____/ Rick on Sunday 28 October 2007 10:53 : \____
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 08:45:32 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Sunday 28 October 2007 07:53 : \____
>>
>>> Rick wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 01:28:39 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Some Leopard upgraders see 'blue screen of death'
>>>>>
>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>> | A significant number of Mac owners upgrading to Leopard on Friday
>>>>> reported | that after installing the new operating system, their
>>>>> machines locked up, | showing only an interminable -- and very
>>>>> Windows-like -- "blue screen of | death." `----
>>>> (snip)
>>>> I think its a little early for the Leopard bashing to start.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Why? Whenever MS botches an update, they get the deserved flak
>>> immedeately. Why spare apple?
>>> They have shown that their attendance to detail is not better than that
>>> of MS. The often mentioned "quality" of apple software is just a myth,
>>> and it has shown again
>>
>> People whom I know where left stuck with only the command-line after
>> rotten updates from Apple. It does not make that Mac so easy to use.
>
> That is not good. And yes, I think that Apples quality of hardware and
> software is over somewhat rated.
>From my experience (I had a Mac in my office for 3.5 years), the hardware is
decent, but people whom I helped had some hardware issues and support
nightmares (it took Apple a lot of time to send replacement, but that's what
you get _WHEN SUPPORT IS A MONOPOLY_).
>> We need to eliminate the perception that Mac is like a prettier Linux
>> (Compiz-fusion+Plasma+AWN looks better) which is easier to use and more
>> reliable. When Linux is packaged and preloaded properly, it's an
>> excellent system that /anyone/ can use without requiring help.
>
> When Linux is properly packaged and properly loaded...
>
> How many distros have been distributed with 0 problems? And while Compiz
> Fusion is getting very easy to turn on, there still seem to be a large
> number of people with problems.
No O/S is perfect. That's just my point. Apple is not heavenly either, but it
does a decent job when it comes to polish (so do OpenSUSE and RHEL
developers).
Dell is doing quite a poor job packaging Linux to be honest with you, but it
can be done properly. With a production-line-type setup, many excellent
machines can be dispatched for a low price. Even the eSys PC that I last
bought seems to have been in better shape than those Dells everyone raves
about.
> OS X IS a nice looking OS. It IS user friendly. BUT ... Macs are fairly
> expensive, and the Apple software that makes them attractive (iLife and
> the commercial stuff) is all proprietary, and closed source. The
> commercial software is also expensive.
As Linux grows (also in terms of userbase) it will mature further. I can't
think of a single proprietary application that would serve me better now. Some
people have specialised software that does not run on Linux, and that's
understandable.
> It is a shame the commercial developers haven't figured out how to do
> decent ports of MacOS software to Linux and BSD.
>From what I've read some months ago, companies confess that porting to Linux
is /far/ easier than people imagine. My C/OpenGL project was actually quite
easy to port from Linux to Windows as well. The main question is, what tools
(P/Ls) were used to build the software?
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Billigator: eats your filesystem alive
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
|
|
