The Worst Thing about Macs

[alsiladka]

Another excellant article. No doubt Macs are a work of excellant technology, but there are even others things that do matter.

Here is an article from a Mac user since the Apple II. As is agreed everywhere, even he pays due credit to the Apple platform and performance. But the worst thing about macs, he says is the Apple Fans.

I opted not to post the article here, but here are the points he touches in his articles.

1. "Whatever MS does is a copy of others and MS simply buys others."
Dashboard is a rip of Konfabulator, Spaces a copy previous Virtual Deskop features, Cover Flow was actually purchased from a 3rd party developer, the iPhone ads are a blatant rips of a film "Telephones", Apple was issues cease and detist orders to stop an iPod ad because it was similar to an Eminem ad.

2. Whoever even tries to compete with Apple is greeted with the response "Why do they Even try".

3. What Apple does something, it is OK, but if MS does the same thing, the courts should take it down. What apple ads to OS X adds value to it, but when MS bundles its software its time for AntiTrust.

A sure read for all of you.

Source -
Part I
Part II

[gxsaurav]

Onida : Nothing but the truth...

Woops, I mean Article: Nothing but the truth

[Nav11aug]

completely agree with point 3.

infact i remember it bcame so bad that at a point when Apple guys complained abt MS copying their features, some MS employee said that Apple might know how to make good things but MS knows how to make money out of it and thaz the whole point .

[dd_wingrider]

nice read thx for sharing

[narangz]

100% True.

@gx- lol

[iMav]

where is the salesman .... when the truth is mentioned the salesman doesnt reply

[sandeepk]

Those are real facts. Thanks.

[QwertyManiac]

But what's this doing under Tech News? Its just a view of the user after all and not news ..

[alsiladka]

Originally Posted by QwertyManiac

But what's this doing under Tech News? Its just a view of the user after all and not news ..

Hey ya, i did not think about it. It should either be moved to Chit Chat or Random News.

Mods please move the topic.

[gxsaurav]

Apple is not bad, they just make crappy Software backend....& when they fail to make one, they steal from OSS

[infra_red_dude]

Nice read there.

Originally Posted by alsiladka

1. "Whatever MS does is a copy of others and MS simply buys others."
Dashboard is a rip of Konfabulator, Spaces a copy previous Virtual Deskop features, Cover Flow was actually purchased from a 3rd party developer, the iPhone ads are a blatant rips of a film "Telephones", Apple was issues cease and detist orders to stop an iPod ad because it was similar to an Eminem ad.

Completely agree with this. People employ double standards when it comes to Apple and MS.

Originally Posted by alsiladka

2. Whoever even tries to compete with Apple is greeted with the response "Why do they Even try".

Agree with this arrgant attitude too. Its wrong to undermine anything and everything!

Originally Posted by alsiladka

3. What Apple does something, it is OK, but if MS does the same thing, the courts should take it down. What apple ads to OS X adds value to it, but when MS bundles its software its time for AntiTrust.

Do not agree with this as the market situation is different in both the cases. Apple never allowed 3rd party companies to enter the market, or allowed only a few very few. So if apple bundles a new software it won't hit other companies.

But in cases where MS has done that the motive has been to kill competition and hence wipe out the company itself. If MS had held the right over certain category of software since a long time then bundling them wouldn't haf caused any problems. It should've foreseen that it'll venture into specific categories (like media players, browsers, JVM etc.) and made sure that other companies don't start making a living outta such software. After everything said and done, its wrong to kill competition this way. Except the media player category m mostly all other bundled software is inferior to the comptitive products and aimed at killing it ruthlessly.

[narangz]

Originally Posted by infra_red_dude

But in cases where MS has done that the motive has been to kill competition and hence wipe out the company itself. If MS had held the right over certain category of software since a long time then bundling them wouldn't haf caused any problems. It should've foreseen that it'll venture into specific categories (like media players, browsers, JVM etc.) and made sure that other companies don't start making a living outta such software. After everything said and done, its wrong to kill competition this way. Except the media player category m mostly all other bundled software is inferior to the comptitive products and aimed at killing it ruthlessly.

In case they do not provide Media Player, Browser then I guess people out there will say- "Hey Man! MS doesn't even provide ya media players & internet browser. See I told ya MS sucks & Apple/Linux rocks"

C'mon man people can choose third party application for media playing, browsing. They still do. Who doesn't want to kill/defeat the competition?

3. What Apple does something, it is OK, but if MS does the same thing, the courts should take it down. What apple ads to OS X adds value to it, but when MS bundles its software its time for AntiTrust.

I agree to this and all other points.

[din]

@narangz

Bundling and unbundling ...

Please have a look

Microsoft loses anti-trust appeal

and

Unbundle Microsoft Windows from PC's-EU Commission

[iMav]

^^ thats not the point ... if i make 2 products which work together i hav the right to sell em as a package ... IE is an internet explrer .... media player is used for playing songs and watching movies .... i get my self a new os shudnt it do as is why the hell do i hav to go for alternatives or dwnld it from the net .... i like IE and wmp so if i buy windows y shudnt it be there and y am i being forced to look for alternatives .... and for God's sakes its business not ethics .... kill ur comptetion or die

now shoe lace makers wont in their sane minds sue nike for giving shoe lace with their shoes .... its the same thing ... an OS is incomplete without internet browser or a media player .... now have u forgotten google suing MS for making live search as the default search engine in IE .... did MS sue google for putting blogger as the default blog in picasa ....

[infra_red_dude]

Originally Posted by iMav

^^ thats not the point ... if i make 2 products which work together i hav the right to sell em as a package ... IE is an internet explrer .... media player is used for playing songs and watching movies .... i get my self a new os shudnt it do as is why the hell do i hav to go for alternatives or dwnld it from the net .... i like IE and wmp so if i buy windows y shudnt it be there and y am i being forced to look for alternatives .... and for God's sakes its business not ethics .... kill ur comptetion or die

I don't like IE. So do I haf the option of NOT installing it in first place? Or can I COMPLETELY remove it afterwards (note the captilaized word there!). NO I can't! This is where the problem lies.

Kill competition but with better products!

Originally Posted by iMav

now shoe lace makers wont in their sane minds sue nike for giving shoe lace with their shoes .... its the same thing ... an OS is incomplete without internet browser or a media player .... now have u forgotten google suing MS for making live search as the default search engine in IE .... did MS sue google for putting blogger as the default blog in picasa ....

There is no comparison with shoes, laces and OS, media players/browser. Use some logic when comparing things.

Can you wear a shoe without a lace (Not the non-laced models)? NO. Can you run an OS without a browser/media player? YES. Period!

I agree to other points as far as double standards are concerned. Its not correct to point fingers at MS for everything. But there are somethings where they are at fault.

[gxsaurav]

Originally Posted by infra_red_dude

So do I haf the option of NOT installing it in first place? Or can I COMPLETELY remove it afterwards (note the captilaized word there!). NO I can't! This is where the problem lies.

An OS needs a web browser as an add on application. Why don't u go & sue Apple & Various Linux distribution because they also install Safari & Firefox by default whether u want it or not. In Mac OS X, u do no get an option during installation for not installing Safari. During the install of Ubuntu you also do not get option to select which packages to install & which to not so that u can remove Firefox from installing.

After u have installed the OS u can remove the browser in favor of any other browser u use, but here is the thing. The OS requires a HTML engine for many things, Mac OS X comes with the Webkit engine deeply integrated in Mac OS X due to which even if u remove safari, the webkit engine is still there. Same goes with Windows, you can uninstall IE 7 from Vista & IE 7 software will be uninstalled but the Trident engine that IE 7 used will still be there because the OS needs it. KDE comes with KHTML Engine & for that the software is Konqurer, again you can remove the browser but not the HTML Engine in any OS out there. Trust me, you cannot remove an HTML engine from even Linux. Unless its CLI only Linux.

You can very well remove the IE 7 software from Windows Vista if u don't need it. Tell me a GUI OS out there which can work without a HTML engine. This isn't Microsoft's fault that customer ask for better out of the box experience & when MS provides that in form of IE 7 & WMP 11 they get sued.

Kill competition but with better products!

Safari software works better then Firefox software on Mac

IE 7 Software works much better then Firefox on Windows.

Both open web pages fine, both are enough for good out of the box experience after which the user can install whatever they want. What is the problem here, I fail to understand.

There is no comparison with shoes, laces and OS, media players/browser. Use some logic when comparing things.

Yes there is. Both are products from a company & laces are also made by many other companies which are addon to the real product (Shoe)

Can you run an OS without a browser/media player? YES. Period!

Sure u can, but can u run a GUI OS without an HTML engine & Media Playback engine? Now don't tell me the CLI Linux thing...thats not GUI.

[infra_red_dude]

Originally Posted by gx_saurav

An OS needs a web browser as an add on application. Why don't u go & sue Apple & Various Linux distribution because they also install Safari & Firefox by default whether u want it or not. In Mac OS X, u do no get an option during installation for not installing Safari. During the install of Ubuntu you also do not get option to select which packages to install & which to not so that u can remove Firefox from installing.

I've already made it clear that Apple hasn't allowed much of 3rd party developers from a long time unlike the PC platform.

Originally Posted by gx_saurav

After u have installed the OS u can remove the browser in favor of any other browser u use, but here is the thing. The OS requires a HTML engine for many things, Mac OS X comes with the Webkit engine deeply integrated in Mac OS X due to which even if u remove safari, the webkit engine is still there. Same goes with Windows, you can uninstall IE 7 from Vista & IE 7 software will be uninstalled but the Trident engine that IE 7 used will still be there because the OS needs it. KDE comes with KHTML Engine & for that the software is Konqurer, again you can remove the browser but not the HTML Engine in any OS out there. Trust me, you cannot remove an HTML engine from even Linux. Unless its CLI only Linux.

There is no tagging of html engine and the GNOME DE. I can use or remove any browser I want, completely at any point of the time. In this respect Mac OS is the least tolerant. Prolly coz not many alternatives exist.

Originally Posted by gx_saurav

This isn't Microsoft's fault that customer ask for better out of the box experience & when MS provides that in form of IE 7 & WMP 11 they get sued.

Certainly not for me and many many others!!!

Originally Posted by gx_saurav

Safari software works better then Firefox software on Mac.

Exactly, they've killed competition with a better product. And the competition wasn't even a threat to them!

Originally Posted by gx_saurav

IE 7 Software works much better then Firefox on Windows.

Both open web pages fine, both are enough for good out of the box experience after which the user can install whatever they want. What is the problem here, I fail to understand.

The Rendering speed, the out of box security etc. etc. Plz consider Opera in the discussion too.

Originally Posted by gx_saurav

Yes there is. Both are products from a company & laces are also made by many other companies which are addon to the real product (Shoe)

This is a completely illogical comparsion. I won't say anything else. A lace is an integral part of a shoe. A browser and a media player are application software NOT system software. Hope you understand the difference.

Originally Posted by gx_saurav

Sure u can, but can u run a GUI OS without an HTML engine & Media Playback engine? Now don't tell me the CLI Linux thing...thats not GUI.

Excatly, this is the key strategy here. Tag the HTML engine with the browser and the multimedia engine with the media player so that neither is completely uninstallable!!! I don't haf any qualms about Media Player. Its a very mature and worthy product.

[iMav]

infra how many users know of firefox how many users give a damn about which browser they are using as long as its browsing the bloody net ... and y do u wnat to COMPLETELY remove it leave it there and install which ever browser u want to that is not the problem u know that as well as i do ....

opera might be good u might like it but most of my frenz dont care they want to chk mail surf a lil porn and IE 7 does a solid job on vista and its not like windows doesnt allow u to install opera or set it as ur default browser

the example was apt and u too understood what i was trying to imply as u cant have shoes without laces (laced 1s) u cant have an OS without a browser and media player if u like a media player more thn the 1 bundled or ulike a browser more than the 1 bundled install and use who is stopping u u can set it as ur default browser then y the un-necessary fus abt it

[gxsaurav]

Originally Posted by infra_red_dude

I've already made it clear that Apple hasn't allowed much of 3rd party developers from a long time unlike the PC platform.

Really, I doubt that judging by the sheer number of applications for Mac OS X & arya's reply.

There is no tagging of html engine and the GNOME DE. I can use or remove any browser I want, completely at any point of the time.

Wait, if you can see a HTML Help file, (*.chm) then there is a HTML engine still there in Gnome DE (example)

In this respect Mac OS is the least tolerant. Prolly coz not many alternatives exist.

I don't like Quicktime, can I uninstall it in Mac OS X, sure I can, but then the software will be uninstalled but engine will still be there. If I remove the quicktime engine, Mac OS X will seaize to work properly.

Certainly not for me and many many others!!!

Fine, u do have the option to install anything else u want. I don't like Firefox in Ubuntu, where is my option to install Opera during the installation of Ubuntu & not Firefox?

Exactly, they've killed competition with a better product. And the competition wasn't even a threat to them!

Lolz...Safari better then firefox, u must be joking right

The Rendering speed, the out of box security etc. etc. Plz consider Opera in the discussion too.

I was comparing IE 7 software only, thats why i mentioned it clearly.

[din]

While making examples, please make something sensible. Basically examples are for people like me (non geeks) to understand things easily. Do not make examples for teh sake of making it lol.

Comparing Windows with shoe and shoe lace is really funny and nice but they are no way comparable.

Consider the threads I mentioned. Car and stereo. A car can run without a stereo, no problem at all. Tomo if Maruti forces the user to buy some crappy stereo of their own (made by maruti -lol) thats not a good business practise.

Now if the media player or browser is a part of OS and they can't be removed - OK, agreed. Basically there will not be any need of the interface, am I right ? I mean the basic engine (whetever it is called) may be needed but not the browser as such and not the media player as such. Just like MS deliver Win without media player (yes they do even before the proposal) in EU, they can do it everywhere.

Example - no stereo in car, but the space is left, so we can buy and put it there Simple isn't it ?

MS always like monopoly and kill competition, as I mentioned on the other threads, at a customer point of view, we may not feel bad - afterall we get a browser and media player free ! But customer is not the only part in a business. So monopoly or un-ethical business practices may be good for customer sometimes but that does not mean that that is good business.

All other points in the thread (starting post) sounds sensible, except this one. When apple make something, thats not really a threat but when MS make something like that it is really a threat. Thats the difference.

Most of the discussion above is around the customer - like whos stopping you from uninstalling - installing etc etc. But the point is not about customer, it is about un-ethical business practice, bundling products to kill competition and monopoly. So there is no point in arguing at a customer point of view.

[gxsaurav]

Originally Posted by din

Consider the threads I mentioned. Car and stereo. A car can run without a stereo, no problem at all. Tomo if Maruti forces the user to buy some crappy stereo of their own (made by maruti -lol) thats not a good business practise.

The stereo fits in the stero compartment of the Car's chassis, u can fit any 3rd party stereo like Sony XPload

A Win32 software fits in Win32 enviroment of Vista, u can install any 3rd party software u like. For most users who are not geeks, the default out of the box applications are good enough.

Now if the media player or browser is a part of OS and they can't be removed - OK, agreed. Basically there will not be any need of the interface, am I right ? I mean the basic engine (whetever it is called) may be needed but not the browser as such and not the media player as such. Just like MS deliver Win without media player (yes they do even before the proposal) in EU, they can do it everywhere.

Which in turn will ruin the Out of the box experience even further & then I will send u to answer anyone who asks me "Why can't MS provide a media player & browser in Windows when Linux & Mac OS provides them out of the box?". I hope u know that Windows XP N was the least successful version of Windows ever created. Hardly any OEM in Europe is providing it.

Example - no stereo in car, but the space is left, so we can buy and put it there Simple isn't it ?

What if u want to play music just after leaving the showroom? Thats why a stereo is there already be default for a better out of the showroom experience.

MS always like monopoly and kill competition, as I mentioned on the other threads, at a customer point of view, we may not feel bad - afterall we get a browser and media player free ! But customer is not the only part in a business.

It would have been monopolistic if MS disallowed installation & usage of 3rd party media players & browsers as default in Windows.

When apple make something, thats not really a threat but when MS make something like that it is really a threat. Thats the difference.

ACDSee is a image manager & browser, you can edit images too. Adobe lightroom is again the same thing. Is Windows Photo Gallery a threat to these applications in Vista? What u r saying is not always true. MS is just trying to provide better out of the box experience. U want MS not to kill competition then tell users to stop asking MS for features out of the box in Windows.

bundling products to kill competition and monopoly. So there is no point in arguing at a customer point of view.

What....? Products are bundled with the OS so that user don't have to hunt for things after installing. At one point u r saying MS shouldn't bundle things with the OS while on the other hand mediator says he wants better out of the box Experience....lolz

Moral of the Story - Microsoft, damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[infra_red_dude]

Originally Posted by gx_saurav

Really, I doubt that judging by the sheer number of applications for Mac OS X & arya's reply.

Except the biggies like Photoshop, how many of them are comparable and a threat to the ones bundled in Mac OS X?

Originally Posted by gx_saurav

Wait, if you can see a HTML Help file, (*.chm) then there is a HTML engine still there in Gnome DE (example)

Thats what I said. The HTML engine is independent of the browser! Read again. Btw, there are no chm help files.

Originally Posted by gx_saurav

I don't like Quicktime, can I uninstall it in Mac OS X, sure I can, but then the software will be uninstalled but engine will still be there. If I remove the quicktime engine, Mac OS X will seaize to work properly.

This is exactly what I'm saying. Mac OS X is the least tolerant in this case. You are simply repeating what I haf said.

Originally Posted by gx_saurav

Fine, u do have the option to install anything else u want. I don't like Firefox in Ubuntu, where is my option to install Opera during the installation of Ubuntu & not Firefox?

Firefox is not a product of Canonical. Its a 3rd party product anyways. And Yes, you could've done that till sometime ago. You could've NOT installed firefox when installing ubuntu. However, some users complained that the installation was too complicated. Hence this feature was removed. You can do this in some other distros, tho. Btw, you can completely uninstall Firefox (or whatever web browser you use) and/or the Gstreamer backend and yet haf a system which has an unaffected HTML engine and allows you to install some other Multimedia backend.

This is, however, not possible in Mac OS and its not a problem either. I don't know of any multimedia engine for Mac OS which is better, other than QuickTime. If there was competition there this move would've been a bad one by Apply. They made sure that they held the reins in this category from begining and hence when Apple bundles it, its not threatening the existance of anyone.

Everyone knows that Apple is completely closed source and locked company. What more can you expect from it? Inspite of knowing this its futile to whine later. We don't want MS to become another Apple and its in the interest of the whole computing community.

Originally Posted by gx_saurav

Lolz...Safari better then firefox, u must be joking right

Mebbe you've never used Mac OS X properly.

Originally Posted by gx_saurav

I was comparing IE 7 software only, thats why i mentioned it clearly.

You were comparing IE7 with what?? With itself?? When you compare something you do it AGAINST another entity. It can never be a one man show.

[gxsaurav]

Originally Posted by infra_red_dude

Except the biggies like Photoshop, how many of them are comparable and a threat to the ones bundled in Mac OS X?

iPhoto/Aperature - Adobe Lightroom
iChat - Adium
iWork - MS office
Quicktime - VLC player
iTunes - Monopoly but real player will do too.

Thats what I said. The HTML engine is independent of the browser!

Yes, & it will still be there, so u can very well "compleatey" uninstall IE 7 from Vista. Now whats your problem anymore?

Btw, there are no chm help files.

What the then what are those CHM help files (compiled HTML help) files which I got with AutoCAD & 3Ds Max which i read when i m having a hard time understanding physics of mental ray.

This is exactly what I'm saying. Mac OS X is the least tolerant in this case. You are simply repeating what I haf said.

Yup, so shouldn't Apple be sued too?

you can completely uninstall Firefox (or whatever web browser you use)

U can compleately uninstall IE 7 Software too.

I don't know of any multimedia engine for Mac OS which is better, other than QuickTime.

VLC Player engine.

Everyone knows that Apple is completely closed source and locked company. What more can you expect from it? Inspite of knowing this its futile to whine later.

So why blame MS when they bundle something to provide better out of the box experience.

Mebbe you've never used Mac OS X properly.

Read again, I have mentioned that Safari software is better then firefox on Mac, cos its native & integrated in Mac OS. But as a browser Firefox is much better then safari on Mac.

I was comparing IE 7 frontend software part to Firefox software frontend

[din]

Originally Posted by gx_saurav

At one point u r saying MS shouldn't bundle things with the OS while on the other hand mediator says he wants better out of the box Experience....lolz

Hmm, the ids din and mediator are two and they are of different persons. Both views may be same, may be different, and I failed to understand why you wrote like the same person posts contradicting. Both are from different persons.

Why MS bundle things is - not to help customers. It is very clear from the very old browser issue itself. They still repeat the same old trick and the US and EU courts give orders against them.

Regarding safari and FF. I never used safari in a mac and I do not know. Are you using a mac ? I mean not a PC and all those hack to run mac os and not the safari in win. The real mac. Unless you use that how can you tell whether safari is good in a mac or FF ?

Now don't tell you do not own a mac, but you borrowed from a friend for 2 days and you found FF better than safari.

Originally Posted by gx_saurav

What if u want to play music just after leaving the showroom? Thats why a stereo is there already be default for a better out of the showroom experience.

Hmm, seems you didn't read my post. Please, this is not a thing that can be analysed a customer point of view. This is un-ethical business practise that kills competition and a threat to other companies. Nothing to do with customer.

now - story of the day lol

All characters in this story are fictious. There may be similarities in the name or character but the author did not meant that

Yr 2008. Hero in the movie - gy_saurav attend the MS interview. Bill bhai ask him questions and by looking at the posts he made in different forums and his capabilitis in UI design Bill is pretty happy and decide to appoint him in MS Bangalore. But ask him to join only in 2009. gy_saurav decide to go to blore in 2008 itself and plans to start a juice stall (to earn something before he join MS). He start a juice stall near a womens college (no, he has no plans for vista install at night 2 am). On the second day another guy from culcutta, one mr.varyaush came to knew this. By selling all the apple fruits he had in godown he is flying to blore. On the very next day another guy called Praka_new from Kerala also came to know that and selle his rubber estate and move to blore. Both these guys starts fast food shops very near to gy_saurav's shop. None of these are exclusive juice shops. varyaush offer 50 Rs apple biriyani and 1 big glass juice is free with it. Praka_new offer free food but the customer have to - either prepare it himself or pay for making it. All three shops are working fine. One day two friends - infra_blue_dude and dan decide to go out to have something. They decide to enter gy_saurav's shop. Now varyaush raise a big board - come here, have juice for free and they all see Praka_new's shop too. The story is complete here. Anyone can use this for free and make their own end part etc. But in the un-altered story, gy_saurav is out of business, heart broken (only ray of hope is Bill Bhai's promise) and the movie ends with the song ...

Every night in my dreams I see free juice ...

end of the movie. There is no way to beat a person through internet after reading all the crap he wrote, , so I am very safe

[gxsaurav]

Originally Posted by din

Hmm, the ids din and mediator are two and they are of different persons. Both views may be same, may be different, and I failed to understand why you wrote like the same person posts contradicting. Both are from different persons.

Moral of the Line - A product cannot satisfy everyone equally.

Why MS bundle things is - not to help customers.

So bundling a web browser so that user can check his mails 2 mins after installing Windows is bad? Wow...I don't understand the logic u r using here.

Are you using a mac ? I mean not a PC and all those hack to run mac os and not the safari in win. The real mac. Unless you use that how can you tell whether safari is good in a mac or FF ?

Because safari software works same on Macintosh or Hackintosh

Now don't tell you do not own a mac, but you borrowed from a friend for 2 days and you found FF better than safari.

Nah, I test Mac on my nearest Apple store

Hmm, seems you didn't read my post. Please, this is not a thing that can be analysed a customer point of view. This is un-ethical business practice that kills competition and a threat to other companies. Nothing to do with customer.

Rule one of business : Satisfy the customer. Providing a stereo out of the showroom is satisfying the customer. Whats the problem? With that logic Maruti shouldn't provide the car with seat covers, belts, stereo, tire, gearbox, nitro...jet engine & what not.

now - story of the day lol

gy_saurav is out of business, heart broken (only ray of hope is Bill Bhai's promise) and the movie ends with the song ...

How? Those who don't want to eat & only want juice can get juice from gy's shop for less then Rs 50 compared to varyaush, & they don't even have to prepare juice first themselves compared to praka_new's shop. They just want to drink some juice so why wait & labor to prepare it or buy apple biryani when all u want is some juice to end the thirst.

Why are the customers forced to buy biryani when they want to drink some juice?

Why the customer is forced to make the juice himself when he wants to drink something & go back to work.?

[mediator]

Phew....man @Din/Dan is dangerous!! I was searching for my alias in the story half the time. U shud compete with Dan Brown man!

[infra_red_dude]

Originally Posted by gx_saurav

iPhoto/Aperature - Adobe Lightroom
iChat - Adium
iWork - MS office
Quicktime - VLC player
iTunes - Monopoly but real player will do too.

Adobe, MS Offie aren't the biggies? I think I clearly mentioned biggies in my post.

Originally Posted by gx_saurav

What the then what are those CHM help files (compiled HTML help) files which I got with AutoCAD & 3Ds Max which i read when i m having a hard time understanding physics of mental ray.

AutoCAD and 3DS Max run on GNOME??? Read your post again.

Originally Posted by gx_saurav

Yup, so shouldn't Apple be sued too?

Ethically yes, practically NO. Coz when you buy an Apple product you know that you are locked beforehand. Thats what I mentioned. The Mac territory is completely under Apple. Its like this: If you goto Saudi Arabia and commit a crime your hands mebbe chopped off and there's little you can do anything about it. But here in India inspite of committing a crime if such a thing happens then you can approach a court. You can't complain about Saudi Arabia coz you know beforehand about the laws.

Same is the case with Apple. You know beforehand what you can expect and what you can't.

Originally Posted by gx_saurav

VLC Player engine.

You think its a threat to the Quicktime engine on Mac?

Originally Posted by gx_saurav

Read again, I have mentioned that Safari software is better then firefox on Mac, cos its native & integrated in Mac OS. But as a browser Firefox is much better then safari on Mac.

Sorry I cudn't find this in your post. Plz point me to it.

All I could find was this:

Originally Posted by gx_saurav

Safari software works better then Firefox software on Mac

About comparing IE and FF

Originally Posted by gx_saurav

I was comparing IE 7 frontend software part to Firefox software frontend

Yes, FF is more secure out of the box than IE.

@Din
Awesome story, obscure but very relevant!

[gxsaurav]

Originally Posted by infra_red_dude

AutoCAD and 3DS Max run on GNOME??? Read your post again.

Oh, Ok,...u never mentioned u were talking about Gnome.

Same is the case with Apple. You know beforehand what you can expect and what you can't.

Moral - Apple & Mac OS sux

You think its a threat to the Quicktime engine on Mac?

No, but its better then Quicktime engine & I can't switch to i on Mac, so why do people sue MS only when they provide DirectShow engine in Windows which cannot be completely removed.

Yes, FF is more secure out of the box than IE.

Questionable & subjective. Out of the box firefox is useless without extensions

[infra_red_dude]

Originally Posted by gx_saurav

Oh, Ok,...u never mentioned u were talking about Gnome.

I never spoke about it. It was your own statement:

Originally Posted by gx_saurav

Wait, if you can see a HTML Help file, (*.chm) then there is a HTML engine still there in Gnome DE (example)

Originally Posted by gx_saurav

Moral - Apple & Mac OS sux

Its like saying Saudi Arabia sux, refering to the prev. example. But people who are accustomed to staying there still like it, rite? They don't haf any problems coz its their decision inspite of knowing it beforehand. However, its not the case on the PC platform. You know how things are here.

Originally Posted by gx_saurav

No, but its better then Quicktime engine...

I don't think so. Again it mebbe subjective.

Originally Posted by gx_saurav

so why do people sue MS only when they provide DirectShow engine in Windows which cannot be completely removed.

I'm with you regarding this. I think the whole DX package is worth its weight.

Originally Posted by gx_saurav

Questionable & subjective.

Security is neither questionable nor subjective.

Originally Posted by gx_saurav

Out of the box firefox is useless without extensions

IE is no better. Someone shed some light on Safari on Mac (Macboys only plz) The best OOBE is provided by Opera tho. It has everything bundled in a small package.

[gxsaurav]

Originally Posted by infra_red_dude

Security is neither questionable nor subjective.

Security is not questionable, but whether firefox is more secure then IE 7 out of the box or not, this is questionable.

Opera is best out of the box. Just that due to lack of support for AI roboform I don't like it.