4 ms·

"It's far from perfect but so's OS X." That's a ridiculous comparison. One is "imperfect" due to open source failings and a wildly divergent UI, the other is "

"It's far from perfect but so's OS X." That's a ridiculous comparison. One is "imperfect" due to open source failings and a wildly divergent UI, the other is "imperfect" due to (I suppose) some design decisions and the fact that Apple charges money for things and provides restricted hardware support. Please articulate your perceived problems with OSX.

fragmede 12y ago
It's not a ridiculous comparison, it's the exact comparison that the original post was asking for on a technical level, which we are diverging from. I didn't think claiming that OS X is imperfect would be controversial claim. Here are two articles I found by Googling for "OS X bugs" that details some imperfections in the recent relase of Yosemite: http://fieldguide.gizmodo.com/the-worst-bugs-in-os-x-yosemite-and-how-to-fix-them-1652690924 http://fieldguide.gizmodo.com/the-worst-bugs-in-os-x-yosemit... and http://www.macworld.com/article/2849849/bugs-and-fixes-whats-with-yosemite-renaming-shared-devices.html http://www.macworld.com/article/2849849/bugs-and-fixes-whats... Does the mere existence in OS X make it "imperfect" beyond difference-of-opinion design decisions and has nothing to do with Apple charging money, or their limited hardware support? Yes! Would OS X be imperfect even if those two articles weren't readily findable via Google? Still yes! All software is flawed. Apple knows this and hosts Radar, their bug tracking system, to work out imperfections in their software. All code, whether closed or open source, has bugs, and we as a society haven't figured out how to write bug-free code in an economical way.
- ElectronCharge 12y ago
  Right. I understand that neither is "perfect". However, the imperfections are in such wildly divergent areas that the comparison is irrelevant to the main issues. I like Linux, and use it on a regular basis. I do think, though, that if money isn't a major issue the investment in a MacOS X machine is worthwhile. You can always run Linux in a VM. Personally I think the Hackintosh route is ethical given Apple's intransigence on hardware choice. It is the largest company in the world by market cap, surely it could release the xMac...
  - jrjarrett 12y ago
    They tried this in the '90s. Remember PowerComputing? Or UMAX? Apple is ultimately, a hardware company. The fact they put a lot of effort into crafting OS' for their hardware that give the average user a very seamless and excellent (imo) user experience is precisely to sell that hardware.
    - ElectronCharge 12y ago
      "They tried this in the '90s. Remember PowerComputing? Or UMAX? Apple is ultimately, a hardware company. The fact they put a lot of effort into crafting OS' for their hardware that give the average user a very seamless and excellent (imo) user experience is precisely to sell that hardware." You missed my point entirely. I'm suggesting that Apple should broaden its lineup, not license its OS for other hardware. However, given that it offers nothing of interest to the typical "enthusiast" power user, it's missing the boat. I think Apple should add the "xMac", meaning a range from mini to full size tower machines with plenty of drive bays, dual x16 PCI slots, large RAM expansion, and high-end i5s and i7s. They should be typical Apple design, quality and pricing. This would GREATLY broaden the Mac's popularity. I also think they should do a "Mac Pro+", meaning a box that either rack-mounts with an adapter (4U), or can freestand on the floor. It should also sport multiple drive bays, dual x16 PCI slots, massive ECC RAM capability, and high-end Xeon processor(s). The killer feature of these would be to gang them together with Thunderbolt into desk side (or server room) supercomputers for scientific programming, engineering, simulation, and 3D rendering. In short, it should provide the most compute capability of any workstation available, and scale as needed. Apple needs to broaden its horizons, and start leading the computer industry.

fragmede 12y ago

It's not a ridiculous comparison, it's the exact comparison that the original post was asking for on a technical level, which we are diverging from. I didn't think claiming that OS X is imperfect would be controversial claim. Here are two articles I found by Googling for "OS X bugs" that details some imperfections in the recent relase of Yosemite: http://fieldguide.gizmodo.com/the-worst-bugs-in-os-x-yosemite-and-how-to-fix-them-1652690924 http://fieldguide.gizmodo.com/the-worst-bugs-in-os-x-yosemit... and http://www.macworld.com/article/2849849/bugs-and-fixes-whats-with-yosemite-renaming-shared-devices.html http://www.macworld.com/article/2849849/bugs-and-fixes-whats... Does the mere existence in OS X make it "imperfect" beyond difference-of-opinion design decisions and has nothing to do with Apple charging money, or their limited hardware support? Yes! Would OS X be imperfect even if those two articles weren't readily findable via Google? Still yes! All software is flawed. Apple knows this and hosts Radar, their bug tracking system, to work out imperfections in their software. All code, whether closed or open source, has bugs, and we as a society haven't figured out how to write bug-free code in an economical way.

ElectronCharge 12y ago
Right. I understand that neither is "perfect". However, the imperfections are in such wildly divergent areas that the comparison is irrelevant to the main issues. I like Linux, and use it on a regular basis. I do think, though, that if money isn't a major issue the investment in a MacOS X machine is worthwhile. You can always run Linux in a VM. Personally I think the Hackintosh route is ethical given Apple's intransigence on hardware choice. It is the largest company in the world by market cap, surely it could release the xMac...
- jrjarrett 12y ago
  They tried this in the '90s. Remember PowerComputing? Or UMAX? Apple is ultimately, a hardware company. The fact they put a lot of effort into crafting OS' for their hardware that give the average user a very seamless and excellent (imo) user experience is precisely to sell that hardware.
  - ElectronCharge 12y ago
    "They tried this in the '90s. Remember PowerComputing? Or UMAX? Apple is ultimately, a hardware company. The fact they put a lot of effort into crafting OS' for their hardware that give the average user a very seamless and excellent (imo) user experience is precisely to sell that hardware." You missed my point entirely. I'm suggesting that Apple should broaden its lineup, not license its OS for other hardware. However, given that it offers nothing of interest to the typical "enthusiast" power user, it's missing the boat. I think Apple should add the "xMac", meaning a range from mini to full size tower machines with plenty of drive bays, dual x16 PCI slots, large RAM expansion, and high-end i5s and i7s. They should be typical Apple design, quality and pricing. This would GREATLY broaden the Mac's popularity. I also think they should do a "Mac Pro+", meaning a box that either rack-mounts with an adapter (4U), or can freestand on the floor. It should also sport multiple drive bays, dual x16 PCI slots, massive ECC RAM capability, and high-end Xeon processor(s). The killer feature of these would be to gang them together with Thunderbolt into desk side (or server room) supercomputers for scientific programming, engineering, simulation, and 3D rendering. In short, it should provide the most compute capability of any workstation available, and scale as needed. Apple needs to broaden its horizons, and start leading the computer industry.