Apple gives a new meaning to solid state.

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 20:11:09 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Even for us Mac users the latest version of OSX, OSX9 the performance
improvement is tangible. It took quite a hefty nudge to get me to move
from OSX 6, or "Snow Leopard" which many had stuck to as a stable
release, and for many had been considered Apple's XP. I am quite
impressed with the performance improvement I have experienced by
upgrading my OSX6 to OSX9.

When you say better performance, how is that demonstrated?

What are you doing when you see better performance?

productivity is the main advantage. there's a lot less fighting the
computer. it 'just works'.

connecting to a wifi network on xp, for instance, can be an adventure.
'dll hell' is another. registry corruption, periodic maintenance, etc.
the list goes on.

dll hell was a specialty of Windows 2000.

Which was 13 years ago.

I've never seen registry corruption that I didn't personally do,
"periodic maintenance" is another one of those things that people who
want to sell you "periodic mainteance" software tell you is essential,
etc.

In article , J. Clarke
wrote:

I've never seen registry corruption that I didn't personally do,
"periodic maintenance" is another one of those things that people who
want to sell you "periodic mainteance" software tell you is essential,
etc.

you're one of the only windows users who manages to avoid common
problems.

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 00:22:24 +0200, Alfred Molon
wrote:

In article 2013102613381046043-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
says...
As to switching to OS X, I fail to see the benefit. It's just another windows
based OS like Win 7 or 8.

Windows based???
Where did you come up with that?

With "windows" (note the small letters I used) I don't mean Microsoft Windows,
I mean a graphic user interface OS with with Windows. That's what both the
Apple and Microsoft OSes are.

OSX is what Linux would like to be when it grows up.

I remember X Windows was an environment on a Lisp machine years ago. Possibly
it was also available on a Unix machine.

AT&T had their multi-window Blitz terminal running on Unix back in the
early 90s.

X was shipping on Vaxen and IBM RTs in the '80s.

In article ,
lid says...

In article , Alfred
Molon wrote:

OS X is a much simpler system for the user than Windows. S/W
installation is much more straightforward.

Very easy to install SW under MS Windows as well. Just double click on the
.exe installer and the software will do everything for you.

installers??

on a mac, there is often no installer. just drag the app to wherever
you want and you don't even need to do that. run the app out of the
download folder if you want, then move it somewhere else if it's worth
keeping (many times it's not).

if you buy apps at the mac app store, they're downloaded and installed
with nothing more than the click that starts the download, with updates
just as easy (and it automatically notifies you that an update is
available, unlike other software).

There is no cruft like
anti-virus needed.

There are really no viruses for the Mac? If the Macs had the same market
share as MS Windows, they would face the same virus problems.

no they wouldn't, because it's a *lot* harder to write malware for the
mac. windows is better than it used to be but it's still relatively
easy on windows.

what you can get on the mac (and anything else) are trojans, where
people are tricked into running something that isn't what it claims to
be. there isn't much anyone can do about that.

that's an exploit of the human, not the computer. people get tricked
into giving out their credit card number to phone solicitors or wiring
money to nigeria. you can't fix stupidity.

if the app asks for an admin password, people blindly type it in
because they don't think about why it's asking, and once they do that,
they gave control to the malware which can then do whatever it wants.
game over.

that can't happen with apps from the app store because those are
vetted, sandboxed and codesigned. they can't get the keys to the
kingdom even if they wanted to, but if something were to slip by, apple
knows exactly who is responsible and that developer is going to get a
very nasty surprise as a result.

MS started at around $140 - per machine). Removing
software from a Mac is (in almost all cases) as simple as dropping the
app in the trash.

Same under MS Windows.

no, not the same under windows. you have to use the uninstall control
panel which figures out which dlls to remove, which registry keys to
clear, etc.

There is none of the Microsoft ransom to upgrade the OS every few years
(Apple was $20 and that was good for all the Macs in your house - I have
3 here. Now it is zero. And with my new iMac they threw in iWork for
free too (eg: Apple's "Office" - not as complete as MS Office but quite
good)).

MS Windows costs only 30 Euro and you pay this amount every four years or so.
It's peanuts.

ms windows is not $30 euro.

if you mean ms office (which is also not that cheap), the ability to
read/write office files is built into os x, so for casual use, you
don't need to spend *anything*. if you need the full capabilities of ms
office, then you get ms office but a lot of people are fine with what's
built in.

Can you format a spreadsheet from a shell script on a Mac? If not then
you don't have "the full capabilities of MS office".

exchange support is also built in, so no need for extras there either.

How's the responsiveness? I've seen a lot of crap that has "MS Exchange
support" that accesses it through the web interface rather than the API
and it's dog slow.

On 2013-10-27 01:33:23 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 16:42:58 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-10-26 22:53:39 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 15:43:31 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-10-26 22:25:35 +0000, Alfred Molon said:

In article , Sandman says...
Much like a Bugatti Veyron is another "steering wheel-based car" like Ford
Focus and VW Beetle.

But MS Windows 8, 7 and even Vista are not bad OSes. They are good enough and
easy to use. I don't think a Mac OS is that much better.

Then you think wrong.

Even for us Mac users the latest version of OSX, OSX9 the performance
improvement is tangible. It took quite a hefty nudge to get me to move
from OSX 6, or "Snow Leopard" which many had stuck to as a stable
release, and for many had been considered Apple's XP. I am quite
impressed with the performance improvement I have experienced by
upgrading my OSX6 to OSX9.

When you say better performance, how is that demonstrated?

It might be some sort of placebo effect of having something new to play
with, but there is a "snappier" feel to the way various apps function.
I believe this has much to do with the way OSX9 manages its usage of
available RAM. To me, Apps seem to open faster and run smoother.

What are you doing when you see better performance?

Other than the basic tasks such as web browsing, and checking on News
Groups the most tangible performance improvement for me has been with
PS CS6. When I ran CS6 under OSX6.8 it seems to constantly hang, so
much so I was reluctant to move out of LR. Sometimes I would just use
CS5 because CS6 seem to take forever to get anything done. Now with
OSX9, CS6 & Lightroom get things done very quickly indeed, even with
other applications operating in the background.
I was seriously thinking of buying a new computer, with this OSX
upgrade I am a happy camper once more.

Hmmm. I have a very basic Windows computer and use CS6. When I click
the icon to open CS6, there's a long delay while it percolates. Once
open, I don't notice any lag at all.

Strangely, if I am in FastStone or Bridge viewing an image, and open
that image in CS6, there is very little delay in CS6 opening.

I've never felt that my experience with CS6 would improve if anything
was faster, so I've never felt a need to upgrade anything.

As far as Gmail, Agent, or Google, I don't sense any slowness at all.
I've been playing around with OnOne, and I can't really tell if that's
slow or not. OnOne opens quickly, but it takes some time to prepare
the file for Perfect Mask (which is the program I'm trying). I have
no idea if the delay is computer or OnOne's processing ability.

When I upgraded from CS5 to CS6 I found a very noticeable slow down of
my workflow and some of the processes. It sort of left me a little
disappointed, but reluctant to actually say too much as I wasn't quite
sure of what was causing the problem. I wasn't sure if it was not
having enough allocated RAM ( I have 8GB installed), or if I was
running too many other apps in the background. I usually have Skype, a
browser, Mail, Unison, iTunes, PS & LR, FileChute, & sometimes FaceTime
(not Facebook), one or two other apps, & a word processor, all running
at the same time. That behavior of mine was never a problem until I
installed CS6. That is no longer an issue.

Here is how busy my computer can beat times.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_324.jpg

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , J. Clarke
wrote:

Can you format a spreadsheet from a shell script on a Mac? If not then
you don't have "the full capabilities of MS office".

sure. why wouldn't you?

and just how many people do that anyway?

a much better option is drive it with applescript which is much easier
to use and far more capable than shell scripts.

exchange support is also built in, so no need for extras there either.

How's the responsiveness? I've seen a lot of crap that has "MS Exchange
support" that accesses it through the web interface rather than the API
and it's dog slow.

it's as responsive as the network.

exchange support is not a web interface. it's as native as imap or pop.
if the network is fast, so is exchange or imap. if not, then it isn't.

iphones and ipads have the same native exchange support.

In article 2013102619073214783-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

Here is how busy my computer can beat times.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_324.jpg

you should put more apps in the dock. there aren't enough there.

On 2013-10-27 02:15:57 +0000, nospam said:

In article 2013102619073214783-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

Here is how busy my computer can beat times.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_324.jpg

you should put more apps in the dock. there aren't enough there.

;-)


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 21:23:24 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

The author will be branded an "Apple basher" by nospam.

try to keep up. i already pointed out that the article was nothing more
than a bash article.

I thought the article was factual. I'm not sure why you thought it was
a 'bash' article unless you don't like unpleasant facts.

it was link bait.

they neglected to point out that apple is not the only company who does
it.

Why should they? The article was specifically about Apple. You seem to
be saying that, subject to that point, they are right.

they lied about a couple of things and neglected to mention that pc
makers do exactly the same thing.

What did they lie about?

Not only are the new laptops' batteries fixed in place with buckets
of very strong glue.

buckets?? seriously?

Figure of speech. I doubt that anyone took it literally but the
meaning is clear.

but key components are now soldered to the main logic board, making
them difficult to replace but also more likely to break

soldering makes things *less* likely to break. soldering is very strong.

I wondered about that but maybe it's not the strength of the solder
they are worried about. They quoted the example of the headphone jack
which is now soldered to the motherboard. A device which is clipped in
can wiggle without overstressing the attachement. A device which is
soldered in place is only as strong as the gadget to which it is
soldered. I don't know but they could be right.

plus, every single electronics product ever made has key components
soldered to the main logic board.

Yep. Usually wave soldered which is not notorious for either using
large components or lots of solder.

it's bull****.

That connection could easily come undone through normal wear and
tear,

no it can't. normal wear and tear does not cause soldering to 'come
undone'. it's not like a shoelace.

See above.

More significantly, the new MacBook Pros have followed the tradition
of the 2012 models by soldering the RAM to the logic board

just like pc ultrabooks and smartphones and many other products.

Probably wave soldered once again. Doing it this way is cheaper,
lighter, and more compact but it does cause a problem in the event
that RAM has to be changed (especially if something is glued to the
underside).

Apple has once again used proprietary flash drives in its latest
models, too, meaning you won't be able to swap out your storage for
off-the-shelf parts, either

wrong. they use pci flash which is available from non-apple sources.

If you had read the article you would know that they said that Apple
uses non-standard PCIe drives, without saying in which way they are
non-standard.

pci flash is also *much* faster than sata flash which is a huge
advantage they 'forgot' to mention.

there's a reason apple chose pci flash, and it's not just to make it
tough on the user, it's because the computer is substantially faster
than with a lesser spec part, something that the user benefits from
every single minute they use the computer.

they are painting it as everything being bad, neglecting to mention all
of the advantages and why they designed it the way they did.

They are talking about the repair of the device, if you hadn't
noticed.

Apple has sealed up the case and key internal components using its
notorious, proprietary pentalobe screws

the didn't seal anything. the tools are easily found, including from
ifixit, the very source they are citing for this rubbish.

The screws are unique to Apple and we introduced in 2009. Not being in
general demand they are commonly stocked only by specialists who are
concerned with the repair of Apple computers.

What PC makers do is irrelevant to the story about Apple

it's very relevant. apple is a pc maker, according to you, and they
aren't the only company who does it.

When you use the term PC maker, you aren't referring to Apple.

see the link on the microsoft surface pro. it's rated just as
unrepairable.

So?

what actually matters is whether the computer is *usable* and how well
it does what the user wants to do.

if it needs to be opened and repaired all the time, then it's not
really a good product.

when microsoft uses a glued in battery, nobody says a thing. when dell
uses an internal battery, nobody says a thing. when android phones use
internal batteries, nobody says a thing. when many other products use
internal batteries, nobody says a thing.

only when apple does it, is it bad. that's bashing.

Even if nobody says anything about Apple gluing in the battery, it's still
bad.

it makes for a thinner lighter laptop with bigger internal batteries
that give a longer runtime.

most people see that as good, not bad.

the only people who see it as bad are those who think they might need
to replace the battery one day or who want to open their computer and
stare at the insides, never realizing that they won't actually do that.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 21:43:55 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 00:22:24 +0200, Alfred Molon
wrote:

In article 2013102613381046043-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
says...
As to switching to OS X, I fail to see the benefit. It's just another windows
based OS like Win 7 or 8.

Windows based???
Where did you come up with that?

With "windows" (note the small letters I used) I don't mean Microsoft Windows,
I mean a graphic user interface OS with with Windows. That's what both the
Apple and Microsoft OSes are.

OSX is what Linux would like to be when it grows up.

I remember X Windows was an environment on a Lisp machine years ago. Possibly
it was also available on a Unix machine.

AT&T had their multi-window Blitz terminal running on Unix back in the
early 90s.

X was shipping on Vaxen and IBM RTs in the '80s.

I've been trying to pin down the date of the Blitz terminal. One thing
I can remember is that it reputedly had the first virus. A bug like
the Pacman bug used to appear and eat the individual windows. There
was nothing you could do but reboot it.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens