Apple Products - Love Or Loathe Them

by **13oots2** » 16 Aug 2011 16:22

While I think of it, where Apple leads the field is with accessibility. Windows isn't close, and I'm unaware of any Linux product in widespread use.

I use Linux daily and nearly every server I have used has had Ubuntu installed as standard, also all Android phones use a Linux based system. To round your argument of about Linux, being a Mac user I am surprised that you didn't realise the current Mac OS is based heavily on a Linux and Unix kernel. Tend to point to the fact that the Mac isn't a mainstream product under your criteria for a Linux product :!:

by **Spyes** » 16 Aug 2011 16:40

13oots2 wrote:
While I think of it, where Apple leads the field is with accessibility. Windows isn't close, and I'm unaware of any Linux product in widespread use.

I use Linux daily and nearly every server I have used has had Ubuntu installed as standard, also all Android phones use a Linux based system. To round your argument of about Linux, being a Mac user I am surprised that you didn't realise the current Mac OS is based heavily on a Linux and Unix kernel. Tend to point to the fact that the Mac isn't a mainstream product under your criteria for a Linux product

The irony is that he *did* point it out...
What distro are you running on your box? I've got arch at the moment, ran Gentoo for a while, that was a lot of fun, but I like changing my distro once in a while

And might I ask... why Ubuntu?? :lol:

by **13oots2** » 16 Aug 2011 16:55

What distro are you running on your box? I've got arch at the moment, ran Gentoo for a while, that was a lot of fun, but I like changing my distro once in a while Smile
And might I ask... why Ubuntu?? Laughing

I find Ubuntu easy to get along with and very stable, am not a true Linux guru but know just enough to get me by. I like it because of the GUI and it is pretty idiot proof- I guess that is proof that I am an idiot with Linux:lol:

I tend to use what suits my purpose at the time and Ubuntu seems to provide me with what I need

While I think of it, where Apple leads the field is with accessibility. Windows isn't close, and I'm unaware of any Linux product in widespread use.

The X in OS X is actually a tribute to it's Unix origins.

by **Spyes** » 16 Aug 2011 17:12

13oots2 wrote:
What distro are you running on your box? I've got arch at the moment, ran Gentoo for a while, that was a lot of fun, but I like changing my distro once in a while Smile
And might I ask... why Ubuntu?? Laughing

I find Ubuntu easy to get along with and very stable, am not a true Linux guru but know just enough to get me by. I like it because of the GUI and it is pretty idiot proof- I guess that is proof that I am an idiot with Linux:lol:

I tend to use what suits my purpose at the time and Ubuntu seems to provide me with what I need

Fair enough. Glad to see my Linux users here

I think of myself as a power-user when it comes to Linux, so I'm pretty anti-Ubuntu when it comes to most thing... but that's a discussion for a different thread!

But by all means feel free to message me if you encounter any Linux trouble!

by **avole** » 16 Aug 2011 18:41

flavio81 wrote:
avole wrote:All software should ideally be accessible, and hardware too. There's a strict US standard to which companies try to adhere.

The object is to make computers fully accessible to people who have disabilities or are aged. Loss of sight is a common example.

Windows also has a lot of tools for accesibility at least since the XP version: The on-screen keyboard, MouseKeys, high contrast color combination, sound alerts, speech synthesis, etc.

MAC OS X and Win XP/7 are just similar in this regard.

In the case of screen readers, there's a subtle difference. With Apple, it is built into the OS, so you just have to turn it on. With XP certainly, people tend to use Windows eyes, which doesn't come bundled with Windows.

Same with the iphone/ipad, by the way, it is a part of the OS.

by **LeeS** » 16 Aug 2011 20:09

13oots2 wrote:the current Mac OS is based heavily on a Linux and Unix kernel.

Only half right.... It's based on FreeBSD, which is a BSD fork UNIX derivative. Nothing at all to do with Linux.

13oots2 wrote:The X in OS X is actually a tribute to it's Unix origins

Is it? Naaaah... Isn't it to do with the fact that it is the 10th version of the Mac OS (X is Roman numeral 10 - prior version was OS 9)?

by **13oots2** » 16 Aug 2011 20:16

LeeS wrote:
13oots2 wrote:the current Mac OS is based heavily on a Linux and Unix kernel.
Only half right.... It's based on FreeBSD, which is a BSD fork UNIX derivative. Nothing at all to do with Linux.

13oots2 wrote:The X in OS X is actually a tribute to it's Unix origins
Is it? Naaaah... Isn't it to do with the fact that it is the 10th version of the Mac OS (X is Roman numeral 10 - prior version was OS 9)?

FreeBSD provides binary compatibility with several other UNIX® like operating systems, including Linux. At this point, you may be asking yourself why exactly, does FreeBSD need to be able to run Linux binaries? The answer to that question is quite simple. Many companies and developers develop only for Linux, since it is the latest “hot thing” in the computing world.

Then why not call it OS 10, search on Google an yea shall find

by **JaS** » 16 Aug 2011 20:18

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noe3kR8KqJc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGLhuF3L48U

by **13oots2** » 16 Aug 2011 20:28

I must confess to loving Apple and it's the right sort for this Forum

[album]18561[/album]

by **13oots2** » 16 Aug 2011 20:31

JaS wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGLhuF3L48U

That was a classic, recently repeated with Windows 8 when half the new features refused to work

by **Spyes** » 16 Aug 2011 20:41

JaS wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noe3kR8KqJc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGLhuF3L48U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BnLbv6QYcA
Same idea :p

And I think they had this happen with a text-to-speech preview they did... let's see if I can find it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgF8-nTwu00
Oooh yessss!

LINUX FTW!!!

by **LeeS** » 16 Aug 2011 20:45

13oots2 wrote:FreeBSD provides binary compatibility with several other UNIX® like operating systems, including Linux. At this point, you may be asking yourself why exactly, does FreeBSD need to be able to run Linux binaries? The answer to that question is quite simple. Many companies and developers develop only for Linux, since it is the latest “hot thing” in the computing world.

Binaries have nothing to do with the fact that a BSD UNIX kernel is NOT a Linux kernel. They are different. A binary will run on whatever platform it is compiled for. If an OS provides support for binaries compiled for other platforms, it is using a translator.

13oots2 wrote:Then why not call it OS 10, search on Google an yea shall find

It IS called OS "Ten"... (as well as OS "Ex")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X :wink:

by **Spyes** » 16 Aug 2011 20:47

Wikipedia wrote:Mac OS X is the tenth major version of Apple's operating system for Macintosh computers. Previous Macintosh operating systems were named using Arabic numerals, e.g. Mac OS 8 and Mac OS 9. The letter X in Mac OS X's name refers to the number 10, a Roman numeral. It is therefore correctly pronounced "ten" (/ˈtɛn/) in this context. However, due to the tenth version being the first to be based on Unix origins, and a reason for the Roman numeral to be used for the number 10 in its honour, a common pronunciation is "X" (/ˈɛks/).

So yes and no on that one

by **paul401** » 17 Aug 2011 10:29

Hi,

Think some wag said it was pronounced "Oh Essex"