Forums Archive



Started 6/15/2007 by admin in Software Forum      (16 posts)  

12/19/1999 (5:33 am) by Anonymous    

(1082 Posts)

Macintoshes suck royally. They are in a corner market, and they are losing in every division except for maybe desktop publishing, which they might not be winning in any more. Their desktop publishing is no longer superior to X86 based systems. I know many people that have to work on Mac systems and they crash on them as or more frequently as PC's. Go ahead an knock Windows Bloatware 9x platform, but if you want a stable OS, then install Win NT Werkstation, or Server. They are two solid OS'es that Microsoft has developed. And what happened to Apple's Server OS....hmm I think it FLOPPED, it didn't perform nearly as well as IIS server 4.0 and performed worse than LINUX Apache, ARGH...hehe... Win 9x crashes mostly due to hardware conflicts and the hole it leaves open by making itself the most compatible OS on the Market. If you want a stable OS, go NT, if it doesn't support everything you want, then SHUDUP and go back to your single-button proprietary OS, and go ahead, and pay 40+ more bucks for software, =&THORN;


1/8/2000 (8:41 pm) by admin Staff    

(24314 Posts)

I swear, that was a good joke!!
I just came back from readin the pdf file from

Check it out! Maybe it can shed some light into your mind that's as dark as a DOS screen...


1/9/2000 (2:22 am) by capitalist    

(14 Posts)

Look friend, that document is little less than a joke. Not even that. Or, better, it is a bad joke. I've also heard that Bill Gates got his toilet crashed because it had a label on it that read: "Designed for Windows 98". Bad joke, right? Well, that's just about what that document is about.

But you won't believe anything, so time will tell my friend. I just hope the Mac Platform is still alive ten years from now. And I hope Microsoft won't have to take the embarrasing role of saving it from bankrupt -again. And if you think Jobs is like superman, just think about why he got fired from Apple the first time, and why Next was a total failure.

But anyway, I wish him a LOT of luck. He will need it. :)


1/24/2000 (11:46 am) by macjedi    

(19 Posts)

The animosity that some of you Squintel drones exhibit towards the Mac platform intrigues me...

The Mac doesn't really offer a threat to you guys in any way, yet you feel a need to lash out at it.

I can only read this as an underlying jealousy that you fellows feel towards our Zen-like, relatively complication free computing experience!


1/24/2000 (1:25 pm) by macjedi    

(19 Posts)

P.S. go to the "ugeek support" directory here in the message parlor....

notice how few of these "unsolvable problems" regard Macs....and when they DO It's usually about getting them to talk to a lame unix/NT network!

and if you're using this site you're presupposed to be a problem-solving "geek"

Hmm...seems to indicate a few things to


1/25/2000 (2:51 am) by capitalist    

(14 Posts)

Have your "Zen" session using your "Alien-Class Technology" Macintosh. There isn't a problem with that. Maybe the Zen Master Katsuki Sekida says that Mac users are the only ones to attain absolute samadhi. But I, for sure, haven't heard that from him.

If you want to put here some FACTS, that would be fine. If you just want an interchange of personal insults, look somewhere else. There are other forums and other categories of people just for that.


1/25/2000 (9:33 pm) by macjedi    

(19 Posts)

Hey confused-ious:

this tree is called "macinsux"

it doesnt seem as though this discussion is asking for facts, rather it was started by someone lacadaisically lashing out at a perfectly valid platform used by people that want to get some WORK done rather than blow away 12 year old kids across the internet!

"Their desktop publishing is no longer superior to X86 based systems." You call that a fact? How come every large dp and advert house still steadfstly holds on to their Macs and SGI's? I remember a year ago SGI tried to save thier own a$$es by releasing a couple of NT workstations...seen how their stock's performed lately?

All I meant by the ZEN analogy was that RISC chips seem to be drafted following "origami" methodology, (getting the most out of your materials with the fewest actions neccesary) whereas CISC chips seem to be drafted with more of a "cut and paste" methodology (cram as many transistors as possible into that summbitch, I don't care how HOT it gets)

On top of that, anyone can use Linux or the BeOS nowadays...gui's are fast becoming uniform...but soon we Mac people will be getting our hands on the next generation gui, quartz/aqua...which will streamline our workflow even better than MacOS8.x did! I'll bet even the most closed minded of you Squintel storm-troopers will be green with envy when you sit down in front of OSX


2/4/2000 (9:06 am) by capitalist    

(14 Posts)

Ok, Ok. Let's be more civilized. You're right, this room was called Macinsux and that was not correct. The Mac doesn't suck. Period. Indeed, it is a quite capable platform, in my opinion. But the Mac guys are usually in such a "superiority complex" that it is contagious and it invites us to defend ourselves.

I remember once, about 10 years ago, when I was with a Mac user â€“which is a friend of mineâ€“ setting some MS DOS commands in the autoexec.bat file and his work companion told him: "Are you doing some degrade?" I felt total indignation. And the Mac guys â€“in my experienceâ€“ had that attitude all the time. And although the Mac was much easier to use and learn, I didn't like these people.

But there's nothing wrong with the platform. Although you must admit that the "Mac superiority" has been consistently diminished, to the point that nowdays Windows is in some aspects better. Simply put, it wasn't until now â€“OS Xâ€“ that Apple got finally into the preemptive multitasking scheme.

I have been several times tempted to buy a Mac, thinking it is superior, just to find out that I don't like it. But it's a perfectly capable platform â€“otherwise it wouldn't be here anymore.

About processors... I don't think you should despise the Athlon and PIII Coppermine. They are very good designs. These guys have done the impossible with the old x86 scheme. I think this could also be called Zen-like for that matter. In fact, Motorola is uncapable of getting the G4 past 450 Mhz. And, even with the virtues of the G4, at that speed it is no match for a PIII 800 or an Athlon 800. Did you know that the Microprocessor Report chose the Athlon as the CPU of the year? I don't think there is bias here. The Athlon really is an outstanding processor, capable of beating RISC processors (like the G4) that have a "much cleaner" arquitecture.

And OS X looks impressive, but the PC industry is not standing still. Windows 2000 vs OS X would be a good clash. I would be pleased to see a honest matchup of these two OSes.

The argument I presented to you was mainly economic. And for economic reasons, Apple will have a hard time competing with a platform that has so many companies and investors working for it.

Finally, there's not much need to call yourself a "Mac Jedi". Calm down. This is not Star Wars, Steve Ballmer is not Darth Vader and I'm not some sort of dark force being.

Be Well.


2/4/2000 (8:12 pm) by admin Staff    

(24314 Posts)

Mac Jedi said:
Hmm...seems to indicate a few things to"

This is largly due to the fact that Mac users make up only a small portion of computer users. The market is mostly dominated by PC users. If Macs were SO perfect then EVERYONE would own them.


2/5/2000 (12:03 am) by macjedi    

(19 Posts)

No, if IBM did't play so dirty back in the early 80's watching the rug being pulled from underneath them by a couple of punx from So Cali.

then EVERYONE would own them.

but I guess that's just free trade for ya...

At least they kissed and made up.


2/5/2000 (12:22 am) by macjedi    

(19 Posts)

Well, I'll be more than happy to run MKLinux and Quartz on an Athlon, but i doubt that Adobe will have too much praise to give me about this choice.

Or i could go join the fluorescent-light-fed design drones in Wintel land, Adobe loves to milk them of money...


2/9/2000 (6:38 pm) by admin Staff    

(24314 Posts)


Blah Blah Max Sux....
Blah blah no they don't

Zip it.

It is irelevant.

Linux. Period. End of story.

Acquit Jon Johansen


2/10/2000 (7:41 pm) by admin Staff    

(24314 Posts)

Just like last year apple will have a very good forth quarter 2000. They will be offering a new OS running on a much improved CPU. Like many of you I also used to like the Mac (Mac OS) but since it was a non-premptive OS it quickly became a pain to use over that of Windows. So, even though windows was (and still is) a pathetic OS, it is superiour to that of the current Mac OS (client) and has been since the introduction of Win95. Ofcourse, the support for the Windows plateform by popular developers has also given it an advatage over that of Linux even though Linux is what i would consider a great OS in and of itself. So, for a number of years Windows has sadly been the most preferable choice (if you can call it that) for an OS. But that could easily change at some point near the end of this year.

Mac OS X is a truely appealing OS. It is built with what I (and most of you) would consider to be a great OS (unix) and it is being backed by a company that might be able to break the user barrier that Linux has had trouble getting through. This is what Apple is preparing for an all new set of customers near the years end.

Windows 2000 is not much more then a glorified NT OS. It might be a little more fancy then NT but it is surely not as much of a revolutionary change then the Mac OS X is over the older Mac OS's. This doesn't mean that Windows 2000 isn't going to have a few nice advantages, but if your expecting something really inovative from Windows 2000 i think that you are going to be a bit disappointed.

There is one thing that could hurt Apple a little bit. I think that more people are going to be interested in dual processor machines over the next year or two. The multi processor support by Windows 2000 is one feature that could be quite nice for the Wintel crowd (will we be calling it Wamd soon?). I think that companies like Dell, Gateway, etc. will start to offer dual processor machines to power home users (instead of just buisness workstations). I believe that the Mac OS X should be able to support multi processors but i have not seen anything to indicate the Apple will be creating Multi processor client machines (home/power users). It would be nice if Apples new computers that they develop support muti processors. One can only hope.

Either way, i think that apple will have a nice package by the end of the year. They might have a rough time getting to the end of the year, but in the end they will sell a lot of computers. I plan to buy one for Xmas. In the mean time i will probably pick up a dual processor machine with Windows 2000 (maybe next month).


2/10/2000 (10:24 pm) by admin Staff    

(24314 Posts)

another point to be made:

(OSX Server)
>and performed worse than LINUX Apache,

Well...OSX IS Apache, but on the "Darwin" MACH Kernel instead of a homogenous X86 Linux kernel. This has allowed for a much more efficient implementation thanks to the proprietary ("alien class") IBM/Motorola PPC Platform.

You guys go ahead and 'soup up' your 'Model-T chassies' as much as you want...I'm gonna buy a stock Benz. Both go fast, both will cream you in to a wall at high velocities. Apples and Oranges.


2/11/2000 (11:02 pm) by macjedi    

(19 Posts)

<A HREF="" TARGET="_top">This</A> is what I'm talking about.....


2/12/2000 (5:05 am) by admin Staff    

(24314 Posts)


Mac has supported dual processors since System 7.6, and the dual 604 processor Mac is still a powerful box.

OS 9 continues to fully support dual processors, as does Mac OS X Server, as will OS X Client.

Look for dual G4 Apple-branded Macs not later than mid year (hopefully sooner), meanwhile both XLr8 and PowerLogix have announced dual G4 upgrades for PCI PowerMacs.

Dual G4 500s will make even the mighty, mystical 1GHz Athalon lovers think twice.