Unsatisfied with OSx86?

[A Nonny Moose]

So glad I started this discussion.

 

Its sad none of you apple fanatics have to defend every inch of OSX and can't admit a single fault. The farthest down any of you are willing to go is to say, "OSX is better in some areas but not others."

 

OK, I've been more than fair with this topic and people like you have been pouring in screaming and calling everyone fanatics, resorting to petty name calling, and the like. Enough is enough. Yes, there are problems in OS X, but there are problems in Windows and Linux also. No OS is 100% great just like no OS is 100% secure and no OS will 100% suit anyone's needs.

 

As for the comment being "the farthest down" I think it's more than reasonable to admit such a thing. Just like it's more than reasonable to admit "Windows is good in some areas, but not others" and the same thing wit Linux. If you'd be able to get off of the Microsoft {censored} for a while, maybe you'd realize that we're essentially agreeing with you about there being faults within OS X. But then again, that would involve getting off of the Microsoft {censored}, which is something you're apparently unwilling to do.

 

Someone close this thread.

[amdprophet]

I hear ya A Nonny Moose. I'm suprised this thread is still open.

[myzar]

I don't understand. . .Just because OSX is well-organized and easy to use doesn't mean it's "retard level"!

 

It's well organized if you like that kind of organization, i want my own organization and osx doesn't give me choices

 

WTF!!! It's insulting using XP and it's GARISH with all the Fisher-Price Colors and oversized buttons. Just because XP so disorganized that you have to check your network settings in like 5 different places rather than in one panel DOESN'T mean it's more capable, just unnecessarily complicated!

 

There are NO PUPPYDOGS in OSX!!!

 

but you can disable the fisher price look and you can customize every option of xp gui, xp gui can range like you said from total retardness fisher price look to a clean win2k look with every annoyances disabled . Osx gui isn't customizable period you either like apple choices or {censored} luck for you

[phil a meant]

It's well organized if you like that kind of organization, i want my own organization and osx doesn't give me choices

but you can disable the fisher price look and you can customize every option of xp gui, xp gui can range like you said from total retardness fisher price look to a clean win2k look with every annoyances disabled . Osx gui isn't customizable period you either like apple choices or {censored} luck for you

 

But you CAN customize OSX. There are plenty of tools which allow great customization- everything from simple hacks (moving the dock, getting rid of spotlight, etc) to complex hacks like skins, background window textures, etc. Frankly, I don't know how XP is more customizable (except that the system folder gets continually F**Ked by poorly written appz, spyware, viruses, etc- often the only way to resolve is a re-install of XP).

 

And, while we're at it, how can I clone a bootable XP Partition easily (a la 'Carbon Copy Cloner')so that I DON'T have to reinstall from scratch every time (and go through all the stupid updates manually)?

 

I like both XP and OSX, but XP is poorly organized and security is a JOKE compared to OSX (non-protected system folder in XP is the WORST design and leads to all sorts of problems). They both have their strengths and weaknesses, though, but the competition between them is what is driving improvements for BOTH.

[INFNITE]

It's well organized if you like that kind of organization, i want my own organization and osx doesn't give me choices

but you can disable the fisher price look and you can customize every option of xp gui, xp gui can range like you said from total retardness fisher price look to a clean win2k look with every annoyances disabled . Osx gui isn't customizable period you either like apple choices or {censored} luck for you

 

just wait until shapeshifter comes out in Universal Binary. There are plenty of skins for the Mac available.

here's a sample of it:

http://interfacelift.com/themes-mac/index.php?sort=date

 

and you know what the funny thing is? Most of the time when people customize Windows...they customize it to look like a Mac! strange isn't it? They have a whole friggin site dedicated to converting Windows to Mac.

[username931]

There are NO PUPPYDOGS in OSX!!!

 

 

Someone close this thread.

 

 

Agreed.

[poofyhairguy]

Did anyone ever get the Window clutter horror, where windows (especially iChat ones), get caught behind the others, then you have to find the proper icon in the dock to call it up, or use crappy expose.

 

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt until you called the best feature of OSX crappy. Use of Expose is why I feel CRIPPLED on a XP box. When I use my dad's XP box at his place, I ALWAYS try to use the screen corners to task switch.

 

You don't need expose in Windows because the taskbar manages windows more efficiently, as does alt-tab.

 

Till it groups programs together. Or the words are too bunched to read them. Etc.

 

Expose is amazing- almost worth the price of admission.

[Turbo50t]

Well, iTunes does support full screen video playing if you're unhappy with QuickTime Player. Now shut up.

I never could understand Access, so maybe that's why I'm still using AppleWorks' database module. It just works and is simply amazing. Microsoft itself has admitted (with the advent of the G4 iMac nonetheless) that the Mac version of Office is better than it's Windows version. Can't argue with the company that makes it.

 

And about PowerPoint sucking--why the hell do you think we have Keynote? It's because PowerPoint absolutely sucks (on both platforms).

Sad that I got complete system freezes in Windows while trying to fix it. Within thirty secons of it starting up. So then I reboot and it freezes again...in thirty seconds. Plus, you're comparing a Vista install to a patched (read INHERENTLY UNSTABLE) OS X86 install. Care to explain why you think an inherently unstable system should be on par with something that isn't?

Windows only feels faster because the system was designed to make individual keystrokes feel faster on the system. It's an illusion, a myth so to speak. So the Windows system "feels" faster. Also, just because there is more software to choose from doesn't mean it's good software. There's plenty of {censored} to choose from in Windows. There's also {censored} for Mac, to be fair, but there's a lot less {censored}.

 

Gee, Adobe supports the G3, G4, G5, makes their applications scream on those processors compared to Intel offerings, but they say "Windows is better"? Sounds like some major doubletalk from the makers of Adobe crapware, now doesnt it?

 

As for the final point, you just answered your own question. There are certain Windows apps you need to use and the opportunity cost of utilizing a Macintosh system is too great. So you have to use a Windows system, which is fine. You also made a value judgment on both OS's, which is also fine; you're entitled to your opinion just like everyone else is. But don't go spreading around {censored} without getting a huge rebuttal.

 

Bla! Bla! Bla! if you weren't filled with so much blind rage against Microsoft and take off your blinders you might see............Remember when you accused me of this? Not that I really care what you think.

 

Just go through the forum and read A Nonny Moose's posts, no matter what you say or do, if you support MS/PC in any way, he/she, don't know which, comes back and slams you and then spouts unsupported {censored} about how Mac is so much better.

 

Niether one of them are perfect, each has it's pros and cons, if you are a long time windows user you are comfortable using it, if you are on the other hand a Mac user, then you are comfortable using it and like it.

 

Personally I like OS X because of its unix base not the GUI, just like I like Linux because of it's unix base not its GUI's. If I were given only one choice, Windows, OS X or Linux, I would have to pick Linux. It's a choice not a FACT. Flame Away!!!

[Bryon]

XP has the "crashing" feature

 

thats one more than osx O.o

I use XP and OS X two of my XP machines have had XP installed since build 2600. The only computer I have had crash was infact the IMac(kernel panic) do to a bad printer driver. The Point you ask is simple most crashes in XP are do to drives and not the OS. The reason there are fewer crashes with OS X much less hardware to use with it so less driver problems.

[A Nonny Moose]

Again, someone please close this thread.

[Swad]

Too much name calling. Thread closed.

[adriandkicks]

umm. why can I still post then?

[mmk]

My opinion: http://forum.insanelymac.com/index.php?sho...c=25032&hl=

[RiceTea]

Thread re-opened?

 

Here is my take on OSX86:

 

As a long time mac user I am interested in OSX86 because it may allow me to run my OS of choice on powerful yet affordable hardware. I am following the OSX86 developments since March of this year but ultimately still have not made a decision whether to built an OSX86 box (although it would be fun for sure) or not.

 

Things I would like to see for OSX86:

 

1. Secured support for OSX 10.5

2. Improved support of graphics hardware (better than the Intel GMA 950). The Borisbadenov solution looked good, but the number of reports with people having troubles is putting me off.

3. Improved support of OSX system functions (e.g. choosing a start volume in system prefs still results in a crash).

4. Improved coordination of new OSX86 releases. E.g. parts of the above mentioned graphics hardware troubles seem to arise from having so many different OSX86 versions around. Hence, a described solution may work for one specific say OSX86 10.4.6 installation but not with other ones (depending on the install ISO used and/or which upgrade path was chosen to go say from 10.4.5 to 4.6 to 4.7). This is for the time being still very confusing and inconvenient unless one is prepared to invest much more time into it than I currently have.

 

Anyhow, OSX86 is a very exciting development and I truly hope it gets better over time. The possibility to run OSX with a heavily overclocked Conroe on hardware costing less than half of the Mac Pro is pretty tempting.

 

 

 

 

Too much name calling. Thread closed.

[Swad]

Oops. Now it's closed. For real.