Thu Feb 28 17:13:49 2002
Consider yourselves informed!
Discuss.
(Edited by AllYorBaseRBelong2Us at 12:19 pm on Feb. 28, 2002)
Thu Feb 28 17:59:37 2002
Imitation Gruel gives two thumbs down.
Thu Feb 28 18:00:59 2002
Like this: [url=http://www.arstechnica.com]Ars Technica[/url]
Thu Feb 28 18:08:40 2002
Thu Feb 28 18:09:15 2002
The code tag is supposed to prevent stuff like that to happen.
Thu Feb 28 18:18:41 2002
:)
Thu Feb 28 18:33:57 2002
Oh yeah, [color=red]LAME![/color]
Thu Feb 28 19:10:29 2002
AYB is so funny :)
no?
Thu Feb 28 19:17:36 2002
Thu Feb 28 19:18:20 2002
// and .02 more for that one. :)
Thu Feb 28 19:20:19 2002
Could generate some front page traffic no?
Thu Feb 28 19:51:29 2002
from AllYorBaseRBelong2Us posted at 2:20 pm on Feb. 28, 2002
I was thinking about writing an article refuting his shite and lobbying Jeremy to have Pegasus3d host it.Could generate some front page traffic no?
Considering that the original tripe was listed in news.yahoo.com, I fully support your recommendation. Create it, get it hosted, then send info to Yahoo saying that there's a rebuttal to this so-called "news piece" they inadvertantly promoted.
Thu Feb 28 20:15:07 2002
Thu Feb 28 20:38:48 2002
It's always easier for someone like John Droz to pull stuff out of their ass than it is for someone else to correct them, effectively shoving it back in.
His arguments are mired in some derived and degraded form of social justice and heavily biased personal opinion. I just adore how he turns the whole plight of the Macintosh against IT workers without really qualifying why IT should even consider the Macintosh other than generalized statements that themselves are unfounded.
Thu Feb 28 20:46:45 2002
Example. We have a tech at one of my jobs.
The finder on the Mac corrupts itself. He pops in the disk aid CD....
10 minutes later, it's back online, no lost data.
He's a pretty good admin. Really neutral, platform-wise.
I had accidentally left the machine on and it corrupted its finder during a strange surge...but nevermind that.
Same model iMac....different job. Tech sees the same problem. He's very anti Mac. His answer? To say that the Mac "sucks" and wants to get a brand new harddrive.
The former is rare. The latter is not.
By the way, the anecdote is a TRUE story.
M.
(Edited by Madan at 12:48 pm on Feb. 28, 2002)
Thu Feb 28 20:55:27 2002
"that's not fair! We're stuck with Macs and Macs suck!"....
When I asked them why Macs suck: I got replies like:
"You can't make web pages on them..."
I show them the school site that I built on Mac. They say "Oh".
"You can't do 'stuff' on them"....
I ask them what stuff and they respond "I don't know"...
"They're slow...you know...like online..."
I explain the difference between processing power and bandwith. "Oh".
"There's no cool 3D programs for them..."
Lightwave? "Oh".
"You can't make movies with them...."
FCP? "Oh".
"They break easily..."
Explain that those iMacs have been there since early 99 and that they still work fine.
"Oh".
But it's tough to break down ignorant platform prejudice, when they have brothers/sisters that spout stupidities about the Mac platform. It's tougher still when some of these friends/cousins/relatives/brothers/sisters/dog-groomers are "IT people"(knowledgeable or otherwise).
M.
(Edited by Madan at 12:57 pm on Feb. 28, 2002)
Thu Feb 28 20:56:14 2002
M.
Thu Feb 28 21:05:02 2002
Uhm, most IT ppl *are* anti-Mac.
Maybe, but that's not really that relevant. There's no IT conspiracy against the Mac other than:
1) It has just now gotten a decent, industrial strength OS. TCIP in <10 is reported to be fairly sucktacular and Multitasked poorly
2) Most IT people don't train on it as it has little relavent marketshare. Droz lays this at the feet of IT people, it should instead be laid at the feet of Apple and it's poor marketing and buisness decisions and it's creaky old OS.
3) IT people don't enjoy going through the aches and pains of PC problems. They also don't enjoy being on call to reboot servers that crash. IT people are as lazy as everyone else and aren't in the habit of making work harder for themselves just to desparage a low-marketshare computing system. There is no Nation-Wide union of IT specialists with an anti mac ajenda. THis is the picture that Mr. Droz paints in his obvious pro-mac anti-Wintel crusade.
Thu Feb 28 21:06:31 2002
I guess I'm alluding to the fact that platform ignorance is prevalent(and propogated) on *all* sides.
indeed.
Thu Feb 28 21:28:42 2002
Thu Feb 28 21:41:51 2002
Maybe, but that's not really that relevant. There's no IT conspiracy against the Mac other than:
Let me stop you right there because there *IS* a conspiracy. Ask the average schmoe IT about Mac and they'll tell you craptacular facts based on what they can pull out of their ass.
1) It has just now gotten a decent, industrial strength OS. TCIP in <10 is reported to be fairly sucktacular and Multitasked poorly
Actually, multitasking was almost non-existant in some situations and surprisingly good in others.
Case in point, I've run Q3A, while accidentally leaving Photoshop on...running an Applescript. The scriptjob would be done after I got off.
Then there's times when I start an app. and I can't do anything else except wait.
But all things being said, the iMac's lack of PMT doesn't exactly cripple it as a user platform. Perhaps as a server(perhaps, seeing as how our school servers used to be Beige G3s and we never took them down....EVER) but I work just fine on them(and comparably as fast on a Mac as on a PC).
As for networking, I fly through Appletalk on gigabit ethernet and my TI connection on my class iFruit is *instantaneous*(literally).
2) Most IT people don't train on it as it has little relavent marketshare. Droz lays this at the feet of IT people, it should instead be laid at the feet of Apple and it's poor marketing and buisness decisions and it's creaky old OS.
I don't agree.
If you're an IT, you should know as much as possible. Period. If you're hired to maintain a network(like the latter techie that hates iMacs) and you:
A. Don't know about Macs
And
B. Want to blame your lack of knowledge on them
then you shouldn't be hired and don't fsking try to get the job. Because you know what? The average non-techie just wants the fucking system to work and doesn't have time for crybaby excuses like: "but I don't like Macs!".
It's like me turning down learning PHP as a web consultant because I know ASP more or less and because I'm l33t with ColdFusion.
It doesn't work that way. If I had time, I'd learn everything. Most IT ppl don't feel that way. Moreso, most IT ppl make suppositions about technologies wiout knowing anything about them.
I laugh when I hear ppl telling me that PHP/Java/ASP is better than ColdFusion because you can't do xxxx on CF. I laugh because it's bullshit and I CAN do such things(and have in the past) on CF and you can tell that they know nothing about CF but they're desperate to discredit CF anyway they can. That's the same kind of chit I hear often from PC-centric IT ppl concerning Macs.
M.
(Edited by Madan at 1:45 pm on Feb. 28, 2002)
Thu Feb 28 21:43:08 2002
The fact of the matter, however, is that rather than sitting down and learning something new, most IT donkeys would rather make untrue suppositions/prognostications about the Mac platform and use that to cover their asses.
That's sad.
M.
(Edited by Madan at 1:47 pm on Feb. 28, 2002)
Thu Feb 28 22:22:26 2002
Let me stop you right there because there *IS* a conspiracy. Ask the average schmoe IT about Mac and they'll tell you craptacular facts based on what they can pull out of their ass.
Widespread random ignorance isn't a conspiracy. Conspiracy has to be premeditated and organized in nature.
I don't agree.
If you're an IT, you should know as much as possible. Period. If you're hired to maintain a network(like the latter techie that hates iMacs) and you:
The problem is that learning takes time, and like everything else it is in short supply for IT proffessionals. So what time they spend on learning new IT technology is more properly expended learning abput something other than a minority platform that they may never run into. The only exception is situations where you work with the Macintosh or are looking to work with the macintosh. Most IT people don't work with Mac's and therefore they have no reason to give them much thought. It's not their fault.
As for your situation, I can't comment. If they find the macs distastefull, that is your IT guy's perogative. Perhaps he has legitimate beefs?
Neither can I comment on the SOuth Carolina school distric's decision to standardize on Windows. You see, unlike Droz I don't pretend to know what their motives for switching are and I don't pretend to be able to recommend what will work best for them.
Note: I didn't say IT people were lazy, I said they were just as lazy as everyone else. Meaning: Almost Nobody wants to make extra work for themselves. Keep in mind; Deathe, Hitscan, Harb, and Poopy are all IT guys.
The fact of the matter, however, is that rather than sitting down and learning something new, most IT donkeys would rather make untrue suppositions/prognostications about the Mac platform and use that to cover their asses.That's sad.
That is an opinion that I don't consider as fair or accurate as a generalization of IT people.
Thu Feb 28 22:32:19 2002
As for your situation, I can't comment. If they find the macs distastefull, that is your IT guy's perogative. Perhaps he has legitimate beefs?
I don't think you've been listening to me.
"iMacs break down too often", when in reality, they're par for the course(at our school...far better than par) is not a "legitimate beef".
M.
Thu Feb 28 22:34:04 2002
I don't think you've been listening to me.
Of course I listen to you :)
I may not understand where your coming from all the time, but AYB does listen ;)
Thu Feb 28 22:45:30 2002
"iMacs break down too often", when in reality, they're par for the course(at our school...far better than par) is not a "legitimate beef".
To make one point, when a cheap PC from the likes of Systemax (which aren't that bad) or Compaq breaks, it is far easier to fix than an iMac. This is what could lead to his distaste when iMacs break.
For instance, when a Nic breaks how much does it cost to rectify on an iMac versus a PC?
How about to fix a burned out power supply or video card?
consider if the iMac's failure rate is roughly the same as the average PC's, that the ability to service the PC's themselves would be a great barrier for the iMac.
Thu Feb 28 23:22:57 2002
This is what could lead to his distaste when iMacs break.For instance, when a Nic breaks how much does it cost to rectify on an iMac versus a PC?
A. He doesn't fix them.
B. It doesn't cost us anything to fix the Apples. They gave us a kick ass warranty.
C. They service ON SITE.
I'm telling you the guy just hates Macs. But I still don't think you're listening.
M.
Thu Feb 28 23:28:42 2002
AYBness...postwhore extrordinaire must observe my l33t knowledge of all that is good with dinozaurz!
Muahhahahahaha!
Go to the other thread... :)
M.
Thu Feb 28 23:45:06 2002
What did you mean by PMT?
You know what I really hate about most mac advocates? They're maclots, and they remind me of myself about 8 years ago when I was preaching the religion of the Amiga. I see how devotion to something can make you blind about it. Don't take me wrong, I want to learn more about macs, I'm sure they've changed in the past 9 years.
Thu Feb 28 23:51:31 2002
I'm telling you the guy just hates Macs. But I still don't think you're listening.
Ok, he just hates mac's and is biased against them? :cheesy:
BTW, I'm interested in knowing the details behind your warranty with Apple.
Fri Mar 1 09:46:35 2002
These are PC's up to 5 years old, used by at least 4 users each and are in use 24 hours, 5-6 days a week. Sure occasionally things break, but not incredibly often. We only ever have 2 OS related problems.
1. Netware is fucking something up.
2. Space on the C: has run out. This partially NT4's fault, but often times who ever prepped the PC didn't give the C: as much space as they could have, possibly due to using an old ghost image.
There's no way Macs running OS9 could do this and provide the reliability and security that our PC's do. Whether or not OSX could do this, it would be way to expensive to switch over now.
Fri Mar 1 19:45:00 2002
from Madan posted at 4:43 pm on Feb. 28, 2002
The fact of the matter, however, is that rather than sitting down and learning something new <snip>
The fact of the matter is, most reputable IT people would rather learn something new about things that are more likely to be relevant to their day-to-day jobs.
Things like Cisco, network security, Linux, database administration, just to name a few.
The Macintosh has carved its niche as a desktop computer, but that doesn't automatically make it a natural for an office or IT environment. That Macs aren't widespread in IT is primarily the fault of Apple, not of a grand IT conspiracy.
Sat Mar 2 02:43:41 2002
Time is not something we have in abundance. Deadlines, meetings and clients are like rabid dogs chasing most of us. But we have to keep abreast of the competition in order to win contracts.
That means staying up to date with technologies, even if you don't "viscerally" like them. Case in point, I was forced to learn all about MQSeries and J2EE lately because one of our clients was happy to give us a considerable amount of money if we could deliver a large-size project. That project requires integration with all sorts of old crap (MVS, AS/400, VMS...) running software that has "last modified: 1982" plastered all over it.
The only way to make this work was to use cross platform messaging and XML wizardry. While I consider myself quite the XML guru, MQSeries has never stroke me as a "sexy" technology, so I avoided it until the inevitable.
What I mean is that sometimes there's not enough time to learn all about everything. But when your position requires you to be competent in some particular technology, you'd better learn it or the position belongs to somebody else.
Edit: oh, and INDEED!
(Edited by PaoloM at 6:44 pm on Mar. 1, 2002)
Sat Mar 2 09:25:32 2002
There's no way Macs running OS9 could do this and provide the reliability and security that our PC's do. Whether or not OSX could do this, it would be way to expensive to switch over now.
How do you assert this?
At work I have a windows NT server, no crashes, reliable as hell, and gets pounded like hell! Makes me feel like a proud daddy that my 'boy' is taking a beating and still doing its work! yay!
Secqurity, well as long as i keep up to date with the news and patches i'm okay. So far i've had one hack but so far thats all there has been. *phew*
Now moving on to macs which most of you have as much experience as a rock (i'd dare ya to compare your so called experiences on the mac to mine and Madan's! we r00l j00! :cheesy: ).
Macs can be configured to be very stable. It does take a knowledge and know how to get the mac more stable. I won't pretend that out of the box, Mac OS 9 or prior, is stable unlike windows NT and 2K (probably XP). Yet you can play with the system folder and get it tweaked to be EXTREMELY stable.
the only app that fucks the stability of my 9600 running mac os 9 is FUCKING IE!!! GRRR!!!! Msoft can suck my balls :p
Anyway...
So mac os 9 can be quite the stable server/workstation, but takes a bit more work and know how to get things right.
As for secqurity, i have to laugh. Mac OS 9 and prior (not sure how far back) has been hack proof. Apparently there was a german company that setup mac servers and were willing to pay quite a lot of money to whoever could hack into the server and get the 'secret message' but so far it hasn't happened. They did it for quite a few years, but i haven't heard anything from them in a while.
Point: Mac OS 9/8/7 is very hard to hack into, but due to some industrial strength alien secret technology. Its apparetly because mac os 9 and prior is so 'strictly GUI' and i guess because its transport protocols must be quite limited that this hinders hacking into a mac os box. Thats what i've read. How true is that, beats me.
Mac OS X. Well with the exception of problems you read at arstechnica, and don't bother using that AGAINST the mac because i can wander in the NT Fora and post you 10 times more threads for probs with NT and Windows, etc., etc. Mac OS X is quite stable.
Yeah there are the driver issues (ZIP with the first 10.0 and mouseworks driver in 10.1) but other wise Mac OS X is pretty darn stable.
I'd say that within the next few months (if not for the last few months already) Mac OS X like NT/2K (XP?) is stable outta the box.
Secqurity wise, thats interesting. Its a mac so is limited market share will limit the number of hackers interested in hacking the mac. I don't know of any issues yet. Hopefully there aren't any.
Suffice to say i'm not as confident with mac os x with my broadband as i was with Mac OS 9. I've heard enough horror stories of windows users on unprotected cable connections and i don't doubt the same can happen to mac os x users... :eek:
What did you mean by PMT?
Pre-emptive Multitasking
Mac OS 9 and prior had Symetric Multitasking where the OS distrubted the cycles mostly to foreground app while backgroud apps were kept in a 'frozen' state or given a trickle. Actually OS 8/9 improved SMT to be pretty decent, but it still suck compared to PMT.
I second PaoloM's post. He is on the money. Knowledge is a mighty fine thing ya know.
With the exception of few IT people, most IT people are just trained monkey's. I have SOOO fucking little respect for them. I know IT's for MCI Worldcom, Goldman Sachs and some other companies and its truly a tragedy to see how little they know and how they treat their computers like fragile little toys... so odd. And most are so SCARED to try anything new. :rolleyes:
None the less. This thread is rather silly. Who gives a fuck what some idiot spews about a platform. Been to www.ihateapple.com ???
jesus keep it real if you're going to bash an individual because he does something distasteful in your eyes :rolleyes:
zealots are everywhere you look.... </shiver>
(Edited by OscarWilde at 4:28 pm on Mar. 2, 2002)
Sat Mar 2 12:54:51 2002
When I say security, I mean can multiple users use the machine without one user being able to access the other's files? Can the PC authenticate itself to access restricted file shares? Maybe there are ways to do that on OS9 and below, but I don't think they would stand up to NT's implementation. Especially not in a massively global network like ours.
OS9 might be stable if properly administrated. The thing is, there isn't time to properly administrate every PC, especially when they are being used by a bunch of users with the technological skills of a monkey. NT4 workstations don't require any babysitting. The OS is a bitch to install, but once its on there, it stays good. The only problem is we run out of hard drive space a lot.
Sat Mar 2 18:15:52 2002
It didn't have Symmetric Multi-tasking. There is no such thing that I am aware of. It's called Cooperative Multitasking which leaves it up to app developers to implement their own multitasking scheme. If you are using several apps that are properly coded into this scheme it does work, but that is depending too much on an industry that I find a bit complacent towards such things.
:)
Sat Mar 2 18:43:12 2002
As for secqurity, i have to laugh. Mac OS 9 and prior (not sure how far back) has been hack proof. Apparently there was a german company that setup mac servers and were willing to pay quite a lot of money to whoever could hack into the server and get the 'secret message' but so far it hasn't happened. They did it for quite a few years, but i haven't heard anything from them in a while.
Actually, that's not true. The "Hack-a-Mac" contest in Germany was, in fact, hacked, several times. They pulled the plug on the contest, whining that it was "third party software" that was to blame.
No OS is hack-proof.
Sat Mar 2 19:50:28 2002
No OS is hack-proof.
Correction.
has anyone ever hacked StudlyOS?
Sat Mar 2 20:35:40 2002
Sat Mar 2 20:38:37 2002
It didn't have Symmetric Multi-tasking. There is no such thing that I am aware of. It's called Cooperative Multitasking which leaves it up to app developers to implement their own multitasking scheme.
Ooops, you are right. I meant Co-operative MT. I'm not sure where Symetric Mutlitasking came in from??? Hmmm....
as for security, well yeah i'd agree. I thought you meant hacking wise which apparently the mac was hacked. Explains why i don't hear from the german's anymore. Back to security, well we can't compare a desktop to a server. Granted now even modern desktop os'es have pretty good security setups as Duffman described.
Otherwise it's stability is a lot like 9x's, make sure you have the right extensions(drivers) and don't use programs that make it crash. I may not be the most experienced user of the Mac, but I find that without PM, it's stability isn't all that much left up to the user/admin, it's the luck of the draw in using apps that don't generate things like stray pointers.
As peter would say, its not msoft's fault if programmers can't write good programs. I've used mac programs that don't crash no matter what, then i've had programs that just bring down the entire system. Although i admit, give a mac with general config to a bunch of users each with their own needs and OS 9 and prior won't stand up to the test.
OS X in its current incarnation would not stand up to the test, although the cases would be far less frequent. Then again in my experience with adminstrating pc's at work, the same can be said for Win2k even though i can't seem to repeat my client's 'problems'.
Sat Mar 2 22:04:30 2002