Shinkiro (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} punkoergosum) wrote,@ 2008-12-27 18:52:00 |
|
OS X: O RLY?
The more I play with OS X the more I like it. I really think that if Apple dropped the smarmy marketing campaign (and a bit of the price) they'd win over a few die-hard PC users. If I wasn't into computer gaming, I could probably use OS X as my primary operating system. One thing I found really neat is how applications are installed and uninstalled.
Installing a program typically consists of downloading a file with a .dmg extension. These files act like virtual disk images (for PC users, think .ISO files for virtual CD images). Executing the .dmg file "mounts" it, so you can browse the files on the disk. Most prepackaged apps pop up a window displaying the icon of the application, and a shortcut to the Applications folder on your hard drive. Installing the program is as easy as dragging the icon into the Application folder. Unlike Windows apps, most OS X apps have just the one file, so you don't have to worry about all sorts of file libraries or messy folder structures. Uninstalling the program is as simple as deleting the file from the Applications folder.
This works because the "program", generally ending in .app, is actually a package, not just a single executable. The package contains several component files, such as preferences, color palettes, logs, and things like that. The components can often be modified manually for fine tuning, but I've not yet come across a scenario where that was necessary for the app to function.
There are some programs that have a .mpkg file, rather than a .dmg or .app file. These, I'm guessing, are similar to *nix programs that need to be compiled (if I had to guess, I'd say mpkg = make package). They tend to have actual installer wizards, more like typical Windows applications. It appears that they install their resources into specific resource folders, and drop the .app file for the program itself in Applications. That's a good way to do things- it keeps the Applications folder clean, and keeps all of the resources in a central location.
I've been pretty impressed with this operating system so far. The price of a new Apple computer is still a negative point however. To illustrate: I built my current PC in January 08 for approximately $1600, including the monitor (24" Dell, full price.. yeah, not so cheap). I got my (legit) copy of Vista for free from Microsoft, but that would have been around another $3-400 (it came with both 32 and 64-bit Vista Ultimate). It has a Q6600 core 2 quad processor running at 3.6GHz, 4GB RAM, and an ASUS 8800GTS 512 G92 video card. The best iMac you can get right now has:
# 3.06GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
# 2GB 800MHz DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB
# NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GS w/512MB GDDR3
and STARTS at $2200. The RAM is the only piece you can even upgrade, and that runs $150 for another 2GB. But it all depends on what you want to do with it. For about $1000 less, you can get a 20" iMac with lower specs and anunimpressive graphics processor, but that'd make a perfectly good computer for a family that doesn't play intensive games or edit video. You could argue that for half the price of that, you could build a Windows computer or even a linux one, but I can see how people might be drawn to the shiny Apple interface and the "it just works" policy. That's another argument I hear frequently both for and against Apple- you can't really modify or upgrade the hardware. That's true, what you get it what you're stuck with until you upgrade. On the other hand, having an extremely low number of components to support means that Apple can focus on making sure that they always work, and that anything that's supposed to work on an Apple, does. Windows is pretty picky as far as the drivers it'll cooperate with, although you can generally get most things to work. And don't get me started on linux and hardware. I guess that's why Apple is marketed towards a more affluent crowd- when your hardware becomes obsolete, you just replace it. The car metaphor works well here:
Linux is a kit car. You can get the components for a song, but you'll put in months worth of man-hours before it runs the way you want. If you know how to build it, you can end up with a dream machine.
Windows is a tuner car. You start with a fairly standard setup (say, a Subaru Impreza) and have lots of options to replace parts or tweak things. It's fun to put together and rewarding to fix, when it works. But it's also frustratingly easy to break things, and difficult to get the entire system to work in concert. For a bit more than the base price you can blow away people with much more expensive systems, if you don't blow the engine first.
Apple is a luxury car. It's shiny, has a slick interface, and generally does what you want it to right out of the box. Replacing any of the major components voids the warranty, but for the price you paid, you wouldn't really want to anyway. When you realize that the Jones' computer next door is sleeker and faster, you can just get the new model. Maybe Apple should lease computers. Hmm.
The more I play with OS X the more I like it. I really think that if Apple dropped the smarmy marketing campaign (and a bit of the price) they'd win over a few die-hard PC users. If I wasn't into computer gaming, I could probably use OS X as my primary operating system. One thing I found really neat is how applications are installed and uninstalled.
Installing a program typically consists of downloading a file with a .dmg extension. These files act like virtual disk images (for PC users, think .ISO files for virtual CD images). Executing the .dmg file "mounts" it, so you can browse the files on the disk. Most prepackaged apps pop up a window displaying the icon of the application, and a shortcut to the Applications folder on your hard drive. Installing the program is as easy as dragging the icon into the Application folder. Unlike Windows apps, most OS X apps have just the one file, so you don't have to worry about all sorts of file libraries or messy folder structures. Uninstalling the program is as simple as deleting the file from the Applications folder.
This works because the "program", generally ending in .app, is actually a package, not just a single executable. The package contains several component files, such as preferences, color palettes, logs, and things like that. The components can often be modified manually for fine tuning, but I've not yet come across a scenario where that was necessary for the app to function.
There are some programs that have a .mpkg file, rather than a .dmg or .app file. These, I'm guessing, are similar to *nix programs that need to be compiled (if I had to guess, I'd say mpkg = make package). They tend to have actual installer wizards, more like typical Windows applications. It appears that they install their resources into specific resource folders, and drop the .app file for the program itself in Applications. That's a good way to do things- it keeps the Applications folder clean, and keeps all of the resources in a central location.
I've been pretty impressed with this operating system so far. The price of a new Apple computer is still a negative point however. To illustrate: I built my current PC in January 08 for approximately $1600, including the monitor (24" Dell, full price.. yeah, not so cheap). I got my (legit) copy of Vista for free from Microsoft, but that would have been around another $3-400 (it came with both 32 and 64-bit Vista Ultimate). It has a Q6600 core 2 quad processor running at 3.6GHz, 4GB RAM, and an ASUS 8800GTS 512 G92 video card. The best iMac you can get right now has:
# 3.06GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
# 2GB 800MHz DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB
# NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GS w/512MB GDDR3
and STARTS at $2200. The RAM is the only piece you can even upgrade, and that runs $150 for another 2GB. But it all depends on what you want to do with it. For about $1000 less, you can get a 20" iMac with lower specs and anunimpressive graphics processor, but that'd make a perfectly good computer for a family that doesn't play intensive games or edit video. You could argue that for half the price of that, you could build a Windows computer or even a linux one, but I can see how people might be drawn to the shiny Apple interface and the "it just works" policy. That's another argument I hear frequently both for and against Apple- you can't really modify or upgrade the hardware. That's true, what you get it what you're stuck with until you upgrade. On the other hand, having an extremely low number of components to support means that Apple can focus on making sure that they always work, and that anything that's supposed to work on an Apple, does. Windows is pretty picky as far as the drivers it'll cooperate with, although you can generally get most things to work. And don't get me started on linux and hardware. I guess that's why Apple is marketed towards a more affluent crowd- when your hardware becomes obsolete, you just replace it. The car metaphor works well here:
Linux is a kit car. You can get the components for a song, but you'll put in months worth of man-hours before it runs the way you want. If you know how to build it, you can end up with a dream machine.
Windows is a tuner car. You start with a fairly standard setup (say, a Subaru Impreza) and have lots of options to replace parts or tweak things. It's fun to put together and rewarding to fix, when it works. But it's also frustratingly easy to break things, and difficult to get the entire system to work in concert. For a bit more than the base price you can blow away people with much more expensive systems, if you don't blow the engine first.
Apple is a luxury car. It's shiny, has a slick interface, and generally does what you want it to right out of the box. Replacing any of the major components voids the warranty, but for the price you paid, you wouldn't really want to anyway. When you realize that the Jones' computer next door is sleeker and faster, you can just get the new model. Maybe Apple should lease computers. Hmm.
