Posted on 07/05/2005 2:06:15 PM PDT by Panerai
general_re
My inhaler, quick! Where is that GD inhaler?
Search me, linux boy boy
;op
It's good, but not up to Spotlight. First, it's not well-integrated into the OS, everthing has to be added-on. Second, it doesn't naturally search network shares (unless you have the app on the share host, not good if you have your share on a RAID rack) or keep live folders.
Looking glass does that. What percentage, I'm not sure. But it is a GPU-rendered UI.
Looking Glass uses the GPU to help render, but a lot of work is still done on the CPU. Quartz 2D Extreme requires one of the later programmable video cards because it essentially sends small applications to the GPU to offload even more processing. That Ars Technica article you linked to explains it in more detail, especially making sure that anything that's bandwidth-intensive stays within the video card.
And that still doesn't cover allowing a video editing app to use a standard GPU to do real-time filters instead of having to buy an expensive RT video editing card.
Then why did you bring it up?
Because it's an old feature that still nobody else has. The difference between it and other PDF functionality add-ons is that in OS X PDF is a core functionality of the operating system and even part of its screen compositing subsystem. I'm not just talking about new features, but the whole of the OS as compared to others.
Sorry. It's not.[advanced font mgt shipping with the OS]
Where else have you seen it?
Apple is crowing as if it's new features are just that. New and unique, and they're not.
Some are are first for any mass market OS (especially the graphics subsystem), some are just new to OS X. BTW, if I download Linux and install it on a few boxes, is it as brain-dead easy to get a cluster going as it is with XGrid?
Their kernel still needs alot of work from what I've seen.
As of 10.4, it's pretty ironed-out. The Linux kernel isn't exactly perfect either. I do have to admit I have a bit of a bias, having always been partial to BSD over Linux.
and I still say their switch to intel is partially fueled by losing the #2 OS spot to linux, mainly fueled by IBM friction
Their switch is mainly "once bitten, twice shy." They got burned badly by Moto over chip problems because Moto wasn't interested in maintaining their PPC line, and now IBM is showing that its interest in the PPC for desktops is waning. I can understand from the supplier's point of view, because Apple's volume isn't enough to justify the R&D for such chips.
Apple finally went someplace where they know they won't have supply problems, and have an easy replacement in AMD in case even Intel can't deliver.
As for what I use at work, my desktop is a Windows 2000 machine because that's what they gave me. The servers that I specified and purchased are Xeons running Red Hat Linux. As a server, Linux is my preferred platform at the moment. But please note that I can run all the software that I've written for those Linux servers using Open Source tools on my OSX iBook because both are Unix. And that's part of my point. Mac OSX gives me the ability to run nearly everything I could run on a Linux desktop PLUS it opens up a whole other selection of commercial software that I can't run on a Linux desktop. It's also the reason why a friend who is a Solaris sysadmin got an iBook and then a PowerBook. They are great laptops, especially if you are maintaining Unix or Linux machines.
^^^^^^^^^First, it's not well-integrated into the OS,^^^^^^^^
Honestly, integration isn't all it's cracked up to be.(though I honestly think that linux is a little TOO modular) MS's ideals of integration are insanity, anybody who's had serious problems with IE is aware of what I speak. :-P
Besides..... Have you actually used a distro that comes with beagle?
^^^^^^^^^Second, it doesn't naturally search network shares (unless you have the app on the share host, not good if you have your share on a RAID rack) or keep live folders.^^^^^^^
Who has a RAID rack in their house?(i'm only half kidding) Apple's main market is the home user, not servers. So netshares and RAID rack compatibility isn't really.... I could bring up Xen but that would be just as irrelevant as well.
But I agree. Beagle doesn't have as many features as spotlight. They still weren't first to market though.
^^^^^^^^^^I'm not just talking about new features, but the whole of the OS as compared to others.^^^^^^^^^^^
Oh, ok. Fair enough.
^^^^^^^^^^Where else have you seen it?^^^^^^^^^^^^
There's a font manager in what I'm using right now.
^^^^^^^^^^BTW, if I download Linux and install it on a few boxes, is it as brain-dead easy to get a cluster going as it is with XGrid?^^^^^^^^^^^
I doubt it. But given OSX's still-crippled kernel I don't see why you'd want to.(in this instance is one which the kernel still shows it's immaturity)
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436&p=9
^^^^^^^^^^I'm challenging the idea that there aren't any good reasons to buy a Mac.^^^^^^^^^
Oh, heh sorry about that. That's my anti-mac propaganda coming out...... I was talking to my dad shortly before posting at #13. He's the resident mac user in my family. I love rubbing his fur the wrong way on the topic. :-P
Until MS goes out of business there will always be at least one reason to buy one.(and considering apple's #1 department, it's marketing division there are two reasons that I don't see going away any time soon)
^^^^^^^^^^And let's just say that our milage varies on what's easier to maintain.^^^^^^^^^^^
Well that of course depends on what your definition of is is.
^^^^^^^^^^^As for "equivalent software", that argument never worked when Mac advocates tried to sell the Mac to Windows users and it's not really persuading me.^^^^^^^^^^^^
You think if macs were free(or at least the OS) that statement would still hold water?
Besides. If you've ever used the "equivalent software" argument yourself you know it's more accurate than you're now trying to make it seem that it's not.
^^^^^^^^^I've played around with some of the Open Source "equivalents" and let's just say that I wasn't all that impressed.^^^^^^^^^^
The first place I was gonna go for linux software was not an OSS piece. I've never actually used it, but Quasar is supposed to be pretty close to Quickbooks. Quasar is a complete commercial product.
The biggest problem with the OSS "business model"(in this argument) is that when the first couple of revisions come out they are purposely sent out untested.
^^^^^^^^They are great laptops, especially if you are maintaining Unix or Linux machines.^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Agreed.
Oh, and just out of curiousity...... When you boot up your machine what's your memory usage look like?
^^^^^^^^I have servers with Red Hat 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3 as well as their latest server OS.^^^^^^^^^^
Ouch! That explains alot.
Yes, I'm a red hat user as well, but I'm using Fedora.(their free product)
The only thing I do upon a fresh install that isn't graphical(meaning ease of use) is changing one switch in a file as I've personally grown to prefer KDE. RH is a gnome distro.
Not always, but I'd think a system-wide search utility should be.
For the market, it's the difference between open and closed source I mentioned. Beagle has been out since shortly after it was initially conceived, while Spotlight was only released after it was mature. In any case, the Beagle authors admit it's still in the early development stage.
Still, it's quite impressive and shows that OSS projects can be competitive. Barely a year after launch and it's almost up to what Microsoft will release in beta in several months.
There's a font manager in what I'm using right now.
What one? I've never seen a standard OS font manager that could compete. I have always had to purchase a font manager such as ATM separately. For example, with your standard font manager can you group your fonts and enable or disable them by groups? Can you preview fonts including ligatures, glyphs and kerning? Can you search them including by family, style and language? Can you scan documents for fonts and save them as a group for archiving (extremely useful in DTP where you may have loaded several special fonts for one document, and want to save them together with the document in case you want to edit it again)?
.(in this instance is one which the kernel still shows it's immaturity)
The performance is a result of the OS X design philosophy, which is a hybrid microkernel. You take a performance hit whenever you go down the microkernel road because of all the message passing (although being a hybrid lessens this a bit), but it does have its advantages, such as stability and portability. That's why it was so easy for Apple to maintain both PPC and x86 versions of OS X all this time.
You mean..... as of 10.4 they caught up?
Basically. As of 10.4, it's finally mature (although I think 10.5 next year will really solidify it). That's pretty fast considering how long it took MS to mature NT into server 2003 and finally get it somewhat right, and for Linux to mature into the extremely capable 2.6 kernel.
If we waited for the software we wish we had, we'd never use anything.
True. I've been avoiding buying a new Mac until 10.4, and now I'm considering waiting for the Pentium M Macs. I can wait.
Not at all. It's going to depend on who you give it to and what they do with it. In my experience (giving our old iMac to my mother-in-law), the Mac is essentially set it up and forget it. It's possible that I could get the same thing with the right Linux distro but it doesn't really get any easier to maintain than that.
You think if macs were free(or at least the OS) that statement would still hold water?
Yes. It's true for me because of both Microsoft Office and Canvas, two pieces of software that I'm willing to pay a few hundred dollars to use.
Besides. If you've ever used the "equivalent software" argument yourself you know it's more accurate than you're now trying to make it seem that it's not.
It's accurate up to a point. Yes, you could use Linux as a desktop OS and do just about everything you could do on a Windows machine or Mac. But the reality is that if a user wants a particular software package or wants a particular feature that's not available in the alternative, the argument isn't going to persuade them. After all, it really never helped Mac advocates stop Windows users from complaining about the perceived lack of software on Macs.
Oh, and just out of curiousity...... When you boot up your machine what's your memory usage look like?
Which machine are you talking about? I have more memory problems with Windows machines than either the Mac or Linux machines, though Java software can be a real hog on the Macs.
^^^^^^^Not at all.^^^^^^
Heh heh.... I was only kidding.
^^^^^^^^the Mac is essentially set it up and forget it.^^^^^^^^
Same here. The biggest problem I've had to deal with is speed, but I'm the only one in the family who can afford broadband.
^^^^^^^^It's true for me^^^^^^^^^^
Ahhh..... for you. How about many others who are not so stringent on requirements?
Somehow I think the mac would have more market penetration if that were true.(0 price)
^^^^^^^^^^^But the reality is that if a user wants a particular software package or wants a particular feature that's not available in the alternative, the argument isn't going to persuade them.^^^^^^^^^^^^
I agree. the biggest problem with MS's 94% marketshare is that pretty much anything that comes out, comes out there first. Moving to another platform regardless of what you do you're gonna lose features.
The question is the features you've lost..... were you using them in the first place? If you don't notice, did you really lose anything? Many people look at the fact that there's millions of packages on cnet for windows and that's their blanket statement for "no software available" when used in comparison.
^^^^^^^^^it really never helped Mac advocates stop Windows users from complaining about the perceived lack of software on Macs.^^^^^^^^^
When you ask someone about specifics it's easy to put this one to rest. Mac or Linux.
^^^^^^^^^Which machine are you talking about?^^^^^^^^
The mac. I'm curious if 10.4 has a smaller footprint than the previous.(I honestly never thought to do a google search on it until now)
http://www.darcynorman.net/2005/05/08/tiger-memory-usage
But they don't state what it is at boot, when only the OS/features are running.
Heh heh.... yeah java is a memory hog.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.