Chris Botti hates Mac computers

[Nemo128]

And sorry you are just totally wrong comparing OS X's kernel to NT's.

Compare the kernels? You mean the fact that they are the same type of kernel? Because that's all I compared, and I'm right. The implementation wasn't the issue. Both are monolithic/microkernel hybrids. That's the only comparison I made. You can find it as funny as you want, doesn't make it incorrect.

I have to agree with Nemo, iTunes is the biggest piece of crap I've ever used. Not only is it slow, but it's so in your face. "Hey guys! Look at me! I'm iTunes....guys?"

Winamp is the best media manager I've used. It's easy to use and doesn't have to take up your entire screen to use effectively.

Quite frankly everyone knows that Windows is the mans operating system, and OsX is for little sissy girls.

Agreed on all counts. I'm a minimalist. Fact is, iTunes uses more memory than Foobar or Winamp in Windows even using the mini player. It's bloated but people love it because it's pretty. I don't need pretty in my applications, I need speed and efficiency.

All not true. Itunes not slow on a mac, could be on a PC, does not take up the entire screen to use effectively. If you wanted to use full screen you throw it onto another desktop. Oh I forgot windoze does not have virtual desktops built in

Screen shots on a 13in laptop screen. Note it does not take over the whole screen and I can access all features.

Want even less than use the mini player.

Virtual desktops is such a gimmicky feature the way most people I know use it. They don't even use them effectively in Linux, which had them LONG before Apple did, but I digress to the topic of feature flattery (copying)...

Throw it on another desktop? Hmm... how is switching desktops different than maximize/minimize in Windows? Oh, I know, it's something not in Windows so it's worth bragging about. Gotcha. Like I said, ineffective use of virtual desktops. How is Ctrl+1/2/3... or Ctrl+up/down/left/right different than Alt+Tab and Alt+Shift+Tab?

Mini player, bloated trash in Windows. Are there any other media playing options in Mac OS? I wouldn't know, since Macs have only been worth talking about once Apple adopted the x86 architecture and ditched Motorola/IBM. Congrats Mac fans, you're just getting closer and closer to being Wintel PCs...

Screenshots mean nothing, you need to see it on the actual screen. On my 30" HP LCD @ 2560x1600 I could put 6 of those GUIs and they would be perfectly readable with room to spare. That says nothing about how they are (to my eyes) on your 13" screen with its native res.

For the record, I'm no MS fanboy. I don't like either company or either product. I just find it ridiculously amusing when people talk about Apple products as if they are the next coming of Jesus in technological form. Steve Jobs could probably start his own religion ala L Ron Hubbard and he'd have plenty of sheeple to drink his Koolaid.

 

[krzywica]

Haha....wow that was perfect. No further comments required!

 

[jeffsg4mac]

Agreed on all counts. I'm a minimalist. Fact is, iTunes uses more memory than Foobar or Winamp in Windows even using the mini player. It's bloated but people love it because it's pretty. I don't need pretty in my applications, I need speed and efficiency.



Virtual desktops is such a gimmicky feature the way most people I know use it. They don't even use them effectively in Linux, which had them LONG before Apple did, but I digress to the topic of feature flattery (copying)...

Throw it on another desktop? Hmm... how is switching desktops different than maximize/minimize in Windows? Oh, I know, it's something not in Windows so it's worth bragging about. Gotcha. Like I said, ineffective use of virtual desktops. How is Ctrl+1/2/3... or Ctrl+up/down/left/right different than Alt+Tab and Alt+Shift+Tab?

Mini player, bloated trash in Windows. Are there any other media playing options in Mac OS? I wouldn't know, since Macs have only been worth talking about once Apple adopted the x86 architecture and ditched Motorola/IBM. Congrats Mac fans, you're just getting closer and closer to being Wintel PCs...

Screenshots mean nothing, you need to see it on the actual screen. On my 30" HP LCD @ 2560x1600 I could put 6 of those GUIs and they would be perfectly readable with room to spare. That says nothing about how they are (to my eyes) on your 13" screen with its native res.

For the record, I'm no MS fanboy. I don't like either company or either product. I just find it ridiculously amusing when people talk about Apple products as if they are the next coming of Jesus in technological form. Steve Jobs could probably start his own religion ala L Ron Hubbard and he'd have plenty of sheeple to drink his Koolaid.

From your posts it is glaringly obvious you have not used OS X much if at all. If you did, you would know itunes for the mac anyway is not bloated nor is it slow. I have never used it on windows so I can only take your word. I put the screen shot there to show that it does not take over the whole screen as someone implied so I just proved that to be incorrect.For the record I am not an apple fanboy either, but if people are going to try and trash something they better know what the hell they are talking about. I can't stand Jobs but I hate microsoft stuff even more, and linux is pretty much a joke when it comes to software. Yes I know there are tons of free stuff but the stuff I need like Aperture, Photoshop, lightroom, Final Cut, etc. is non existent or not up to snuff. Apps like the GIMP don't cut it, I know I have tried them.

I use virtual desktops when I am working video and photo's. I put audio apps on one, photo apps on another and video apps on another. I don't know what your definition of the correct way is but that works really well for me. And yes I know Linux had them first, but they were never implemented as well or elegant as apple did it. Even Linux fanboys admit that.


Now if you want to say iTunes sucks on the PC then fine and they may be the case, but I have not found a better player for the mac. If someone writes one I will use it.

Note that itunes is playing a song and the visulizer and also note how little overhead it is using. So again the Mac version is nothing like the PC one.

 

[dkane360]

I'm going to have to agree with whoever said it. iTunes on the pc is terrible. It is completely different though on a mac. It's fast and as jeff said, takes up very little resources when it's on. I love my mac, but I'm not a mac fanboy either. What bothers me is that people make assumptions about macs based on their experience with itunes for pc and using a mac for 30 seconds at the apple store. Neither of which is representative of actually using a mac.

BTW, I'm not assuming that you guys have never used a mac, it's just a broad statement.

 

[bandphan]

Jeff one of your process seems odd

 

[jeffsg4mac]

Jeff one of your process seems odd

lol thats a good one. Took me a second to catch it.

 

[Shock]

Here are some comparison shots of winamp running on windows 7

This is obviously with a rather large visualization running. Although I don't know of anyone who actually uses visualization during normal play.

Also have a nice pic of the BFBC2 process bug, where the game doesn't actually exit and you have an open process using a large chuck of memory.

This is winamp just playing a song normally.

Winamp is just so darn purdy.

 

[bandphan]

I used winamp forever as they supported .shn files, but Ive been playin with monkey media this week and its pretty good...

 

[jeffsg4mac]

I don't know if any of you mac users know this, I would think you would, but if you right click on itunes in the dock you have control. Missing is volume though. That would be a nice feature to add. You can't really get any more minimal than that. This also works on all apps that take advantage of it. Somebody post a shot of iTunes on the pc with the process window open so we can see just what it is doing. Would be nice to compare.

Also note how little resources itunes uses when the window is closed and it is playing a song.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

Just for giggles I checked out songbird. Look at it compared to iTunes.

 

[bandphan]

Twonky is a really good media manger and server but their manager doesnt support 64 bit yet (server does, and runs very well with all supported audio codecs and uses next to nothing in resources)

 

[Nemo128]

From your posts it is glaringly obvious you have not used OS X much if at all. If you did, you would know itunes for the mac anyway is not bloated nor is it slow.

I'm convinced you like to make up your own arguments.

Fact is, iTunes uses more memory than Foobar or Winamp in Windows even using the mini player. It's bloated but people love it because it's pretty...

Mini player, bloated trash in Windows. Are there any other media playing options in Mac OS? I wouldn't know, since Macs have only been worth talking about once Apple adopted the x86 architecture and ditched Motorola/IBM. Congrats Mac fans, you're just getting closer and closer to being Wintel PCs.

In a debate, one usually debates the points made by the opposing party rather than debating their own points. So, um, what bout my kernel comparison?

 

[jeffsg4mac]

I'm convinced you like to make up your own arguments.



In a debate, one usually debates the points made by the opposing party rather than debating their own points. So, um, what bout my kernel comparison?

I am convinced you only know what you read and not what you use. If you had used OS X to compared to using any form of windows, you would know they are not even remotely similar in anyway, form, fashion or function. My experience comes from actually using the OS's and not just reading about them. I am all for book knowledge, but but book knowledge without street smarts is as useless as a gun is without bullets.

Windows users love to trash OS X and macs, but I have found that 99.9 percent of those who do really don't have even the slightest clue as to what they are talking about. Linux users sometimes have a clue, but often as not they are so stuck in their own little geeky world they think that an OS has to be difficult to use to be powerful. I equate them to electrical engineers that I have met that know whole lot about circuits, but they don't have a clue about what good audio equipment is and they buy Bose. I am sure Gene knows exactly what I am talking about.

However, I would still enjoy a good beer with you and maybe you might learn a thing or two in the process

 

[Shock]

**** I just closed the tab that had this post in it......I am not typing that out again. Bullet points

- I used a mac for two semesters in university
- Felt like I was using a toy
- Really really really Overpriced
- They've dug themselves into a small niche market
- Their most powerful iMac is still slow as hell.
- Care more about looks than performance
- BOSE of the computer world.

I think that was all of it. I'm sure I made fun of your manhood if you own a mac in there too, but I can't remember.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

**** I just closed the tab that had this post in it......I am not typing that out again. Bullet points

- I used a mac for two semesters in university
- Felt like I was using a toy
- Really really really Overpriced
- They've dug themselves into a small niche market
- Their most powerful iMac is still slow as hell.
- Care more about looks than performance
- BOSE of the computer world.

I think that was all of it. I'm sure I made fun of your manhood if you own a mac in there too, but I can't remember.

Don't know what mac you were using but I bet it was not a recent one. Lot's of imacs were made and not all were good. New imacs have 3ghz intel core2 duo's with a quad core option on the 27in model. They are hardly slow and hardly a toy.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

I'm convinced you like to make up your own arguments.



In a debate, one usually debates the points made by the opposing party rather than debating their own points. So, um, what bout my kernel comparison?

Um so what about all this sucky mac software. I did not see a list from you either.

Logic, Final Cut, Avid, Aperture, Lightroom, PhotoShop, etc. Is this the sucky stuff you speak of?

 

[Shock]

Don't know what mac you were using but I bet it was not a recent one. Lot's of imacs were made and not all were good. New imacs have 3ghz intel core2 duo's with a quad core option on the 27in model. They are hardly slow and hardly a toy.

Core 2 duo is old tech

You have to pay a big premium for the quad core, and it's still only a mid range i5 or i7. You also only get 10666 DDR3, which is slow. My guess that it's value ram as well since they do not list timings. You also get a pretty outdated video card on their "top of the line" model. So yes they are slow compared to what you can get for a PC.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

Core 2 duo is old tech

You have to pay a big premium for the quad core, and it's still only a mid range i5 or i7. You also only get 10666 DDR3, which is slow. My guess that it's value ram as well since they do not list timings. You also get a pretty outdated video card on their "top of the line" model. So yes they are slow compared to what you can get for a PC.

Well your wrong on one thing. They are not slow. Can you build a faster machine? Sure. Is a 3ghz core2 slow? Nothing of the sort.

 

[bandphan]

Just for the record, The difference between the fastest ddr2 and 3 is marginal

 

[Shock]

Well your wrong on one thing. They are not slow. Can you build a faster machine? Sure. Is a 3ghz core2 slow? Nothing of the sort.

A 3 GHz core 2 is going to be significantly slower at every single task that can take advantage of all 4 cores on a quad core CPU.

Which pretty much means every quality piece of software coming out from here on out.

As far as RAM goes, it comes down to latency, 1600 Ram that has timings of 7-7-7-21 is going to be a lot faster than 1066 ram with equal timings. Then you have to look at voltage, and overall bandwidth, it gets complicated. Really the difference between DDR, DDR2 and DDR3 in terms of speed isn't very much, but in the computer world 5% is huge.