to do it for you .... go pay someone to do it. Just remember why you are here ..... This software is NOT SUPPOSED TO WORK on our machines. |
. |
Wow, OS X just really sucks!!! XP looks better... |
October, 14, 2003 5:35 PM |
lei1 |
. |
Macguruguy I will reimburse your $10 user fee if you promise to stay off the forum. The site's format is clunky enough without you wasting preferred space. |
. |
Wow, OS X just really sucks!!! XP looks better... |
October, 14, 2003 5:30 PM |
nick.ashton |
. |
I can't believe how gullible you all are. Macguruguy just thrives on making these sorts of statements and then watching all of you people wasting your time trying to reason with him or justify your own decisions. Months ago he said he was leaving this discussion forum for good because it was a waste of time and we were all idiots (I'm paraphrasing there but he did make some extremely offensive remarks about several of the contributors - me included, you can use the "search" function to find them if you don't believe me!). Just ignore him. If he wants to run Windows whatever on a PC that's his choice, he has nothing to contribute here. There's nothing sadder than watching someone make post after post to the same thread hoping to elicit a response and getting none. Keep quiet and he'll just go away. Mac users don't need to feel insecure or embarrassed for the choices they have made. |
. |
Wow, OS X just really sucks!!! XP looks better... |
October, 14, 2003 5:20 PM |
mjoecups358 |
. |
I would also like to add to this discussion, that I am also an old school mac guy. I started using Mac in 1985, when I bought my "fat" mac through the apple developer discount program. It is UNDOUBTEDLY true that old school macos is in some ways superior for the user to OSX. On the other hand, as far as system administration/repair/troubleshooting is concerned there is no contest... OSX is superior. Mac OS doesn't provide any log files or system console messages to help figure out what the hell happened when the machine crashed just then, so we were left using trial and error in the extension manager etc. OSX is a joy to troubleshoot. Yes, it is extremely complicated, but it also includes the tools we need to look into the system and see what actually has happened. I now dread troubleshooting problems for my customers who still use 9.x because I feel so blind. OSX has come a long long way since I started using it at DP4. It still has some issues where it doesn't measure up to OS8.6, some of these were conscious trade offs (like the file extension thing), others seem to be oversites (like the finder). Either way, OSX runs GREAT on a lot of different old world macs for me here, and someone who claims to be a mac "guru" shouldn't whine and talk up windows, do your homework and you will find this system is the best available for personal computers. Good Luck, Marty |
. |
RE: Just install XP on your Mac: seriously !!! |
October, 14, 2003 3:57 PM |
rsgleason2000 |
. |
Save yourself some bucks, go to ebay, buy yourself a copy of Virtual PC (which is a program that emaulates a PC on your Mac) and run Windows XP !!! Gee, wouldn't it be great if someone invented software so that older Macs could emulate a G-5? That'd sure get rid of alot of headaches on upgrading Macs !!! - RL |
. |
Wow, OS X just really sucks!!! XP looks better... |
October, 14, 2003 2:54 PM |
powderhaus |
. |
Umm you are using an usupported computer, no crap there are problems. Maybe that could be way apple dropped support for these computers, because supporting them and all of the extra PCI cards and board variations and clones... it becomes a huge headach and is really not worth it to apple. Go to an apple store and tool around for a while on a G5 or any suported computer for that matter. Or go find a PC that XP does not support and hack it boot, then see how much you like it. |
. |
RE: Wow, OS X just really sucks!!! XP looks better |
October, 14, 2003 2:49 PM |
sneitzel |
. |
If the grass looks greener by all means go graze. But mark these words. Once you have had the pleasure(???????) of installing, configuring, and troubleshooting a winXP system you will rue the day you posted this topic. Do yourself a favor. Instead of putting the mac up on e-bay, tuck it away safe in a closet for now. That way when you're ready to use the XP machine for target practice your old trust mac will be there waiting to serve you. But also consider this: I recently bought a sawtooth G4/450 AGP on e-bay for around $650. You will be hard pressed to build an XP machine with the features of a mac for that amount of money. It replaced my 9600/XLR8 G4 450. The 9600 exhibited many of the same you are seeing. The sawtooth runs jaguar almost flawlessly! (possibly because it is "supported" as others have pointed out) I managed to sell my 9600 and the XLR8/G4 card separately for a total of about $350. Making the total investment for the sawtooth $300. There is no way you will build a decent XP machine for that especially considering the OS itself will eat $100 leaving only $200 for the entire system. The bottom line... If you want to jump to the dark side by all means do so. Just look before you leap. Coming from someone who lives in both worlds trust me, it's much better here. Scott |
. |
Wow, OS X just really sucks!!! XP looks better... |
October, 14, 2003 2:33 PM |
jseibyl |
. |
Being non-liner... http://www.xs4all.nl/% 7egp/VirtualII/VirtualIIHelp/virtual_II_help.html#Introduction How about apple2 emulation in os X on an unsupproted machine..... That's just wrong, but fun... ;-) |
. |
RE: Does OSX really suck? Consider this ... |
October, 14, 2003 2:14 PM |
rsgleason2000 |
. |
I've got a Beige G3 Desktop with an 800MHz zif and I have yet to be able to install OS-X on it. But you know what? I'm no where close to forsaking my OS 9.X and here's why: to cross over to OS-X in these newer faster macs means you also have to lay down the bucks to replace existing software that you already have. Why would I want to buy and another Wordprocessor? or new Backup Software? or use something like Dreamweaver to replace the Claris Homepage that I currently use? If what your using works, then don't get all bent out of shape just because you can't load OS-X. And for those who would argue OS-X will let you run the classic mode, yes the Older OS-X's will let you run the OS-9 in the classic mode, but those days are fast running out (as I believe Panther will not do the classic mode thing). If your system works why get rid of it? The way Beige G-3 is currently set up, it out preforms my wife's 770MHz G4 running OS-X on a laughable 256MB of Ram and let me tell you her computer is "slow" (the lack of reasonable ram is causing her to depend heavily upon virtual memory). If she has extra work to do she'll bring it home to do on my Mac simply because my Beige G3 is faster. So you see, not everything is as bad as it seems. In fact, I remember my first "real" computer, an Apple 2C+ that ran at a whopping 3MHz of speed, ca |
. |
Wow, OS X just really sucks!!! XP looks better... |
October, 14, 2003 1:16 PM |
jseibyl |
. |
I like my rustbucket. |
. |
Wow, OS X just really sucks!!! XP looks better... |
October, 14, 2003 12:48 PM |
tippingj |
. |
Bring it somewhere else buddy. OS X just needs a Newworld computer to run on. Thats all. You are bound to run into crap when you run it on an unsupported system. You are correct, toss your peice of junk and buy a SUPPORTED iMac. As for tweaking. Tweaking is for the pros. Not the little kids who think it would be cool to do something stupid. Not everything can be tweaked. Stuff is "untweakable" for a reason, because you could kill your system if you do screw with it. Do you see the MSOffice Paperclip assistant come out and describe each and every file function and source code for Windows so you can tweak it? I don't. Maybe you would write to MS for that function. And user friendly? Keep your head out of the system folder (and your ass), and don't go where your not supposed to. MOSX can be a very, dark, and scary place to be fiddling around with. If you stay where you should be unless you know what you are doing, MOSX is VERY user friendly. The System folder is only visable to people like you because when you have a problem because you deleted some little generic file, then us Pro's have to come over and fix it for you so you can "tweak&break" it again. Otherwise you wouldn't be complaining about features you can see but can't comprehend, if you think thats bad, you should see the HIDDEN files in MOSX. More generic files for Everyone! I invite you to try installing a GUIless Linux installation. Hows that for User Friendly? And for stability. My dual G5 has been running 24/7 (quite machine!), no crash. I reboot my windows machine EACH day cause I HAVE TO. Run MOSX on a supported machine. Not some old rustbucket with a Sonnet upgrade. Windows is crap. Windows is the reason why we run Macs. Windows is the reason why Apple exists. If windows was as perfect as you claim, then, WHY did you buy a MAC in the first place? Macguruguy- You are apparently no "Guru". Otherwise you wouldn't be here whinning. Isn't it your bedtime? |
. |
Wow, OS X just really sucks!!! XP looks better... |
October, 14, 2003 12:46 PM |
asarath |
. |
I am unclear about your post. Is your problem: 1. OSX won't run on your machine? It's not meant to - if it does (like it does for me and many others on this forum), count yourself lucky and thank Ryan for a fabulous piece of software. 2. OSX puts lots of hidden files in (sometimes, hidden) folders unlike OS9? Yes it does - but that's the nature of the beast and for those who know Unix (unlike me) it's not a mystery. For the rest of us, it doesn't really matter most of the time. For help in figuring out what these files are and what they do, check any one of several websites helping newbies on OSX. Or download any of the excellent freeware/shareware products that help you configure these files. btw it's patently obvious that you have never, ever tried to fix a software problem on a M$ OS machine, or you wouldn't be complaining about this as an issue. 3. OS9.2.2 is stable on your machine and OSX isn't? See 1 above. In any case if you are happy with OS9, why shift? It seems silly. I like OSX for some things, like a lot of open source software and freeware that can help me do things for free that I can't do under 9. I like its stability on a clapped out old 8600 (upgraded a bit, I'll admit with all sorts of rubbish, but still only 288MB of RAM). But I still boot into 9 to run some software and access some hardware like video in. And for the occasional speed fix. 4. You want this forum to back your decision to buy a PC? It won't. Please don't waste the time and test the patience of a lot of people who are trying to help each other move ahead on a Mac. FYI No Windoseofclap version I've ever seen in 20 years of using computers has come close (except when wasted on an extremely strong combination of narcotics and alcohol) in usability to any Mac OS - including OSX. My six year old Mac can run Jaguar. I have a three year old PC that can't run XP (it doesn't even run at the moment because it refuses to recognise its IDE hard drives). For once it's not M$'s fault, it's the hardware's. Just like your problem is not Apple's fault, it's your hardware's. 5. Your fiancee has problems with a G4. Ah well, my father has problems with his 2.4GHz PIV, XP box. Your bid. Ashok |
. |
Your mileage may vary |
October, 14, 2003 10:05 AM |
cjsconfections |
. |
As usual, we digress. The issue of Macguruguy is "X is unstable on his machine". The reason that you don't know your way around the file system in X is because you don't need to. If your equipment is right, it will run. The 800mz g4's are pushed to their ragged edge and will push your machine to it's ragged edge. If anything, repeat, anything, is slightly out of wack, the pumped g4 will magnify the problem. I can overrun nitrous oxide in a turbocharged car and blow the heads off of just about any engine. Is that the engine's fault? I used to hotrod cars and while it was a blast when they ran, the time spent keeping it together became a drag on my life. My mantra now is "Low performance is better than no performance.". If you want to push a piece of equipment to it's limit, don't expect reliability. How did you test your ram??? Did you ever get the machine working in a stable fashion on it's scsi before going to serial ata? As I said, my machine would run 9.2 with hardware problems, though poorly. X will not and I like it that way. It means that little problems will not pop up when I absolutely need my machine. If there is a problem, fix the hardware and the os just works! To my view,the difference between this forum and, say, that of dealmac's, is that we all know that the os is stable and pretty bullet proof BUT because our hardware is unsupported, the hardware is the issue. Running Norton or DiskWarrior is not needed and can mung things up even worse. Properly written kext files work as needed and there is no need to diddle with them as in pre-X days. Most of us are running Frankenmacs and find that little tweaks of hardware and,sometime the accompanying extensions to drive them will make X choke or fly. Your wife's machine either has hardware issues or has corrupted caches (assuming that it is an unmodified g4). Tell her to start with the shift key down until she sees the little clock wheel ticks on the gray screen with the logo. When her desktop has finished loading, reboot and download Jag Cache Cleaner and run the maintenance scripts first, then repair priviliges,then clean caches. If she still has problems, it is a hardware issue. Listening to you, your machine does not run long enough to get corrupt caches and that is why I maintain it is hardware. Other stuff: Thank god for unix. Because it is old, and not the os flavor of the month, the kernel is stable and the bugs have been worked out of it. I don't want to diddle with the guts of the os and neither should you. I am not a unix programmer and neither are you. Let them do their job correctly so that I can do mine. Why not allow X to run with flaky hardware?? With a hardware fault tolerant machine it will be easier to get it up and running but at some point, the os will not be able to keep it together and will crash. You won't know if it was hardware or software because there are too many variables. Yes, X is finiky about hardware. Hardware is either right and the os will work for a long time or wrong and won't work for shit. I like knowing that if there is a problem, check the hardware. Everything else is "Set it and forget it.". |
. |
RE: Wow, OS X just really sucks!!! XP looks better |
October, 14, 2003 9:01 AM |
gregoryy |
. |
No. It just requires NewWorld Mac ROMs. The B&W does fine. But even there you have limitations: No booting from FireWire. And FW ports are subject to failure. No "Option key" startup manager which you DO need. The PCI-PCI bridge limits the thruput and bandwidth to 53MB/s max for disk I/O writes. Serial ATA works but is much better on G4MDD or later - the FirmTek card does better on a G5 than the native G5's SATA. If this wasn't the XPF forum, any other place, I'd say "come on, it isn't supported, you're trolling, and except for OS X, you can get great performance with 1GB RAM, G4/800, add FireWire, USB, ATA. You can't install Ultra320 controller (ATTO UL4D) and get the best out of the Cheetah X15.3's 75-80MB/s - but it does run OS 9.1 very very well. Go buy one of the G4/MDD 1.25SP's from Apple for $1299 and enjoy! |
. |
Wow, OS X just really sucks!!! XP looks better... |
October, 14, 2003 8:56 AM |
jseibyl |
. |
BTW, I am forced to work on a DELL all day at work, brand new 2.54ghz running XP PRO. I am doing graphics. This thing is a DOG!! I hate it, I have to restart at least three times a day to clear out the crap AFTER it bombs, so I have to unplug the damn thing. Since I can't change much as I am not an ADMIN, I am forced to use this piece of trash, it is slower than my my ducktaped and chicken wired 9500, as I benched a 50 meg photoshop file, and guess what..... the g4 800 did a gausian filter 4% faster. Oh yeah, the Dell bombed on the first run and I had to unplug it, then reboot........ |
|
|