I still run WinXP 64-bit. Except for initial boot (which isn't really slow anyway, and I never power off in the first place) it's faster than Win7 overall.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I agree with most of your points. I would like to make a small defense of the inability to change things in OS X. With mutability can come a lot of overhead and chaos. There is something to be said for an iron hand on the tiller of user interfaces - but only if you trust the group making decisions.

I am not a UX expert. Up until Lion I trusted the UX people at Apple to have a better idea about how humans can optimally interact with a computer. For the most part, I think they were right. Up until Lion - now I think I'm starting to be sold a crock. The decisions they have made don't seem to be based on making efficient interactions happen - but instead about some grand unified melding of Macs and iOS devices. It's bullshit.

The mandatory click to focus thing is really a taste thing. For me, personally it drives me batty. I don't want focus until I've clicked.

Bouncy in your face icons - agreed, annoying - but not as bad modal windows you have to dismiss.


>> ^srd:

>> ^dag:
Up until Lion I would completely disagree with you and say the UX of OS X is simply the best. Yes, I'm talking against Windows 7, Gnome, KDE et al. Now however, I'm starting to cast a wandering eye back towards Linux.
Windows 7 however, is a frigging awful experience any way you slice it. It's stupid little things like the alt-tab selecting whatever window is in the background when really you just want to cycle through the icons. Also, I can't believe they still haven't killed the dysfunctional bloatware ridden system tray. The retarded nanny-ware labyrinth that has to be navigated to connect to a wireless network makes my eyes bleed.
The way I'm feeling now is that all operating systems suck hard, but OS X sucks a little less, at least until Lion - which, again, is starting to suck much harder for all the reasons outlined in this video - and more.


Gnome, KDE, Windows et al have been scampering after the OSX UX for some years now, and I agreee have been doing it rather badly. And this is a trend I'm very skeptical of. However, if you like the workflow that OSX/Quarz imposes, I'm sure you can be happy with it. Where I take exception is having no choice except for what some people in a meeting in Cupertino decide is how I should do my work.
Things that really put me off:
- Menu bar at the top of the screen instead of attached to the individual application... Sure, thats traditional on apple computers and that made sense back in the days when the Mac didn't have real multitasking. But nowadays it's just terribly confusing and imposes longer mouse travel distances.
- Mandatory click-to-focus, which can be seen as a neccessary corrolary of the previous point. I've been using the focus-follows-mouse model (without raise-on-focus) for 15 years now and the difference is jarring. Imagine having to click away an overlay on each and every page you go to in your browser.
- Bouncy in-your-face animations and notification boxes that are reminiscent of Paperclip. Shut up already and get out of my face, I'm trying to work, not playing a game of whack-an-icon.
- Apple marketing OSX as 64 bit but delivering it in 32 bit mode and not telling you until you a) find out by accident and then b) spend 10 minutes gooling around until you find the command to switch it to 64bit default mode (no GUI level preference here for whatever reason).
I'd be a lot happier if I had a choice. Either by having real preferences that goes beyond what color scheme do I want and in what way do I want to stroke my touchpad to do what. Or open up the possibility for alternative window managers.
For all the "think different" attitude that Apple likes to spread, the OSX ecosystem seems to be hard at work to remove individual preferences. Apple turned into the opposite of what the 1984 commercial implied.
Dag, if you're looking at linux again, both KDE and Gnome (especially Gnome 3) are IMO horrible too. If you don't like them, give XFCE a go. I've been using it since '03 IIRC, when I grew tired of Blackbox. And you'd be in good company too

>> ^dag:

Up until Lion I would completely disagree with you and say the UX of OS X is simply the best. Yes, I'm talking against Windows 7, Gnome, KDE et al. Now however, I'm starting to cast a wandering eye back towards Linux.
Windows 7 however, is a frigging awful experience any way you slice it. It's stupid little things like the alt-tab selecting whatever window is in the background when really you just want to cycle through the icons. Also, I can't believe they still haven't killed the dysfunctional bloatware ridden system tray. The retarded nanny-ware labyrinth that has to be navigated to connect to a wireless network makes my eyes bleed.
The way I'm feeling now is that all operating systems suck hard, but OS X sucks a little less, at least until Lion - which, again, is starting to suck much harder for all the reasons outlined in this video - and more.



Gnome, KDE, Windows et al have been scampering after the OSX UX for some years now, and I agreee have been doing it rather badly. And this is a trend I'm very skeptical of. However, if you like the workflow that OSX/Quarz imposes, I'm sure you can be happy with it. Where I take exception is having no choice except for what some people in a meeting in Cupertino decide is how I should do my work.

Things that really put me off:

- Menu bar at the top of the screen instead of attached to the individual application... Sure, thats traditional on apple computers and that made sense back in the days when the Mac didn't have real multitasking. But nowadays it's just terribly confusing and imposes longer mouse travel distances.

- Mandatory click-to-focus, which can be seen as a neccessary corrolary of the previous point. I've been using the focus-follows-mouse model (without raise-on-focus) for 15 years now and the difference is jarring. Imagine having to click away an overlay on each and every page you go to in your browser.

- Bouncy in-your-face animations and notification boxes that are reminiscent of Paperclip. Shut up already and get out of my face, I'm trying to work, not playing a game of whack-an-icon.

- Apple marketing OSX as 64 bit but delivering it in 32 bit mode and not telling you until you a) find out by accident and then b) spend 10 minutes gooling around until you find the command to switch it to 64bit default mode (no GUI level preference here for whatever reason).

I'd be a lot happier if I had a choice. Either by having real preferences that goes beyond what color scheme do I want and in what way do I want to stroke my touchpad to do what. Or open up the possibility for alternative window managers.

For all the "think different" attitude that Apple likes to spread, the OSX ecosystem seems to be hard at work to remove individual preferences. Apple turned into the opposite of what the 1984 commercial implied.

Dag, if you're looking at linux again, both KDE and Gnome (especially Gnome 3) are IMO horrible too. If you don't like them, give XFCE a go. I've been using it since '03 IIRC, when I grew tired of Blackbox. And you'd be in good company too

I just thought I'd point out that I've ran my main computer (of course I'm a hardware geek, so I know my stuff--no conflicts is another way to put it) for 4 years on Vista SP2 64-Bit WITHOUT ONE CRASH (this is a: on for 24/7 as it acts as a media server and Windows Media Center Extender-provider)! Now I'm on Win 7 64-Bit and same deal, nothing, no problems, no crashes, and I have my fair share of peripherals plugged in.

People need to realize that somewhere towards the end of Vista and into Windows 7 Microsoft has taken their crappy old software and made it work extremely well, considering what it has to do. It has drivers for virtually everything and if your a scientist, engineer, or something similar you're using Windows for this very reason: Windows will recognize your device and allow you to write a driver to let you do whatever you need it to do; easily!

People are afraid to switch out Windows XP. They're expecting to go through all the hassle only to get the same crap. But, Windows 7 is definitely a new breed of design for Microsoft. You can tell the old guys must have been canned or given an epiphany inducing lashing by Bill: Bill was retired from production for a long time, but when Vista came out, it literally pissed him off (as he was trying to use it himself) and there was a big bust-up/fight internally; so in a way I'm glad Vista started out as a complete and utter piece of crap that performed as well as a brick in a GrandPrix race. It led to Windows 7 and the service packs that made Vista very usable.

Again, back to why Windows IS successful even when it was crashing... You can right your own driver AND IT WORKS. Now days it works great, and the development software is pretty straight forward and is fairly good. That is the one thing he should point out in the video is the extremes Microsoft went to (and still does), to get an OS that would do everything. Yeah, it crashed and was buggy, but realistically you won't be running your new hardware on a MacOS. People with MacOS's (in the past especially) are one trick pony users. They do music or they do art. They don't need a virtual driver that supports incoming data from a USB blender/centrifuge that will let you write a program using the driver to tamper with the spin and modulation rate of the device while getting real-time data updates. Hell, the roving "Doppler on Wheels" uses Windows for this very reason.

Microsoft takes a lot of flak, but they filled their role very well and I was never surprised that it was buggy (however, I'll totally agree that the initial version of Vista was a complete an utter joke--like I said I didn't get it till they had their second service pack and had great user feedback; especially, since I went 64-bit).

Windows 7 though IS the OS to use or some sort of Linux distribution. But, with the great support built in, right off the bat (this time) and the easy to make drivers for developers and hardware vendors, it's getting hard to find a reason to not use it other than: "I hate Windows and/or Bill Gates".

Thought I'd write this bit if people didn't know the story or reasons why the latest Windows have changed direction so drastically.

Some people may still wonder why there is such a legacy extension in Windows with supporting stuff that old, but there are plenty of companies out there that proving this. I've come across at least several examples of software I've seen from a vendor being sold as new that was likely built in Windows 3.1. 16-bit apps in 2010-2011? How do they even have the software to make this stuff anymore?

Regardless, it makes me thank whomever at Microsoft has the arduous task of having to make sure NTVDM still operates in modern versions of Windows. Well, except for 64-bit os where there is no longer 16-bit support, so perhaps this will force the hand of those still building legacy apps into this century.

>> ^lucky760:

Are you still having this problem?


It looks fine at work's updated 64-bit W7 HP machine. I will have to check my old home's updated XP Pro. SP3 and Debian/Linux machines again.

Did you just fix something within the last two hours or so?

>> ^Yogi:

It's amazing how perceptive, funny, and intelligent Brian Williams can be...and yet still I couldn't watch his program without stabbing forks in my eyes. How can you be this way and not see that your own network...your own show is soo full of shit?


I think he's like this because of the people that surround him; how could you not be. I would also try to make many a joke that they don't understand unless they look up a turn of phrase--on their iPad (a glorified non-cellphone/unless you really need/want to spend that much money on one-"buggy and slow"-device).

Yes, I've used my Dad's. It certainly has some nifty features (which have all been invented or used already), but since it's Apple and it has the name i"x", it must be a game changing, revolutionary, cutting edge, never crashes, solves: world hunger, bi-polar, cancer, Fox News, heralds baby Jesus's return to Earth in North Western Missouri; and it has a shelf/I'm mean battery life of 30.62 days--or so I've heard.

It was semi-slow (that wasn't very surprising); slow in two departments: switching and starting between and new apps or processes. Second, the Wi-Fi connection was flaky (either not downloading or when downloading, even including the occasional burst speeds, it averaged 22 KBps (as I say below it should at least be going 100-200 KBps [this is still incredibly slow], as his connection has a download rate of 1.2-1.5 MBps). I'll play with that a bit more (as I think it may have been the wireless router as he has a 14-Megabit connection).

The games were fun and a few of the apps were great. But, I'd rather have a lightweight fully functional notebook PC with a 16:9 screen, atleast 720p, and a fully customizable network adapter. ...And to be blunt, I'd much rather have Windows 7 or even Vista (fully patched), as both have great functionality and support plus their 64-Bit support is great. Plus I can put in a full Blu-Ray drive that comes with PowerDVD.

Better applications, better games and support. Yes, this is an anti-apple rant as I think all of their once "highly revered" features: functionality, non-crashing, no hacking (hah!), graphical editing applications (which is a "contract" feature), sound editing applications (same as the last), and it's "ease-of-use" (which is now a completely moot point). Apple is still successful, because they find niche products that do well; like the Nintendo DS. The iPod (although the screens break a bit to early, my only complaint) and the iPhone are great products and fill a gap in a niche market. The iPad does the same thing, but from what I've tried it needed another year (plus some spec changes like a 16:9 screen going up to 720p (which is HD not this stupid licensing agreement so they can use the logo on a nice, but NOT HD screen (I think it's XGA or 1024x768), a connection port that could handle a multitude of devices: usb, 1394, ethernet, gamepads, speakers, etc I know it does some of this already, especially in the bluetooth department.

But, I feel that it should have come with the large flash/ssd drive, cell phone features (which they do have, it just costs an arm and a leg), more functionality for the "touch pen" (some mouse-like buttons etc...), FLASH & FULL browser SUPPORT (not having flash, plus other regular features "kills it" in a lot of ways)--Apple has to have their money/way though; I don't think they've got any clue when they shoot themselves in the foot), and a slightly faster (or duo-core) processor to help the experience feel more smooth; they have a: "1GHz Apple A4 custom-designed chip" were as a Intel Atom that has an nVidia extension may have been a better choice (I'm not to sure about battery usage for these guys, but from the devices it was used in it wasn't too bad).

So in the end (damn this was WAY longer than expected) I think they should have refined it for another year. Got some REAL user feedback; give it to people that don't work for the ass-kissing mainstream Apple press-core (yes, I'm talking about the likes of Engadget). Then, actually work on their gripes! People already seem willing to pay an arm and a leg for their stuff, so if the price goes up one-hundred, don't worry all your loyal'ii will still buy it. Anyway...this didn't happen, so I was left feeling underwhelmed by it and would instead by a nice laptop.

BTW, Brian Williams is the shit!

/This post may seem anti=Apple and in a lot of ways it is, but I would like them to make a good tablet (or awesome tablet--if they'd pull their collective heads out of their asses). It seems to me that any company, right now, that takes some time and makes a fast, reliable, easy-to-use, with 720p (and lots of video/codecs support)...will destroy Apple's iPad longterm (right now I just see Android tablets, but the ones I've seen are underwhelming).

//If someone has seen a good tablet coming out that has some of the features that I'm talking about, please throw in a reply.

8-bit?
Don't think so.
Depends on the sound card used. Hearing what appears to be both wavetable and PCM, I would say definitely 16-bit. The SoundBlaster Pro (16-bit) was released BEFORE the 1st release of Impulse Tracker, and I believe so was the AWE32.
Being wrong before, I could be again because, of course, all synthesis could be done in software using only 8-bits of the 16-bit registers of the 32-bit CPU on the 16-bit or 32-bit (or possibly 64-bit) bus in the 'puter.

Excellent post, pretty much exactly what I was thinking as I watched.

I put all the Python tools on my son's laptop so he could play around with command-line programming. I'll have to check out squeak.

In reply to this comment by spawnflagger:
wow. just wow. He needs 8-cores, 12 GB ram, 64-bit OS, to do what a 12MHz 286 running DOS could do 25 years ago ?

Seriously, why did he make a whole OS ? (or half OS, because it doesn't support multiple users, like unix did in 1970). He could have just made a custom shell for "recreational programming" that has all the same features, but would just run in user mode on top of linux/unix/windows (under cygwin at least).

If his goal was to create an RTOS, he certainly didn't show off any real-time features.

This could quite possibly be the most insecure OS ever, everything running in kernel mode, and everything can see all areas of memory. Although doesn't look like he has network support, so no big deal

If you want to do recreational programming, or teach a kid how to program I recommend Squeak (based on SmallTalk)
http://www.squeak.org/About/

If you want to learn x86 assembly, get a DOS virtual machine and use NASM.

wow. just wow. He needs 8-cores, 12 GB ram, 64-bit OS, to do what a 12MHz 286 running DOS could do 25 years ago ?

Seriously, why did he make a whole OS ? (or half OS, because it doesn't support multiple users, like unix did in 1970). He could have just made a custom shell for "recreational programming" that has all the same features, but would just run in user mode on top of linux/unix/windows (under cygwin at least).

If his goal was to create an RTOS, he certainly didn't show off any real-time features.

This could quite possibly be the most insecure OS ever, everything running in kernel mode, and everything can see all areas of memory. Although doesn't look like he has network support, so no big deal

If you want to do recreational programming, or teach a kid how to program I recommend Squeak (based on SmallTalk)
http://www.squeak.org/About/

If you want to learn x86 assembly, get a DOS virtual machine and use NASM.

I have one...that's been out for awhile now too. Playing in 64-bit mode is epic. Multiplayer sucks though.>> ^harry:

Next up: a computer than can actually play Crysis.

Oh what crap this video is..let me count the ways...

1. Saturn and PS1 had a huge time gap, of which the saturns total lack of new games inbetween them killed customer confidence in it.

2. What in the hell was that crap about n64? twice as fun? twice as powerful? It came out so late it probably never sold as many units as saturn did. As for power, there really isn't anything on it to show its 64 bits of power. Its video chip looks alot better thanks too texture smoothing and perspective correction, however I think it pushes slightly less polygons because of these effects. Then of course the PS1 had the cd which offered many more possabilities that the cart just could not match.

3. skipping the dreamcast until after the ps2 and xbox, this is where I shut it off. Dreamcast was a kick ass system and the first of the next gen consoles. It also sold very well and was competitive with the ps2 until the end. It wasn't consumer demand that killed the console, it was sega.

Also I would expect something with the name visual in it to be...well..more visual.

I'm a PC, and I just ugpraded. I'm fast as fuck:
Vista 64 bit, Cooler Master Cosmos, Asus P5Q Deluxe, Core2 Duo E8600 @ 4.10GHZ, Zerotherm Nirvana, 2x2GB OCZ Reaper PC2 8500, Sapphire Radeon HD 4870X2, X-fi Titanium, WD Raptor, WD Caviar, LG Blu-ray.

This is quite interesting, but to those of you looking for a TV, I highly suggest you look at something other than plasma.

In the video, they say that plasma tvs display 1 million colors. This is nothing. 32 bit color (the highest available, which has been standard for years on computer monitors and should be on HDTVS, and is different from say 64 bit processing ala the N64) is 24 million colors.

Get an HDTV.

Self-built Vista Home Premium 64-bit machine and an ASUS Vista Business 32-bit laptop.