Metku.net

MetkuMods
It is currently 28.05.2020 04:06

All times are UTC + 2 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: The Switch
PostPosted: 28.08.2006 18:58 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 24.01.2002 10:09
Posts: 4683
Location: Finland
Perhaps you have something to share about this article? ;)

_________________
Metku | AlltheMods | LedCalc | Teknolelu | AndroidCoding
Main Computer: Intel i5, MSI H55M-ED55, 12 Gigabytes of DDR3, 3 Terabytes of HDD, GTX295 and Benq 27"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 30.08.2006 07:12 
Offline
Regular Modder
Regular Modder

Joined: 11.09.2002 20:13
Posts: 127
Location: California
NOOOOO YOU DID NOT JUST CROSS THAT LINE!

Its one thing to use a Mac once in a while, or use it for buiness reasons. BUT TO COMPLETELY convert to mac?!?!

Unlike many people who hate mac, I once owned a Mac so I have more rights to argue against mac. But in a nut shell, there is NO good reason to use a mac unless its buiness related. Looks, public popularity, OS visual effects and the so called "virus free OS" is by far no reason to go buy a mac.

Nuff SAID! :evil:

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 30.08.2006 07:38 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 24.01.2002 10:09
Posts: 4683
Location: Finland
Well, it seems that you have a strong opinion there. It is now clear that neither you or me will not be converting to mac any time soon but did you hear about some nutty that uses Linux! Now that guy has some issues!!!!11 ;)

_________________
Metku | AlltheMods | LedCalc | Teknolelu | AndroidCoding
Main Computer: Intel i5, MSI H55M-ED55, 12 Gigabytes of DDR3, 3 Terabytes of HDD, GTX295 and Benq 27"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 30.08.2006 07:46 
Offline
Ultra Modder
Ultra Modder
User avatar

Joined: 09.06.2002 14:10
Posts: 2924
Location: Helsinki, Finland
japala wrote:
Well, it seems that you have a strong opinion there. It is now clear that neither you or me will not be converting to mac any time soon but did you hear about some nutty that uses Linux! Now that guy has some issues!!!!11 ;)

Mac OS X is horrible :/ You can't do anything as you like, only way is do it like author of the software want's you do it.
Mac it self is a nice computer when used with GNU/linux ...but maybe too plastic for me :S

_________________
Lensflare
http://lensflare.fi/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ollivanhoja/
http://hbp.deviantart.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 30.08.2006 08:07 
Offline
Mini Modder
Mini Modder

Joined: 25.01.2002 20:02
Posts: 26
Location: Turku, Finland
submission wrote:
NOOOOO YOU DID NOT JUST CROSS THAT LINE!

Its one thing to use a Mac once in a while, or use it for buiness reasons. BUT TO COMPLETELY convert to mac?!?!


First: what an ironic name you have chosen for this battle :)

Second: I haven't converted COMPLETELY to mac. My desktop still houses Windows and my server still plays Linux. The title of the article may be a bit misleading, as I thought to use the "switch"-word only because of the well known(?) Apple's Switch-campaign.

submission wrote:
But in a nut shell, there is NO good reason to use a mac unless its buiness related.


At first, I was going to give you just one sole good reason why to use a mac, thus voiding your whole argument in the process. But then I thought otherwise. First of all, it's not my place to do that; thou shall make thy own mistakes. But more importantly, that was one of my main points within my articles: OS X is just another OS with a different set of switches to Linux or Windows.

But just in case we're not happy with the previous argument, I'll just say "Mail.app" and see what the flames bring me.


Last edited by Wolfie on 30.08.2006 08:30, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 30.08.2006 08:22 
Offline
Mini Modder
Mini Modder

Joined: 25.01.2002 20:02
Posts: 26
Location: Turku, Finland
Olli wrote:
You can't do anything as you like, only way is do it like author of the software want's you do it.


I wouldn't agree on that to the full extent. While your claim can be very true, I have never found myself needing to change a setting that I haven't found. I actually mentioned this, too, within the article - the System Settings window could be more cluttered with buttons and switches, to give the power user the power he/she wants, but I'm (currently) confident that everything you need to modify can be further tweaked from within the terminal.

Then again, I haven't done much more than surfed, read my email, wrote some code. And I have not much bigger plans for the future, either.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 30.08.2006 18:30 
Offline
Junior Modder
Junior Modder
User avatar

Joined: 30.08.2006 18:21
Posts: 3
Virtual Desktops for Mac OS X 10.4 Desktop Manager http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/12682 Add this to your login items in System Preferences / Accounts / Login Items.

There are 3 ways to change workspaces with the mouse: active edges (not used by me), menu bar (once in a while, I activate this feature), floating palette (yes). Hot keys can also be used.

There is a "universal binary" (= it will run faster and natively on Intel Macs) allegedly available at http://www.arenasoftware.com/grepsoft/D ... -0.5.3.dmg


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 30.08.2006 19:11 
Offline
Ultra Modder
Ultra Modder
User avatar

Joined: 07.12.2004 19:45
Posts: 2537
Location: Finland CPU: i5-750 RAM: 4Gt, HDD: 2000 Gt, GFX: RADEON HD 5770, D: 22"+44"
Itsekkin testailin Mac:iä kuun alkupuolella. Kun oli sellainen (täysin toimiva) elekroniikkaromulavalle kiikutettu. Mustavalkonäyttö ja kaikki :lol:
Image

Ja jos jotakuta kiinnostaa, niin voin myydä kapistuksen. Hiiri ja näppis luonnollisesti mukaan :D

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 30.08.2006 19:43 
Offline
Mini Modder
Mini Modder

Joined: 25.01.2002 20:02
Posts: 26
Location: Turku, Finland
Nefarious wrote:
Virtual Desktops for Mac OS X 10.4 Desktop Manager


Thanks for the info, I'll surely look into this!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 30.08.2006 20:13 
Offline
Junior Modder
Junior Modder
User avatar

Joined: 30.08.2006 18:21
Posts: 3
submission wrote:
NOOOOO YOU DID NOT JUST CROSS THAT LINE!

Its one thing to use a Mac once in a while, or use it for buiness reasons. BUT TO COMPLETELY convert to mac?!?!

Unlike many people who hate mac, I once owned a Mac so I have more rights to argue against mac. But in a nut shell, there is NO good reason to use a mac unless its buiness related. Looks, public popularity, OS visual effects and the so called "virus free OS" is by far no reason to go buy a mac.

Nuff SAID! :evil:


Is that a joke ?

The virus-free OS is an excellent reason to go Mac.


Last edited by Nefarious on 30.08.2006 20:26, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 30.08.2006 20:14 
Offline
Junior Modder
Junior Modder
User avatar

Joined: 30.08.2006 18:21
Posts: 3
Wolfie wrote:
Nefarious wrote:
Virtual Desktops for Mac OS X 10.4 Desktop Manager


Thanks for the info, I'll surely look into this!


You're welcome.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 30.08.2006 21:18 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 24.01.2002 10:09
Posts: 4683
Location: Finland
I post this message with permission from mr. Brett Johnson.


From the article:

"On a more serious topic, there's one feature that I especially like: the ability to close any application, but still keeping some of it in the memory. It's the default action if you close the application by the red button (x-button on Windows). This means that the next time you start the application, it's nearly instantly open. I haven't measured how much memory any given application keeps in memory in this 'hibernated' state, but I'm not too concerned either, because I'm not using my Mac that heavily either. But if you don't want to keep the program in memory, it's done with a press of two buttons. On the down side, when you browse applications with Command-Tab (Alt-Tab in Windows), the apps in stasis are still shown, even though nothing happens if you select them. They don't show in Exposé (a very neat way to switch between open apps), but I'm not (yet) used in doing it that way."

From Brett:


Although many of the OS differences you mention in your article are quite minor (like CMD vs CTRL), this one is a fundamental design difference between Windows and Mac OS X that confuses many "switchers". Whereas MS-Windows presents a "Window as an application instance" model, Mac OS X (and its predecessors NeXTSTEP and MacOS) has a "Window is a document" model. There is generally one running instance of the app, with each open window representing a document opened within that application. This is one of the reasons that the application's menu is separated from the document window.
And closing a window by clicking the red button simply closes the window (and possibly the document represented by that window), not the application.

Closing all the opened windows (documents) still leaves the full application loaded. The app will consume VM, but little other resources. It is not
really "hibernated", however if you don't actually use the app for a long time, it will likely get paged out to swap. This is convenient for a few
reasons. First, as you noticed, you do not pay the launch time penalty when opening a new document. I typically leave between 6 and 10 applications running for weeks at a time. Second, applications can provide "Services" for any other app in the system (check out the "Services" menu), so having them running (even in the background) allows them to be quickly available as a Service. (A Service request of an app that isn't running automatically launches the app.)

Historically Windows applications were fully "Window as an instance of the application". Early versions of Windows did not have shared code - there
actually were multiple copies of the application running. Successive versions of MS Windows have improved the mechanics of code sharing and slowly moved toward the model of a single app instance managing multiple documents (remember MDI?), but the "Window is an application instance" is burned into the Windows UI semantics. I believe some of those semantics are just "wrong" (although Windows users are well acclimated). For instance, overloading a window control (Close Window) with application semantics (Quit App [Maybe]), just seems odd to me. [But no more odd (wrong) than the old MacOS "drag a disk to the Trash to eject it"].

The Mac OS X "Window represents an opened document" model explains your observations with CMD-Tab and Exposé. Exposé tiles all open windows of all running apps. Obviously apps with no open windows have no place in Exposé. If you just want to switch to a specific application (rather than a specific window), click on its Dock icon or use CMD-Tab. CMD-Tab cycles through the running applications. If you select an application that has no opened windows, that application still becomes the foreground app (something "does happen"). Its menu appears in the menu bar, allowing you to open a new document, edit preferences, etc. There is another key difference with Mac OS X CMD-Tab vs. Window's Alt-Tab: Window's Alt-Tab cycles through all open windows, wheres Mac OS X CMD-Tab cycles through running applications. CMD-` allows you to cycle through the open windows belonging just to that application. I like this hierarchical method (if you don't, use Exposé). I can see this hierarchical view extended upwards when "Spaces" (virtual desktops) ships with "Leopard", and maybe remote desktops in the future.

Note: Exposé and CMD-` will not display any application windows that have been minimized (by clicking the yellow button or CMD-m). I consider this to be a bug, not a feature.

Note: There are some utility type applications that have no sense of "Document" and multiple (or zero) windows has no meaning. Some of these maintain the "running, but useless" state where closing its one and only window leaves the app running, conforming the Mac OS guidelines. Some others are adopting the Windows behaviour, where closing its only window quits the app.

Note: "Clickable" Java apps often do not conform to the Mac OS X model, even though they are "cross platform". You tend to end up with multiple
instances of the app running (notice the multiple icons on the Dock). Closing the last window of an instance of a java app sometimes quits the app and sometimes doesn't. Unless written with the Mac specifically in mind, java apps rarely conform to the Apple Human Interface Guidelines.

Note: "Tabbed" views bend the semantics of both worlds, although I think they are closer to the Microsoft MDI model, and therefore, more foreign to
the Mac (although convenient as hell).

_________________
Metku | AlltheMods | LedCalc | Teknolelu | AndroidCoding
Main Computer: Intel i5, MSI H55M-ED55, 12 Gigabytes of DDR3, 3 Terabytes of HDD, GTX295 and Benq 27"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 30.08.2006 21:49 
Offline
Mini Modder
Mini Modder

Joined: 25.01.2002 20:02
Posts: 26
Location: Turku, Finland
Although Brett isn't a member of these forums, I'd still like to reply to his message.

This, what I called 'hibernation', has already caused a bit of a stir among the better-knowing. I now, a month-or-so into my Macdom, understand the philosophy behind "Window is a document", as Brett suitably called it. The article is wrong, in a sense.

Sometime between finishing the article and the article being published (there was some days' lag), I realized this myself. I remembered how odd Photoshop 5 felt in Windows, with its floating windows and things - this is clearly reminiscent of the OSX world. The reason why I left this uncorrected is that I wanted to describe all the errors and mistakes a Windows-user might do. I felt it more suitable and important to keep it more of a documentary than a list of features and facts.

What I should have done is an errata, where I would correct my mistakes/"false facts". But I hope this thread serves as one to future readers.

Thank you very much, Brett, for your message.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 03.09.2006 20:12 
Offline
Junior Modder
Junior Modder

Joined: 03.09.2006 19:42
Posts: 1
Interesting article but I do not agree on the business use of the Mac. I don't hate macs, I really like the best tool that does the job.

I am an IT Manager, we have about 120 computers on our network. About 15 of them are Mac. I decided to try and hook the macs to our network. This is not fun at all. 10.3.9 doesn't seem to want to connect to AD, while 10.4.7 does. So, at least any one on the domain can log into a 10.4.7 machine. Then when they want to access shares, its the luck of the draw. Some Windows servers can be accessed by the mac others can't. OS X has about the worse error message system I have seen. A bland error is display for every case. A lot of reading revealed some of errors are because of encrpyted SMB, others because of the NTLM protocol, and some seem to be permission based, but who knows what permissions they need. Most admins posting in these forums agree that MAC is a pain to network with. Many have been upset about how everything MAC and Windows is working on their network, then there is an upgrade for MAC and nothing works anymore.

How about the MAC design for business? That tiny little power cord breaks all the time. The XServe is the biggest nighmare. The lock on the front is a joke, cause its the only way to prevent accidental bumping of the drives which takes them offline. Not a big deal until you want to use the external ports then you have to leave the lock off because it turns the ports off when locked. The rackmount part of the case is a nightmare to install and just feels flimsy. The aluminum MAC laptops get red hot so they dont make a nice thing to put in your lap. They are also really heavy, try dragging one of those through the airport.

The author talks about MAC mail. Most businesses use Exchange so you need Enterouage. Of course, calendar and contact synchronization with Enterouage can only be done in the newest version and is not a given.

Another problem with MAC is this Virus free notion. MAC has viruses just not a lot of them. As MAC continues to grow so will the virues. Problem is there are really no spyware scanners and not many virus scanners available for MAC, especially on a centeral managed business type system like Norton Corp. Even worse the MAC owner physcy is that they cannot be infected. They will never install a virus scanner and when those viruses come they are going to get hit hard and will not have a clue what to do. I have taken Windows viruses off a mac along with MAC viruses before. Many virus writers are trying to get the MAC user to infect the Windows network. It is a constent struggle in our company trying to convince our graphics people to protect themselves from spyware and viruses.

Security on a MAC is also poor. Booting into single user mode gives the user access to root. Putting the install CD allows access to change passwords as well, if you like that graphical interface. Most MAC users use the auto login feature; therefore you probably don't need root. There is no lock computer feature on a MAC so unless logging out or setting the SS password, the computer is wide open. About the only thing that is really protected is keychain. Don't lose your password there.

It sounds like I really trashed MAC but I think they are okay. A pain for business use and a great learning scenario for me. I think this is why they went to Windows. The money is in business and their OS just is not as good networking. As a side note, I love the interface tools, the monitors and setup applications for the server like Server and Workgroup Management. Server monitor is way better than perf mon.

Please run the MAC in a business scenario before before recommending it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 03.09.2006 21:13 
Offline
Mini Modder
Mini Modder

Joined: 25.01.2002 20:02
Posts: 26
Location: Turku, Finland
Nice post, lets see if I can give some sensible replies.

GryphonsClaw wrote:
...we have about 120 computers on our network. About 15 of them are Mac. I decided to try and hook the macs to our network. This is not fun at all. 10.3.9 doesn't seem to want to connect to AD, while 10.4.7 does.


While I'm no system administrator expert, my eyes struck at this. I don't see this as Mac's problem, per se. Okay, in a perfect world everything works perfectly with everything else, right? Well, unfortunately, this is not a perfect world.

As I see it, what we're talking about here is trying to integrate a few Macs into a Windows network on Windows' terms. You try to integrate 15 Windows machines in a 150 computer Linux network and tell me how it went. For example, the last time I checked, Windows doesn't do NFS.

It's nice for Mac to integrate Samba in the bundle, but it's a dirty reverse-engineered hack done by a guy who wanted to make a point. No-one in their right frame of mind would seriously do business-critical stuff on Samba.

Just tell me if I'm wrong. Seriously. As said, I'm not totally up to date with this stuff.

GryphonsClaw wrote:
The aluminum MAC laptops get red hot so they dont make a nice thing to put in your lap. They are also really heavy, try dragging one of those through the airport.


That's hardly an inherent Mac problem. Actually, to be picky, there are no Mac 'laptops' - they're "notebooks". But seriously, isn't it a trend that laptops/notebooks are getting warmer? The denser you design the chips, the more heat is generated by the components. If you want a powerful processor, there's bound to be heat. Also, the more silicon you put in a laptop, the heavier it gets. Simple physics, which can't be avoided - more features mean more weight.

That said, I'm not on the Mac's side on this topic. I saw this thread on SomethingAwful's forums about heat problems on his MacBook Pro, which in the end was the fault of a crazy instruction in Apple's official service manual, where service personnel were instructed to put a whole syringeful (~2cc) of heat paste per cooler. Problem was solved by removing all the gue and reapplying it correctly (possibly voiding the warranty in the process, btw).

Anyhow, with the latest 'fan update' for the MacBook, the laptop runs cool enough to be held on my lap, which is nice.

GryphonsClaw wrote:
The author talks about MAC mail. Most businesses use Exchange so you need Enterouage. Of course, calendar and contact synchronization with Enterouage can only be done in the newest version and is not a given.


True, but again, it's about trying to adapt in foreign territories. I'm not sure if Apple has Exchange-counterparts for the Mac, though.

GryphonsClaw wrote:
Another problem with MAC is this Virus free notion. MAC has viruses just not a lot of them. As MAC continues to grow so will the virues.


As I see it, the answer isn't really that simple. Just look at Linux - it has gained a bigger piece of the cake along the years, but the virus correlation isn't holding up with that. Now, some might argue that it's because Linux isn't The Root Of All Evil and other ideological things, but I'm convinced that that's only a part of the equation.

The problem with Windows and its contamination is the fact that the default user is root at all times. On Linux, it's custom that you do not log in as root - only for brief amounts of time, and only when necessary. On Mac, there's no root user (afaik), you only sudo. For explanation, sudo is a command which invokes super user privileges for just one command at a time. You always are a restricted user, unless you at separate prompts give the super user password.

So, even if an exploitable hole is found in Linux/Mac, and a malicious piece of software gets through everything and gets to have its way with the system, it only affects the user's personal files, but the OS itself is unharmed.

Another thing about the security aspect, as I see it, is sheer program quality. So, the Linux and OSX people might be the blind zombie-zealots of Jobs/Torvalds, but this works for the system, not against it. If you do something you actually believe in and you WANT it to be good, it's bound to be better than just some other eight-to-four job that you do just to get the rent paid. I, for one, would be much more interested in doing a job that would pay less well but would be actually fun to do, rather than getting a fat paycheck but gagging at the thought of getting to work every day.

GryphonsClaw wrote:
Security on a MAC is also poor. Booting into single user mode gives the user access to root.


Oh come on. I'm sorry, but that's a very poor argument. Any operating system is just as vulnerable to these things. On a Windows computer, nothing stops me putting a Linux live CD, booting there, mounting the NTFS, blatantly ignoring the file restrictions and have my merry way with the system. Now with NTFS 3G, I can even write stuff there. Actually, I believe there's a customized Linux live CD that is designed to reset the administrator password.

Also, the Linux kernel is just as vulnerable for this, if not more so. You can with even more ease boot in a live CD and chroot the installed system to your live instance and do whatever you want, or just select a single-user mode from the boot menu.

Getting physical access to the system is always the easiest way to hack into a system. If everything else fails, just pop the HDD out and off you go!

GryphonsClaw wrote:
There is no lock computer feature on a MAC so unless logging out or setting the SS password, the computer is wide open.


Actually you can leave your instance logged on and just enter the log-in screen, which is practically the same thing as locking the desktop on windows. But then there's the iAlertU software which acts as a screensaver that locks the computer (and also as an anti-theft alarm), although I'm not sure how robust it is if you have your good time at trying.

GryphonsClaw wrote:
Please run the MAC in a business scenario before before recommending it.


I actually tried to make sure that when I say "for business usage", I would use it lightly. I never meant that it would be good for networked enterprises (because I don't know if that's true or not) - What I meant by business usage is 'productive stuff', such as browsing the net, reading the email, writing documents, etc.


If I left something of importance unreplied, it's just because I woudln't have the knowledge to give a witty answer, or that I simply agree with it. Oh, and this wasn't meant as flaming or being defensive, I just enjoy a good argument :)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC + 2 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group