Forums | MacLife

DudetheCreator wrote:

jcleek wrote:

Now there are good tings to be said for ridding an OS of legacy code its part of the reason Vista is such a mess but I have to call shinangenans on this because in one of your particular MS bashings you bash MS of something the Apple is much much more guilty of.

Apple has shown a continued effort to ensure some (perhaps a minor amount) of stable backwards compatibility.  Classic Runtime and Rosetta are great examples of this.  What does Windows XP have? Not much in that regard.  Oh I forgot, it's got DOS & DOS compatibility mode.  Not only is that DOS yet *another* gaping security hole in the system, it is also half as useful as Classic.  I've tried forcing DOS mode on some programs from that era, and none of them seemed to work *at all*.

What if you need a copy of Windows 95 to run that one old program? 50$. You need a copy of OS 7 for that one old program? FREE from apple.  Many OS X installations came with classic installed, but  *also* bootable, so you could return to full blown OS 9 any time you wanted.

Apple offers what you may see as less backwards compatibility to help achieve the goal that makes them superior to M$.  That being the rate at which they innovate and deliver new useful tools and software that really *does* boost productivity.  If they were constantly trying to ensure that junk from the days of Mac OS 1.0 (like MS with DOS) still worked then they'd be pressed for engineers that had time to create and design the great programs we each use every day.

I do believe that the OS 9 install is NOT an option on the Intel Mac’s

I am not talking about backwards compatibility I do not really see a problem with Apples backwards compatibility MS takes it to ridiculous extremes yes, but then again that could be one reason why they own the business desktop world

But then again MS will pull smurf when they want you to upgrade. You will fork out money to upgrade to get new features but not upgrade to get support, Unlike Apple

I am talking about support more specifically business support. Apple drops support for their OS far sooner than Microsoft does which could be a reason Apple and other *nix variants are not a contender in the Business Desktop World

Well behaved programs that use the standard Win32 API should run fine from the Win 32 add on you can get for Windows 3.1 to Server 2003 same goes for Win 16 apps

What product does Apple have that even competes (not to mention superior) with Microsoft Exchange or Microsoft SQL Server or Active Directory for that matter and no My SQL does not count because there is a Windows version for it I am talking about something Apple wrote.

I use (as well as 2500 other Outlook users) MS Exchange in a productive manner everyday same goes for SQL and AD.

I'm still using 2000 and it works perfectly, better then XP in some cases, but then again all i do is play games on my PC. The reason Microsoft has to keep legacy support of there prior OSes is people still use them on a regular basis. Its a bit different with apple, however apple still patches security holes in 10.2 and up so its really no different. I can't fathom a reason people would still be using 10.1.

jcleek wrote:

I am talking about support more specifically business support. Apple drops support for their OS far sooner than Microsoft does which could be a reason Apple and other *nix variants are not a contender in the Business Desktop World

M$ supports their OS' longer because they realize that they have to.  They see that companies will not upgrade quickly because they all the smurf that happens when you upgrade windows.  So they offer support for the lengthier time spaces during which corporations use what they have until a painful upgrade is unavoidable.

Apple does not dabble in SQL, that is true.  But they do offer SAN solution, and the xGrid technology is available on any Mac.

Not only that, but xGrid tech is built right in to their development software (xCode) which allows one to take advantage of the power of all their macs while coding.

Check out the original Aero before they killed it and rewrote it to make it backwards compatible, the original security system before they killed it and rewrote it to make it backwards compatible, the original WINFS before it became an extension of NTFS and then disbanded and and and and and....

I was running the Vista Beta for a few weeks, it never stopped humping my hard drive.  I'm guessing that was it hard at work continuously indexing my 80Gb hd, I can understand giving it a day but after a week of constantly doing that I had to ask myself if it was ever going to end.  So I unsinstalled it from my little Sempron/Radeon 9600 based box and put 2000 back on.  I don't mind the new explorer, Aero works just fine on an older 128Mb Radeon and I would still be using it on that machine if it wasn't trying to wear out my hardware 100% of the time.

I see a slow adoption to the new OS on the corporate side, like Gipetto I work for a Microsoft Gold partner company so we get anything we want as far as MS software goes and currently there is no requirement nor a demand for Vista outside of a test environment for websites and eLearning programs. 
Most of the machines here are at least 3+ years old with 128-256 Mb of ram and integrated graphics running either 2000 or XP...and that's not about to change anytime soon.  The only machine able to run all of Vista's features is the Dell XPS 700 I will be using for video work, which I may add was ordered over three months ago and still hasn't arrived.

reece_james wrote:

Check out the original Aero before they killed it and rewrote it to make it backwards compatible, the original security system before they killed it and rewrote it to make it backwards compatible, the original WINFS before it became an extension of NTFS and then disbanded and and and and and....

WINFS was always an extension to NTFS. Anyone who reported otherwise was confused on just what WinFS was. Sure they may have had plans to package it as a standalone file system, but technically speaking its been NTFS with metadata extensions since the beginning.

I do not like the changes made to the security layer. I miss the original security system they demoed way back in 2003.

Vista will be a nice upgrade, but its not the *whole new world* they promised and thats a shame because they had some really neat stuff going a few years ago that never saw the light of day.

Dude, I just wanted to say that you are yet another pathetic, nerdy imp who goes around saying "Winblows sux hahahahaha Macs Rule hahahaha"

You don't know what you're talking about. Get a life...

XP fan wrote:

Dude, I just wanted to say that you are yet another pathetic, nerdy imp ...

Imp?
Are we talking fairy-like mythological creature or a member of the Brownies' Special Forces?

Last edited by Zetetic Apparatchik (2006-09-01 4:57 pm)

Zetetic Apparatchik wrote:

XP fan wrote:

Dude, I just wanted to say that you are yet another pathetic, nerdy imp ...

Imp?
Are we talking fairy-like mythological creature or a member of the Brownies' Special Forces?

Or those brown, fire ball throwing guys from Doom.

I was not able to grab the Vista beta serial code before M$ pulled the public beta status.  Bit annoying, but somehow I don't think I'm missing much.

DudetheCreator wrote:

I was not able to grab the Vista beta serial code before M$ pulled the public beta status.  Bit annoying, but somehow I don't think I'm missing much.

You are correct. I had a PB serial number but I tossed it along with the PB disc I burned. Vista 5536 runs fine without a serial number but it is limited to 14 days.

It really isn't anything special, just some eye-candy, a few new desktop picures and some annoying and completely ineffective "security" measures. Things are moved around so it will feel like a new OS but really it is just new desktop pictures and some pop-ups to distract you from the security prolems. Vista isn't "bad" per se but it isn't worth paying for if XP works.

HackerJax wrote:

Vista will be a nice upgrade, but its not the *whole new world* they promised and thats a shame because they had some really neat stuff going a few years ago that never saw the light of day.

Yup, if you want the *whole new world* AND some of the neat stuff MS had going a few years ago, you have to go to OS-X.