Windows.. it's like coming home!
Dan Johnson
up my new Toshiba laptop. So now I feel my trolling
is incomplete if I don't post some explaination for why
I would want to buy a Toshiba laptop at all.
After all, I had a PowerBook G4, and the junkware
infestation on this Toshiba was not a surprise to me.
That I like MS as a company better than Apple is
one factor that will surprise no-one. But I have
better reasons too. Lots of reasons.
This will be a long post.
* Apple sacrifices a lot for style.
The PowerBook is beautiful. The aluminum
case is a marvelous look, and it is so thin!
But the PowerBook runs *hot*; burn-my-lap hot.
When using it on my lap, I had to lay it on its
carrying case for insulation.
And the WiFi reception is not so great. Sometimes
I feel I have to be so close, I might as well run a
cable. Making the case of metal makes reception
problematic.
Toshiba's laptop is standard issue Wintel ugly; it's
thicker, and has a three-tone plastic case. But it
runs reasonably cool- no icepack needed- and
gets better reception for WiFi too.
It's not art, but it is practical.
* Application Availability
I was not a very demanding user- mostly
Apple apps for me- but even with my
limited demands, I found I found app
availability to be a problem.
I had a devil of a time finding a decent
newsreader.
I eventually settled on Unison, which has
adequate UI- it looks like Aqua at least-
but it was terribly buggy then.
It's better now, but it's still mostly targetted
at Pr0n Surfing.
I posted rather less here because it was
awkward to work with threads in this
newsreader.
I also tried MT/Newswatcher, but the UI
was a crawling horror.
On Windows I just use Outlook Express
for this. Works fine, decent UI, no problem.
I also bought a few games for the thing. I
wasn't expecting much, but I was still
disappointed. Little is available, and
what is there are ports of older PC
games, and they still do not play real
well on G4 hardware.
There does not appear to be much of
a Mac games industry at all.
* My Eyes! The Goggles, They Do Nothing!
If the googles had magnifying lenses,
then maybe they would do something.
Mac OS X has no resolution independance; it
treats all screens as 72 dpi. They are really
about 100 dpi; the result is teeny tiny UI.
This was just an ongoing sore with the
PowerBook; never a insurmountable
obstacle, but always annoying.
The first thing I did to the new Toshiba-
before even removing the jumkware- was
setting the dpi setting to "Large Size"
Such a relief!
* Surprise: Transition!
Being an Apple customer is an advanture;
you never know what the Next Big Thing
is. It's very exciting. But it's most.. impractical.
I really, really don't like it that Apple is
dropping Classic now.
And I don't like my choices at this point:
I can buy a MacBook, and run my existing
software in emulation (ick), or stay with an
old computer and eventually be cut out of
new software. That sucks.
If I gotta repurchase software, it'll be
the Window version, thank you.
* Tools for the Previous Century
I came to the Mac, originally, to see the famous
developer tools; Objective-C, Cocoa and
Interface Builder.
It has been a mind-expanding experience. Objective-C,
in particular, is a very different way to think about
code. And If anyone wants to expand their horizons
by learning a new platform, I can recommend
Cocoa/OS X as the platform to learn, if you can
spare the cash to get into it.
But, in the end, it's just not as good as what you
get on Windows.
Objective-C has horrible syntax, and the memory
management in there is cruder than VB 6. And
you have to focus a lot more on optimization with
it, because it produces pretty slow code by
default.
Interface Builder is obsolete. It's not well
integrated with XCode, and it works poorly
for user-defined controls. It's just not
competitive at all.
XCode itself is weak for a commercial IDE;
it's slow and unstable. The code-sense is
almost unusable. And the UI is still quite
awkward for editing multiple files.
Cocoa is the best thing about the platform;
but even it is showing its age.
In particular it's error handling is terrible;
they've got an exception mechanism but
they almost never use it; instead you have
methods returning nil and false and such
for errors, and there's no good way to find
out what went wrong.
* Grand Unification Theory
I never thought I'd say this, but the UI of
Windows apps is *more consistant* than
what you get on the Mac today.
No, Really.
Nearly everything works with the battleship
gray Classic Theme. And they all work in
pretty similar ways; toolbars, menus, and
panes. It's not radical; it's just Microsoft's
update on OS/2's update of the original
Mac UI.
On the Mac, you get a mix of 'new style'
Aqua apps and OS 9 refugees.
The OS 9 brigate have been ported to
Carbon, but their UIs often show their
roots very clearly.
MT/Newswatcher was a real poster child
for this. It may use the Aqua widgets, but it
doesn't behave like Aqua at all.
You see this on a smaller scale in many other
(Carbon) apps. Check out the Office: Mac
preferences, for one place I've noticed.
Even if you stick strictly the New Breed,
you still get a hodge-podge of visual styles;
some Aqua Classic, some with the new
'Unified' look, some with brushed
metal, some with 'unified' brushed metal,
and some with the 'pro' style.
All that in Apple's own products.
They also vary in behavior, but not quite so
broadly. For instance, Cocoa apps often
use NeXT-style inspectors- Keynote and
Pages do this. Carbon apps will use
old-style dialog boxes, however: iTunes
does this.
I appreciate the technical problems Apple
faces here, but it really seems like they
go out of their way to make this worse.
* That'll be another $129, please
One spiffy thing about Windows is that
MS gives away a lot of the little stuff
for free download. Microsoft's Spotlight-
clone is one I've installed. It's as convenient
as the real thing, and quite a lot quicker.
Apple isn't into freebies, I notice.
* That'll be another $30, please
I still think it's incredibly lame that Apple
demands $30 bucks for fullscreen playback
in QuickTime player. Talk about nickle-and-
diming you to death!
New versions of Windows Media Player
are one of the many freebies MS makes
available. I've got WMP11 beta on here
now; its very slick.
* The Dock and The Taskbar
Apple's application-centric Dock also annoys
me. I almost never want to switch to an app,
but to a window. The taskbar is much nicer.
And the taskbar blows less real-estate, so
I can leave it visible. It can also hold more
items; it can be more than one tile tall,
and it auto-combines tiles into menus
when necessary.
* The Dock and the Start Menu
As a program launcher, the XP start menu
just kicks the dock up and down the field.
The start menu, like the dock, keeps small number
of apps immediately available, but unlike the
dock, they don't move around all the time.
Muscle memory works; Apple used to care about
this sort of thing. But not anymore.
Plus the start menu offers all sorts of system
configuration and control stuff, like the Apple
menu in Mac OS X. But the start menu can be
customized.
Plus the start menu shows recently used apps;
I find that very handy.
And of course, the start menu also has a
complete program list in it too. But that's
not something I use too much.
Elijah Baley
"Dan Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
Funny how trolls always seem to parrot threads they read on Mac forums.
That's how obsession works I guess.
--
"Momma always said, "Stupid is as stupid does."" -Forest Gump
"You can't fix stupid." -Jim White, local radio personality
PseuDoughIntellectual
Dan Johnson wrote:
> * That'll be another $30, please
>
> I still think it's incredibly lame that Apple
> demands $30 bucks for fullscreen playback
> in QuickTime player. Talk about nickle-and-
> diming you to death!
Somewhat agree. Most of the clips I run across are low res. so blowing
them up to full screen makes them look grainy as hell and borderline
unusable. But full screen display should really be part of standard
QuickTime.
> * The Dock and The Taskbar
>
> Apple's application-centric Dock also annoys
> me. I almost never want to switch to an app,
> but to a window. The taskbar is much nicer.
Apple's implementation on the visuals is cleaner. Minimized windows
are shown below the appllications on the dock. But I will give Windows
an dge in that the "Alt-tab" function scrolls between open windows and
then maximizes the particular window you are selecting. OSX's
"Option-tab" lets you scroll among applications, but doesn't maximize a
window shrunk on the dock, which isn't very useful. (anyone know a way
to configure that?)
> And the taskbar blows less real-estate, so
> I can leave it visible.
Both (taskbar, dock) can be automatically hidden. You can change the
dock size on OSX or move its location to the left, bottom, or right.
> It can also hold more
> items; it can be more than one tile tall,
> and it auto-combines tiles into menus
> when necessary.
I've never had an issue with having so many windows open I couldn't
manage them with the Dock.
> * The Dock and the Start Menu
>
> As a program launcher, the XP start menu
> just kicks the dock up and down the field.
Couldn't disagree more here. The XP start menu is a mess.
Applications are buried three or four menus deep, setup menus and
dialogs are scattered everywhere. It's the same hodgepodge from
Windows 2000 only slightly streamlined and prettied up.
> The start menu, like the dock, keeps small number
> of apps immediately available, but unlike the
> dock, they don't move around all the time.
What do you mean here? Are you saying the dock moves applications
around?
> Plus the start menu offers all sorts of system
> configuration and control stuff, like the Apple
> menu in Mac OS X. But the start menu can be
> customized.
The dock can too. Put the applications you use most on it, remove the
ones you use seldomly. Couldn't be simpler. OSX's dock isn't
cluttered with mini menus on the left and right hand side like the task
bar is either. And OSX's "System Preferences" menu is the standard by
which all should be judged. Almost everything in OSX can be configured
from one central menu and the interface is always consistent. The
Windows approach has system preferences scattered between four
different sub-menus (control panel, task bar, etc.) and the dialogs for
various settings on the control panel are not always consistent,
although XP is a lot better than 2000.
> Plus the start menu shows recently used apps;
> I find that very handy.
I suppose it's useful for some, but to me it just adds clutter.
Sandman
> But the PowerBook runs *hot*; burn-my-lap hot.
> When using it on my lap, I had to lay it on its
> carrying case for insulation.
What PB model did you have? My PB can get hot, but not burn-hot.
> And the WiFi reception is not so great. Sometimes
> I feel I have to be so close, I might as well run a
> cable. Making the case of metal makes reception
> problematic.
I have surprisingly good reception. The new aluminum PBs have the
antenna in the screen and I get excellent coverage. A *lot* better
than my Dell XPS laptop.
> I had a devil of a time finding a decent
> newsreader.
You didn't look very hard then. MT-NewsWatcher is the best newsreader,
all categories. It lacks that special Cocoa feeling to it, but other
than that, it has everything (but offline reading) :)
> I eventually settled on Unison, which has
> adequate UI- it looks like Aqua at least-
> but it was terribly buggy then.
And still terribly inadequate for a newsreader, functionality-wise. It
doesnt' support scoring and it doesnt' support regexp filtering on the
References: header.
> I also tried MT/Newswatcher, but the UI
> was a crawling horror.
>
> On Windows I just use Outlook Express
> for this. Works fine, decent UI, no problem.
Decent UI? Are you drunk? Outlook is a true mess for newsreading.
> I also bought a few games for the thing. I
> wasn't expecting much, but I was still
> disappointed. Little is available, and
> what is there are ports of older PC
> games, and they still do not play real
> well on G4 hardware.
Of course. Games - the only reason to use a PC. And that's not even
true anymore with the Intel Macs. Now it's; Games - the only reason to
boot Windows.
> Mac OS X has no resolution independance; it
> treats all screens as 72 dpi. They are really
> about 100 dpi; the result is teeny tiny UI.
But beautifully crisp.
> This was just an ongoing sore with the
> PowerBook; never a insurmountable
> obstacle, but always annoying.
>
> The first thing I did to the new Toshiba-
> before even removing the jumkware- was
> setting the dpi setting to "Large Size"
>
> Such a relief!
What parts didn't work for you, font sizes?
> Being an Apple customer is an advanture;
> you never know what the Next Big Thing
> is. It's very exciting. But it's most.. impractical.
>
> I really, really don't like it that Apple is
> dropping Classic now.
Classic will run on your PB nonetheless.
> And I don't like my choices at this point:
> I can buy a MacBook, and run my existing
> software in emulation (ick), or stay with an
> old computer and eventually be cut out of
> new software. That sucks.
What new software will you be cut out off?
> I never thought I'd say this, but the UI of
> Windows apps is *more consistant* than
> what you get on the Mac today.
>
> No, Really.
No, really not.
> Nearly everything works with the battleship
> gray Classic Theme. And they all work in
> pretty similar ways; toolbars, menus, and
> panes
Uh, they all work pretty different, especially MS own apps.
> * That'll be another $129, please
>
> One spiffy thing about Windows is that
> MS gives away a lot of the little stuff
> for free download. Microsoft's Spotlight-
> clone is one I've installed. It's as convenient
> as the real thing, and quite a lot quicker.
>
> Apple isn't into freebies, I notice.
Eh? Apple charges $129 for a *major* update. Windows... not having had
a major update in many many years, charged MORE for their latest major
update. Windows advocates just think they come off better since they
haven't had to pay for any major upgrades for their OS since, well,
there have been none.
> * That'll be another $30, please
>
> I still think it's incredibly lame that Apple
> demands $30 bucks for fullscreen playback
> in QuickTime player. Talk about nickle-and-
> diming you to death!
Agreed.
> * The Dock and The Taskbar
>
> Apple's application-centric Dock also annoys
> me. I almost never want to switch to an app,
> but to a window. The taskbar is much nicer.
Exposé.
> And the taskbar blows less real-estate, so
> I can leave it visible. It can also hold more
> items; it can be more than one tile tall,
> and it auto-combines tiles into menus
> when necessary.
If you make it bigger, it becomes bigger than the Dock at its
smallest. The dock can be 16px high and each application claims 16px
in width - much much less than the taskbar does. Claiming that the
taskbar has room for more applications is.. well, wrong.
> * The Dock and the Start Menu
>
> As a program launcher, the XP start menu
> just kicks the dock up and down the field.
Haha! The star menu is a complete MESS. There should be prices for
people that actually find the application they want to launch via the
Start Menu.
Drag your /Applications folder to the Dock. Viola - a start menu that
actually works, because it isn't cluttered with company named folders,
readme files, web links and uninstallers. Just the applications and
their icons.
> The start menu, like the dock, keeps small number
> of apps immediately available, but unlike the
> dock, they don't move around all the time.
Apps in the dock doesn't move around. They're always "third from left"
for instance.
> Muscle memory works
But not the way you think...
> Plus the start menu offers all sorts of system
> configuration and control stuff, like the Apple
> menu in Mac OS X. But the start menu can be
> customized.
Yeah, first thing I do is remove most of the mess you see in the start
menu, like Run..., Network and that sort of things. They have no place
there and they just mess up the UI.
> Plus the start menu shows recently used apps;
> I find that very handy.
So does the Apple menu.
> And of course, the start menu also has a
> complete program list in it too. But that's
> not something I use too much.
--
Sandman[.net]
Steven de Mena
"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message
news:mr-54791C.09...@individual.net...
>> * That'll be another $129, please
>>
>> One spiffy thing about Windows is that
>> MS gives away a lot of the little stuff
>> for free download. Microsoft's Spotlight-
>> clone is one I've installed. It's as convenient
>> as the real thing, and quite a lot quicker.
>>
>> Apple isn't into freebies, I notice.
>
> Eh? Apple charges $129 for a *major* update. Windows... not having had
> a major update in many many years, charged MORE for their latest major
> update. Windows advocates just think they come off better since they
> haven't had to pay for any major upgrades for their OS since, well,
> there have been none.
I think it is debatable that each 10.x update at $129 was *major*. They
should have been $29.95 updates, a price like that.
Steve
Snit
mr-54791C.09...@individual.net on 8/15/06 12:16 AM:
> In article <12e25k2...@news.supernews.com>,
> "Dan Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
>
>> But the PowerBook runs *hot*; burn-my-lap hot. When using it on my lap, I had
>> to lay it on its carrying case for insulation.
>>
> What PB model did you have? My PB can get hot, but not burn-hot.
>
>> And the WiFi reception is not so great. Sometimes I feel I have to be so
>> close, I might as well run a cable. Making the case of metal makes reception
>> problematic.
>>
> I have surprisingly good reception. The new aluminum PBs have the antenna in
> the screen and I get excellent coverage. A *lot* better than my Dell XPS
> laptop.
>
>> I had a devil of a time finding a decent newsreader.
>>
> You didn't look very hard then. MT-NewsWatcher is the best newsreader, all
> categories. It lacks that special Cocoa feeling to it, but other than that, it
> has everything (but offline reading) :)
>
I have played with MT-NewsWatcher and have never liked it. I much prefer
the "standard" three-panel view most e-mail clients give you.
>> I eventually settled on Unison, which has adequate UI- it looks like Aqua at
>> least- but it was terribly buggy then.
>>
> And still terribly inadequate for a newsreader, functionality-wise. It doesnt'
> support scoring and it doesnt' support regexp filtering on the References:
> header.
>
>> I also tried MT/Newswatcher, but the UI was a crawling horror.
>>
Agreed. If they fixed the UI the program might not be so bad.
>> On Windows I just use Outlook Express for this. Works fine, decent UI, no
>> problem.
>>
> Decent UI? Are you drunk? Outlook is a true mess for newsreading.
>
Entourage is not great - but better than MT-NewsWatcher... though its
threading *sucks*.
>> I also bought a few games for the thing. I wasn't expecting much, but I was
>> still disappointed. Little is available, and what is there are ports of older
>> PC games, and they still do not play real well on G4 hardware.
>>
> Of course. Games - the only reason to use a PC. And that's not even true
> anymore with the Intel Macs. Now it's; Games - the only reason to boot
> Windows.
>
>> Mac OS X has no resolution independance; it treats all screens as 72 dpi.
>> They are really about 100 dpi; the result is teeny tiny UI.
>>
> But beautifully crisp.
But still not resolution independent. Not until 10.5... most likely.
>> This was just an ongoing sore with the PowerBook; never a insurmountable
>> obstacle, but always annoying.
>>
>> The first thing I did to the new Toshiba- before even removing the jumkware-
>> was setting the dpi setting to "Large Size"
>>
>> Such a relief!
>>
> What parts didn't work for you, font sizes?
>
>> Being an Apple customer is an advanture; you never know what the Next Big
>> Thing is. It's very exciting. But it's most.. impractical.
>>
>> I really, really don't like it that Apple is dropping Classic now.
>>
> Classic will run on your PB nonetheless.
My next machine will not be able to run Classic. Not a huge deal. The next
machines at schools will not either... that may be big deal.
>> And I don't like my choices at this point: I can buy a MacBook, and run my
>> existing software in emulation (ick), or stay with an old computer and
>> eventually be cut out of new software. That sucks.
>>
> What new software will you be cut out off?
Older machines will not run newer software as well. Not sure he will be
"cut off" any time soon though. Then again, I did not expect Classic to be
killed, either. It has been. Granted, it is now several years old, but
still sorta sucks.
>> I never thought I'd say this, but the UI of Windows apps is *more consistant*
>> than what you get on the Mac today.
>>
>> No, Really.
>>
> No, really not.
Agree with you here... OS X is more consistent in the areas that matter.
>> Nearly everything works with the battleship gray Classic Theme. And they all
>> work in pretty similar ways; toolbars, menus, and panes
>>
> Uh, they all work pretty different, especially MS own apps.
>
>> * That'll be another $129, please
>>
>> One spiffy thing about Windows is that MS gives away a lot of the little
>> stuff for free download. Microsoft's Spotlight- clone is one I've installed.
>> It's as convenient as the real thing, and quite a lot quicker.
>>
>> Apple isn't into freebies, I notice.
>>
> Eh? Apple charges $129 for a *major* update. Windows... not having had a major
> update in many many years, charged MORE for their latest major update. Windows
> advocates just think they come off better since they haven't had to pay for
> any major upgrades for their OS since, well, there have been none.
>
>> * That'll be another $30, please
>>
>> I still think it's incredibly lame that Apple demands $30 bucks for
>> fullscreen playback in QuickTime player. Talk about nickle-and- diming you to
>> death!
>>
> Agreed.
Happily rumor has it you will get full screen in the next version for free.
And there are freeware solutions... still, this *has been* stupid of Apple.
>> * The Dock and The Taskbar
>>
>> Apple's application-centric Dock also annoys me. I almost never want to
>> switch to an app, but to a window. The taskbar is much nicer.
>>
> Exposé.
XP, by default, now groups. So does OS X. Difference is you can tell what
app is grouped at a glance in OS X.
>> And the taskbar blows less real-estate, so I can leave it visible. It can
>> also hold more items; it can be more than one tile tall, and it auto-combines
>> tiles into menus when necessary.
>>
> If you make it bigger, it becomes bigger than the Dock at its smallest. The
> dock can be 16px high and each application claims 16px in width - much much
> less than the taskbar does. Claiming that the taskbar has room for more
> applications is.. well, wrong.
At that size 16 x 16, the Dock is not of much value for most.
>> * The Dock and the Start Menu
>>
>> As a program launcher, the XP start menu just kicks the dock up and down the
>> field.
>>
> Haha! The star menu is a complete MESS. There should be prices for people that
> actually find the application they want to launch via the Start Menu.
>
> Drag your /Applications folder to the Dock. Viola - a start menu that actually
> works, because it isn't cluttered with company named folders, readme files,
> web links and uninstallers. Just the applications and their icons.
There are benefits to both.
>> The start menu, like the dock, keeps small number of apps immediately
>> available, but unlike the dock, they don't move around all the time.
>>
> Apps in the dock doesn't move around. They're always "third from left" for
> instance.
But not third from right or 2 inches from the edge of the screen.
>> Muscle memory works
>>
> But not the way you think...
Can you defend that statement?
>> Plus the start menu offers all sorts of system configuration and control
>> stuff, like the Apple menu in Mac OS X. But the start menu can be customized.
>>
> Yeah, first thing I do is remove most of the mess you see in the start menu,
> like Run..., Network and that sort of things. They have no place there and
> they just mess up the UI.
Why not have "run... " there?
>> Plus the start menu shows recently used apps; I find that very handy.
>>
> So does the Apple menu.
In 10.5 it moves to the Spotlight menu... will make finding anything easy
from one menu... pretty cool... I hope. :) Might end up being cluttered.
>> And of course, the start menu also has a complete program list in it too. But
>> that's not something I use too much.
--
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
€ Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
Snit
uK-dnSWoSbt663zZ...@comcast.com on 8/15/06 12:25 AM:
What makes you think so?
--
€ The term "all widgets" does not specify a specific subgroup of widgets
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> I have played with MT-NewsWatcher and have never liked it.
Thanks for the support.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
Another post by Sandman with no content by a clear intent to antagonize.
You are doing that a lot, Sandman. It shows your lack of character.
--
€ Professionals are not beginners in their field
€ Dreamweaver and GoLive are web design applications
€ Photoshop is an image editing application
Sandman
"Steven de Mena" <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> >> Apple isn't into freebies, I notice.
> >
> > Eh? Apple charges $129 for a *major* update. Windows... not having had
> > a major update in many many years, charged MORE for their latest major
> > update. Windows advocates just think they come off better since they
> > haven't had to pay for any major upgrades for their OS since, well,
> > there have been none.
>
> I think it is debatable that each 10.x update at $129 was *major*.
Sure, but I don't. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >> I have played with MT-NewsWatcher and have never liked it.
> >
> > Thanks for the support.
> >
> Another post by Sandman with no content by a clear intent to antagonize.
Your lie above disqualified the rest of your post from being read. If
you want me to read your posts, you have to stop lying and trolling.
Thanks.
--
Sandman[.net]
Dan Johnson
> "Dan Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
>
>> But the PowerBook runs *hot*; burn-my-lap hot.
>> When using it on my lap, I had to lay it on its
>> carrying case for insulation.
>
> What PB model did you have? My PB can get hot, but not burn-hot.
The last PowerBook G4 model before the
switch was announced. It's not that old; little
more than a year old. It's a 1.67 GHz 17-incher.
>> And the WiFi reception is not so great. Sometimes
>> I feel I have to be so close, I might as well run a
>> cable. Making the case of metal makes reception
>> problematic.
>
> I have surprisingly good reception. The new aluminum PBs have the
> antenna in the screen and I get excellent coverage. A *lot* better
> than my Dell XPS laptop.
My experience so far is the opposite, but maybe
Dell XPS laptops have poor reception too.
Do they use a metallic case?
>> I had a devil of a time finding a decent
>> newsreader.
>
> You didn't look very hard then. MT-NewsWatcher is the best newsreader,
> all categories. It lacks that special Cocoa feeling to it, but other
> than that, it has everything (but offline reading) :)
MT-NewsWatcher has a terrible UI. A real
holdover from OS 9. Or maybe OS 6!
>> I eventually settled on Unison, which has
>> adequate UI- it looks like Aqua at least-
>> but it was terribly buggy then.
>
> And still terribly inadequate for a newsreader, functionality-wise. It
> doesnt' support scoring and it doesnt' support regexp filtering on the
> References: header.
I do not use these features anyway, but it's handling
for threads is weak, and that's a pain.
[snip]
>> On Windows I just use Outlook Express
>> for this. Works fine, decent UI, no problem.
>
> Decent UI? Are you drunk? Outlook is a true mess for newsreading.
I quite like it. Better than Unison, even, which
uses a fairly silly column view to select news
groups.
[snip- games]
>
> Of course. Games - the only reason to use a PC. And that's not even
> true anymore with the Intel Macs. Now it's; Games - the only reason to
> boot Windows.
I see no reason to buy a Mac if I am going to
boot Windows on it.
And BootCamp is still in beta, after all.
>> Mac OS X has no resolution independance; it
>> treats all screens as 72 dpi. They are really
>> about 100 dpi; the result is teeny tiny UI.
>
> But beautifully crisp.
I find Apple's anti-aliasing looks blurrier
to me than MS's ClearType. But that's subjective;
I will only say that if you really want crisp, you
can *turn off* ClearType and have the small
stuff rendered with hinting.
I do not do this, but I do think this is a
legit advantage for Apple. And anyay,
being crispy doesn't mean the text isn't
really small.
[snip]
>> The first thing I did to the new Toshiba-
>> before even removing the jumkware- was
>> setting the dpi setting to "Large Size"
>>
>> Such a relief!
>
> What parts didn't work for you, font sizes?
Windows resolutions indepdendance works
well for me.
It does look less 'crisp' than an unscaled
UI, due to icons being scaled. But most of
Windows Classic is what they now call
"vector based" and scales quite well.
The fonts all scale perfectly, but you'd expect
that with outline font technology.
[snip]
>> I really, really don't like it that Apple is
>> dropping Classic now.
>
> Classic will run on your PB nonetheless.
So long as I do not replace it with a MacBook;
but then there is no answer to the things
damnable slowness.
>> And I don't like my choices at this point:
>> I can buy a MacBook, and run my existing
>> software in emulation (ick), or stay with an
>> old computer and eventually be cut out of
>> new software. That sucks.
>
> What new software will you be cut out off?
After a time, all of it.
[snip- Windows UI more consistant]
>> Nearly everything works with the battleship
>> gray Classic Theme. And they all work in
>> pretty similar ways; toolbars, menus, and
>> panes
>
> Uh, they all work pretty different, especially MS own apps.
No, not really. Not yet anyway; Vista may change
this.
But it's not that Window is so good here; it's
that Mac OS X apps are so *inconsistant*.
>> * That'll be another $129, please
>>
[snip]
> Eh? Apple charges $129 for a *major* update. Windows... not having had
> a major update in many many years, charged MORE for their latest major
> update. Windows advocates just think they come off better since they
> haven't had to pay for any major upgrades for their OS since, well,
> there have been none.
The $129 line was just a joke.
However, MS gives a bunch of stuff away as free
downloads; that's a plus for a Windows laptop
over a PowerBook.
[snip]
>> * The Dock and The Taskbar
>>
>> Apple's application-centric Dock also annoys
>> me. I almost never want to switch to an app,
>> but to a window. The taskbar is much nicer.
>
> Exposé.
Expose is very nifty, but of somewhat limited use
for me, since my windows contain largely text.
For other users, I can see how Expose would be
a win.
And I don't have to switch into a special Expose
mode to use it. Apple use to care about modality,
back in the day. Not so much now.
In general, I find that Apple's UI today look
really good, but pay little attention to the
principles of UI design that once mattered
so much to them.
[snip- the Dock]
>> And the taskbar blows less real-estate, so
>> I can leave it visible. It can also hold more
>> items; it can be more than one tile tall,
>> and it auto-combines tiles into menus
>> when necessary.
>
> If you make it bigger, it becomes bigger than the Dock at its
> smallest.
Yeah, and I usually don't do this because of it. But it's
there when I need it. Making the dock bigger means it
can hold *less* stuff; strangely enough.
> The dock can be 16px high and each application claims 16px
> in width - much much less than the taskbar does. Claiming that the
> taskbar has room for more applications is.. well, wrong.
Indeed it is wrong- the taskbar holds windows, not apps.
But if I shrink the dock to 16 px, the icons become way
too narrow. Taskbar buttons are much wider. (Both
are infinitely tall due to Fitt's law considerations)
>> * The Dock and the Start Menu
>>
>> As a program launcher, the XP start menu
>> just kicks the dock up and down the field.
>
> Haha! The star menu is a complete MESS. There should be prices for
> people that actually find the application they want to launch via the
> Start Menu.
>
> Drag your /Applications folder to the Dock. Viola - a start menu that
> actually works, because it isn't cluttered with company named folders,
> readme files, web links and uninstallers. Just the applications and
> their icons.
This corresponds, more or less, to the "All Programs" sub
menu, which as I mentioned I rarely use.
>> The start menu, like the dock, keeps small number
>> of apps immediately available, but unlike the
>> dock, they don't move around all the time.
>
> Apps in the dock doesn't move around. They're always "third from left"
> for instance.
They do move around as icons are added to the
dock; they become smaller and shift on the screen
so the dock remains centered.
And you can't avoid this, because the dock contains
running apps, not just apps to be launched.
[snip]
>> Plus the start menu offers all sorts of system
>> configuration and control stuff, like the Apple
>> menu in Mac OS X. But the start menu can be
>> customized.
>
> Yeah, first thing I do is remove most of the mess you see in the start
> menu, like Run..., Network and that sort of things. They have no place
> there and they just mess up the UI.
I tend to add to it. I put "Administrative Tools" up there,
for instance. But its a personal thing.
>> Plus the start menu shows recently used apps;
>> I find that very handy.
>
> So does the Apple menu.
Much less handy, that's a cascading menu.
It also doesn't have the invaluable "don't
show this one" command that the start
menu has.
[snip]
Sandman
"Dan Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
> > What PB model did you have? My PB can get hot, but not burn-hot.
>
> The last PowerBook G4 model before the
> switch was announced. It's not that old; little
> more than a year old. It's a 1.67 GHz 17-incher.
Then maybe it's just a matter of perception.
> > I have surprisingly good reception. The new aluminum PBs have the
> > antenna in the screen and I get excellent coverage. A *lot* better
> > than my Dell XPS laptop.
>
> My experience so far is the opposite, but maybe
> Dell XPS laptops have poor reception too.
> Do they use a metallic case?
No, no Dell laptop does.
> > You didn't look very hard then. MT-NewsWatcher is the best newsreader,
> > all categories. It lacks that special Cocoa feeling to it, but other
> > than that, it has everything (but offline reading) :)
>
> MT-NewsWatcher has a terrible UI. A real
> holdover from OS 9.
Exactly!
> > Decent UI? Are you drunk? Outlook is a true mess for newsreading.
>
> I quite like it.
Well, that sort of figures. :P
> > Of course. Games - the only reason to use a PC. And that's not even
> > true anymore with the Intel Macs. Now it's; Games - the only reason to
> > boot Windows.
>
> I see no reason to buy a Mac if I am going to
> boot Windows on it.
I just told you why - to play those games. Other than that - no reason.
> And BootCamp is still in beta, after all.
Uh, yeah?
> > But beautifully crisp.
>
> I find Apple's anti-aliasing looks blurrier
> to me than MS's ClearType.
But it isn't. It's the exact same thing when set for "best for LCD".
ClearType doesn't even (if I recall correctly) antialias on non-LCD
screens.
> > Classic will run on your PB nonetheless.
>
> So long as I do not replace it with a MacBook;
> but then there is no answer to the things
> damnable slowness.
Slowness?
> >> And I don't like my choices at this point:
> >> I can buy a MacBook, and run my existing
> >> software in emulation (ick), or stay with an
> >> old computer and eventually be cut out of
> >> new software. That sucks.
> >
> > What new software will you be cut out off?
>
> After a time, all of it.
How do you figure? And when you say "a time", is it one year, two
years or two decades?
> > Uh, they all work pretty different, especially MS own apps.
>
> No, not really. Not yet anyway
Yeah, they do.
> But it's not that Window is so good here; it's
> that Mac OS X apps are so *inconsistant*.
Unless you compare them to Windows app, that is.
> > Eh? Apple charges $129 for a *major* update. Windows... not having had
> > a major update in many many years, charged MORE for their latest major
> > update. Windows advocates just think they come off better since they
> > haven't had to pay for any major upgrades for their OS since, well,
> > there have been none.
>
> However, MS gives a bunch of stuff away as free
> downloads; that's a plus for a Windows laptop
> over a PowerBook.
MS has to offer free stuff for download because their OS is so
barebones. With a Mac, you get so much with the machine, such as iLife.
> >> Apple's application-centric Dock also annoys
> >> me. I almost never want to switch to an app,
> >> but to a window. The taskbar is much nicer.
> >
> > Exposé.
>
> Expose is very nifty, but of somewhat limited use
> for me, since my windows contain largely text.
So does my BBEdit. right-clicking its dock icon brings up a menu of
all its open windows. A lot better than the taskbar (whicdh MS
realized in XP and added "grouping" which unfortunately only takes
effect if you have lots of windows)
> And I don't have to switch into a special Expose
> mode to use it. Apple use to care about modality,
> back in the day. Not so much now.
Actually, a lot more now.
> In general, I find that Apple's UI today look
> really good, but pay little attention to the
> principles of UI design that once mattered
> so much to them.
They're just not the same.
> > If you make it bigger, it becomes bigger than the Dock at its
> > smallest.
>
> Yeah, and I usually don't do this because of it. But it's
> there when I need it. Making the dock bigger means it
> can hold *less* stuff; strangely enough.
So, if you want more stuff in it... what do you do?
> > The dock can be 16px high and each application claims 16px
> > in width - much much less than the taskbar does. Claiming that the
> > taskbar has room for more applications is.. well, wrong.
>
> But if I shrink the dock to 16 px, the icons become way
> too narrow. Taskbar buttons are much wider.
And claim more space. Dock - room for more. Taskbar - room for less.
> > Drag your /Applications folder to the Dock. Viola - a start menu that
> > actually works, because it isn't cluttered with company named folders,
> > readme files, web links and uninstallers. Just the applications and
> > their icons.
>
> This corresponds, more or less, to the "All Programs" sub
> menu, which as I mentioned I rarely use.
No, the "All programs" sub menu corresponds to the mess I just said
you *didn't* get with the Dock approach. The "All programs" menu is
one of the most worthless parts of Windows.
> > Apps in the dock doesn't move around. They're always "third from left"
> > for instance.
>
> They do move around as icons are added to the
> dock; they become smaller and shift on the screen
> so the dock remains centered.
Muscle memory isn't pixel memory.
> >> Plus the start menu shows recently used apps;
> >> I find that very handy.
> >
> > So does the Apple menu.
>
> Much less handy, that's a cascading menu.
No, it's not.
> It also doesn't have the invaluable "don't
> show this one" command that the start
> menu has.
What do you mean?
--
Sandman[.net]
nospam
> On Windows I just use Outlook Express
> for this. Works fine, decent UI, no problem.
This is worthy of its own thread.
nospam
> Mac OS X has no resolution independance; it
> treats all screens as 72 dpi. They are really
> about 100 dpi; the result is teeny tiny UI.
And the newer screens have even tinier pixels. It really is getting
ridiculous, yet I hear hardly any complaints.
Andy
nospam
>> Mac OS X has no resolution independance; it
>> treats all screens as 72 dpi. They are really
>> about 100 dpi; the result is teeny tiny UI.
>
> But beautifully crisp.
True
>> This was just an ongoing sore with the
>> PowerBook; never a insurmountable
>> obstacle, but always annoying.
>>
>> The first thing I did to the new Toshiba-
>> before even removing the jumkware- was
>> setting the dpi setting to "Large Size"
>>
>> Such a relief!
>
> What parts didn't work for you, font sizes?
I do not like Windows, but this thing about small sizes is a pain. You
can overvcome it by increasing font sizes, which works in Finder, but
most of the web design clowns have absolute sizes for elements in their
stylesheets, and if you increase font size all sorts of things go wrong.
I know it isn't apple's fault, and thinking about it, maybe it isn't
something apple should 'fix', but in the absence of common sense among
these 'creative' individuals, and since it looks like the arrogant
fuckers won't take into account their users, it would be nice to be able
to adjust resolution.
Andy
Sandman
nospam <nospa...@iol.ie> wrote:
> > What parts didn't work for you, font sizes?
>
> I do not like Windows, but this thing about small sizes is a pain. You
> can overvcome it by increasing font sizes, which works in Finder, but
> most of the web design clowns have absolute sizes for elements in their
> stylesheets, and if you increase font size all sorts of things go wrong.
> I know it isn't apple's fault, and thinking about it, maybe it isn't
> something apple should 'fix', but in the absence of common sense among
> these 'creative' individuals, and since it looks like the arrogant
> fuckers won't take into account their users, it would be nice to be able
> to adjust resolution.
Well, the only thing that will affect web site sizes is to actually
lower your resolution, since resolution-independant UI doesn't scale
images and stuff like that.
Or get Opera - it scales the entire web page, not just the fonts. With
varying result.
--
Sandman[.net]
Peter Hayes
> In article <12e25k2...@news.supernews.com>,
> "Dan Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
>
> > But the PowerBook runs *hot*; burn-my-lap hot.
> > When using it on my lap, I had to lay it on its
> > carrying case for insulation.
>
> What PB model did you have? My PB can get hot, but not burn-hot.
>
> > And the WiFi reception is not so great. Sometimes
> > I feel I have to be so close, I might as well run a
> > cable. Making the case of metal makes reception
> > problematic.
>
> I have surprisingly good reception. The new aluminum PBs have the
> antenna in the screen and I get excellent coverage. A *lot* better
> than my Dell XPS laptop.
My 15" aluminium PowerBook wireless reception got a lot worse after one
of the Panther upgrades and has never returned to anything like it was
originally, or anything like my Dell laptop with one of those PCMCIA
plug-in cards.
<...>
> > On Windows I just use Outlook Express
> > for this. Works fine, decent UI,
Good use of humour.
> > no problem.
>
> Decent UI? Are you drunk? Outlook is a true mess for newsreading.
It's not even in colour, puts the insertion point in the wrong place,
etc, etc.
<...>
> > One spiffy thing about Windows is that
> > MS gives away a lot of the little stuff
> > for free download. Microsoft's Spotlight-
> > clone is one I've installed. It's as convenient
> > as the real thing, and quite a lot quicker.
> >
> > Apple isn't into freebies, I notice.
>
> Eh? Apple charges $129 for a *major* update.
I wouldn't classify Tiger as a major update, there wasn't much of value
in it other than Spotlight, a ripoff at $129.
--
Peter
nospam
Perhaps if we were on the 'majority' platform, it would be cheaper. It's
hard to make any meaningful comparison with windows because MS only
sells the software. Anyone buying a new apple OS should be using an
apple computer, so it's hard to tell if it is a rip-off or not. If it
was just the software you could say, well MS sells more than 10 times as
many and have something to compare. Since .2 the Os has been good, and
there is no absolute need to upgrade. Apple designs its newer versions
primarily for new computers, and everything will still work as it did in
the old computer without upgrading. I don't need to buy a new Os, nor do
I need to have Vista when it comes out.
It seems on the face of it that Apple are charging a lot, considering
that all purchasers already bought a mac and already bought the OS,
whereas anyone purchasing a new version of Windows might never have had
any previous version, so full price is justified.
On the other hand, Apple do seem to be doing far more in the realm of OS
development (whether a feature is or is not totally unheard of before is
irrelevant to this, it's still work). They also have a much smaller
customer base to get revenue from. And the number of users has no
bearing on costs.
Andy
Chris Clement
Dan Johnson wrote:
>
> * Apple sacrifices a lot for style.
>
> The PowerBook is beautiful. The aluminum
> case is a marvelous look, and it is so thin!
>
> But the PowerBook runs *hot*; burn-my-lap hot.
> When using it on my lap, I had to lay it on its
> carrying case for insulation.
>
Heat is a common problem for all laptops. I had a Toshiba laptop in
the shop for a week three different times because it would shutoff from
getting too hot.
<snip>
> I also bought a few games for the thing. I
> wasn't expecting much, but I was still
> disappointed. Little is available, and
> what is there are ports of older PC
> games, and they still do not play real
> well on G4 hardware.
>
Thankfully, not a problem on Intel Macs.
> There does not appear to be much of
> a Mac games industry at all.
>
There is now. Intel Macs have the best of both worlds.
>
> * Surprise: Transition!
>
> Being an Apple customer is an advanture;
> you never know what the Next Big Thing
> is. It's very exciting. But it's most.. impractical.
>
I'm thinking (hoping) that the transition to the new and improved Mac
is done for the most part.
> I really, really don't like it that Apple is
> dropping Classic now.
>
Why?
> And I don't like my choices at this point:
> I can buy a MacBook, and run my existing
> software in emulation (ick), or stay with an
> old computer and eventually be cut out of
> new software. That sucks.
>
I use Bootcamp on my iMac and Parallels on my Macbook. Bootcamp for
games. Parallels for .Net development. Both work very well.
> * Tools for the Previous Century
>
> I came to the Mac, originally, to see the famous
> developer tools; Objective-C, Cocoa and
> Interface Builder.
>
> It has been a mind-expanding experience. Objective-C,
> in particular, is a very different way to think about
> code. And If anyone wants to expand their horizons
> by learning a new platform, I can recommend
> Cocoa/OS X as the platform to learn, if you can
> spare the cash to get into it.
>
How is Objective C different? It is object oriented C but with some
differences from C++.
> But, in the end, it's just not as good as what you
> get on Windows.
>
Uh.....Windows uses C syntax languages as well.
> Objective-C has horrible syntax, and the memory
> management in there is cruder than VB 6. And
> you have to focus a lot more on optimization with
> it, because it produces pretty slow code by
> default.
>
VB 6? Apples and oranges. VB 6 is a non-object-oriented RAD tool for
creating simplistic, quick and dirty GUI apps. System services,
enterprise applications, or applications requiring better efficiency
are going to be written in C/C++/Objective C, what have you. Not sure
what you basing your assertion that Objective C produces "slow code".
Code "speed", for lack of a better word, depends on the programmer.
VB 6 wasn't created with "speed" in mind.
> Interface Builder is obsolete. It's not well
> integrated with XCode, and it works poorly
> for user-defined controls. It's just not
> competitive at all.
>
> XCode itself is weak for a commercial IDE;
> it's slow and unstable. The code-sense is
> almost unusable. And the UI is still quite
> awkward for editing multiple files.
>
> Cocoa is the best thing about the platform;
> but even it is showing its age.
>
> In particular it's error handling is terrible;
> they've got an exception mechanism but
> they almost never use it; instead you have
> methods returning nil and false and such
> for errors, and there's no good way to find
> out what went wrong.
Beats the crap out of the free bundled IDE that comes with XP, also
known as Notepad.
> * Grand Unification Theory
>
> I never thought I'd say this, but the UI of
> Windows apps is *more consistant* than
> what you get on the Mac today.
>
> No, Really.
Disagree 100%.
> Nearly everything works with the battleship
> gray Classic Theme. And they all work in
> pretty similar ways; toolbars, menus, and
> panes. It's not radical; it's just Microsoft's
> update on OS/2's update of the original
> Mac UI.
>
> On the Mac, you get a mix of 'new style'
> Aqua apps and OS 9 refugees.
>
> The OS 9 brigate have been ported to
> Carbon, but their UIs often show their
> roots very clearly.
Haven't noticed this. Any examples.
> MT/Newswatcher was a real poster child
> for this. It may use the Aqua widgets, but it
> doesn't behave like Aqua at all.
>
MT/Newswatcher's developers choose the style of its UI. Have you seen
Forte' Agent? The choice in GUI style is up to the developer. The
same is true in Windows.
> You see this on a smaller scale in many other
> (Carbon) apps. Check out the Office: Mac
> preferences, for one place I've noticed.
>
Again, developer dependent.
> Even if you stick strictly the New Breed,
> you still get a hodge-podge of visual styles;
> some Aqua Classic, some with the new
> 'Unified' look, some with brushed
> metal, some with 'unified' brushed metal,
> and some with the 'pro' style.
>
> All that in Apple's own products.
>
> They also vary in behavior, but not quite so
> broadly. For instance, Cocoa apps often
> use NeXT-style inspectors- Keynote and
> Pages do this. Carbon apps will use
> old-style dialog boxes, however: iTunes
> does this.
>
> I appreciate the technical problems Apple
> faces here, but it really seems like they
> go out of their way to make this worse.
>
Sorry, but I don't see this at all. OS X has much more of a unified
look and feel than Windows, imo. You'd have to come up with some
concrete examples for me to see what you are talking about.
> * That'll be another $129, please
>
> One spiffy thing about Windows is that
> MS gives away a lot of the little stuff
> for free download. Microsoft's Spotlight-
> clone is one I've installed. It's as convenient
> as the real thing, and quite a lot quicker.
>
> Apple isn't into freebies, I notice.
>
Maybe apple just gets it right the first time. :-) Kidding. Yeah, MS
does give a lot away for free. I downloaded Virtual PC the other day
from MS. Pretty cool.
> * That'll be another $30, please
>
> I still think it's incredibly lame that Apple
> demands $30 bucks for fullscreen playback
> in QuickTime player. Talk about nickle-and-
> diming you to death!
>
> New versions of Windows Media Player
> are one of the many freebies MS makes
> available. I've got WMP11 beta on here
> now; its very slick.
>
Yep....gotta agree here.
> * The Dock and The Taskbar
>
> Apple's application-centric Dock also annoys
> me. I almost never want to switch to an app,
> but to a window. The taskbar is much nicer.
>
I prefer the Dock myself. I achieve the same functionality with the
Quick Launch bar in XP though. The task bar does make it easier to
switch to another window, but I'm liking the F9 functionality that
allows me to see what windows are open all at the same time.
> And the taskbar blows less real-estate, so
> I can leave it visible. It can also hold more
> items; it can be more than one tile tall,
> and it auto-combines tiles into menus
> when necessary.
>
The dock is resizable. Don't see the problem.
> * The Dock and the Start Menu
>
> As a program launcher, the XP start menu
> just kicks the dock up and down the field.
>
> The start menu, like the dock, keeps small number
> of apps immediately available, but unlike the
> dock, they don't move around all the time.
>
Not following you. My apps don't move on my dock.
> Muscle memory works; Apple used to care about
> this sort of thing. But not anymore.
>
Explain.
> Plus the start menu offers all sorts of system
> configuration and control stuff, like the Apple
> menu in Mac OS X. But the start menu can be
> customized.
>
The Dock is fully customizable also. Add shortcuts to a folder. Add
the folder to the dock and you have a group of apps easily accessible
all the time.
> Plus the start menu shows recently used apps;
> I find that very handy.
>
m'kay
> And of course, the start menu also has a
> complete program list in it too. But that's
> not something I use too much.
Just add the Application folder to your dock and you have the same
exact functionality.
Snit
Please note how you are working to antagonize: posting accusations without
support. This shows your your lack of character.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >>>> I have played with MT-NewsWatcher and have never liked it.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for the support.
> >>>
> >> Another post by Sandman with no content by a clear intent to antagonize.
> >
> > Your lie above disqualified the rest of your post from being read. If
> > you want me to read your posts, you have to stop lying and trolling.
> >
> > Thanks.
>
> Please note how you are working to antagonize
Your lie above disqualified the rest of your post from being read. If
you want me to read your posts, you have to stop lying and trolling.
Thanks.
--
Sandman[.net]
bobinnv
Elijah Baley <li...@foundation.org> wrote:
Because someone that writes something you don't like doesn't make them a
troll. I think this is an interesting post, even if I don't agree with
much of it.
bobinnv
"Chris Clement" <chris....@mac.com> wrote:
> Only going to respond to a few points.
>
> Dan Johnson wrote:
> >
> > * Apple sacrifices a lot for style.
> >
> > The PowerBook is beautiful. The aluminum
> > case is a marvelous look, and it is so thin!
> >
> > But the PowerBook runs *hot*; burn-my-lap hot.
> > When using it on my lap, I had to lay it on its
> > carrying case for insulation.
> >
>
> Heat is a common problem for all laptops. I had a Toshiba laptop in
> the shop for a week three different times because it would shutoff from
> getting too hot.
I don't think it is. Apple has had lots of heat problems with laptops,
either being too hot to have on your lap, or being too loud because the
fans are frantically trying to cool the thing down. The Toshiba laptop I
have some experience with runs fast and cool. Unfortunately it runs
Windows, so I have no interest in it. But I won't buy another Apple
laptop, either, until they have one I am sure will run cool.
<snip>
bobinnv
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <12e25k2...@news.supernews.com>,
> "Dan Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
>
> > But the PowerBook runs *hot*; burn-my-lap hot.
> > When using it on my lap, I had to lay it on its
> > carrying case for insulation.
>
> What PB model did you have? My PB can get hot, but not burn-hot.
>
> > And the WiFi reception is not so great. Sometimes
> > I feel I have to be so close, I might as well run a
> > cable. Making the case of metal makes reception
> > problematic.
>
> I have surprisingly good reception. The new aluminum PBs have the
> antenna in the screen and I get excellent coverage. A *lot* better
> than my Dell XPS laptop.
>
> > I had a devil of a time finding a decent
> > newsreader.
>
> You didn't look very hard then. MT-NewsWatcher is the best newsreader,
> all categories. It lacks that special Cocoa feeling to it, but other
> than that, it has everything (but offline reading) :)
>
MT-Newswatcher has a terrible UI. I only use it because there is not
much to choose from on the Mac, and because of its filtering ability.
Why someone would like all those windows popping up all over the place I
will never understand.
Not that this would make me move back to Windows, mind you..
<snip>
Chris Clement
My Macbook runs no hotter than my Dell 9300. I'm sure there are some
exceptions, as in your case, but generally laptops run hot. The
problem is airflow. There just isn't enough run in a laptop for the CPU
to cool down properly.
Snit
bobinnv-57F8C0...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com on 8/15/06 10:07
AM:
>> You didn't look very hard then. MT-NewsWatcher is the best newsreader,
>> all categories. It lacks that special Cocoa feeling to it, but other
>> than that, it has everything (but offline reading) :)
>>
>
> MT-Newswatcher has a terrible UI.
Undoubtedly. It is horrid.
> I only use it because there is not much to choose from on the Mac, and because
> of its filtering ability. Why someone would like all those windows popping up
> all over the place I will never understand.
Scattered brain?
> Not that this would make me move back to Windows, mind you..
Agreed. I do wish, though, that Apple would add not just RSS but also
Usenet to Mail... or make a general Usenet client with a similar interface
to Mail. they would need to add better threading and filtering options than
what Mail has for it to be truly excellent. Maybe some third party will
step up to the plate. I cannot imagine it would be *that* hard of an
application to write.
Patrick Nihill
> I recently posted about some problems I had bringing
> up my new Toshiba laptop. So now I feel my trolling
> is incomplete if I don't post some explaination for why
> I would want to buy a Toshiba laptop at all.
>
> After all, I had a PowerBook G4, and the junkware
> infestation on this Toshiba was not a surprise to me.
>
> That I like MS as a company better than Apple is
> one factor that will surprise no-one. But I have
> better reasons too. Lots of reasons.
>
> This will be a long post.
>
> * Apple sacrifices a lot for style.
>
> The PowerBook is beautiful. The aluminum
> case is a marvelous look, and it is so thin!
>
> But the PowerBook runs *hot*; burn-my-lap hot.
> When using it on my lap, I had to lay it on its
> carrying case for insulation.
>
> And the WiFi reception is not so great. Sometimes
> I feel I have to be so close, I might as well run a
> cable. Making the case of metal makes reception
> problematic.
I also have a similar PowerBook, and the heat is an annoying thing,
especially as I'm very inclined to use it on my lap. I've heard the heat
from the new MacBooks might be even worse, and this is the biggest
factor that prevents me from upgrading to one right now.
While you're right about these 2 issues, there are some aspects of
Apple's laptop hardware that I like over the PC laptops I've also owned.
All ports down the side and none at the back, for one thing. Plus the
ambient light sensor and backlit keyboard are handy for those of us who
prefer to write Java in the dark, to hide our shame :-D
> Toshiba's laptop is standard issue Wintel ugly; it's
> thicker, and has a three-tone plastic case. But it
> runs reasonably cool- no icepack needed- and
> gets better reception for WiFi too.
>
> It's not art, but it is practical.
>
> * Application Availability
>
> I was not a very demanding user- mostly
> Apple apps for me- but even with my
> limited demands, I found I found app
> availability to be a problem.
>
> I had a devil of a time finding a decent
> newsreader.
>
> I eventually settled on Unison, which has
> adequate UI- it looks like Aqua at least-
> but it was terribly buggy then.
>
> It's better now, but it's still mostly targetted
> at Pr0n Surfing.
>
> I posted rather less here because it was
> awkward to work with threads in this
> newsreader.
>
> I also tried MT/Newswatcher, but the UI
> was a crawling horror.
>
> On Windows I just use Outlook Express
> for this. Works fine, decent UI, no problem.
And here I was about to agree with what you'd posted, until you messed
it up with that last paragraph!
I basically can't stand all newsreaders, with the exception of MacSOUP.
The popularity of MT-Newswatcher, in particular, baffles me. I keep
trying it every few months, convinced that there must be something I'm
missing about it that everyone else sees. I've yet to find it, whatever
it is.
MacSOUP has a quirky interface, and is missing lots of features that
other people apparently like. It does everything I want in a newsreader
though, in exactly the way I want to do it.
I usually find that when it comes to the smaller, less-essential apps I
usually prefer a Mac-only program to anything I've been able to find on
Windows. I don't especially like having to use any other IM client than
Proteus, for example, and I can't find a Windows RSS reader as nice as
NetNewsWire.
> I also bought a few games for the thing. I
> wasn't expecting much, but I was still
> disappointed. Little is available, and
> what is there are ports of older PC
> games, and they still do not play real
> well on G4 hardware.
>> There does not appear to be much of
> a Mac games industry at all.
>
> * My Eyes! The Goggles, They Do Nothing!
>
> If the googles had magnifying lenses,
> then maybe they would do something.
>
> Mac OS X has no resolution independance; it
> treats all screens as 72 dpi. They are really
> about 1
00 dpi; the result is teeny tiny UI.
>
> This was just an ongoing sore with the
> PowerBook; never a insurmountable
> obstacle, but always annoying.
I've never found this a problem with my PowerBook, but then 1280x854 on
a 15.2" screen is a conservative enough resolution. I can only assume
Apple is waiting to have a resolution-independent OS before they crank
the resolutions up the level of PCs.
> The first thing I did to the new Toshiba-
> before even removing the jumkware- was
> setting the dpi setting to "Large Size"
>
> Such a relief!
>
> * Surprise: Transition!
>
> Being an Apple customer is an advanture;
> you never know what the Next Big Thing
> is. It's very exciting. But it's most.. impractical.
>
> I really, really don't like it that Apple is
> dropping Classic now.
In a way, I'm surprised it lasted this long. It was undeniably "Old
Apple", the last remnant of the pre-Steve Jobs era. You could tell how
Apple felt about by making no attempt in all the time it existed to
integrate it a little better with native applications.
Now we have another band-aid transition (in the sense that it's quick
and painful), after which we will presumably have a stable platform for
the forseeable future (unless someone can contruct a plausible
transition for Apple to embark on in another few years. I can't,
thankfully).
I understand the point you've made before about the stark contrast
between the way Microsoft transitioned from DOS to NT-based OSs, and the
way Apple has gone from OS 9 to OS X, and from PPC to Intel. I think
it's fair to say though that Apple's curcumstances simply didn't allow a
gradual transition, especially in going from OS 9 to OS X. They started
from a position of severe weakness compared to Microsoft.
They had a hopelessly outdated OS, dwindling support and sales, and the
air of a company heading towards an inevitable end. Occasional hardware
hits like the original iMac couldn't sustain them when the basic
platform was in such poor shape. So, they rounded up 2 of every app and
plunged straight into the transition as fast as they could.
Microsoft, on the other hand, had the luxury of taking their time moving
from DOS to NT. Windows 95 was insanely succesful, and NT 4.0 did a
pretty good job in the business market. Both were technically good
enough to compete in the markets they were aimed at, allowing Microsoft
to move them closer to each other and merge them at a much more
leisurely pace.
> And I don't like my choices at this point:
> I can buy a MacBook, and run my existing
> software in emulation (ick), or stay with an
> old computer and eventually be cut out of
> new software. That sucks.
>
> If I gotta repurchase software, it'll be
> the Window version, thank you.
>
> * Tools for the Previous Century
>
> I came to the Mac, originally, to see the famous
> developer tools; Objective-C, Cocoa and
> Interface Builder.
>
> It has been a mind-expanding experience. Objective-C,
> in particular, is a very different way to think about
> code. And If anyone wants to expand their horizons
> by learning a new platform, I can recommend
> Cocoa/OS X as the platform to learn, if you can
> spare the cash to get into it.
>
> But, in the end, it's just not as good as what you
> get on Windows.
>
> Objective-C has horrible syntax, and the memory
> management in there is cruder than VB 6. And
> you have to focus a lot more on optimization with
> it, because it produces pretty slow code by
> default.
Its syntax is a little nasty alright, but there are encouraging noises
that Apple has worked to address the memory management.
<snip stuff I agree with about Apple's developer tools>
> I never thought I'd say this, but the UI of
> Windows apps is *more consistant* than
> what you get on the Mac today.
>
> No, Really.
>
> Nearly everything works with the battleship
> gray Classic Theme. And they all work in
> pretty similar ways; toolbars, menus, and
> panes. It's not radical; it's just Microsoft's
> update on OS/2's update of the original
> Mac UI.
>
> On the Mac, you get a mix of 'new style'
> Aqua apps and OS 9 refugees.
>
> The OS 9 brigate have been ported to
> Carbon, but their UIs often show their
> roots very clearly.
>
> MT/Newswatcher was a real poster child
> for this. It may use the Aqua widgets, but it
> doesn't behave like Aqua at all.
I refuse to let you use MT-Newswatcher as a barometer for Mac apps! It's
amongst the very worst I've encountered on the platform, and not
indicative of Mac apps as a whole. Keep this up and I'll start
countering with a dicussion of Lotus Notes.
With pictures.
> You see this on a smaller scale in many other
> (Carbon) apps. Check out the Office: Mac
> preferences, for one place I've noticed.
>
> Even if you stick strictly the New Breed,
> you still get a hodge-podge of visual styles;
> some Aqua Classic, some with the new
> 'Unified' look, some with brushed
> metal, some with 'unified' brushed metal,
> and some with the 'pro' style.
>
> All that in Apple's own products.
Yes, the visual styles are all over the place, and this is something I
hope is being addressed, or at least being acknowledged as a problem
within Apple.
The latest I've seen of Leopard suggest Apple is cutting down on all the
wacky variations.
> They also vary in behavior, but not quite so
> broadly. For instance, Cocoa apps often
> use NeXT-style inspectors- Keynote and
> Pages do this. Carbon apps will use
> old-style dialog boxes, however: iTunes
> does this.
>
> I appreciate the technical problems Apple
> faces here, but it really seems like they
> go out of their way to make this worse.
>
> * That'll be another $129, please
>
> One spiffy thing about Windows is that
> MS gives away a lot of the little stuff
> for free download. Microsoft's Spotlight-
> clone is one I've installed. It's as convenient
> as the real thing, and quite a lot quicker.
Yes, but it relies on periodic re-indexing rather than hooks to the
kernel code that modifies the filesystem, so new files that you create
don't show up until some unspecified time in the future. This is a bit
of a problem.
> Apple isn't into freebies, I notice.
What about all the updates to iTunes!
> * That'll be another $30, please
>
> I still think it's incredibly lame that Apple
> demands $30 bucks for fullscreen playback
> in QuickTime player. Talk about nickle-and-
> diming you to death!
Well you do get quite a bit more for $30 than just fullscreen playback.
It is lame that fullscreen playback is lumped in with the "Pro" features
though.
> New versions of Windows Media Player
> are one of the many freebies MS makes
> available. I've got WMP11 beta on here
> now; its very slick.
Apple makes iTunes and Quicktime updates freely available too. I have
read that Fullscreen Playback will no longer require a Pro key in the
next version of Quicktime. I'm sure we'll all have a "duuuuh!" moment
when that finally happens.
> * The Dock and The Taskbar
>
> Apple's application-centric Dock also annoys
> me. I almost never want to switch to an app,
> but to a window. The taskbar is much nicer.
>
> And the taskbar blows less real-estate, so
> I can leave it visible. It can also hold more
> items; it can be more than one tile tall,
> and it auto-combines tiles into menus
> when necessary.
The taskbar can hold more items if you resize it, but then you lose all
that Fitt's law goodness for all the items that are not on the bottom
row, and are left aiming at some very vertically thin targets.
The taskbar also suffers from the completely unstable program placement.
Over the course of half an hour, the position of every single item in
the tasbar can and will change, leaving you hunting down items. If you
open a new instance of an already-running app, it opens somewhere in the
middle of the taskbar, whereas if there wasn't another instance already
running it opens at the end.
The Dock, on the other hand, has nice and predictable program placement.
Programs stay in the same order all the time they're open, regardless of
what window management you do.
> * The Dock and the Start Menu
>
> As a program launcher, the XP start menu
> just kicks the dock up and down the field.
>
> The start menu, like the dock, keeps small number
> of apps immediately available, but unlike the
> dock, they don't move around all the time.
>
> Muscle memory works; Apple used to care about
> this sort of thing. But not anymore.
>
> Plus the start menu offers all sorts of system
> configuration and control stuff, like the Apple
> menu in Mac OS X. But the start menu can be
> customized.
I don't see how you can say the apps in the Dock move around all the
time, because, quite frankly, they don't.
The Start Menu is a great solution as a complete repository for all your
applications, but for quick-launching the most common apps the Dock
beats it easily. The big reason for this is that the Dock pretends it's
not a launcher at all, and that all programs, running and non-running
are treated equally.
I have the programs I use 95% of the time all sitting in the Dock. Their
positions and order do not change, no matter what windows I open and
close, or whether or not any of these apps are open at any particular
time. I click on an icon in the same place all the time, and I get the
app I want.
I don't need to perform any mental gymnastics to remember whether or not
the app is running (in Windows, the answer to this question determines
whether or not I use the Taskbar or the Start Menu) and I don't need to
wonder if it'll open alongside other similar windows in the middle of
the taskbar, or whether it'll appear appended to the end of my existing
application list. It's just always in the same place.
For the less-common apps that are launched now and again, the Start Menu
is better than the Dock. But Spotlight (and, in fairness, MSN Desktop
Search) is better than either.
nospam
> "bobinnv" <bob...@sbcglobal.net> stated in post
> bobinnv-57F8C0...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com on 8/15/06 10:07
> AM:
>
>>> You didn't look very hard then. MT-NewsWatcher is the best newsreader,
>>> all categories. It lacks that special Cocoa feeling to it, but other
>>> than that, it has everything (but offline reading) :)
>>>
>> MT-Newswatcher has a terrible UI.
>
> Undoubtedly. It is horrid.
>
>> I only use it because there is not much to choose from on the Mac, and because
>> of its filtering ability. Why someone would like all those windows popping up
>> all over the place I will never understand.
>
> Scattered brain?
>
>> Not that this would make me move back to Windows, mind you..
>
> Agreed. I do wish, though, that Apple would add not just RSS but also
> Usenet to Mail... or make a general Usenet client with a similar interface
> to Mail. they would need to add better threading and filtering options than
> what Mail has for it to be truly excellent. Maybe some third party will
> step up to the plate. I cannot imagine it would be *that* hard of an
> application to write.
>
incarnations of this over the years (currently thunderbird), not because
it is wonderful but just because it is adequate for me and I haven't
found anyhting overall better yet. It doesn't seem to have changed much
though, filtering is still crap, and it might be my ignorance but the
threading seems pretty crap too. But overall it is easy to use and all
in one window (with sensible and configurable exceptions) and doesn't
feel like I am hanging onto the edge of something with my fingernails.
Andy
Sandman
Stuart Krivis <j...@mongo.krivis.com> wrote:
> Sandman,
>
> You might as well just give up and plonk him then. A snit is a snit is
> a snit and always will be.
I know.
--
Sandman[.net]
Dan Johnson
news:1155605272....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
>> * The Dock and The Taskbar
>>
>> Apple's application-centric Dock also annoys
>> me. I almost never want to switch to an app,
>> but to a window. The taskbar is much nicer.
>
> Apple's implementation on the visuals is cleaner. Minimized windows
> are shown below the appllications on the dock.
To the right, in the default config. But I do not put
any apps in the taskbar; I use it for windows. And I
find it handy that windows not minimized are there;
I can bring obscured windows to the front easily.
> But I will give Windows
> an dge in that the "Alt-tab" function scrolls between open windows and
> then maximizes the particular window you are selecting. OSX's
> "Option-tab" lets you scroll among applications, but doesn't maximize a
> window shrunk on the dock, which isn't very useful. (anyone know a way
> to configure that?)
Apple does not let you configure too much. I consider
adding that to by original post, but it was very long
and I don't really do a lot of reconfiguration anyway.
>> And the taskbar blows less real-estate, so
>> I can leave it visible.
>
> Both (taskbar, dock) can be automatically hidden.
I do this on Mac OS X, but I don't find it necessary
on Windows.
> You can change the
> dock size on OSX or move its location to the
> left, bottom, or right.
Moving it seems unhelpful to me. You can make it small,
but then all the icons you must click are small also.
>> It can also hold more
>> items; it can be more than one tile tall,
>> and it auto-combines tiles into menus
>> when necessary.
>
> I've never had an issue with having so many windows open I couldn't
> manage them with the Dock.
Oh, I *can* manage lots of windows with the Dock;
but I find the taskbar preferable.
>> * The Dock and the Start Menu
>>
>> As a program launcher, the XP start menu
>> just kicks the dock up and down the field.
>
> Couldn't disagree more here. The XP start menu is a mess.
> Applications are buried three or four menus deep, setup menus and
> dialogs are scattered everywhere. It's the same hodgepodge from
> Windows 2000 only slightly streamlined and prettied up.
No. You are not used the new XP start menu-
it has a compatibility mode, but by default the XP
start menu is not like the Windows 2000 one.
In part, it actually has a dock like flavor-
it gives you a quick place to put a small
number of applications, apart from the
complete list.
>> The start menu, like the dock, keeps small number
>> of apps immediately available, but unlike the
>> dock, they don't move around all the time.
>
> What do you mean here? Are you saying the dock moves
> applications around?
Yes; they move on the screen as apps open
or windows are minimized.
They maintain their relative position, but not their
absolute position.
>> Plus the start menu offers all sorts of system
>> configuration and control stuff, like the Apple
>> menu in Mac OS X. But the start menu can be
>> customized.
>
> The dock can too.
I was taking a moment out to bash the Apple menu,
which can't be customized. :D
> Put the applications you use most on it, remove the
> ones you use seldomly. Couldn't be simpler. OSX's dock isn't
> cluttered with mini menus on the left and right hand side like the task
> bar is either.
Mini menus? The start menu is anything but *mini*.
Are you refering to context menus?
> And OSX's "System Preferences" menu is the standard by
> which all should be judged. Almost everything in OSX can be configured
> from one central menu and the interface is always consistent.
Do you mean the Apple menu? Seems pretty weak to me;
by no means everything is there, and there's no
customization.
> The
> Windows approach has system preferences scattered between four
> different sub-menus (control panel, task bar, etc.)
Everything is in the control panel. Yes, task bar prefs
are there. Display settings are there. Admin tools are
there.
You can *also* access some of these settings with
context menus, but that's a shortcut.
> and the dialogs for
> various settings on the control panel are not always consistent,
> although XP is a lot better than 2000.
I agree that they could be more consistant;
I still think it beats Mac OS X though.
>> Plus the start menu shows recently used apps;
>> I find that very handy.
>
> I suppose it's useful for some, but to me it just adds clutter.
You can, of course, get rid of it. Windows is reasonably
customizable.
Dan Johnson
"nospam" <nospa...@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:ebser9$vgq$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
I confess I have never understood what it is
Maccies have against Outlook Express's UI.
Dan Johnson
Our Mac friends have never know anything better than
72 dpi for everything.
But I came from Windows, so I was more concious
of the stuff I was missing.
Dan Johnson
> In article <ebsgd2$d2$1...@reader01.news.esat.net>,
> nospam <nospa...@iol.ie> wrote:
> Well, the only thing that will affect web site sizes is to actually
> lower your resolution, since resolution-independant UI doesn't scale
> images and stuff like that.
This depends on the page. If a page specifies sizes
in pixels, IE will honor that even on large-fonts. If
it uses points, you get scaling.
I find points more common than pixels, but pixels
are not uncommon for all that.
Still, it's no *worse* than the default settings, in
such a case.
> Or get Opera - it scales the entire web page, not just the fonts. With
> varying result.
IE 7 has this, too. But I also want the browser UI to be scaled,
and other apps too.
Cameltoe Johnson
> Windows.. it's like coming home!
And stabbing yourself over and over and over again in the neck!
Dan Johnson
news:1155651798.2...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Only going to respond to a few points.
>
> Dan Johnson wrote:
>>
>> * Apple sacrifices a lot for style.
>>
>> The PowerBook is beautiful. The aluminum
>> case is a marvelous look, and it is so thin!
>>
>> But the PowerBook runs *hot*; burn-my-lap hot.
>> When using it on my lap, I had to lay it on its
>> carrying case for insulation.
>
> Heat is a common problem for all laptops. I had a Toshiba laptop in
> the shop for a week three different times because it would shutoff from
> getting too hot.
That laptop was simply broken. Mine does not
get hot; the warmth is barely perceptible.
I think Apple does have a problem, perhaps due
to the thinness of their laptops making proper
cooling hard, or perhaps due to an aversion to
fan noise.
[snip]
>> I also bought a few games for the thing. I
>> wasn't expecting much, but I was still
>> disappointed. Little is available, and
>> what is there are ports of older PC
>> games, and they still do not play real
>> well on G4 hardware.
>
> Thankfully, not a problem on Intel Macs.
Well, I trust that when Intel/Mac games
come out, they will have less of a performance
problem- but I expect there will still be
few available, and those ports of old
Windows games.
>> There does not appear to be much of
>> a Mac games industry at all.
>
> There is now. Intel Macs have the best of both worlds.
I do not see what you mean by this.
>> * Surprise: Transition!
>>
>> Being an Apple customer is an advanture;
>> you never know what the Next Big Thing
>> is. It's very exciting. But it's most.. impractical.
>
> I'm thinking (hoping) that the transition to the new and improved Mac
> is done for the most part.
I thought that was so when OS X became dominant;
but now have another. And don't kid yourself,
this transition has a while to play out yet.
Getting the hardware out there is important,
and Apple has done that very fast, but that's
just the first step.
>> I really, really don't like it that Apple is
>> dropping Classic now.
>
> Why?
It shows a lack of commitment to their
own platform.
>> And I don't like my choices at this point:
>> I can buy a MacBook, and run my existing
>> software in emulation (ick), or stay with an
>> old computer and eventually be cut out of
>> new software. That sucks.
>
> I use Bootcamp on my iMac and Parallels on my Macbook. Bootcamp for
> games. Parallels for .Net development. Both work very well.
I could do that, or I could just buy a Windows
laptop, and not have to use a beta bootloader.
>> * Tools for the Previous Century
>
> How is Objective C different? It is object oriented C but with some
> differences from C++.
That is a large topic. The short version of the answer
is the C++ follows in the footsteps of Simula-67;
Objective-C in the footsteps of Smalltalk.
This has extensive and surprising remifications;
much of what a C++ takes for granted is
wrong in Objective-C. And vice-versa.
That is what makes going from one to the
other mind-expanding.
>> But, in the end, it's just not as good as what you
>> get on Windows.
>
> Uh.....Windows uses C syntax languages as well.
They are available; but you also get C# or
VB.NET if you want them.
And there are other choices from other vendors,
too.
>> Objective-C has horrible syntax, and the memory
>> management in there is cruder than VB 6. And
>> you have to focus a lot more on optimization with
>> it, because it produces pretty slow code by
>> default.
>
> VB 6? Apples and oranges. VB 6 is a non-object-oriented
> RAD tool for creating simplistic, quick and dirty GUI apps.
Yes. It's flawed. But it still has better memory management
than Objective-C/Cocoa has today.
I do not say that VB 6 had *good* memory management;
it hadn't. The good stuff doesn't use reference counting,
which is slow, bloated, thread-hostile, and leaky.
But at least VB 6 did the refcount busywork automatically.
> System services,
> enterprise applications, or applications requiring better efficiency
> are going to be written in C/C++/Objective C, what have you.
System services will very likely be done in C, full stop;
anything else wants too much runtime support.
Enterprise apps are often done in higher level languages
like Objective-C. But Java, VB, and C# are all more
common choices for this role.
C++ can do almost anything, as long as you are in userspace,
but it is difficult.
> Not sure
> what you basing your assertion that Objective C produces "slow code".
> Code "speed", for lack of a better word, depends on the programmer.
> VB 6 wasn't created with "speed" in mind.
Indeed not. But Objective-C produces slow code unless
you go out of your way to avoid it. If you don't do something,
you'll get lots of objects separately allocated. The allocator
is slow, and you also have more messaging.
This can be overcome, but you have to put in the sweat
to do it.
[snip]
>> In particular it's error handling is terrible;
>> they've got an exception mechanism but
>> they almost never use it; instead you have
>> methods returning nil and false and such
>> for errors, and there's no good way to find
>> out what went wrong.
>
> Beats the crap out of the free bundled IDE that comes with XP, also
> known as Notepad.
Now now. You can get a fairly nice IDE for free
download from MS these days. And the error
handling is top-notch.
[snip- Mac UI Consistancy]
>> MT/Newswatcher was a real poster child
>> for this. It may use the Aqua widgets, but it
>> doesn't behave like Aqua at all.
>
> MT/Newswatcher's developers choose the style of its UI. Have you seen
> Forte' Agent?
What about it?
> The choice in GUI style is up to the developer. The
> same is true in Windows.
While Windows programmers *can* implement
a UI that looks like OS 9, they don't. There's no
reason why they would do that.
The reason you see this on Macs is that those
programs were at one time Mac OS 9 programs,
and were ported to Mac OS X.
Sure, they could have redesiged the UI for
Aqua, but that's a lot to ask and you don't
usually see it.
[snip]
>> I appreciate the technical problems Apple
>> faces here, but it really seems like they
>> go out of their way to make this worse.
>
> Sorry, but I don't see this at all. OS X has much more of a unified
> look and feel than Windows, imo. You'd have to come up with some
> concrete examples for me to see what you are talking about.
I did. Compare 'get info' dialogs in
iTunes with the inspectors in Keynote,
for one example.
[snip]
>> * The Dock and The Taskbar
>>
>> Apple's application-centric Dock also annoys
>> me. I almost never want to switch to an app,
>> but to a window. The taskbar is much nicer.
>
> I prefer the Dock myself. I achieve the same functionality with the
> Quick Launch bar in XP though.
That's is, I think, just a program launcher. I prefer the
start menu for this. XP doesn't really offer
any kind of application switcher; that's why they
call it "Windows". :D
> The task bar does make it easier to
> switch to another window, but I'm liking the F9 functionality that
> allows me to see what windows are open all at the same time.
Expose is very nifty, but while it is infinitely more
cool than the taskbar, I find it less useful. I can see
how another user, with different apps, would have
the exact opposite experience however.
>> And the taskbar blows less real-estate, so
>> I can leave it visible. It can also hold more
>> items; it can be more than one tile tall,
>> and it auto-combines tiles into menus
>> when necessary.
>
> The dock is resizable. Don't see the problem.
When the dock is very small, the icons in it are
also very small and hard to hit. The taskbar
does not behave like that.
>> * The Dock and the Start Menu
>>
>> As a program launcher, the XP start menu
>> just kicks the dock up and down the field.
>>
>> The start menu, like the dock, keeps small number
>> of apps immediately available, but unlike the
>> dock, they don't move around all the time.
>
> Not following you. My apps don't move on my dock.
Think of it this way: The whole dock moves
as items are added and removed from it.
>> Muscle memory works; Apple used to care about
>> this sort of thing. But not anymore.
>
> Explain.
You have to look to see where your icons are
before clicking them (in the Dock) because
they move. You can't just remember the position.
>> Plus the start menu offers all sorts of system
>> configuration and control stuff, like the Apple
>> menu in Mac OS X. But the start menu can be
>> customized.
>
> The Dock is fully customizable also.
Yes. It is the Apple menu that is not.
[snip]
>> And of course, the start menu also has a
>> complete program list in it too. But that's
>> not something I use too much.
>
> Just add the Application folder to your dock and you have the same
> exact functionality.
And I would still not use it much. :D
nospam
> For the less-common apps that are launched now and again, the Start Menu
> is better than the Dock. But Spotlight (and, in fairness, MSN Desktop
> Search) is better than either.
I have a custom "apps" folder in the dock, with subfolders for
categories. the apple programs that have to be in Applications to get
updated just have aliases in the relevant categories. The Apps folder is
in the Applications folder so they are all still in the 'right' place.
Works fine for me, all my apps (apart from the few, as you mentioned,
that make up 95% of my use) are just one sub-folder away. I haven't seen
a more convenient way to do it anywhere.
Same with my Documents folder.
Andy
Snit
ebt92a$8v7$1...@reader01.news.esat.net on 8/15/06 12:59 PM:
I try it from time to time and have continued to stick with Entourage. If
nothing else, it lacks re-wrapping... that is a pretty big deal as far as I
am concerned.
Entourage is not great - it has horrid threading and so-so filtering. Oh,
and it *never* deletes old posts unless you rebuild its database... which
also makes you have to re-do smart folders. Pathetic. So far I have found
nothing on the Mac I like more.
--
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
€ Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
Dan Johnson
news:1hk4jmv.9hntk2f5c49hN%pa_n...@yahoo.com...
> Dan Johnson <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
>
> I also have a similar PowerBook, and the heat is an annoying thing,
> especially as I'm very inclined to use it on my lap. I've heard the heat
> from the new MacBooks might be even worse, and this is the biggest
> factor that prevents me from upgrading to one right now.
So I have heard. There's clearly a problem
here for Apple, and it's not just one model
of laptop that's skanky.
> While you're right about these 2 issues, there are some aspects of
> Apple's laptop hardware that I like over the PC laptops I've also owned.
> All ports down the side and none at the back, for one thing.
That is a nice touch. This Toshiba has some on the sides,
more on the back, and has the temerity to stick the audio
jacks in the front, which is just about the worst place.
> Plus the
> ambient light sensor and backlit keyboard are handy for those of us who
> prefer to write Java in the dark, to hide our shame :-D
Ah, there's no shame in Java. There's sugar in it.
Two lumps.
But I had little use for the ambient light adjustments,
and none at all for the backlit keyboard.
[snip]
>> On Windows I just use Outlook Express
>> for this. Works fine, decent UI, no problem.
>
> And here I was about to agree with what you'd posted, until you messed
> it up with that last paragraph!
I can never figure out what it is about Outlook
Express that drives the Maccies away.
> I basically can't stand all newsreaders, with the exception of MacSOUP.
> The popularity of MT-Newswatcher, in particular, baffles me. I keep
> trying it every few months, convinced that there must be something I'm
> missing about it that everyone else sees. I've yet to find it, whatever
> it is.
It's very functional and very mature. It's just the
UI is a throwback to the late Jurrasic.
[snip]
>> This was just an ongoing sore with the
>> PowerBook; never a insurmountable
>> obstacle, but always annoying.
>
> I've never found this a problem with my PowerBook, but then 1280x854 on
> a 15.2" screen is a conservative enough resolution. I can only assume
> Apple is waiting to have a resolution-independent OS before they crank
> the resolutions up the level of PCs.
I would not be comfortable with that UI, I think;
that's still above 100 dpi.
But resolution independance is coming to the Mac;
I just won't be waiting for it.
[snip]
>> I really, really don't like it that Apple is
>> dropping Classic now.
>
> In a way, I'm surprised it lasted this long. It was undeniably "Old
> Apple", the last remnant of the pre-Steve Jobs era. You could tell how
> Apple felt about by making no attempt in all the time it existed to
> integrate it a little better with native applications.
Yes, that's so. Perhaps I should have seen it
coming. But I did not.
[snip]
> Now we have another band-aid transition (in the sense that it's quick
> and painful), after which we will presumably have a stable platform for
> the forseeable future (unless someone can contruct a plausible
> transition for Apple to embark on in another few years. I can't,
> thankfully).
I can- to x86-64. I wonder how long the 32
bit apps will be supported, after Apple's
entire lineup is 64-bit.
Of course, they'd be crazy to cut off the 32-bit
stuff while the Intel transition is underrway. That
may give 32-bit apps a extended lease on life.
[snip]
> I think
> it's fair to say though that Apple's curcumstances simply didn't allow a
> gradual transition, especially in going from OS 9 to OS X. They started
> from a position of severe weakness compared to Microsoft.
I do not really agree here. They lasted for many years without
making any transition; they should have spent that time
on the transition, rather than wait as long as they did.
> They had a hopelessly outdated OS, dwindling support and sales, and the
> air of a company heading towards an inevitable end.
In 1993 it wasn't that far behind, and by then the future direction
they needed was plain, and MS had already articulated their
strategy. And then dumped OS/2 and articulated their new
strategy. :D
> Occasional hardware
> hits like the original iMac couldn't sustain them when the basic
> platform was in such poor shape. So, they rounded up 2 of every app and
> plunged straight into the transition as fast as they could.
2 of every apps? You mean a male one and a female one?
> Microsoft, on the other hand, had the luxury of taking their time moving
> from DOS to NT. Windows 95 was insanely succesful, and NT 4.0 did a
> pretty good job in the business market. Both were technically good
> enough to compete in the markets they were aimed at, allowing Microsoft
> to move them closer to each other and merge them at a much more
> leisurely pace.
If you work it out, it actually took MS about as long
as Apple to get to their current OS. MS didn't
rush the transition, but they didn't sit still for
any extended period either.
[snip]
>> * Tools for the Previous Century
>> Objective-C has horrible syntax, and the memory
>> management in there is cruder than VB 6. And
>> you have to focus a lot more on optimization with
>> it, because it produces pretty slow code by
>> default.
>
> Its syntax is a little nasty alright, but there are encouraging noises
> that Apple has worked to address the memory management.
So I have heard. But a lot of effort has already gone into
MS's and Sun's memory managers at this point; Apple
has some catching up to do.
We'll see how well they do.
[snip]
>> MT/Newswatcher was a real poster child
>> for this. It may use the Aqua widgets, but it
>> doesn't behave like Aqua at all.
>
> I refuse to let you use MT-Newswatcher as a barometer for Mac apps! It's
> amongst the very worst I've encountered on the platform, and not
> indicative of Mac apps as a whole.
It's the worst I've seen, but it's symptomatic; a lot of
the old OS 9 apps have at least parts of their UI that
remains very much as a it was. The preferences
dialogs are common culprits here, I've noticed.
MT/Newswatcher is special because they don't
seem to have upgraded *anything* in the UI.
> Keep this up and I'll start
> countering with a dicussion of Lotus Notes.
>
> With pictures.
Go right ahead.. I can take it! :D
(Famous last words, eh?)
[snip]
> The latest I've seen of Leopard suggest Apple is cutting down on all the
> wacky variations.
We'll see. Don't forget that Apple's applications
are also culprit's here.
[snip]
>> One spiffy thing about Windows is that
>> MS gives away a lot of the little stuff
>> for free download. Microsoft's Spotlight-
>> clone is one I've installed. It's as convenient
>> as the real thing, and quite a lot quicker.
>
> Yes, but it relies on periodic re-indexing rather than hooks to the
> kernel code that modifies the filesystem, so new files that you create
> don't show up until some unspecified time in the future. This is a bit
> of a problem.
Experimenting with it, I observe that it does not do this;
it reindexes only changed files.
It does not need any new kernel code for this; XP already
has the NTFS Change Journal, which lets you
watch for changes volume wide. You only need to
reindex fully if it missing changes, because there
were too many changes while it was shut down,
and the buffer overflowed.
However, it does avoid indexing while the computer
is in use, which will presumably mean greater delays
that Spotlight shows.
>> Apple isn't into freebies, I notice.
>
> What about all the updates to iTunes!
:D
[snip]
>> And the taskbar blows less real-estate, so
>> I can leave it visible. It can also hold more
>> items; it can be more than one tile tall,
>> and it auto-combines tiles into menus
>> when necessary.
>
> The taskbar can hold more items if you resize it, but then you lose all
> that Fitt's law goodness for all the items that are not on the bottom
> row, and are left aiming at some very vertically thin targets.
Yes. I don't do this until I need to; but it's better
than scrolling, or squashing the buttons to very tiny
sizes (which is the only thing the Dock can do).
> The taskbar also suffers from the completely unstable program placement.
> Over the course of half an hour, the position of every single item in
> the tasbar can and will change, leaving you hunting down items. If you
> open a new instance of an already-running app, it opens somewhere in the
> middle of the taskbar, whereas if there wasn't another instance already
> running it opens at the end.
This is true. The taskbar's buttons have unpredictable
placement in this way; but at least the buttons do not
*always* move when another one is added.
> The Dock, on the other hand, has nice and predictable program placement.
> Programs stay in the same order all the time they're open, regardless of
> what window management you do.
They stay in the same order, but shift to the side as
new items are added, to keep the Dock centered.
[snip]
>> Plus the start menu offers all sorts of system
>> configuration and control stuff, like the Apple
>> menu in Mac OS X. But the start menu can be
>> customized.
>
> I don't see how you can say the apps in the Dock move around all the
> time, because, quite frankly, they don't.
They do. Watch more closely while launching an app
not already in the dock- the icons move to make
room for it, and it maintain centering.
> The Start Menu is a great solution as a complete repository for all your
> applications, but for quick-launching the most common apps the Dock
> beats it easily.
I prefer the Start Menu; it does require an extra click to
summon it, but that allows it to both contain a lot more
functionality, and also use less real estate when inactive.
> The big reason for this is that the Dock pretends it's
> not a launcher at all, and that all programs, running and non-running
> are treated equally.
I know. I have long prefered document-centric UI to apps
centric, however, which is one reason I prefer working
with windows to working with processes.
> I have the programs I use 95% of the time all sitting in the Dock. Their
> positions and order do not change, no matter what windows I open and
> close, or whether or not any of these apps are open at any particular
> time. I click on an icon in the same place all the time, and I get the
> app I want.
As long as you never launch any app not in the dock,
and never minimize a window, you are safe!
> I don't need to perform any mental gymnastics to remember whether or not
> the app is running (in Windows, the answer to this question determines
> whether or not I use the Taskbar or the Start Menu) and I don't need to
> wonder if it'll open alongside other similar windows in the middle of
> the taskbar, or whether it'll appear appended to the end of my existing
> application list. It's just always in the same place.
It may just be different mental models at work here; I'm
never concerned about whether an app is running- that's
Windows problem. I am looking for a window.
> For the less-common apps that are launched now and again, the Start Menu
> is better than the Dock. But Spotlight (and, in fairness, MSN Desktop
> Search) is better than either.
There's something to that, but I found Spotlight
surprisingly slow on my PowerBook G4; annoyingly
slow to use as a program launcher. Windows
Desktop Search doesn't have that problem, but then,
this isn't a G4 either.
[snip]
Dan Johnson
> In article <12e39ju...@news.supernews.com>,
> "Dan Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
>
>> > What PB model did you have? My PB can get hot, but not burn-hot.
>>
>> switch was announced. It's not that old; little
>> more than a year old. It's a 1.67 GHz 17-incher.
>
> Then maybe it's just a matter of perception.
No doubt, if I had owned a MacBook *before* the
PowerBook G4, I'd see it very differently! :D
[snip]
>> I see no reason to buy a Mac if I am going to
>> boot Windows on it.
>
> I just told you why - to play those games. Other than that - no reason.
I don't need a Mac to run Windows.
>> And BootCamp is still in beta, after all.
>
> Uh, yeah?
So why should I use a beta product when
there is, manifestly, no need to do so?
[snip]
>> I find Apple's anti-aliasing looks blurrier
>> to me than MS's ClearType.
>
> But it isn't. It's the exact same thing when set for "best for LCD".
Perhaps it is all in my head.
> ClearType doesn't even (if I recall correctly) antialias on non-LCD
> screens.
It does, if you turn it on.
However, you may prefer ordinary anti-aliasing on
non-LCD screens. No color fringes.
[snip]
>> So long as I do not replace it with a MacBook;
>> but then there is no answer to the things
>> damnable slowness.
>
> Slowness?
Slowness. A PowerBook G4 is an embarrasingly
slow computer, at least when running OS X.
How much of this is due to the G4 sucking,
and how much is due to OS X being slow,
I never can tell.
I'd ask if the MacBook is zippy, but Mac
users somehow always insist that Macs are
plenty zippy, even ones which I know from
personal experience are not.
[snip]
>> > What new software will you be cut out off?
>>
>> After a time, all of it.
>
> How do you figure? And when you say "a time", is it one year, two
> years or two decades?
Depends on how fast the transition goes.
But Apple is moving very fast. I'll guess two years.
[snip]
>> But it's not that Window is so good here; it's
>> that Mac OS X apps are so *inconsistant*.
>
> Unless you compare them to Windows app, that is.
You're just in denial on this one. The situation on
Mac OS X is really bad; and many other commentators
have mentioned it.
Most are willing to give the OS 9 refugees a pass,
but Apple's own inconsistency in recent apps is
another matter.
[snip]
>> However, MS gives a bunch of stuff away as free
>> downloads; that's a plus for a Windows laptop
>> over a PowerBook.
>
> MS has to offer free stuff for download because their OS is so
> barebones.
Well, I should be glad you aren't condemning them
for Evil Bundling, at least. :D
> With a Mac, you get so much with the machine,
> such as iLife.
That's not a free download; that's a bundled
app suite. Many PCs come with those (though this
Toshiba did not).
However, iLife is not something I desire
greatly.
[snip]
>> Expose is very nifty, but of somewhat limited use
>> for me, since my windows contain largely text.
>
> So does my BBEdit. right-clicking its dock icon brings up a menu of
> all its open windows. A lot better than the taskbar (whicdh MS
> realized in XP and added "grouping" which unfortunately only takes
> effect if you have lots of windows)
Grouping is a way to cope with lots of windows, but of course
its better if the windows have their own tiles; then
they are always immediately available, and no hunting
through groups is needed.
>> And I don't have to switch into a special Expose
>> mode to use it. Apple use to care about modality,
>> back in the day. Not so much now.
>
> Actually, a lot more now.
I don't see this. Mac OS X is sprouting modes
like nobody's business these days. Expose;
Dashboard; and now Time Machine- all
desktop-wide modes.
Expose wasn't so bad, but the other two
are harder to excuse.
[snip]
>> Yeah, and I usually don't do this because of it. But it's
>> there when I need it. Making the dock bigger means it
>> can hold *less* stuff; strangely enough.
>
> So, if you want more stuff in it... what do you do?
You make the dock *smaller* to put more
icons in it. Which makes the icons themselves
smaller also of course.
[snip]
>> But if I shrink the dock to 16 px, the icons become way
>> too narrow. Taskbar buttons are much wider.
>
> And claim more space. Dock - room for more. Taskbar - room for less.
No, taskbar buttons are wide but short, rather than
being square.
This allows them to show the window caption,
with no need to click or to scrub. Another plus
for the taskbar!
[snip]
>> This corresponds, more or less, to the "All Programs" sub
>> menu, which as I mentioned I rarely use.
>
> No, the "All programs" sub menu corresponds to the mess I just said
> you *didn't* get with the Dock approach. The "All programs" menu is
> one of the most worthless parts of Windows.
We've had this argument.
It's not important to my decision to switch; I rarely
use this feature. But, for the record, All Programs
kicks the "Application" folders butt. Thank you. :D
[snip]
>> > So does the Apple menu.
>>
>> Much less handy, that's a cascading menu.
>
> No, it's not.
Sure looks like one to me. Maybe it is
being changed in Leopard, and that's
what you mean?
>> It also doesn't have the invaluable "don't
>> show this one" command that the start
>> menu has.
>
> What do you mean?
I mean, if a program appears in the
recent-apps area and you don't want it,
you can right click and chose "Remove
From This List", and away it goes,
making room for a replacement.
Snit
c274e2lg09c3mu1rs...@4ax.com on 8/15/06 12:12 PM:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 11:11:02 +0200, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <C106D24A.5A3C1%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>>>>> I have played with MT-NewsWatcher and have never liked it.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the support.
>>>>
>>> Another post by Sandman with no content by a clear intent to antagonize.
>>
>> Your lie above disqualified the rest of your post from being read. If
>> you want me to read your posts, you have to stop lying and trolling.
>
>
> Sandman,
>
> You might as well just give up and plonk him then. A snit is a snit is
> a snit and always will be.
>
I will remain honest and honorable, no matter how much it offends Sandman.
That is true.
Patrick Nihill
> "Patrick Nihill" <pa_n...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1hk4jmv.9hntk2f5c49hN%pa_n...@yahoo.com...
<snip>
> > I think
> > it's fair to say though that Apple's curcumstances simply didn't allow a
> > gradual transition, especially in going from OS 9 to OS X. They started
> > from a position of severe weakness compared to Microsoft.
>
> I do not really agree here. They lasted for many years without
> making any transition; they should have spent that time
> on the transition, rather than wait as long as they did.
Oh, they certainly should. They bolloxed around for years with a couple
of failed OS strategies. No-one's claiming that they didn't make a mess
of their OS strategy.
That was the pre-NeXT Apple, though, and the OS X strategy only came
into effect in 1997 at the earliest. By that stage Apple was listing
badly, and a graceful, longer-term transition wasn't going to cut it.
They needed something that could compete with Windows, and they needed
it yesterday.
Microsoft were never in such difficulty that they absolutely had to
transition to an NT-based OS as fast as possible or face extinction.
> > They had a hopelessly outdated OS, dwindling support and sales, and the
> > air of a company heading towards an inevitable end.
>
> In 1993 it wasn't that far behind, and by then the future direction
> they needed was plain, and MS had already articulated their
> strategy. And then dumped OS/2 and articulated their new
> strategy. :D
Yes, but I'm talking about the OS X transition. The interminable messing
about before that is what got them into the weak position I described
earlier.
> > Occasional hardware
> > hits like the original iMac couldn't sustain them when the basic
> > platform was in such poor shape. So, they rounded up 2 of every app and
> > plunged straight into the transition as fast as they could.
>
> 2 of every apps? You mean a male one and a female one?
>
> > Microsoft, on the other hand, had the luxury of taking their time moving
> > from DOS to NT. Windows 95 was insanely succesful, and NT 4.0 did a
> > pretty good job in the business market. Both were technically good
> > enough to compete in the markets they were aimed at, allowing Microsoft
> > to move them closer to each other and merge them at a much more
> > leisurely pace.
>
> If you work it out, it actually took MS about as long
> as Apple to get to their current OS. MS didn't
> rush the transition, but they didn't sit still for
> any extended period either.
Right, they kept developing the 2 OSs side by side for a very long time,
until they were ready to merge them. NT originated in OS/2, so Microsoft
spent more than a decade before the two were fully merged as Windows XP.
This worked out very well for them.
Apple released Mac OS X in 2001. The last release of the old OS was 9.2,
in 2002. Compatibility with the old OS, in the form of Classic, is now
totally gone as of 2006, just 5 years later.
That's a very rapid transition by comparison. It also explains what I
mean by the "2 of every app" comment before - Apple took whatever apps
they could on their transition, through Carbon, and have now left
everything else outside to die, by removing Classic just a few years
later. A painful transition, but it's my view that there was little else
they could from the position they were in in 1997.
<snip>
> > Yes, but it relies on periodic re-indexing rather than hooks to the
> > kernel code that modifies the filesystem, so new files that you create
> > don't show up until some unspecified time in the future. This is a bit
> > of a problem.
>
> Experimenting with it, I observe that it does not do this;
> it reindexes only changed files.
I've also experimented with it, and it does do this :-D
I created a file, gave it a distinctive name, and immediately ran a
query in MSN Desktop Search. No sign of it. I left the system alone for
a while, came back, and the search found it.
Spotlight, on the other hand, finds the new file instantly.
> It does not need any new kernel code for this; XP already
> has the NTFS Change Journal, which lets you
> watch for changes volume wide. You only need to
> reindex fully if it missing changes, because there
> were too many changes while it was shut down,
> and the buffer overflowed.
>
> However, it does avoid indexing while the computer
> is in use, which will presumably mean greater delays
> that Spotlight shows.
I know it is capable of performing the indexing in the same way
Spotlight does, but my experience with it shows me that in practice it
doesn't. If it really does deliberately not do the indexing of files it
*knows* have just changed just because someone is currently using the
computer...well, that just seems a little silly, frankly.
> >> Apple isn't into freebies, I notice.
> >
> > What about all the updates to iTunes!
>
> :D
>
> [snip]
> >> And the taskbar blows less real-estate, so
> >> I can leave it visible. It can also hold more
> >> items; it can be more than one tile tall,
> >> and it auto-combines tiles into menus
> >> when necessary.
> >
> > The taskbar can hold more items if you resize it, but then you lose all
> > that Fitt's law goodness for all the items that are not on the bottom
> > row, and are left aiming at some very vertically thin targets.
>
> Yes. I don't do this until I need to; but it's better
> than scrolling, or squashing the buttons to very tiny
> sizes (which is the only thing the Dock can do).
I've found that because the Dock shows applications rather than windows,
and just icons rather than longer icons-plus-names, you can fit a much
higher number of apps in the same horizontal space.
Of course, you're probably thinking that this is just 2 negatives
combining by chance into a positive :-)
> > The taskbar also suffers from the completely unstable program placement.
> > Over the course of half an hour, the position of every single item in
> > the tasbar can and will change, leaving you hunting down items. If you
> > open a new instance of an already-running app, it opens somewhere in the
> > middle of the taskbar, whereas if there wasn't another instance already
> > running it opens at the end.
>
> This is true. The taskbar's buttons have unpredictable
> placement in this way; but at least the buttons do not
> *always* move when another one is added.
The Dock need not always move either, it can be pinned to a corner so
that it grows out, rather than moving to remain centered. In this setup,
icons for apps in the Dock *never* move so much as a pixel.
> > The Dock, on the other hand, has nice and predictable program placement.
> > Programs stay in the same order all the time they're open, regardless of
> > what window management you do.
>
> They stay in the same order, but shift to the side as
> new items are added, to keep the Dock centered.
>
> [snip]
> >> Plus the start menu offers all sorts of system
> >> configuration and control stuff, like the Apple
> >> menu in Mac OS X. But the start menu can be
> >> customized.
> >
> > I don't see how you can say the apps in the Dock move around all the
> > time, because, quite frankly, they don't.
>
> They do. Watch more closely while launching an app
> not already in the dock- the icons move to make
> room for it, and it maintain centering.
My Dock is set to be pinned to the corner, so this doesn't happen.
(Note: I've had it set this way for so long I forgot that this is not
only not standard behaviour, the option for setting it is not exposed
through the GUI. Boo and hiss, Apple!)
> > The Start Menu is a great solution as a complete repository for all your
> > applications, but for quick-launching the most common apps the Dock
> > beats it easily.
>
> I prefer the Start Menu; it does require an extra click to
> summon it, but that allows it to both contain a lot more
> functionality, and also use less real estate when inactive.
Most of the other functionality in the Start Menu is contained in any
given Finder window, and I find it as useful there as anywhere else. And
I'll even throw in one more point I forgot before that I think the Dock
wins on - launching multiple applications. You can click on any number
of apps in the Dock one after the other to launch them. The same
operation in the quick launch area of the Start menu requires you to
keep reopening it, as every click makes it disappear again.
> > The big reason for this is that the Dock pretends it's
> > not a launcher at all, and that all programs, running and non-running
> > are treated equally.
>
> I know. I have long prefered document-centric UI to apps
> centric, however, which is one reason I prefer working
> with windows to working with processes.
I find there are situations where one works better than the other, and
vice versa. I think you can create a system of managing either that
works well, and I think Apple have done a (somewhat) better job for the
app-centric approach than MS have for the document-centric.
> > I have the programs I use 95% of the time all sitting in the Dock. Their
> > positions and order do not change, no matter what windows I open and
> > close, or whether or not any of these apps are open at any particular
> > time. I click on an icon in the same place all the time, and I get the
> > app I want.
>
> As long as you never launch any app not in the dock,
> and never minimize a window, you are safe!
I never minimize windows in OS X, and with good reason too - it's so
flawed as to be nearly useless. I much prefer hiding the app itself, if
for some reason I don't want to see it. To be honest, I hardly ever
minimise anything in Windows either. I just switch to the next relevant
window.
And as I mentioned above, I normally work with the apps I have in the
Dock, as 20 apps don't take much space along my screen. When I feel the
need to go wild and use something not in there, Spotlight launches it
about as fast as I can remember its name.
> > I don't need to perform any mental gymnastics to remember whether or not
> > the app is running (in Windows, the answer to this question determines
> > whether or not I use the Taskbar or the Start Menu) and I don't need to
> > wonder if it'll open alongside other similar windows in the middle of
> > the taskbar, or whether it'll appear appended to the end of my existing
> > application list. It's just always in the same place.
>
> It may just be different mental models at work here; I'm
> never concerned about whether an app is running- that's
> Windows problem. I am looking for a window.
Right, but whether or not there is a window to be found depends on
whether the app is running. If it's not, you need to go somewhere else
to launch it. In my scenario, I don't need to do that.
> > For the less-common apps that are launched now and again, the Start Menu
> > is better than the Dock. But Spotlight (and, in fairness, MSN Desktop
> > Search) is better than either.
>
> There's something to that, but I found Spotlight
> surprisingly slow on my PowerBook G4; annoyingly
> slow to use as a program launcher. Windows
> Desktop Search doesn't have that problem, but then,
> this isn't a G4 either.
I have a similar machine to yours (1.5GHz PowerBook G4) and I literally
can barely perceive a gap between me typing the name of the app I want
and it appearing in the Spotlight results. Perhaps it's RAM-related? I
have 1.5GB.
Dan Johnson
> Dan Johnson <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
>> I do not really agree here. They lasted for many years without
>> making any transition; they should have spent that time
>> on the transition, rather than wait as long as they did.
>
> Oh, they certainly should. They bolloxed around for years with a couple
> of failed OS strategies. No-one's claiming that they didn't make a mess
> of their OS strategy.
Quite.
> That was the pre-NeXT Apple, though, and the OS X strategy only came
> into effect in 1997 at the earliest. By that stage Apple was listing
> badly, and a graceful, longer-term transition wasn't going to cut it.
> They needed something that could compete with Windows, and they needed
> it yesterday.
Yes, they did. But what's their excuse with this new
transition? They were doing pretty well there
on OS X/PPC.
[snip]
>> If you work it out, it actually took MS about as long
>> as Apple to get to their current OS. MS didn't
>> rush the transition, but they didn't sit still for
>> any extended period either.
>
> Right, they kept developing the 2 OSs side by side for a very long time,
> until they were ready to merge them. NT originated in OS/2, so Microsoft
> spent more than a decade before the two were fully merged as Windows XP.
> This worked out very well for them.
Quite.
> Apple released Mac OS X in 2001. The last release of the old OS was 9.2,
> in 2002. Compatibility with the old OS, in the form of Classic, is now
> totally gone as of 2006, just 5 years later.
Yes.
> That's a very rapid transition by comparison. It also explains what I
> mean by the "2 of every app" comment before - Apple took whatever apps
> they could on their transition, through Carbon, and have now left
> everything else outside to die, by removing Classic just a few years
> later. A painful transition, but it's my view that there was little else
> they could from the position they were in in 1997.
You seem to be lumping this Intel thing in with
the OS X shift. Why? Apple views them as separate,
I think.
And there's one thing the could have done: ported
Classic to x86.
[snip]
>> Experimenting with it, I observe that it does not do this;
>> it reindexes only changed files.
>
> I've also experimented with it, and it does do this :-D
>
> I created a file, gave it a distinctive name, and immediately ran a
> query in MSN Desktop Search. No sign of it. I left the system alone for
> a while, came back, and the search found it.
Oh, that's not the same thing at all. I verified it does not
reindex everything; but it does not reindex *anything*
until your computer is idle. Hence the wait.
[snip]
>> However, it does avoid indexing while the computer
>> is in use, which will presumably mean greater delays
>> that Spotlight shows.
>
> I know it is capable of performing the indexing in the same way
> Spotlight does, but my experience with it shows me that in practice it
> doesn't. If it really does deliberately not do the indexing of files it
> *knows* have just changed just because someone is currently using the
> computer...well, that just seems a little silly, frankly.
Not at all. Indexing is expensive- lots of disk access. When
the user is using the system, it should not be slowed down
by the indexing process.
It's a reasonable design decision.
[snip]
> I've found that because the Dock shows applications rather than windows,
> and just icons rather than longer icons-plus-names, you can fit a much
> higher number of apps in the same horizontal space.
Oh, yes, that's so.
> Of course, you're probably thinking that this is just 2 negatives
> combining by chance into a positive :-)
Exactly. :D
[snip]
>> This is true. The taskbar's buttons have unpredictable
>> placement in this way; but at least the buttons do not
>> *always* move when another one is added.
>
> The Dock need not always move either, it can be pinned to a corner so
> that it grows out, rather than moving to remain centered. In this setup,
> icons for apps in the Dock *never* move so much as a pixel.
Mac OS X does not include this feature as
shipped; you are using some sort of haxie or
command like tweak.
That's, like, cheating! :D
[snip]
>> They do. Watch more closely while launching an app
>> not already in the dock- the icons move to make
>> room for it, and it maintain centering.
>
> My Dock is set to be pinned to the corner, so this doesn't happen.
> (Note: I've had it set this way for so long I forgot that this is not
> only not standard behaviour, the option for setting it is not exposed
> through the GUI. Boo and hiss, Apple!)
Exactly. I did not use this little hack, so I got
the default behavior.
[snip]
>> I prefer the Start Menu; it does require an extra click to
>> summon it, but that allows it to both contain a lot more
>> functionality, and also use less real estate when inactive.
>
> Most of the other functionality in the Start Menu is contained in any
> given Finder window, and I find it as useful there as anywhere else.
I do not. I do not have Finder windows on top very
often, you see.
> And
> I'll even throw in one more point I forgot before that I think the Dock
> wins on - launching multiple applications. You can click on any number
> of apps in the Dock one after the other to launch them. The same
> operation in the quick launch area of the Start menu requires you to
> keep reopening it, as every click makes it disappear again.
That is so. I had not thought of that. Of course,
you can use the quick launch bar if you want that
sort of thing.
[snip]
>> As long as you never launch any app not in the dock,
>> and never minimize a window, you are safe!
>
> I never minimize windows in OS X, and with good reason too - it's so
> flawed as to be nearly useless.
But.. but... but... Genie Effect!
> I much prefer hiding the app itself, if
> for some reason I don't want to see it. To be honest, I hardly ever
> minimise anything in Windows either. I just switch to the next relevant
> window.
I tend to do that too, when windows are maximized, but
minimzation is something I do use in both OSes,
from time to time.
[snip]
>> It may just be different mental models at work here; I'm
>> never concerned about whether an app is running- that's
>> Windows problem. I am looking for a window.
>
> Right, but whether or not there is a window to be found depends on
> whether the app is running. If it's not, you need to go somewhere else
> to launch it. In my scenario, I don't need to do that.
Your scenario is not mine; I'm not look for an app,
so no matter how good your 'get an app up and running'
procedure is, it doesn't matter to me.
Clicking on an app icon in the dock does not bring
me the window I want.
[snip]
>> There's something to that, but I found Spotlight
>> surprisingly slow on my PowerBook G4; annoyingly
>> slow to use as a program launcher. Windows
>> Desktop Search doesn't have that problem, but then,
>> this isn't a G4 either.
>
> I have a similar machine to yours (1.5GHz PowerBook G4) and I literally
> can barely perceive a gap between me typing the name of the app I want
> and it appearing in the Spotlight results. Perhaps it's RAM-related? I
> have 1.5GB.
I have only 1 GB. I don't know why Spotlight performance
is disappointing for me. It is sure a lot faster in Steve's
keynote demos! :D
Tim Murray
Assembling binaries is cumbersome, but it's overall UI is okay by me.
Tim Murray
>
We left 72 dpi behind with the Mac SE series.
Tim Murray
> All ports down the side and none at the back, for one thing.
As much as I like my PowerBook, the ports on the side are the one thing I
can't stand, because it forces the mouse off to the right.
Tim Murray
> and none at all for the backlit keyboard.
I work a lot on bar counters -- I charge by the hour and can drink and bill
at the same time -- and the backlit keyboard is a Godsend. It's also a great
conversation starter for the women.
Tim Murray
Henry Flam
pa_n...@yahoo.com (Patrick Nihill) wrote:
I've never heard of this. How do you do it?
Sandman
"Dan Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
> >> I see no reason to buy a Mac if I am going to
> >> boot Windows on it.
> >
> > I just told you why - to play those games. Other than that - no reason.
>
> I don't need a Mac to run Windows.
You're not following along. If you have a Mac, there is no need to get
a PC.
> >> And BootCamp is still in beta, after all.
> >
> > Uh, yeah?
>
> So why should I use a beta product when
> there is, manifestly, no need to do so?
We're not talking about what you would do. You said that "games didn't
play well on your pb" and I agreed that Games was the only reason to
get a PC, up until now, when you can play them all just as good on a
Mac.
> > But it isn't. It's the exact same thing when set for "best for LCD".
>
> Perhaps it is all in my head.
You think?? :-D
> > ClearType doesn't even (if I recall correctly) antialias on non-LCD
> > screens.
>
> It does, if you turn it on.
I don't have any CRT displays any longer, so I can't check.
> However, you may prefer ordinary anti-aliasing on
> non-LCD screens. No color fringes.
Ok, so cleartype *doesn't* work on CRTs?
> >> So long as I do not replace it with a MacBook;
> >> but then there is no answer to the things
> >> damnable slowness.
> >
> > Slowness?
>
> Slowness. A PowerBook G4 is an embarrasingly
> slow computer, at least when running OS X.
Oh please.
> How much of this is due to the G4 sucking,
> and how much is due to OS X being slow,
> I never can tell.
Well, the G4 is two generations old, and since OSX is faster than any
other operating system you could put on a Mac, we know that's not the
prooblem.
> I'd ask if the MacBook is zippy, but Mac
> users somehow always insist that Macs are
> plenty zippy, even ones which I know from
> personal experience are not.
The MacBook uses the same chip that the latest PC notebook uses, but
has a faster operating system.
> >> > What new software will you be cut out off?
> >>
> >> After a time, all of it.
> >
> > How do you figure? And when you say "a time", is it one year, two
> > years or two decades?
>
> Depends on how fast the transition goes.
The transition to Universal Binaries which can run on your Mac?
> But Apple is moving very fast. I'll guess two years.
And after two year, your machine will stop being able to run universal
binaries?
> >> But it's not that Window is so good here; it's
> >> that Mac OS X apps are so *inconsistant*.
> >
> > Unless you compare them to Windows app, that is.
>
> You're just in denial on this one.
I know you really really want this to be true.
> > With a Mac, you get so much with the machine,
> > such as iLife.
>
> That's not a free download; that's a bundled
> app suite. Many PCs come with those (though this
> Toshiba did not).
Uh, no. No PC comes prebundled with anything like iLife.
> >> Expose is very nifty, but of somewhat limited use
> >> for me, since my windows contain largely text.
> >
> > So does my BBEdit. right-clicking its dock icon brings up a menu of
> > all its open windows. A lot better than the taskbar (whicdh MS
> > realized in XP and added "grouping" which unfortunately only takes
> > effect if you have lots of windows)
>
> Grouping is a way to cope with lots of windows, but of course
> its better if the windows have their own tiles; then
> they are always immediately available, and no hunting
> through groups is needed.
That's just your deranged Windows-mind doing the talking. Free your
mind from the shackles of bad UI.
> >> And I don't have to switch into a special Expose
> >> mode to use it. Apple use to care about modality,
> >> back in the day. Not so much now.
> >
> > Actually, a lot more now.
>
> I don't see this.
Well, there are lots of things you choose not to see, Dan. :)
> >> Yeah, and I usually don't do this because of it. But it's
> >> there when I need it. Making the dock bigger means it
> >> can hold *less* stuff; strangely enough.
> >
> > So, if you want more stuff in it... what do you do?
>
> You make the dock *smaller* to put more
> icons in it. Which makes the icons themselves
> smaller also of course.
Exactly! Dock 1 - Taskbar 0
> > And claim more space. Dock - room for more. Taskbar - room for less.
>
> No, taskbar buttons are wide but short, rather than
> being square.
Exactly - they claim more space. Dock - room for more. Taskbar - room
for less.
> This allows them to show the window caption,
> with no need to click or to scrub. Another plus
> for the taskbar!
You mean another minus. With more than a couple of windows open, the
task bar buttons get so small you can't even read on them.
Quickly now - which taskbar button goes with which window:
http://www.sandman.net/files/tilewindows.jpg
Oh wait, you can't see... they've been grouped. Another plus for the
Dock!
> >> This corresponds, more or less, to the "All Programs" sub
> >> menu, which as I mentioned I rarely use.
> >
> > No, the "All programs" sub menu corresponds to the mess I just said
> > you *didn't* get with the Dock approach. The "All programs" menu is
> > one of the most worthless parts of Windows.
>
> We've had this argument.
>
> It's not important to my decision to switch; I rarely
> use this feature. But, for the record, All Programs
> kicks the "Application" folders butt. Thank you. :D
Thank me for what? Proving you wrong? Putting you into denial?
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
"Dan Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
> > Well, the only thing that will affect web site sizes is to actually
> > lower your resolution, since resolution-independant UI doesn't scale
> > images and stuff like that.
>
> This depends on the page. If a page specifies sizes
> in pixels, IE will honor that even on large-fonts. If
> it uses points, you get scaling.
And no one uses points for image sizing.
--
Sandman[.net]
Steven de Mena
"Tim Murray" <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C10800C9...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
I use Outlook Express for News reading (only), Newsbin for binaries, and
Outlook 2003 for E-Mail. (I have a Mac but have not transitioned over to it
yet for these purposes).
Steve
Dan Johnson
You're software still thinks your display is
72 dpi, even though it isn't.
Makes everything rather... small.
Alan Baker
"Dan Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
<snip>
Tell me: is there any chance your glorious Windows machine will ever
start posting stuff with the correct date and time?
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Dan Johnson
> In article <12e4j74...@news.supernews.com>,
> "Dan Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
>> > I just told you why - to play those games. Other than that - no reason.
>>
>> I don't need a Mac to run Windows.
>
> You're not following along. If you have a Mac, there is no need to get
> a PC.
I've got a Mac; a PowerBook G4. It does
not run Windows, oddly enough.
If I want to have a Windows box, there's
no reason for me to buy it from Apple.
[snip]
>> > Uh, yeah?
>>
>> So why should I use a beta product when
>> there is, manifestly, no need to do so?
>
> We're not talking about what you would do. You said that "games didn't
> play well on your pb"
Yeah. How is that not what I would do?
> and I agreed that Games was the only reason to
> get a PC, up until now, when you can play them
> all just as good on a Mac.
You are agreeing with things I never said, there.
[snip]
>> However, you may prefer ordinary anti-aliasing on
>> non-LCD screens. No color fringes.
>
> Ok, so cleartype *doesn't* work on CRTs?
It works, but how well it works depends on the
CRT. You can get good results with a nice
sharp Trinitron. Your old 1970's NTSC
TV.. not so much.
There is, however, stil the ordinary anti-aliasing
available in Windows.
[snip]
>> How much of this is due to the G4 sucking,
>> and how much is due to OS X being slow,
>> I never can tell.
>
> Well, the G4 is two generations old,
Hmm. They were selling new ones only
a few months ago.
> and since OSX is faster than any
> other operating system you could put on a Mac, we know that's not the
> prooblem.
You can put Windows on a Mac these days. That is
certainly faster; and I should not be surprised
to find that Linux is too.
>> I'd ask if the MacBook is zippy, but Mac
>> users somehow always insist that Macs are
>> plenty zippy, even ones which I know from
>> personal experience are not.
>
> The MacBook uses the same chip that the latest PC notebook uses, but
> has a faster operating system.
I can't understand why anyone would claim
OS X is 'faster'. Prettier, sure, but the
performance problems it has with interactive
UI are well documented, and I have experienced
them myself.
[snip]
>> Depends on how fast the transition goes.
>
> The transition to Universal Binaries which can run on your Mac?
To Intel. That is where Apple is going. They are being
very (and commendably) clear about this: PowerPC is
going away, as soon as may be.
>> But Apple is moving very fast. I'll guess two years.
>
> And after two year, your machine will stop being able to run universal
> binaries?
I expect that in about two years, we'll start
seeing software that is Intel only. These will be
the new releases, of course.
[snip]
>> That's not a free download; that's a bundled
>> app suite. Many PCs come with those (though this
>> Toshiba did not).
>
> Uh, no. No PC comes prebundled with anything like iLife.
Indeed; but many come bundled with Microsoft Office.
(I had to spring for this myself, however)
[snip]
>> Grouping is a way to cope with lots of windows, but of course
>> its better if the windows have their own tiles; then
>> they are always immediately available, and no hunting
>> through groups is needed.
>
> That's just your deranged Windows-mind doing the talking. Free your
> mind from the shackles of bad UI.
If owning Macs for several years didn't do it,
nothing ever will! :D
[snip]
>> You make the dock *smaller* to put more
>> icons in it. Which makes the icons themselves
>> smaller also of course.
>
> Exactly! Dock 1 - Taskbar 0
Oh, please. Tiny inscrutable icons, miniscule
hit boxes, and no labels. That's supposed to be
a plus?
Besides, the Dock shows apps, and
I want windows. If it showed 10,000
apps it would still lose to the taskbar
in my eyes.
[snip]
>> This allows them to show the window caption,
>> with no need to click or to scrub. Another plus
>> for the taskbar!
>
> You mean another minus. With more than a couple of windows open, the
> task bar buttons get so small you can't even read on them.
They don't start shrinking until I have about 6
or 7 windows open, actually.
[snip]
Dan Johnson
This is, of course, how the Windows scaling
system is supposed to work: the fonts scale,
the bitmaps don't, and the layout engine
adjusts to it.
It works pretty well, really.
Dan Johnson
"Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-1E460...@news.telus.net...
> In article <12e70t9...@news.supernews.com>,
> "Dan Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Tell me: is there any chance your glorious Windows machine will ever
> start posting stuff with the correct date and time?
Whoops. Forgot to set it. :D
Sandman
"Dan Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
> >> > I just told you why - to play those games. Other than that - no reason.
> >>
> >> I don't need a Mac to run Windows.
> >
> > You're not following along. If you have a Mac, there is no need to get
> > a PC.
>
> I've got a Mac; a PowerBook G4. It does
> not run Windows, oddly enough.
Sigh. Now you're just a boring troll. I was talking about the Intel
Macs.
> If I want to have a Windows box, there's
> no reason for me to buy it from Apple.
Unless you also want to have a good operating system to do actual work
on, and not just play games. If you only want to play games, then get
a PC.
<snip rest of trolling>
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
12e71l8...@news.supernews.com on 8/17/06 4:59 AM:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message
> news:mr-7A280D.08...@individual.net...
>> In article <12e4j74...@news.supernews.com>,
>> "Dan Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
>>>> I just told you why - to play those games. Other than that - no reason.
>>>
>>> I don't need a Mac to run Windows.
>>
>> You're not following along. If you have a Mac, there is no need to get
>> a PC.
>
> I've got a Mac; a PowerBook G4. It does
> not run Windows, oddly enough.
>
> If I want to have a Windows box, there's
> no reason for me to buy it from Apple.
Ah, you are playing the silly game where you pretend you did not know he
meant an Intel Mac. Can you detail the rules of your game? Then again, it
is a game Sandman plays often, so I suppose he is just getting a taste of
his own medicine. Wonder how he will handle it.
>
> [snip]
>>>> Uh, yeah?
>>>
>>> So why should I use a beta product when
>>> there is, manifestly, no need to do so?
>>
>> We're not talking about what you would do. You said that "games didn't
>> play well on your pb"
>
> Yeah. How is that not what I would do?
>
>> and I agreed that Games was the only reason to
>> get a PC, up until now, when you can play them
>> all just as good on a Mac.
>
> You are agreeing with things I never said, there.
Sandman's voices may have told him. :)
>>> How much of this is due to the G4 sucking,
>>> and how much is due to OS X being slow,
>>> I never can tell.
>>
>> Well, the G4 is two generations old,
>
> Hmm. They were selling new ones only
> a few months ago.
Companies do not only sell the newest hardware.
>
>> and since OSX is faster than any other operating system you could put on a
>> Mac, we know that's not the prooblem.
>
> You can put Windows on a Mac these days. That is
> certainly faster; and I should not be surprised
> to find that Linux is too.
Do you have support that either is?
>
>>> I'd ask if the MacBook is zippy, but Mac
>>> users somehow always insist that Macs are
>>> plenty zippy, even ones which I know from
>>> personal experience are not.
>>
>> The MacBook uses the same chip that the latest PC notebook uses, but
>> has a faster operating system.
>
> I can't understand why anyone would claim
> OS X is 'faster'. Prettier, sure, but the
> performance problems it has with interactive
> UI are well documented, and I have experienced
> them myself.
Window resizing is poor on a Mac. What else do you mean?
> [snip]
>>> Depends on how fast the transition goes.
>>
>> The transition to Universal Binaries which can run on your Mac?
>
> To Intel. That is where Apple is going. They are being
> very (and commendably) clear about this: PowerPC is
> going away, as soon as may be.
>
>>> But Apple is moving very fast. I'll guess two years.
>>
>> And after two year, your machine will stop being able to run universal
>> binaries?
>
> I expect that in about two years, we'll start
> seeing software that is Intel only. These will be
> the new releases, of course.
Likely correct. People will not want to test for the older hardware.
> [snip]
>>> That's not a free download; that's a bundled
>>> app suite. Many PCs come with those (though this
>>> Toshiba did not).
>>
>> Uh, no. No PC comes prebundled with anything like iLife.
>
> Indeed; but many come bundled with Microsoft Office.
> (I had to spring for this myself, however)
MS Office is a big pro. Generally not bundled, though (well, you can add
it).
--
€ Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family"
€ Dreamweaver and GoLive are professional web development applications
€ Dreamweaver, being the #1 pro web design tool, is used by many pros
Dan Johnson
> In article <12e71l8...@news.supernews.com>,
> "Dan Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
>
>> I've got a Mac; a PowerBook G4. It does
>> not run Windows, oddly enough.
>
> Sigh. Now you're just a boring troll. I was talking about the Intel
> Macs.
Well, there are a lot of other Mac users who have
G4 or G5 CPUs.
>> If I want to have a Windows box, there's
>> no reason for me to buy it from Apple.
>
> Unless you also want to have a good operating system to do actual work
> on, and not just play games. If you only want to play games, then get
> a PC.
Well, bear in mind that games were just one part
of one of the reasons I listed.
> <snip rest of trolling>
You snip me to the quick!
[snip]
Dan Johnson
news:C108DD5F.5A959%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID...
> "Dan Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> stated in post
> 12e71l8...@news.supernews.com on 8/17/06 4:59 AM:
>> not run Windows, oddly enough.
>>
>> If I want to have a Windows box, there's
>> no reason for me to buy it from Apple.
>
> Ah, you are playing the silly game where you pretend you did not know he
> meant an Intel Mac.
I don't have an Intel Mac!
> Can you detail the rules of your game? Then again, it
> is a game Sandman plays often, so I suppose he is just getting a taste of
> his own medicine. Wonder how he will handle it.
The rules:
1. I post why I'm moving back to Windows
2. You tell me why I'm wrong.
3. I prove I'm right.
4. I win.
:D
Sandman's "you should run your Windows
on a Mac" approach is not, I think, very good
from this point of view: I can't do that without
buying a machine for the purpose.
If I must buy a machine to run Windows,
it makes little sense to buy an Apple
machine.
[snip]
>> Hmm. They were selling new ones only
>> a few months ago.
>
> Companies do not only sell the newest hardware.
Apple did not sell a G5 PowerBook- or any
non-G4 lappie- when I purchased the beast.
[snip]
>> You can put Windows on a Mac these days. That is
>> certainly faster; and I should not be surprised
>> to find that Linux is too.
>
> Do you have support that either is?
Well, my own personal experience is
my chief guide here.
[snip]
>> I can't understand why anyone would claim
>> OS X is 'faster'. Prettier, sure, but the
>> performance problems it has with interactive
>> UI are well documented, and I have experienced
>> them myself.
>
> Window resizing is poor on a Mac. What else do you mean?
I find app launching to be slow too.
The time required for Pages to open or safe
documents is pretty impressive.
Dashboard startup is kinda sluggish for me.
So is Spotlight searching.
[snip]
>> I expect that in about two years, we'll start
>> seeing software that is Intel only. These will be
>> the new releases, of course.
>
> Likely correct. People will not want to test for the older hardware.
Quite. This makes the "stay on the PowerBook G4"
option less attractive.
[snip]
>> Indeed; but many come bundled with Microsoft Office.
>> (I had to spring for this myself, however)
>
> MS Office is a big pro. Generally not bundled, though (well, you can add
> it).
Well, PC vendors typically offer a lot of flexibility in
configuration. You aren't required to take Office as
a rule.
Snit
> "Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote in message
> news:C108DD5F.5A959%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID...
>> "Dan Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> stated in post
>> 12e71l8...@news.supernews.com on 8/17/06 4:59 AM:
>>> I've got a Mac; a PowerBook G4. It does
>>> not run Windows, oddly enough.
>>>
>>> If I want to have a Windows box, there's
>>> no reason for me to buy it from Apple.
>>
>> Ah, you are playing the silly game where you pretend you did not know he
>> meant an Intel Mac.
>
> I don't have an Intel Mac!
Chickens lay eggs.
See, we both can state irrelevant facts!
>
>> Can you detail the rules of your game? Then again, it
>> is a game Sandman plays often, so I suppose he is just getting a taste of
>> his own medicine. Wonder how he will handle it.
>
> The rules:
>
> 1. I post why I'm moving back to Windows
> 2. You tell me why I'm wrong.
> 3. I prove I'm right.
> 4. I win.
Personally I could not care less if you move to Amiga. I doubt Sandman does
either.
>
> :D
>
> Sandman's "you should run your Windows
> on a Mac" approach is not, I think, very good
> from this point of view: I can't do that without
> buying a machine for the purpose.
If you are looking to get a new machine, though, it is reasonable advice to
get a machine which runs OS X *and* Vista (and does so without illegal hacks
that may or may not work for future versions). If you do not like the
advice, you can get Amigas on eBay I am sure. :)
> If I must buy a machine to run Windows, it makes little sense to buy an Apple
> machine.
Before Apple's switch to Intel you would have been right... or if you are
getting a machine to solely run Windows (and, of course, programs on it!)
then you may also have a point. Still, little reason not to get a Mac and
expand your possibilities.
> [snip]
>>> Hmm. They were selling new ones only
>>> a few months ago.
>>
>> Companies do not only sell the newest hardware.
>
> Apple did not sell a G5 PowerBook- or any
> non-G4 lappie- when I purchased the beast.
Ok. Times have changed.
For the record, Apple was none too happy with the state of affairs with IBM
chips.
> [snip]
>>> You can put Windows on a Mac these days. That is
>>> certainly faster; and I should not be surprised
>>> to find that Linux is too.
>>
>> Do you have support that either is?
>
> Well, my own personal experience is
> my chief guide here.
At least we know where you are coming from. Thanks.
> [snip]
>>> I can't understand why anyone would claim
>>> OS X is 'faster'. Prettier, sure, but the
>>> performance problems it has with interactive
>>> UI are well documented, and I have experienced
>>> them myself.
>>
>> Window resizing is poor on a Mac. What else do you mean?
>
> I find app launching to be slow too.
I am on an 800 Mhz G4. Let's launch some apps:
MS Word: about 5-6 seconds
Safari: 4-5 seconds, including loading my home page (Google)
iCal: an embarrassment - 24-25 seconds
iTunes: 6-7 seconds.
Photoshop: 26-27 seconds
I will grant that all those progams were already open... I quite them and
then re-opened them. Of course, for many Mac users they leave programs they
use often on all the time; they stay open even when you close all their
windows. They then "open" almost instantly (Photoshop, for example, in
about 1 second.
> The time required for Pages to open or safe
> documents is pretty impressive.
Pages is pretty bad... no argument here.
> Dashboard startup is kinda sluggish for me.
The first launch, yes... and even after that it is not lightening fast. I
can see that.
> So is Spotlight searching.
Fairly full 60 GB drive, searching on content... takes it mere seconds.
Hard to argue with.
> [snip]
>>> I expect that in about two years, we'll start
>>> seeing software that is Intel only. These will be
>>> the new releases, of course.
>>
>> Likely correct. People will not want to test for the older hardware.
>
> Quite. This makes the "stay on the PowerBook G4"
> option less attractive.
Agreed. Older hardware always becomes less attractive with time.
> [snip]
>>> Indeed; but many come bundled with Microsoft Office.
>>> (I had to spring for this myself, however)
>>
>> MS Office is a big pro. Generally not bundled, though (well, you can add
>> it).
>
> Well, PC vendors typically offer a lot of flexibility in
> configuration. You aren't required to take Office as
> a rule.
Mac included... you can buy it from them as well. Generally you get the
"test drive" so you do not even have to install it if you want it... though
I am not a big fan of plopping on all sorts of demo-ware.
--
€ Teaching is a "real job"
€ The path "~/users/username/library/widget" is not common on any OS
€ The term "all widgets" does not specify a specific subgroup of widgets
steevo
> In article <mr-54791C.09...@individual.net>,
> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
>
> MT-Newswatcher has a terrible UI. I only use it because there is not
> much to choose from on the Mac, and because of its filtering ability.
> Why someone would like all those windows popping up all over the place I
> will never understand.
>
> Not that this would make me move back to Windows, mind you..
>
> <snip>
Have you tried pan, the X Windows based newsreader? I know you'd have to
install X Windows, but Pan has great filtering ability, as well as the
best newsreader environment I've used anywhere.
Steve J.
GreyCloud
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message
> news:mr-7A280D.08...@individual.net...
>
>>In article <12e4j74...@news.supernews.com>,
>>"Dan Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>I just told you why - to play those games. Other than that - no reason.
>>>
>>>I don't need a Mac to run Windows.
>>
>>You're not following along. If you have a Mac, there is no need to get
>>a PC.
>
>
> I've got a Mac; a PowerBook G4. It does
> not run Windows, oddly enough.
And I'm glad that any PPC can't run windows.
Whatever for? To play your silly games on?
<snip>
--
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?
GreyCloud
>>Can you detail the rules of your game? Then again, it
>>is a game Sandman plays often, so I suppose he is just getting a taste of
>>his own medicine. Wonder how he will handle it.
>
>
> The rules:
>
> 1. I post why I'm moving back to Windows
You should've posted in a windows newsgroup then.
The rest of us aren't interested in your whinings.
Sandman
"Dan Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
> >> I've got a Mac; a PowerBook G4. It does
> >> not run Windows, oddly enough.
> >
> > Sigh. Now you're just a boring troll. I was talking about the Intel
> > Macs.
>
> Well, there are a lot of other Mac users who have
> G4 or G5 CPUs.
Sigh. Now you're just a boring troll. I was talking about the Intel
Macs.
> >> If I want to have a Windows box, there's
> >> no reason for me to buy it from Apple.
> >
> > Unless you also want to have a good operating system to do actual work
> > on, and not just play games. If you only want to play games, then get
> > a PC.
>
> Well, bear in mind that games were just one part
> of one of the reasons I listed.
Gaming is the only valid reason to prefer Windows before OSX, you know.
> > <snip rest of trolling>
>
> You snip me to the quick!
You turn boring too quick.
--
Sandman[.net]
ZnU
"Dan Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message
> news:mr-CA7CC0.08...@individual.net...
> > In article <12e4ev5...@news.supernews.com>,
> > "Dan Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
> >
> >> This depends on the page. If a page specifies sizes
> >> in pixels, IE will honor that even on large-fonts. If
> >> it uses points, you get scaling.
> >
> > And no one uses points for image sizing.
>
> This is, of course, how the Windows scaling
> system is supposed to work: the fonts scale,
> the bitmaps don't, and the layout engine
> adjusts to it.
>
> It works pretty well, really.
System-wide? If so, it's more of a font-size preference than it is
resolution-independent UI, and I don't think it's really fair to compare
it directly to what Apple is working on.
--
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
-- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005
Dan Johnson
> "Dan Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> stated in post
> 12e7881...@news.supernews.com on 8/16/06 3:49 PM:
>>
>>
>> 1. I post why I'm moving back to Windows
>> 2. You tell me why I'm wrong.
>> 3. I prove I'm right.
>> 4. I win.
>
> Personally I could not care less if you move to Amiga. I doubt Sandman
> does
> either.
Then it is very kind of you two to liven up my
humble little thread with your... presence.
[snip]
>> Sandman's "you should run your Windows
>> on a Mac" approach is not, I think, very good
>> from this point of view: I can't do that without
>> buying a machine for the purpose.
>
> If you are looking to get a new machine, though, it is reasonable advice
> to
> get a machine which runs OS X *and* Vista (and does so without illegal
> hacks that may or may not work for future versions). If you do not like
> the advice, you can get Amigas on eBay I am sure. :)
This pre-supposes that I want it to run OS X, too, and
that I'm running Vista, that Boot Camp supports Vista.
One of those might even be true. :D
[snip]
> Before Apple's switch to Intel you would have been right... or if you are
> getting a machine to solely run Windows (and, of course, programs on it!)
> then you may also have a point. Still, little reason not to get a Mac and
> expand your possibilities.
Expand my possibilities how? I've got a Mac now,
so I would have expected to notice this 'expansion'
already, but I haven't.
It seems to me that the Mac just plain does less,
and does it slower, too.
[snip]
>> Apple did not sell a G5 PowerBook- or any
>> non-G4 lappie- when I purchased the beast.
>
> Ok. Times have changed.
They changed real fast!
[snip]
>>> Window resizing is poor on a Mac. What else do you mean?
>>
>> I find app launching to be slow too.
>
> I am on an 800 Mhz G4. Let's launch some apps:
>
> MS Word: about 5-6 seconds
Slow. It's about 3 for me here.
> Safari: 4-5 seconds, including loading my home page (Google)
IE does this is about 2 seconds.
Of course, loading the page depends on network
performance too, so your milage may vary.
> iCal: an embarrassment - 24-25 seconds
That's amazingly bad. My (faster)
G4 did this in more like 10 or 15 seconds;
perhaps you have more content in iCal
though.
> iTunes: 6-7 seconds.
WMP11 is a lot slower than WMP10
was to start- annoyingly so- but it's
still only 5 seconds or so.
> Photoshop: 26-27 seconds
I don't have this so I can't check it.
> I will grant that all those progams were already open... I quite them and
> then re-opened them.
My numbers were for first-launch. This makes quite a big
difference due to disk-caching. You can cut mine in half-
sometimes more- because of it.
I think that justifies my claim that app launching
is faster on Windows. :D
> Of course, for many Mac users they leave programs they
> use often on all the time; they stay open even when you close all their
> windows. They then "open" almost instantly (Photoshop, for example, in
> about 1 second.
I don't need to use this workaround on Windows. And
1 second is a prety long time to just open a blank
window, but maybe Photoshop is always like that.
>> The time required for Pages to open or safe
>> documents is pretty impressive.
>
> Pages is pretty bad... no argument here.
Keynote seems to be the same story.
>> Dashboard startup is kinda sluggish for me.
>
> The first launch, yes... and even after that it is not lightening fast. I
> can see that.
I have no problems once it is running, but it
takes awhile to get the thing up at first.
>> So is Spotlight searching.
>
> Fairly full 60 GB drive, searching on content... takes it mere seconds.
> Hard to argue with.
I was expecting instantaneous response. That's what
it does for Steve in his demos!
And that's what Windows Desktop Search does, too,
for me.
[snip]
>> Quite. This makes the "stay on the PowerBook G4"
>> option less attractive.
>
> Agreed. Older hardware always becomes less attractive with time.
The Switch does two things: it exagerates this effect, and it
also makes the *new* hardware less attractive in the short
term.
[snip]
>> Well, PC vendors typically offer a lot of flexibility in
>> configuration. You aren't required to take Office as
>> a rule.
>
> Mac included... you can buy it from them as well.
Yeah, but you're pretty much stuck with taking iLife,
as well, are you not?
> Generally you get the
> "test drive" so you do not even have to install it if you want it...
> though
> I am not a big fan of plopping on all sorts of demo-ware.
Certainly "so you don't have to install it" is not a reasonable
justification for *installing* demoware. But they'll use
any excuse these days.
Dan Johnson
> In article <12e77pn...@news.supernews.com>,
> "Dan Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
>
>> Well, there are a lot of other Mac users who have
>> G4 or G5 CPUs.
>
> Sigh. Now you're just a boring troll. I was talking about the Intel
> Macs.
I wonder why what *you* were talking about is so much
more important that what *I* was talking about?
[snip]
>> Well, bear in mind that games were just one part
>> of one of the reasons I listed.
>
> Gaming is the only valid reason to prefer Windows before
> OSX, you know.
I listed quite a few others. Did you read them?
[snip]
Dan Johnson
news:znu-BEB3A7.0...@individual.net...
> In article <12e71nu...@news.supernews.com>,
> "Dan Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
>> This is, of course, how the Windows scaling
>> system is supposed to work: the fonts scale,
>> the bitmaps don't, and the layout engine
>> adjusts to it.
>>
>> It works pretty well, really.
>
> System-wide? If so, it's more of a font-size preference than it is
> resolution-independent UI, and I don't think it's really fair to compare
> it directly to what Apple is working on.
It is system wide, and it is resolution-independant UI:
the setting changes the ratio between inches and pixels,
in essense. This affects all drawing, unless you
select physical pixels in your drawing context.
So, this setting affects many things, not just font sizes.
Most of the Windows Classic theme is what they call
'vector-based' these days.
'Luna' is bitmap based, and has to include several
different sizes of all its bitmaps, it avoid ugly scaling
and not look bad. Er, worse.
And some programs scale bitmaps right along with
everything else. Looks a bit nasty.
The 'don't scale bitmaps' idea is to make it look
better. Scaling them is what the API will do
'naturally'.
Sandman
"Dan Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
> >> Well, there are a lot of other Mac users who have
> >> G4 or G5 CPUs.
> >
> > Sigh. Now you're just a boring troll. I was talking about the Intel
> > Macs.
>
> I wonder why what *you* were talking about is so much
> more important that what *I* was talking about?
You:
Little is available, and what is there are ports of older PC
games, and they still do not play real well on G4 hardware.
Me:
Of course. Games - the only reason to use a PC. And that's not
even true anymore with the Intel Macs.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You:
I see no reason to buy a Mac if I am going to boot Windows on it.
^^^^^^^^^
Me:
I just told you why - to play those games.
You:
I don't need a Mac to run Windows.
Me:
You're not following along. If you have a Mac, there is no need
to get a PC.
You:
I've got a Mac; a PowerBook G4. It does not run Windows,
oddly enough.
And then enter Dan troll loop mode where you start referring to the
Mac you already had instead of the one you supposedly would buy to
boot into Windows to run games.
See it yet?
--
Sandman[.net]
bobinnv
GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
> Dan Johnson wrote:
>
> >>Can you detail the rules of your game? Then again, it
> >>is a game Sandman plays often, so I suppose he is just getting a taste of
> >>his own medicine. Wonder how he will handle it.
> >
> >
> > The rules:
> >
> > 1. I post why I'm moving back to Windows
>
> You should've posted in a windows newsgroup then.
> The rest of us aren't interested in your whinings.
That's right, you are only allowed to post nice things about Apple or
Macs, otherwise you are a "troll".
Snit
> "Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote in message
> news:C108F403.5A9B6%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID...
>> "Dan Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> stated in post
>> 12e7881...@news.supernews.com on 8/16/06 3:49 PM:
>>>
>>> The rules:
>>>
>>> 1. I post why I'm moving back to Windows
>>> 2. You tell me why I'm wrong.
>>> 3. I prove I'm right.
>>> 4. I win.
>>
>> Personally I could not care less if you move to Amiga. I doubt Sandman does
>> either.
>
> Then it is very kind of you two to liven up my
> humble little thread with your... presence.
Thank you for noticing. :)
> [snip]
>>> Sandman's "you should run your Windows on a Mac" approach is not, I think,
>>> very good from this point of view: I can't do that without buying a machine
>>> for the purpose.
>>>
>> If you are looking to get a new machine, though, it is reasonable advice to
>> get a machine which runs OS X *and* Vista (and does so without illegal hacks
>> that may or may not work for future versions). If you do not like the
>> advice, you can get Amigas on eBay I am sure. :)
>>
> This pre-supposes that I want it to run OS X, too, and that I'm running Vista,
> that Boot Camp supports Vista.
>
> One of those might even be true. :D
See below:
> [snip]
>> Before Apple's switch to Intel you would have been right... or if you are
>> getting a machine to solely run Windows (and, of course, programs on it!)
>> then you may also have a point. Still, little reason not to get a Mac and
>> expand your possibilities.
>
> Expand my possibilities how? I've got a Mac now, so I would have expected to
> notice this 'expansion' already, but I haven't.
You have already commented about your Mac not being an Intel model. It can
*not* run both OS X and Windows. The new Intel ones can - and thus they do
more than your current Mac or other Windows computers... the new Intel
computers run both (and Linux, too, if you care). Thus they open up more
possibilities - you can get the best of any OS, though, unless you run
Parallels or something similar you have to re-boot.
> It seems to me that the Mac just plain does less, and does it slower, too.
If you wish to support this you may take the conversation into a more
interesting direction. I would welcome that.
> [snip]
>>> Apple did not sell a G5 PowerBook- or any
>>> non-G4 lappie- when I purchased the beast.
>>
>> Ok. Times have changed.
>
> They changed real fast!
Yes, Apple handled their transition very quickly. Rather amazing, really.
>
> [snip]
>>>> Window resizing is poor on a Mac. What else do you mean?
>>>
>>> I find app launching to be slow too.
>>
>> I am on an 800 Mhz G4. Let's launch some apps:
>>
>> MS Word: about 5-6 seconds
>
> Slow. It's about 3 for me here.
On what hardware? Remember, this is a G4 800.
>> Safari: 4-5 seconds, including loading my home page (Google)
>
> IE does this is about 2 seconds.
>
> Of course, loading the page depends on network
> performance too, so your milage may vary.
Agreed.
>> iCal: an embarrassment - 24-25 seconds
>
> That's amazingly bad. My (faster) G4 did this in more like 10 or 15 seconds;
> perhaps you have more content in iCal though.
I do have a lot of content plus a lot of calendars I subscribe to. Hmmm,
just deleted several subscribed calendars I rarely if ever use and - wow,
what do you know, a lot faster. :) Should have done that a while back.
>> iTunes: 6-7 seconds.
>
> WMP11 is a lot slower than WMP10 was to start- annoyingly so- but it's still
> only 5 seconds or so.
Again: what hardware?
>> Photoshop: 26-27 seconds
>
> I don't have this so I can't check it.
It seems to launch a bit faster on Windows machines, but hard to judge based
on machines speed.
>> I will grant that all those progams were already open... I quite them and
>> then re-opened them.
>
> My numbers were for first-launch. This makes quite a big
> difference due to disk-caching. You can cut mine in half-
> sometimes more- because of it.
Maybe I will re-boot and double check.
> I think that justifies my claim that app launching
> is faster on Windows. :D
Depends on the hardware... and, well, see below:
>> Of course, for many Mac users they leave programs they use often on all the
>> time; they stay open even when you close all their windows. They then "open"
>> almost instantly (Photoshop, for example, in about 1 second.
>
> I don't need to use this workaround on Windows.
Workaround? Most Mac programs just don't quit when you close the last
window. It makes sense - why should they? The only time it is a detriment
is the rare program that keeps using processor time in the background (such
as Dreamweaver... why!?!)
> And 1 second is a prety long
> time to just open a blank window, but maybe Photoshop is always like that.
My 1 second was a max... it is less than that...
>>> The time required for Pages to open or safe
>>> documents is pretty impressive.
>>
>> Pages is pretty bad... no argument here.
>
> Keynote seems to be the same story.
It is slow, but at least it is a pretty darn good program. Pages is not
even that.
>>> Dashboard startup is kinda sluggish for me.
>>
>> The first launch, yes... and even after that it is not lightening fast. I
>> can see that.
>
> I have no problems once it is running, but it
> takes awhile to get the thing up at first.
Agreed. I hope they improve this.
>>> So is Spotlight searching.
>>
>> Fairly full 60 GB drive, searching on content... takes it mere seconds.
>> Hard to argue with.
>
> I was expecting instantaneous response. That's what
> it does for Steve in his demos!
He does not use a G4 800 in his demos. :)
> And that's what Windows Desktop Search does, too,
> for me.
What hardware?
> [snip]
>>> Quite. This makes the "stay on the PowerBook G4"
>>> option less attractive.
>>
>> Agreed. Older hardware always becomes less attractive with time.
>
> The Switch does two things: it exagerates this effect, and it
> also makes the *new* hardware less attractive in the short
> term.
Why?
> [snip]
>>> Well, PC vendors typically offer a lot of flexibility in
>>> configuration. You aren't required to take Office as
>>> a rule.
>>
>> Mac included... you can buy it from them as well.
>
> Yeah, but you're pretty much stuck with taking iLife,
> as well, are you not?
Stuck? I suppose if you want to see it that way... yes, Apple I believe
bundles iLife with all computers.
>> Generally you get the
>> "test drive" so you do not even have to install it if you want it...
>> though
>> I am not a big fan of plopping on all sorts of demo-ware.
>
> Certainly "so you don't have to install it" is not a reasonable
> justification for *installing* demoware. But they'll use
> any excuse these days.
At least Apple is not as bad as HP or Dell or folks like that. Just silly.
--
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
bobinnv
steevo <sjoh...@cox.net> wrote:
Actually I tried it a few years ago, and didn't care for it, mostly
because it ran in the X11 environment.. maybe I will give it another try.
GreyCloud
Exactly a troll in his case. There are some that straddle that fence
and are not trolls. In danny boys case, he already admitted to trolling.
Dan Johnson
> "Dan Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> stated in post
> 12e8h64...@news.supernews.com on 8/17/06 3:28 AM:
[snip]
>> Expand my possibilities how? I've got a Mac now, so I would have
>> expected to notice this 'expansion' already, but I haven't.
>
> You have already commented about your Mac not being an Intel model. It
> can
> *not* run both OS X and Windows. The new Intel ones can - and thus they
> do
> more than your current Mac or other Windows computers... the new Intel
> computers run both (and Linux, too, if you care). Thus they open up more
> possibilities - you can get the best of any OS, though, unless you run
> Parallels or something similar you have to re-boot.
"The best of any OS" may be going a bit far here,
when you have to use beta drivers to run Windows.
Still, the thrust of my argument, as it were, was to
give reasons why I should switch back to Windows;
running a Mac for that purpose seems obtuse.
It seems to be taken for granted that- of course!-
I would wish to run OS X whenever possible.
>> It seems to me that the Mac just plain does less, and does it slower,
>> too.
>
> If you wish to support this you may take the conversation into a more
> interesting direction. I would welcome that.
A large part of my original post was devoted
to that very thing.
[snip]
>> They changed real fast!
>
> Yes, Apple handled their transition very quickly. Rather amazing, really.
... is handling, you mean. :D
But it is one of the things I *don't like* about Apple.
[snip- app launch time deathmatch!]
>>> MS Word: about 5-6 seconds
>>
>> Slow. It's about 3 for me here.
>
> On what hardware? Remember, this is a G4 800.
On a 1.67 GHz Core Duo running Windows
XP Media Center Edition. 2 GB RAM.
I never got Office for the Mac, but I had
the trial demoware pre-installed; I don't recall
how fast it launched though.
[snip]
>>> iCal: an embarrassment - 24-25 seconds
>>
>> That's amazingly bad. My (faster) G4 did this in more like 10 or 15
>> seconds;
>> perhaps you have more content in iCal though.
>
> I do have a lot of content plus a lot of calendars I subscribe to. Hmmm,
> just deleted several subscribed calendars I rarely if ever use and - wow,
> what do you know, a lot faster. :) Should have done that a while back.
Yeah, that's what I tought. It's still a slow launch
even when empty, but there's slow and then there's
glacial.
>>> iTunes: 6-7 seconds.
>>
>> WMP11 is a lot slower than WMP10 was to start- annoyingly so-
>> but it's still only 5 seconds or so.
>
> Again: what hardware?
Same again.
[snip]
>> My numbers were for first-launch. This makes quite a big
>> difference due to disk-caching. You can cut mine in half-
>> sometimes more- because of it.
>
> Maybe I will re-boot and double check.
My experience has been that Mac OS X and
Windows are pretty similar in this respect;
launching an app 'cold' is substantially
slower.
[snip]
>>> Of course, for many Mac users they leave programs they use often on all
>>> the
>>> time; they stay open even when you close all their windows. They then
>>> "open" almost instantly (Photoshop, for example, in about 1 second.
>>
>> I don't need to use this workaround on Windows.
>
> Workaround? Most Mac programs just don't quit when you close the last
> window. It makes sense - why should they?
It wastes resources. Remember that even an idle application
has a message pump/event loop/NSApplication instance, and
is using some working set and a bit of CPU now and
again.
> The only time it is a detriment
> is the rare program that keeps using processor time in the background
> (such
> as Dreamweaver... why!?!)
It's an easy mistake to make.
>> And 1 second is a prety long
>> time to just open a blank window, but maybe Photoshop is always like
>> that.
>
> My 1 second was a max... it is less than that...
Good!
[snip]
>> Keynote seems to be the same story.
>
> It is slow, but at least it is a pretty darn good program. Pages is not
> even that.
Actually, I kinda liked Pages. Ok, it's rather feeble in
terms of features and a bit lame in terms of
performance, but it has a nice clean UI which appeals
to me.
[snip]
>> And that's what Windows Desktop Search does, too,
>> for me.
>
> What hardware?
Same as above.
(As I said, it's hard for me to isolate how much of
my experience was due to running a G4, and
how much due to the implementation of the
software.)
[snip]
>>> Agreed. Older hardware always becomes less attractive with time.
>>
>> The Switch does two things: it exagerates this effect, and it
>> also makes the *new* hardware less attractive in the short
>> term.
>
> Why?
There's a comparative dearth of native software.
[snip]
>> Yeah, but you're pretty much stuck with taking iLife,
>> as well, are you not?
>
> Stuck? I suppose if you want to see it that way... yes, Apple I believe
> bundles iLife with all computers.
I say stuck because the only thing in iLife I have
any use for is iTunes, which is free anyway.
[snip]
>> Certainly "so you don't have to install it" is not a reasonable
>> justification for *installing* demoware. But they'll use
>> any excuse these days.
>
> At least Apple is not as bad as HP or Dell or folks like that. Just
> silly.
I agree. PC vendors often pave the desktop with
crap. Not exactly a welcoming sight for your first
login.
But that was a topic for my other, now defuct, thread,
about what was wrong with this new Toshiba.
I notice that you guys were a lot more friendly and
sympathetic in *that* thread! :D
Snit
> "Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote in message
> news:C109F0EC.5ABF0%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID...
>> "Dan Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> stated in post
>> 12e8h64...@news.supernews.com on 8/17/06 3:28 AM:
>
> [snip]
>>> Expand my possibilities how? I've got a Mac now, so I would have
>>> expected to notice this 'expansion' already, but I haven't.
>>
>> You have already commented about your Mac not being an Intel model. It can
>> *not* run both OS X and Windows. The new Intel ones can - and thus they do
>> more than your current Mac or other Windows computers... the new Intel
>> computers run both (and Linux, too, if you care). Thus they open up more
>> possibilities - you can get the best of any OS, though, unless you run
>> Parallels or something similar you have to re-boot.
>
> "The best of any OS" may be going a bit far here,
> when you have to use beta drivers to run Windows.
OK, fair enough. While I have heard no complaints, if you are running a
mission critical application on the computer you might want to wait for OS
10.5 and any appropriate reviews. I can see that.
> Still, the thrust of my argument, as it were, was to give reasons why I should
> switch back to Windows; running a Mac for that purpose seems obtuse.
If you are 100% certain you will never want to use a Mac again, sure - but
with both being so useful and good it makes sense to keep your options open.
> It seems to be taken for granted that- of course!- I would wish to run OS X
> whenever possible.
By whom?
>>> It seems to me that the Mac just plain does less, and does it slower, too.
>>>
>> If you wish to support this you may take the conversation into a more
>> interesting direction. I would welcome that.
>>
> A large part of my original post was devoted to that very thing.
From that post:
"* Apple sacrifices a lot for style." - followed by complaints of heat and
poor wireless reception. Apple notebooks can run a bit warm, but I do not
believe I have seen good evidence that their wireless reception is poor. If
anything I have found them to be excellent - but I am basing that off of
older G3 iBooks.
"* Application Availability" - complaints about news readers (with a
comparison to Outlook Express on Windows) and games. If you like OE you
might like Entourage - I use it though I do not claim it is great. And for
"high end" games you are right, the Mac is not a great platform. For media
hub and consumer editing, however, there is nothing that is as good as the
Mac. Depends on your needs.
"* My Eyes! The Goggles, They Do Nothing!" - complaints about resolution
independence. Quite likely coming to 10.5, but, frankly, XP does not handle
this well either.
"* Surprise: Transition!" - complaints that things get outdated in the
computer world... including the loss of Classic. I agree the loss of
Classic is a bad thing, though only for a small number of people. Other
than that, computers get outdated quickly... just the way the industry is.
"* Tools for the Previous Century" - complaints about developer tools.
Apple provides tools for free... and for any level; from Automator to Xcode
to AppleScript to Unix-style scripting.
"* Grand Unification Theory" - complaints about UI consistency. OS X blows
Windows away here. Sure, there are different "styles" of OS X programs -
unified, Aqua, metal... but with all the menus are more consistent, the
windowing methods are more consistent (no MDI), open/save dialogs are more
consistent, etc. No contest here.
"* That'll be another $129, please" - complaints that if you want to buy
something new it costs money. Um, ok. Whatever. Do you think Vista will
be free? Office 2007? A computer to run them on? Think again. You do
talk about Apple's silliness about charging $30 for QT Pro when it has
pretty basic features, and there you are right... and rumor has it Apple has
realized this. Finally.
"* The Dock and The Taskbar" - they each have benefits. You focus on the
weakness of the dock. OK.
"* The Dock and the Start Menu" - see above, though here I think you stretch
more.
Here is my list of pros and cons: <http://comp.gallopinginsanity.com/>
> [snip- app launch time deathmatch!]
>>>> MS Word: about 5-6 seconds
>>>
>>> Slow. It's about 3 for me here.
>>
>> On what hardware? Remember, this is a G4 800.
>
> On a 1.67 GHz Core Duo running Windows XP Media Center Edition. 2 GB RAM.
>
> I never got Office for the Mac, but I had the trial demoware pre-installed; I
> don't recall how fast it launched though.
OK, so your Windows hardware is far, far newer than my Mac hardware. That
does make a difference. You even have more memory than I do ... though I
have 1.5 GB... so I am not too far behind you there.
> [snip]
>>>> iCal: an embarrassment - 24-25 seconds
>>>
>>> That's amazingly bad. My (faster) G4 did this in more like 10 or 15
>>> seconds;
>>> perhaps you have more content in iCal though.
>>
>> I do have a lot of content plus a lot of calendars I subscribe to. Hmmm,
>> just deleted several subscribed calendars I rarely if ever use and - wow,
>> what do you know, a lot faster. :) Should have done that a while back.
>
> Yeah, that's what I tought. It's still a slow launch even when empty, but
> there's slow and then there's glacial.
Yes... and even now... quit... relaunch... still close to 10 seconds (I did
not bother to turn on seconds on my clock, so that is a real rough
estimate). I do still have several calendars I am sharing... and several I
am subscribed to.
>
>>>> iTunes: 6-7 seconds.
>>>
>>> WMP11 is a lot slower than WMP10 was to start- annoyingly so-
>>> but it's still only 5 seconds or so.
>>
>> Again: what hardware?
>
> Same again.
>
> [snip]
>>> My numbers were for first-launch. This makes quite a big
>>> difference due to disk-caching. You can cut mine in half-
>>> sometimes more- because of it.
>>
>> Maybe I will re-boot and double check.
>
> My experience has been that Mac OS X and
> Windows are pretty similar in this respect;
> launching an app 'cold' is substantially
> slower.
Yes... very much the case. I have no doubt my times would increase. In
general, though, it does not matter. I have 18 programs opened right now
(only counting ones that show up on the dock, not background apps or apps
that show up in the menu - but counting the Finder). It takes a second or
less to switch to any windows in any of those apps.
>
> [snip]
>>>> Of course, for many Mac users they leave programs they use often on all
>>>> the
>>>> time; they stay open even when you close all their windows. They then
>>>> "open" almost instantly (Photoshop, for example, in about 1 second.
>>>
>>> I don't need to use this workaround on Windows.
>>
>> Workaround? Most Mac programs just don't quit when you close the last
>> window. It makes sense - why should they?
>
> It wastes resources. Remember that even an idle application has a message
> pump/event loop/NSApplication instance, and is using some working set and a
> bit of CPU now and again.
Looking at CPU usage most of my open programs are at zero percent... close
enough to nothing even when it is just rounded. Did remind me that my 18
open programs does not include widgets. I do have a few that are taking a
whopping .1%, and then there are a few taking some resources more than that:
iTunes: 0.3%
Word: 1.7%
PShop: 3.0%
Not too shabby (and approximate, it updates every second or so). I do get
"spikes" when, say, the program that checks the weather is doing its
thing...
>
>> The only time it is a detriment is the rare program that keeps using
>> processor time in the background (such as Dreamweaver... why!?!)
>
> It's an easy mistake to make.
Annoying for a program that is so major... and done by a huge company like
Macromedia (now Adobe). Opening DW and letting it sit in the background it
is taking 5-8%. That is absurd. Even Photoshop's 3% is a bit high.
Then again, Entourage is worse, 5-10%! And that is not while it is
downloading. That is utter BS! Add to that its database daemon... which
adds another 0-1%.
>
>>> And 1 second is a prety long time to just open a blank window, but maybe
>>> Photoshop is always like that.
>>
>> My 1 second was a max... it is less than that...
>
> Good!
Checking now there is a noticeable time for the pallets to draw... but less
than one second. Maybe about 1/2.
>
> [snip]
>>> Keynote seems to be the same story.
>>
>> It is slow, but at least it is a pretty darn good program. Pages is not
>> even that.
>
> Actually, I kinda liked Pages. Ok, it's rather feeble in terms of features and
> a bit lame in terms of performance, but it has a nice clean UI which appeals
> to me.
I am finding it not-so-bad on a wide screen display, but I still much prefer
Word. I hope pages gets better as it matures... it likely will.
>
> [snip]
>>> And that's what Windows Desktop Search does, too,
>>> for me.
>>
>> What hardware?
>
> Same as above.
>
> (As I said, it's hard for me to isolate how much of
> my experience was due to running a G4, and
> how much due to the implementation of the
> software.)
>
> [snip]
>>>> Agreed. Older hardware always becomes less attractive with time.
>>>
>>> The Switch does two things: it exagerates this effect, and it
>>> also makes the *new* hardware less attractive in the short
>>> term.
>>
>> Why?
>
> There's a comparative dearth of native software.
I am waiting to switch until Dreamweaver and Photoshop are updated. I can
live with other programs running slower... then again, even with Rosetta
those programs would likely be faster than on my current computer. :)
>
> [snip]
>>> Yeah, but you're pretty much stuck with taking iLife,
>>> as well, are you not?
>>
>> Stuck? I suppose if you want to see it that way... yes, Apple I believe
>> bundles iLife with all computers.
>
> I say stuck because the only thing in iLife I have
> any use for is iTunes, which is free anyway.
With Dell you are often stuck with things like monitors. OK, you can
deselect it but it does not reduce the cost.
> [snip]
>>> Certainly "so you don't have to install it" is not a reasonable
>>> justification for *installing* demoware. But they'll use
>>> any excuse these days.
>>
>> At least Apple is not as bad as HP or Dell or folks like that. Just
>> silly.
>
> I agree. PC vendors often pave the desktop with crap. Not exactly a welcoming
> sight for your first login.
>
> But that was a topic for my other, now defuct, thread, about what was wrong
> with this new Toshiba.
>
> I notice that you guys were a lot more friendly and sympathetic in *that*
> thread! :D
Sorry if I came off snotty. I did not read the whole thread and when I
jumped in I may have made some bad assumptions about you.
--
€ Pros aren't beginners in their field (though there are new pros)
€ Similarly configured Macs and Win machines tend to cost roughly the same
€ Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
Patrick Nihill
daniel...@vzavenue.net says...
> "Patrick Nihill" <pa_n...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1hk4y54.14jna68aykv0lN%pa_n...@yahoo.com...
> > Dan Johnson <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
> >> I do not really agree here. They lasted for many years without
> >> making any transition; they should have spent that time
> >> on the transition, rather than wait as long as they did.
> >
> > Oh, they certainly should. They bolloxed around for years with a couple
> > of failed OS strategies. No-one's claiming that they didn't make a mess
> > of their OS strategy.
>
> Quite.
>
> > That was the pre-NeXT Apple, though, and the OS X strategy only came
> > into effect in 1997 at the earliest. By that stage Apple was listing
> > badly, and a graceful, longer-term transition wasn't going to cut it.
> > They needed something that could compete with Windows, and they needed
> > it yesterday.
>
> Yes, they did. But what's their excuse with this new
> transition? They were doing pretty well there
> on OS X/PPC.
Were they? You yourself have mentioned how awfully slow PowerBooks had
gotten compared to PC laptops a couple of times. I'm all too familiar
with it myself.
<snip>
> > That's a very rapid transition by comparison. It also explains what I
> > mean by the "2 of every app" comment before - Apple took whatever apps
> > they could on their transition, through Carbon, and have now left
> > everything else outside to die, by removing Classic just a few years
> > later. A painful transition, but it's my view that there was little else
> > they could from the position they were in in 1997.
>
> You seem to be lumping this Intel thing in with
> the OS X shift. Why? Apple views them as separate,
> I think.
I don't really think they're all that seperate. NeXTStep ran on x86
before it was ever purchased by Apple, and we now know they've been
maintaining the x86 version concurrently with the PPC version all this
time. The transition to Intel is a fairly logical part of the overall OS
X transition, in many ways.
> And there's one thing the could have done: ported
> Classic to x86.
I don't think they could realistically have done this. It would be a
horrendous undertaking.
> [snip]
> >> Experimenting with it, I observe that it does not do this;
> >> it reindexes only changed files.
> >
> > I've also experimented with it, and it does do this :-D
> >
> > I created a file, gave it a distinctive name, and immediately ran a
> > query in MSN Desktop Search. No sign of it. I left the system alone for
> > a while, came back, and the search found it.
>
> Oh, that's not the same thing at all. I verified it does not
> reindex everything; but it does not reindex *anything*
> until your computer is idle. Hence the wait.
And hence the difference with Spotlight, which re-indexes a change as
soon as it happens.
> [snip]
> >> However, it does avoid indexing while the computer
> >> is in use, which will presumably mean greater delays
> >> that Spotlight shows.
> >
> > I know it is capable of performing the indexing in the same way
> > Spotlight does, but my experience with it shows me that in practice it
> > doesn't. If it really does deliberately not do the indexing of files it
> > *knows* have just changed just because someone is currently using the
> > computer...well, that just seems a little silly, frankly.
>
> Not at all. Indexing is expensive- lots of disk access. When
> the user is using the system, it should not be slowed down
> by the indexing process.
>
> It's a reasonable design decision.
Spotlight does not defer the indexing, and the system does not seem to
suffer a performance hit as a result.
> [snip]
> > I've found that because the Dock shows applications rather than windows,
> > and just icons rather than longer icons-plus-names, you can fit a much
> > higher number of apps in the same horizontal space.
>
> Oh, yes, that's so.
>
> > Of course, you're probably thinking that this is just 2 negatives
> > combining by chance into a positive :-)
>
> Exactly. :D
>
> [snip]
> >> This is true. The taskbar's buttons have unpredictable
> >> placement in this way; but at least the buttons do not
> >> *always* move when another one is added.
> >
> > The Dock need not always move either, it can be pinned to a corner so
> > that it grows out, rather than moving to remain centered. In this setup,
> > icons for apps in the Dock *never* move so much as a pixel.
>
> Mac OS X does not include this feature as
> shipped; you are using some sort of haxie or
> command like tweak.
>
> That's, like, cheating! :D
>
> [snip]
> >> They do. Watch more closely while launching an app
> >> not already in the dock- the icons move to make
> >> room for it, and it maintain centering.
> >
> > My Dock is set to be pinned to the corner, so this doesn't happen.
> > (Note: I've had it set this way for so long I forgot that this is not
> > only not standard behaviour, the option for setting it is not exposed
> > through the GUI. Boo and hiss, Apple!)
>
> Exactly. I did not use this little hack, so I got
> the default behavior.
I wouldn't call this a hack, it's a behaviour that is part of the
system, but is not exposed by the UI. I think it should be.
I had forgotten that I had originally enabled this using the command
line.
> [snip]
> >> I prefer the Start Menu; it does require an extra click to
> >> summon it, but that allows it to both contain a lot more
> >> functionality, and also use less real estate when inactive.
> >
> > Most of the other functionality in the Start Menu is contained in any
> > given Finder window, and I find it as useful there as anywhere else.
>
> I do not. I do not have Finder windows on top very
> often, you see.
One click on the Finder icon in the bottom left corner of the screen,
and there is a Finder window. Much like the Start menu (although the
Start menu has an advantage here in that it will always appear in the
same place, while the Finder window won't).
> > And
> > I'll even throw in one more point I forgot before that I think the Dock
> > wins on - launching multiple applications. You can click on any number
> > of apps in the Dock one after the other to launch them. The same
> > operation in the quick launch area of the Start menu requires you to
> > keep reopening it, as every click makes it disappear again.
>
> That is so. I had not thought of that. Of course,
> you can use the quick launch bar if you want that
> sort of thing.
You can, but the Dock is easier than this.
> [snip]
> >> As long as you never launch any app not in the dock,
> >> and never minimize a window, you are safe!
> >
> > I never minimize windows in OS X, and with good reason too - it's so
> > flawed as to be nearly useless.
>
> But.. but... but... Genie Effect!
Damn and blast the Genie Effect! :-)
<snip>
Patrick Nihill
says...
>
> > My Dock is set to be pinned to the corner, so this doesn't happen.
> > (Note: I've had it set this way for so long I forgot that this is not
> > only not standard behaviour, the option for setting it is not exposed
> > through the GUI. Boo and hiss, Apple!)
> >
Enter "defaults write com.apple.Dock pinning start" in a Terminal
window, and restart the Dock. To change back to the default behaviour,
enter "defaults write com.apple.Dock pinning middle".
Donald L McDaniel
<daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
>I recently posted about some problems I had bringing
>up my new Toshiba laptop. So now I feel my trolling
>is incomplete if I don't post some explaination for why
>I would want to buy a Toshiba laptop at all.
>
>After all, I had a PowerBook G4, and the junkware
>infestation on this Toshiba was not a surprise to me.
>
>That I like MS as a company better than Apple is
>one factor that will surprise no-one. But I have
>better reasons too. Lots of reasons.
>
>This will be a long post.
>
>* Apple sacrifices a lot for style.
Like "expandability?"
That's what I really like about strictly Wintel machine: They are
easily expandible. Not like my "beautiful" Intel iMac. I can't even
replace my dinky-assed 160GB HD without breaking the case apart, with
the distinct possibility of breaking my Apple warranty because of my
old fingers and poor eyesight.
>The PowerBook is beautiful. The aluminum
>case is a marvelous look, and it is so thin!
>
>But the PowerBook runs *hot*; burn-my-lap hot.
>When using it on my lap, I had to lay it on its
>carrying case for insulation.
>
>And the WiFi reception is not so great. Sometimes
>I feel I have to be so close, I might as well run a
>cable. Making the case of metal makes reception
>problematic.
>
>Toshiba's laptop is standard issue Wintel ugly; it's
>thicker, and has a three-tone plastic case. But it
>runs reasonably cool- no icepack needed- and
>gets better reception for WiFi too.
Strange: I get better WiFi reception under OS X than I do under XP,
using the same Apple wireless card.
>It's not art, but it is practical.
>
>* Application Availability
>
>I was not a very demanding user- mostly
>Apple apps for me- but even with my
>limited demands, I found I found app
>availability to be a problem.
"Availablity"? I would't use that term to describe the dearth of
Apple applications (other than specialized Academic-type crap).
I guess that's good if you are a scientist or academician, or artist
of some type.
But just not for "normal" people.
>
>I had a devil of a time finding a decent
>newsreader.
I really don't understand why you had this problem.
Many very decent newsreaders are made for XP.
However, Forte makes the best of all Windows newsreaders: Agent 3.3
Get it here: http://www.forteinc.com
It is NOTHING like those crappy-assed OS X "newsreaders". And thank
GOD it looks NOTHING like Aqua.
>
>I eventually settled on Unison, which has
>adequate UI- it looks like Aqua at least-
>but it was terribly buggy then.
Not so buggy lately.
>It's better now, but it's still mostly targetted
>at Pr0n Surfing.
So true.
>
>I posted rather less here because it was
>awkward to work with threads in this
>newsreader.
Hell, man, its "awkward" to work with threads in ANY OS X newsreader.
Even MICROSOFT went and fell into the Mac GUI shit-hole when they
designed Entourage's newsreader.
>I also tried MT/Newswatcher, but the UI
>was a crawling horror.
That's because it sits on the horrific OS X Desktop.
Otherwise, it's a fairly decent Usenet client.
>On Windows I just use Outlook Express
>for this. Works fine, decent UI, no problem.
OE is a pretty good Usenet client. But not very configurable.
Try out Forte's Agent 3.3 (and soon, 4.0).
>
>I also bought a few games for the thing. I
>wasn't expecting much, but I was still
>disappointed. Little is available, and
>what is there are ports of older PC
>games, and they still do not play real
>well on G4 hardware.
They play great dualbooting with XP on an Intel Mac.
>
>There does not appear to be much of
>a Mac games industry at all.
There are one or two developers, and what they DO put out is pretty
good.
>* My Eyes! The Goggles, They Do Nothing!
>
>If the googles had magnifying lenses,
>then maybe they would do something.
>
>Mac OS X has no resolution independance; it
>treats all screens as 72 dpi. They are really
>about 100 dpi; the result is teeny tiny UI.
I don't find that to be the case on my Intel iMac's Desktop. I have
pretty poor eyesight, but have no problems reading anything.
>This was just an ongoing sore with the
>PowerBook; never a insurmountable
>obstacle, but always annoying.
>
>The first thing I did to the new Toshiba-
>before even removing the jumkware- was
>setting the dpi setting to "Large Size"
>
>Such a relief!
>
>* Surprise: Transition!
>
>Being an Apple customer is an advanture;
You say "i'ts an advanture.."
Where you from, Oklahoma or something?
>you never know what the Next Big Thing
>is. It's very exciting. But it's most.. impractical.
>
>I really, really don't like it that Apple is
>dropping Classic now.
>
>And I don't like my choices at this point:
>I can buy a MacBook, and run my existing
>software in emulation (ick), or stay with an
>old computer and eventually be cut out of
>new software. That sucks.
What software?
Apple makes the crappiest "software" on the planet. Maybe in the
entire Universe.
All because of that crappy-assed Desktop they insist on foisting off
on its unsuspecting users.
>
>If I gotta repurchase software, it'll be
>the Window version, thank you.
>
>* Tools for the Previous Century
>
>I came to the Mac, originally, to see the famous
>developer tools; Objective-C, Cocoa and
>Interface Builder.
>
>It has been a mind-expanding experience. Objective-C,
>in particular, is a very different way to think about
>code. And If anyone wants to expand their horizons
>by learning a new platform, I can recommend
>Cocoa/OS X as the platform to learn, if you can
>spare the cash to get into it.
>
>But, in the end, it's just not as good as what you
>get on Windows.
>
>Objective-C has horrible syntax, and the memory
>management in there is cruder than VB 6. And
>you have to focus a lot more on optimization with
>it, because it produces pretty slow code by
>default.
>
>Interface Builder is obsolete. It's not well
>integrated with XCode, and it works poorly
>for user-defined controls. It's just not
>competitive at all.
I kind of like Microsoft's Visual C++, Visual C, or or VisualBasic.
Any of the three make it easy to write programs and their GUIs.
>XCode itself is weak for a commercial IDE;
>it's slow and unstable. The code-sense is
>almost unusable. And the UI is still quite
>awkward for editing multiple files.
>
>Cocoa is the best thing about the platform;
>but even it is showing its age.
>
>In particular it's error handling is terrible;
>they've got an exception mechanism but
>they almost never use it; instead you have
>methods returning nil and false and such
>for errors, and there's no good way to find
>out what went wrong.
>
>* Grand Unification Theory
>
>I never thought I'd say this, but the UI of
>Windows apps is *more consistant* than
>what you get on the Mac today.
Except for the ever-present MenuBar in OS X. God, I hate that white
horror!
>
>No, Really.
>
>Nearly everything works with the battleship
>gray Classic Theme. And they all work in
>pretty similar ways; toolbars, menus, and
>panes. It's not radical; it's just Microsoft's
>update on OS/2's update of the original
>Mac UI.
The Mac UI has NEVER resembled XP in ANY way.
Nor does it resemble Vista in any way.
>On the Mac, you get a mix of 'new style'
>Aqua apps and OS 9 refugees.
>
>The OS 9 brigate have been ported to
>Carbon, but their UIs often show their
>roots very clearly.
>
>MT/Newswatcher was a real poster child
>for this. It may use the Aqua widgets, but it
>doesn't behave like Aqua at all.
>
>You see this on a smaller scale in many other
>(Carbon) apps. Check out the Office: Mac
>preferences, for one place I've noticed.
>
>Even if you stick strictly the New Breed,
>you still get a hodge-podge of visual styles;
>some Aqua Classic, some with the new
>'Unified' look, some with brushed
>metal, some with 'unified' brushed metal,
>and some with the 'pro' style.
>
>All that in Apple's own products.
>
>They also vary in behavior, but not quite so
>broadly. For instance, Cocoa apps often
>use NeXT-style inspectors- Keynote and
>Pages do this. Carbon apps will use
>old-style dialog boxes, however: iTunes
>does this.
>
>I appreciate the technical problems Apple
>faces here, but it really seems like they
>go out of their way to make this worse.
Microsoft has more than it's share of technical problems.
>* That'll be another $129, please
Or, as Microsoft says, "That'll be another $299, please".
Too bad Microsoft won't lower their prices for XP Pro about a hundred
and fifty bucks.
>
>One spiffy thing about Windows is that
>MS gives away a lot of the little stuff
>for free download. Microsoft's Spotlight-
>clone is one I've installed. It's as convenient
>as the real thing, and quite a lot quicker.
"Spotlight clone"?
Which one is that?. I've been using XP since it was in the first
beta, and have never seen such a thing. Perhaps you could point me to
a download link?
>Apple isn't into freebies, I notice.
>
>* That'll be another $30, please
>
>I still think it's incredibly lame that Apple
>demands $30 bucks for fullscreen playback
>in QuickTime player. Talk about nickle-and-
>diming you to death!
>
>New versions of Windows Media Player
>are one of the many freebies MS makes
>available. I've got WMP11 beta on here
>now; its very slick.
I don't like WMP11. Because there is NO WAY to remove that damn
default music store from it.
Personally, I prefer iTunes for Windows: for the simple reason that
the iTunes music store does not download files in WMP formats.
Considering that I dualboot between XP and OS X, I prefer a common
format. Protected AACs are the best choice, since I can use them in
both XP and OS X.
>* The Dock and The Taskbar
>
>Apple's application-centric Dock also annoys
>me. I almost never want to switch to an app,
>but to a window. The taskbar is much nicer.
Personally, I like the Apple Dock. But I also like the TaskBar. I
just can't STAND that shit-hole of the OS X MenuBar (especially it's
idiotic "MenuBarClock" -- Is THAT what you Apple FanBois call it? Yeh,
right, right...)
>And the taskbar blows less real-estate, so
>I can leave it visible. It can also hold more
>items; it can be more than one tile tall,
>and it auto-combines tiles into menus
>when necessary.
>
>* The Dock and the Start Menu
>
>As a program launcher, the XP start menu
>just kicks the dock up and down the field.
That's for sure.
Nevertheless, I do like the Dock. Too bad it's not very configurable.
>The start menu, like the dock, keeps small number
>of apps immediately available, but unlike the
>dock, they don't move around all the time.
Or, one may keep NO apps immediately available, or only the ones you
prefer.
Right-click (not much of an option in OS X because of Apples' ancient
mouse, unless you spend over $60US for one of their "Might-Mice") on
an application in "All Programs", and select "Pin to Start Menu". Very
handy.
>Muscle memory works; Apple used to care about
>this sort of thing. But not anymore.
>
>Plus the start menu offers all sorts of system
>configuration and control stuff, like the Apple
>menu in Mac OS X. But the start menu can be
>customized.
>
>Plus the start menu shows recently used apps;
>I find that very handy.
I prefer to not use that aspect of the XP Start Menu.
>And of course, the start menu also has a
>complete program list in it too. But that's
>not something I use too much.
>
==
Donald
=========================================================
Dan Johnson
>> "The best of any OS" may be going a bit far here,
>> when you have to use beta drivers to run Windows.
>
> OK, fair enough. While I have heard no complaints, if you are running a
> mission critical application on the computer you might want to wait for OS
> 10.5 and any appropriate reviews. I can see that.
I wouldn't run 'mission critical' stuff on any Mac; not
with Apple's compatibility habits. But that's not Apple's
market; they target consumers, and to an limited extent
workstations.
But given that I want to run Windows, I can run it on
beta drivers from Apple or non-beta from Intel.
Bit of a toss up, really. :D
[snip]
>> Still, the thrust of my argument, as it were, was to give reasons why I
>> should
>> switch back to Windows; running a Mac for that purpose seems obtuse.
>
> If you are 100% certain you will never want to use a Mac again, sure - but
> with both being so useful and good it makes sense to keep your options
> open.
I've still got the PowerBook. I'm not swearing never to
touch a Mac again or the like.
>> It seems to be taken for granted that- of course!- I would wish to run OS
>> X
>> whenever possible.
>
> By whom?
Well, you seem to feel that way. Or perhaps I should
say you seem to feel that all right-thinking people
would wish to run OS X; but maybe you exclude me
from that particular fraternity. :D
[snip]
> From that post:
>
> "* Apple sacrifices a lot for style." - followed by complaints of heat
> and
> poor wireless reception. Apple notebooks can run a bit warm, but I do
> not
> believe I have seen good evidence that their wireless reception is poor.
> If
> anything I have found them to be excellent - but I am basing that off of
> older G3 iBooks.
Well, I spoke of my experiences, but these complaints
may be heard from other people's mouths too.
> "* Application Availability" - complaints about news readers (with a
> comparison to Outlook Express on Windows) and games. If you like OE you
> might like Entourage - I use it though I do not claim it is great.
Last I checked it it was a Classic app.
> And for
> "high end" games you are right, the Mac is not a great platform. For
> media
> hub and consumer editing, however, there is nothing that is as good as the
> Mac. Depends on your needs.
Yes, that's true. Yet it seems you need to have somewhat
particular needs for the Mac to be the best bet. Media
*production* isn't as popular as *consumption*, where
Windows seems to have the lead.
Not just in games; Media Center seems a lot more complete,
and a lot more compelling, than Front Row. WMP offers
a nicer media viewer than QuickTime, even if you spring for
the $30 pro-upgrade.
> "* My Eyes! The Goggles, They Do Nothing!" - complaints about resolution
> independence. Quite likely coming to 10.5, but, frankly, XP does not
> handle
> this well either.
XP's technology to handle this is quite elderly, but
it is servicable, and I was quite surprised, when a first
bought a Mac, that Apple had not done at least as much.
We'll see if it comes in 10.5; but do not forget that
even when it does come, app support must be
provided for it to work.
> "* Surprise: Transition!" - complaints that things get outdated in the
> computer world... including the loss of Classic. I agree the loss of
> Classic is a bad thing, though only for a small number of people. Other
> than that, computers get outdated quickly... just the way the industry is.
No. What Apple does is not what the rest of the industry does;
it puts a might higher premium on compatibility. This is genuinely
different.
> "* Tools for the Previous Century" - complaints about developer tools.
> Apple provides tools for free... and for any level; from Automator to
> Xcode
> to AppleScript to Unix-style scripting.
Microsoft also provides free tools, incluing scripting
languages and IDEs. And MS's IDE's kick sand in XCode's
face. :D
It is true that MS has no real answer to Automator, but at
present Automator is a pretty limited technology. It may be
that Apple will fix this, but we'll see.
> "* Grand Unification Theory" - complaints about UI consistency. OS X
> blows
> Windows away here. Sure, there are different "styles" of OS X programs -
> unified, Aqua, metal... but with all the menus are more consistent, the
> windowing methods are more consistent (no MDI), open/save dialogs are more
> consistent, etc. No contest here.
This is not my experience. I find that there's a lot of
apps with OS 9 UI, or parts of it. It some cases this does
extend to windowing methods, too.
MS's open/save dialogs are a bit of a weak point- surprisingly
many apps still use the Win3.0 dialogs even now.
But nevertheless I agree there's no contest. Windows offers
more consistancy. :D
> "* That'll be another $129, please" - complaints that if you want to buy
> something new it costs money. Um, ok. Whatever. Do you think Vista will
> be free? Office 2007?
No. But I think WMP11, IE7, Windows Desktop Search, and
various other bits will be free- or are already so.
I do not mean Apple is morally obliged to give away
software. I mean it is a point in MS's favor that they
do so.
[snip- Mac apps burning CPU with no windows open]
> Then again, Entourage is worse, 5-10%! And that is not while it is
> downloading. That is utter BS! Add to that its database daemon... which
> adds another 0-1%.
You seem to be making my argument for me. Thanks. :D
I feel Windows approach is more elegant here; processes
are an implementation detail, to be managed by the apps not
the user.
If an app really, truely needs a slow startup, it can
keep its own process alive automatically.
[snip- bringing up Photoshop]
> Checking now there is a noticeable time for the pallets to draw... but
> less
> than one second. Maybe about 1/2.
I wonder why that is. I would have expected the
palettes to draw instantly; maybe it was paged out?
[snip]
>> Actually, I kinda liked Pages. Ok, it's rather feeble in terms of
>> features and
>> a bit lame in terms of performance, but it has a nice clean UI which
>> appeals
>> to me.
>
> I am finding it not-so-bad on a wide screen display, but I still much
> prefer
> Word. I hope pages gets better as it matures... it likely will.
I recognize that Word is a far, far more powerful tool,
and quite a lot faster too. But Clippy Must Die.
[snip- the Switch makes new macs less desirable]
>>> Why?
>>
>> There's a comparative dearth of native software.
>
> I am waiting to switch until Dreamweaver and Photoshop are updated. I can
> live with other programs running slower... then again, even with Rosetta
> those programs would likely be faster than on my current computer. :)
Exactly. Nobody wants to buy software that is *already*
obsolete, even if the hardware speed advantage is so
great that it's theoretically a win.
[snip]
>> I say stuck because the only thing in iLife I have
>> any use for is iTunes, which is free anyway.
>
> With Dell you are often stuck with things like monitors. OK, you can
> deselect it but it does not reduce the cost.
Well, buying a laptop does have *that* problem,
but I am not sure I can hold it against Toshiba!
Nor is Apple better. Not only are *all* their laptops
bundled with LCD displays, but so are iMacs. :D
[snip]
> Sorry if I came off snotty. I did not read the whole thread and when I
> jumped in I may have made some bad assumptions about you.
Oh, maybe, but perhaps not *wrong* assumptions. Just
ask Sandman or GreyCloud about me. :D
Dan Johnson
>>
>> Yes, they did. But what's their excuse with this new
>> transition? They were doing pretty well there
>> on OS X/PPC.
>
> Were they? You yourself have mentioned how awfully slow PowerBooks
> had gotten compared to PC laptops a couple of times. I'm all too familiar
> with it myself.
Yes. But the G5 desktops were not so bad, and they
were making money hand over fist, no?
I can understand why they'd transition anyway- better
to do it now than when they are in real financial trouble
after all- but why rush it?
[snip]
>> You seem to be lumping this Intel thing in with
>> the OS X shift. Why? Apple views them as separate,
>> I think.
>
> I don't really think they're all that seperate. NeXTStep ran on x86
> before it was ever purchased by Apple, and we now know they've been
> maintaining the x86 version concurrently with the PPC version all this
> time. The transition to Intel is a fairly logical part of the overall OS
> X transition, in many ways.
Do you feel this was all planned as one exercise? I
thought they had been trying to make a go of PPC/OS X,
and that's why the G5 happened.
>> And there's one thing the could have done: ported
>> Classic to x86.
>
> I don't think they could realistically have done this. It would be a
> horrendous undertaking.
I don't see that; it's essetnially a PPC app that
contains a 68k emulator. The big thing they'd need
to do is port or rewrite that emulator for Intel;
running emulators on emulators is bad juju.
I do not propose they would have an Intel port
of the OS 9 OS running withing; that would be
emulated.
[snip]
>> Oh, that's not the same thing at all. I verified it does not
>> reindex everything; but it does not reindex *anything*
>> until your computer is idle. Hence the wait.
>
> And hence the difference with Spotlight, which re-indexes a change as
> soon as it happens.
Yes, that is a difference. But there is a preference
in the desktop search options to turnt his behavior
off; then it will index immediately.
So if you don't agree with MS's decision to pause
indexing when the system is busy, you can change
it.
[snip]
>> Exactly. I did not use this little hack, so I got
>> the default behavior.
>
> I wouldn't call this a hack, it's a behaviour that is part of the
> system, but is not exposed by the UI. I think it should be.
Maybe it should be, but it isn't.
[snip]
>> I do not. I do not have Finder windows on top very
>> often, you see.
>
> One click on the Finder icon in the bottom left corner of the screen,
> and there is a Finder window. Much like the Start menu (although the
> Start menu has an advantage here in that it will always appear in the
> same place, while the Finder window won't).
Yes; and it comes up more quickly that the
Finder; also just having any old Finder window
isn't enough, you need to then navigate to the
right place.
And if there were any Finder windows open,
then clicking the icon brings *them* up,
and I may not want to navigate away from where
I was in the window that comes to the front.
It's this last thing that really prevents me front
using the Finder as a launcher.
[snip]
>> That is so. I had not thought of that. Of course,
>> you can use the quick launch bar if you want that
>> sort of thing.
>
> You can, but the Dock is easier than this.
Ya. Bigger icons.
[snip]
Dan Johnson
news:hq1ce21pkgv56315v...@4ax.com...
>>* Apple sacrifices a lot for style.
>
> Like "expandability?"
Yes, often.
> That's what I really like about strictly Wintel machine: They are
> easily expandible. Not like my "beautiful" Intel iMac. I can't even
> replace my dinky-assed 160GB HD without breaking the case apart, with
> the distinct possibility of breaking my Apple warranty because of my
> old fingers and poor eyesight.
Well, for several years Apple had *no* really
expandable machines a consumer might user;
now they at least have the Mac Pro.
But Wintel has a rather better average on this one.
[snip]
>>Toshiba's laptop is standard issue Wintel ugly; it's
>>thicker, and has a three-tone plastic case. But it
>>runs reasonably cool- no icepack needed- and
>>gets better reception for WiFi too.
>
> Strange: I get better WiFi reception under OS X than I do under XP,
> using the same Apple wireless card.
I think the problem is the hardware here;
many have complained that the metal-cased
PowerBook have poor reception compared
to plastic-cased computers.
I should be a bit suprised if the OS made much
of a difference to this, really.
[snip]
>>I had a devil of a time finding a decent
>>newsreader.
>
> I really don't understand why you had this problem.
> Many very decent newsreaders are made for XP.
I mean *on OS X*. :D
> However, Forte makes the best of all Windows newsreaders:
> Agent 3.3 Get it here: http://www.forteinc.com
I may try it. But I find OE quite satisfactory for
my trolling needs.
[snip]
> It is NOTHING like those crappy-assed OS X "newsreaders". And thank
> GOD it looks NOTHING like Aqua.
I kinda like Aqua. Loud, but lickable.
[snip]
> Hell, man, its "awkward" to work with threads in ANY OS X newsreader.
> Even MICROSOFT went and fell into the Mac GUI shit-hole when they
> designed Entourage's newsreader.
MT/Newswatcher wouldn't be so bad, if the UI
wasn't a crawling horror. It seems to do threads
competantly.
>>I also tried MT/Newswatcher, but the UI
>>was a crawling horror.
>
> That's because it sits on the horrific OS X Desktop.
> Otherwise, it's a fairly decent Usenet client.
No; it's actually a very OS 9 UI. Not Aqua
like at all.
[snip]
>>I also bought a few games for the thing. I
>>wasn't expecting much, but I was still
>>disappointed. Little is available, and
>>what is there are ports of older PC
>>games, and they still do not play real
>>well on G4 hardware.
>
> They play great dualbooting with XP on an Intel Mac.
I have never understood why this was
supposed to attract me- or anyone- to
the Mac, though.
>>There does not appear to be much of
>>a Mac games industry at all.
>
> There are one or two developers, and what they DO
> put out is pretty good.
What do they put out?
What little I've seen has been, well,
laughable.
[snip]
>>Mac OS X has no resolution independance; it
>>treats all screens as 72 dpi. They are really
>>about 100 dpi; the result is teeny tiny UI.
>
> I don't find that to be the case on my Intel iMac's Desktop. I have
> pretty poor eyesight, but have no problems reading anything.
Maybe your eyesight isn't so poor. Or maybe
you glue your eyeballs to the screen. :D
[snip]
>>And I don't like my choices at this point:
>>I can buy a MacBook, and run my existing
>>software in emulation (ick), or stay with an
>>old computer and eventually be cut out of
>>new software. That sucks.
>
> What software?
Mac OS X native software.
> Apple makes the crappiest "software" on the planet. Maybe in the
> entire Universe.
Oh, it's not that bad; it's just a narrower selection
of titles.
> All because of that crappy-assed Desktop they insist on foisting off
> on its unsuspecting users.
What's not to like about the desktop?
[snip]
>>* Grand Unification Theory
>>
>>I never thought I'd say this, but the UI of
>>Windows apps is *more consistant* than
>>what you get on the Mac today.
>
> Except for the ever-present MenuBar in OS X. God, I hate that white
> horror!
Man, you're like GreyCloud, but, like,
different somehow. Can't put my finger
on it though. :D
[snpi]
>>Nearly everything works with the battleship
>>gray Classic Theme. And they all work in
>>pretty similar ways; toolbars, menus, and
>>panes. It's not radical; it's just Microsoft's
>>update on OS/2's update of the original
>>Mac UI.
>
> The Mac UI has NEVER resembled XP in ANY way.
They spring from a common root- the
Apple Lisa- but they've evolved
separately for quite some time.
[snip]
>>I appreciate the technical problems Apple
>>faces here, but it really seems like they
>>go out of their way to make this worse.
>
> Microsoft has more than it's share of technical problems.
But they don't go *as far* out of their way to
make their programs inconsistant from each
other. :D
>>* That'll be another $129, please
>
> Or, as Microsoft says, "That'll be another $299, please".
They do say that at times, but they gives some
stuff away too.
Apple is pretty much Cash and Carry.
[snip]
>>One spiffy thing about Windows is that
>>MS gives away a lot of the little stuff
>>for free download. Microsoft's Spotlight-
>>clone is one I've installed. It's as convenient
>>as the real thing, and quite a lot quicker.
>
> "Spotlight clone"?
> Which one is that?. I've been using XP since it was in the first
> beta, and have never seen such a thing. Perhaps you could point me to
> a download link?
[http://www.microsoft.com/windows/desktopsearch/default.mspx]
That will get you the basic version. There's also an
MSN Desktop Search which is the same thing with
some pretty useless frills added.
It's quite a nice tool, though Apple's influence on the
UI is very evident with the search deskbar.
See what I mean about MS and freebies? :D
[snip]
>>New versions of Windows Media Player
>>are one of the many freebies MS makes
>>available. I've got WMP11 beta on here
>>now; its very slick.
>
> I don't like WMP11. Because there is NO WAY to remove that damn
> default music store from it.
iTunes has that problem too, does it not? :D
> Personally, I prefer iTunes for Windows: for the simple reason that
> the iTunes music store does not download files in WMP formats.
It downloads them in protected AAC, but if you are an
iPod junkie, maybe you prefer that. :D
I do not see too much to chose here; both
use proprietary, DRM ridden formats.
[snip]
> Personally, I like the Apple Dock. But I also like the TaskBar. I
> just can't STAND that shit-hole of the OS X MenuBar (especially it's
> idiotic "MenuBarClock" -- Is THAT what you Apple FanBois call it? Yeh,
> right, right...)
How do you like the taskbar clock in
Windows?
[snip]
>>* The Dock and the Start Menu
>>
>>As a program launcher, the XP start menu
>>just kicks the dock up and down the field.
>
> That's for sure.
>
> Nevertheless, I do like the Dock. Too bad it's not very configurable.
It's pretty but it just doesn't do very much.
[snip]
> Right-click (not much of an option in OS X because of Apples' ancient
> mouse, unless you spend over $60US for one of their "Might-Mice") on
> an application in "All Programs", and select "Pin to Start Menu". Very
> handy.
Yes. But Apple ships new desktops with a Mighty Mouse,
so it's not quite as bad as all that. Though if you are
looking for a lappie, well, Apple doesn't have
Mighty Trackpads.
[snip]
Patrick Nihill
daniel...@vzavenue.net says...
> "Patrick Nihill" <pa_n...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1f4f04ef6...@news.individual.de...
> >>
> >> Yes, they did. But what's their excuse with this new
> >> transition? They were doing pretty well there
> >> on OS X/PPC.
> >
> > Were they? You yourself have mentioned how awfully slow PowerBooks
> > had gotten compared to PC laptops a couple of times. I'm all too familiar
> > with it myself.
>
> Yes. But the G5 desktops were not so bad, and they
> were making money hand over fist, no?
>
> I can understand why they'd transition anyway- better
> to do it now than when they are in real financial trouble
> after all- but why rush it?
I suppose because they knew they could get away with it. Let's face it,
the current Mac userbase is not likely to be averse to quick transitions
or dependent on crucial older applications that they must maintain
compatibility with. If they were, they'd probably already have left the
platform.
A slow transition would not have done an awful lot to appease the
current userbase, and would have delayed Apple's ability to start
offering more compelling products to the vast hordes of non-Mac users.
> [snip]
> >> You seem to be lumping this Intel thing in with
> >> the OS X shift. Why? Apple views them as separate,
> >> I think.
> >
> > I don't really think they're all that seperate. NeXTStep ran on x86
> > before it was ever purchased by Apple, and we now know they've been
> > maintaining the x86 version concurrently with the PPC version all this
> > time. The transition to Intel is a fairly logical part of the overall OS
> > X transition, in many ways.
>
> Do you feel this was all planned as one exercise? I
> thought they had been trying to make a go of PPC/OS X,
> and that's why the G5 happened.
I wouldn't go so far as to say this was all planned from the start, as
such. But it was cleary *a* plan that has been kept under consideration
all this time.
I've no access to the workings of Jobs' mind or any of the other major
decision makers at Apple, but it wouldn't surprise me if all along some
or all of them regarded a change to x86 as a question of when, not if.
<snip>
> >> Oh, that's not the same thing at all. I verified it does not
> >> reindex everything; but it does not reindex *anything*
> >> until your computer is idle. Hence the wait.
> >
> > And hence the difference with Spotlight, which re-indexes a change as
> > soon as it happens.
>
> Yes, that is a difference. But there is a preference
> in the desktop search options to turnt his behavior
> off; then it will index immediately.
>
> So if you don't agree with MS's decision to pause
> indexing when the system is busy, you can change
> it.
Aha, and here's me after using this for many months and failing to
notice this. Thanks.
<snip>
> > One click on the Finder icon in the bottom left corner of the screen,
> > and there is a Finder window. Much like the Start menu (although the
> > Start menu has an advantage here in that it will always appear in the
> > same place, while the Finder window won't).
>
> Yes; and it comes up more quickly that the
> Finder; also just having any old Finder window
> isn't enough, you need to then navigate to the
> right place.
You need to click on any of the shortcuts you've dragged to the sidebar
in the Finder window, just like you have to click on one of the pre-
defined shortcuts in the Start menu.
> And if there were any Finder windows open,
> then clicking the icon brings *them* up,
> and I may not want to navigate away from where
> I was in the window that comes to the front.
This is a fair point.
> It's this last thing that really prevents me front
> using the Finder as a launcher.
I wouldn't use the Finder as a launcher either, but it is a useful
alternative to the folder shortcuts in the Start menu. Not perfect,
mind.
> [snip]
> >> That is so. I had not thought of that. Of course,
> >> you can use the quick launch bar if you want that
> >> sort of thing.
> >
> > You can, but the Dock is easier than this.
>
> Ya. Bigger icons.
I was thinking more of not wasting more screen space with another list
of programs that can be launched, as opposed to the list of programs
that have already been launched. As I'm sure you've gathered by now, I
think the way the Dock doesn't differentiate between launching and
switching applications makes both faster.
Snit
> "Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote in message
> news:C10A3996.5AD0B%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID...
>>> "The best of any OS" may be going a bit far here,
>>> when you have to use beta drivers to run Windows.
>>
>> OK, fair enough. While I have heard no complaints, if you are running a
>> mission critical application on the computer you might want to wait for OS
>> 10.5 and any appropriate reviews. I can see that.
>
> I wouldn't run 'mission critical' stuff on any Mac; not
> with Apple's compatibility habits. But that's not Apple's
> market; they target consumers, and to an limited extent
> workstations.
Perhaps the term "mission critical" was too strong - I mean programs that
you depend on enough where you would be very hesitant to run them with beta
drivers.
> But given that I want to run Windows, I can run it on
> beta drivers from Apple or non-beta from Intel.
>
> Bit of a toss up, really. :D
>
> [snip]
>>> Still, the thrust of my argument, as it were, was to give reasons why I
>>> should
>>> switch back to Windows; running a Mac for that purpose seems obtuse.
>>
>> If you are 100% certain you will never want to use a Mac again, sure - but
>> with both being so useful and good it makes sense to keep your options
>> open.
>
> I've still got the PowerBook. I'm not swearing never to
> touch a Mac again or the like.
If you are happy with that and prefer the non-Apple computer you will get no
argument from me (nor would you if you swore off touching Apple computers
ever again!)
>>> It seems to be taken for granted that- of course!- I would wish to run OS
>>> X whenever possible.
>>
>> By whom?
>
> Well, you seem to feel that way. Or perhaps I should say you seem to feel that
> all right-thinking people would wish to run OS X; but maybe you exclude me
> from that particular fraternity. :D
What makes you think that?
>
> [snip]
>> From that post:
>>
>> "* Apple sacrifices a lot for style." - followed by complaints of heat and
>> poor wireless reception. Apple notebooks can run a bit warm, but I do not
>> believe I have seen good evidence that their wireless reception is poor. If
>> anything I have found them to be excellent - but I am basing that off of
>> older G3 iBooks.
>
> Well, I spoke of my experiences, but these complaints may be heard from other
> people's mouths too.
OK.
>> "* Application Availability" - complaints about news readers (with a
>> comparison to Outlook Express on Windows) and games. If you like OE you
>> might like Entourage - I use it though I do not claim it is great.
>
> Last I checked it it was a Classic app.
There have been at least two versions of Carbon apps.
>> And for "high end" games you are right, the Mac is not a great platform. For
>> media hub and consumer editing, however, there is nothing that is as good as
>> the Mac. Depends on your needs.
>
> Yes, that's true. Yet it seems you need to have somewhat particular needs for
> the Mac to be the best bet. Media *production* isn't as popular as
> *consumption*, where Windows seems to have the lead.
The area Windows has a consumption lead is, you guessed it, Windows Media.
Go figure. As far as needed particular needs, the "general" needs of
e-mail, some word processing, web surfing and the like are handled,
generally, better on a Mac than on Windows - at least for most people.
> Not just in games; Media Center seems a lot more complete, and a lot more
> compelling, than Front Row. WMP offers a nicer media viewer than QuickTime,
> even if you spring for the $30 pro-upgrade.
>
>> "* My Eyes! The Goggles, They Do Nothing!" - complaints about resolution
>> independence. Quite likely coming to 10.5, but, frankly, XP does not handle
>> this well either.
>>
> XP's technology to handle this is quite elderly, but it is servicable, and I
> was quite surprised, when a first bought a Mac, that Apple had not done at
> least as much.
You can change systems fonts, headline fonts, application fonts, etc. Check
out Tinkertool.
> We'll see if it comes in 10.5; but do not forget that even when it does come,
> app support must be provided for it to work.
It may work out of the box - though icons and the like may need to be
updated to work best with it.
>> "* Surprise: Transition!" - complaints that things get outdated in the
>> computer world... including the loss of Classic. I agree the loss of
>> Classic is a bad thing, though only for a small number of people. Other
>> than that, computers get outdated quickly... just the way the industry is.
>
> No. What Apple does is not what the rest of the industry does;
> it puts a might higher premium on compatibility. This is genuinely
> different.
With the loss of Classic I agree. I think Apple is making a mistake there.
>> "* Tools for the Previous Century" - complaints about developer tools. Apple
>> provides tools for free... and for any level; from Automator to Xcode to
>> AppleScript to Unix-style scripting.
>
> Microsoft also provides free tools, incluing scripting languages and IDEs. And
> MS's IDE's kick sand in XCode's face. :D
>
> It is true that MS has no real answer to Automator, but at present Automator
> is a pretty limited technology. It may be that Apple will fix this, but we'll
> see.
Rumor has it they are working on it for 10.5, but rumor also say the iPhone
will be out last year. :)
>> "* Grand Unification Theory" - complaints about UI consistency. OS X blows
>> Windows away here. Sure, there are different "styles" of OS X programs -
>> unified, Aqua, metal... but with all the menus are more consistent, the
>> windowing methods are more consistent (no MDI), open/save dialogs are more
>> consistent, etc. No contest here.
>>
> This is not my experience. I find that there's a lot of apps with OS 9 UI, or
> parts of it. It some cases this does extend to windowing methods, too.
Here are some Save and Print dialogs. Tell me which you think are more
consistent. <http://www.gallopinginsanity.com/csma/interface/dialogs/>
> MS's open/save dialogs are a bit of a weak point- surprisingly many apps still
> use the Win3.0 dialogs even now.
How about print? How about window widgets (can we use that term any more?
Damn you Apple!)
> But nevertheless I agree there's no contest. Windows offers more consistancy.
> :D
>> "* That'll be another $129, please" - complaints that if you want to buy
>> something new it costs money. Um, ok. Whatever. Do you think Vista will
>> be free? Office 2007?
>
> No. But I think WMP11, IE7, Windows Desktop Search, and various other bits
> will be free- or are already so.
>
> I do not mean Apple is morally obliged to give away software. I mean it is a
> point in MS's favor that they do so.
Quicktime is free (not pro). iTunes is free. Spotlight came with the OS....
what did MS give you again that Apple did not?
> [snip- Mac apps burning CPU with no windows open]
>> Then again, Entourage is worse, 5-10%! And that is not while it is
>> downloading. That is utter BS! Add to that its database daemon... which
>> adds another 0-1%.
>
> You seem to be making my argument for me. Thanks. :D
I speak what I see as the truth... sometimes it is a benefit to Apple.
Sometimes it is not.
> I feel Windows approach is more elegant here; processes are an implementation
> detail, to be managed by the apps not the user.
I think the user should be able to easily start and quit *most* programs.
There are exceptions (background tasks that would confuse Joe User).
> If an app really, truely needs a slow startup, it can keep its own process
> alive automatically.
This happens too much on Windows as far as I am concerned.
> [snip- bringing up Photoshop]
>> Checking now there is a noticeable time for the pallets to draw... but less
>> than one second. Maybe about 1/2.
>
> I wonder why that is. I would have expected the palettes to draw instantly;
> maybe it was paged out?
No... they definitively take a split second to fill in. The window is there
but the internal stuff to the window is not.
> [snip]
>>> Actually, I kinda liked Pages. Ok, it's rather feeble in terms of features
>>> and a bit lame in terms of performance, but it has a nice clean UI which
>>> appeals to me.
>>>
>> I am finding it not-so-bad on a wide screen display, but I still much prefer
>> Word. I hope pages gets better as it matures... it likely will.
>>
> I recognize that Word is a far, far more powerful tool, and quite a lot faster
> too. But Clippy Must Die.
Clippy did die with 2003. And in 2007 lots of other BS goes away - menus
that only half show up unless you force the other half or wait, toolbars
that get messed up and have to be re-set, etc. I am pretty impressed with
Office 2007 - well, I have not even played with the beta, but so far it
looks good.
[I think we are now arguing for each others company. :) ]
>
> [snip- the Switch makes new macs less desirable]
>>>> Why?
>>>
>>> There's a comparative dearth of native software.
>>
>> I am waiting to switch until Dreamweaver and Photoshop are updated. I can
>> live with other programs running slower... then again, even with Rosetta
>> those programs would likely be faster than on my current computer. :)
>>
> Exactly. Nobody wants to buy software that is *already* obsolete, even if the
> hardware speed advantage is so great that it's theoretically a win.
At the same time I can understand Adobe taking their time... the code is
old. MS is taking their time with Office as well, though speed is a lot
less of an issue there.
>
> [snip]
>>> I say stuck because the only thing in iLife I have
>>> any use for is iTunes, which is free anyway.
>>
>> With Dell you are often stuck with things like monitors. OK, you can
>> deselect it but it does not reduce the cost.
>>
> Well, buying a laptop does have *that* problem, but I am not sure I can hold
> it against Toshiba!
>
> Nor is Apple better. Not only are *all* their laptops bundled with LCD
> displays, but so are iMacs. :D
But not all towers.
> [snip]
>> Sorry if I came off snotty. I did not read the whole thread and when I
>> jumped in I may have made some bad assumptions about you.
>
> Oh, maybe, but perhaps not *wrong* assumptions. Just
> ask Sandman or GreyCloud about me. :D
Sandman loves me, too. Hey, want some fun: ask Sandman, Wally, Tim Adams,
and Steve Carroll to espouse their love for me. Heck, they like me so much
half of them have me in their .sigs. :)
John C. Randolph
Like coming home?
How sad for you. Every time I have to use a windows machine, it feels
like visiting a slum.
-jcr
John C. Randolph
<ortho...@invalid.invalid> said:
> I can't even
> replace my dinky-assed 160GB HD without breaking the case apart, with
> the distinct possibility of breaking my Apple warranty because of my
> old fingers and poor eyesight.
You can open a Mac Pro and add a disk with no tools. You can replace
the disk in an iMac by removing two screws. You can replace the disk
in a Mac Mini in about ten minutes.
Apple doesn't cancel the warranty just for opening the case.
-jcr
Dan Johnson
>> I can understand why they'd transition anyway- better
>> to do it now than when they are in real financial trouble
>> after all- but why rush it?
>
> I suppose because they knew they could get away with it. Let's face it,
> the current Mac userbase is not likely to be averse to quick transitions
> or dependent on crucial older applications that they must maintain
> compatibility with. If they were, they'd probably already have left the
> platform.
I usually resist this proposition, though I can't disprove it,
because I don't like where it leads: that the Mac has
already driven off all the 'normal' users, leaving an
assortment of platform zealots, MS-haters, and such.
> A slow transition would not have done an awful lot to appease the
> current userbase, and would have delayed Apple's ability to start
> offering more compelling products to the vast hordes of non-Mac users.
Does the current userbase need appeasing?
It does seem to me that Apple is locking itself out of
the largest markets by behaving in this way.
[snip- intel transition]
>> Do you feel this was all planned as one exercise? I
>> thought they had been trying to make a go of PPC/OS X,
>> and that's why the G5 happened.
>
> I wouldn't go so far as to say this was all planned from the start, as
> such. But it was cleary *a* plan that has been kept under consideration
> all this time.
The way I figure it, the Intel switch was always an option,
but it was a desparate one, which could potentially kill
the company if it went wrong.
That they did not attempt this during the G4 stall shows,
I think, that they thought this plan terribly risky.
The the revenues they are now getting from the iPod
changed this equation; they are now pretty sure they'll
survive, even if the Intel switch is a complete disaster.
Even in the worst possible case, they just become an MP3
maker and music distributor.
And the G5's power and heat problems are a nasty echo
of the G4's speed problems. They suggest that the G5
won't save them; eventually they'll be forced to make
the switch to cheap but fast commodity CPUs.
Put that together, and now's the time. But I feel that
if it were not for the iPod, Apple would not risk
it. The G5 is not that bad, nor that far behind, not
yet.
Thus I see this decision as separate from the OS X one;
it was clear long before they even hired Steve back
that they needed to do *something* about the OS, even
though that too was a desparate risk.
[snip]
>> So if you don't agree with MS's decision to pause
>> indexing when the system is busy, you can change
>> it.
>
> Aha, and here's me after using this for many months and failing to
> notice this. Thanks.
Sure thing.
But of course, this is illustrative of one difference
between Windows and OS X; OS X tries, whenever
possible, to select the right way to do something and
leave it at that. It does not let you configure the
system very much.
Windows is much more configurable, though MS does
tried to choose good defaults. This allows it to appeal
to a broader audience, but still work for those people
who don't care about this stuff and just use it as is.
I don't mind Spotlights behavior much; it's not that
big of a performance drain. But I would have liked
to be able to control when an OS X machine
hibernates, as I can on Windows.
[snip]
>> Yes; and it comes up more quickly that the
>> Finder; also just having any old Finder window
>> isn't enough, you need to then navigate to the
>> right place.
>
> You need to click on any of the shortcuts you've dragged to the sidebar
> in the Finder window, just like you have to click on one of the pre-
> defined shortcuts in the Start menu.
I prefer to use the Finder sidebar for navigation
rather than program launching, myself. It's
not that big, and the icons get smaller (like
in the dock) if you overload it.
[snip]
>> >> That is so. I had not thought of that. Of course,
>> >> you can use the quick launch bar if you want that
>> >> sort of thing.
>> >
>> > You can, but the Dock is easier than this.
>>
>> Ya. Bigger icons.
>
> I was thinking more of not wasting more screen space with another list
> of programs that can be launched, as opposed to the list of programs
> that have already been launched.
The quicklaunch bar takes up part of the taskbar, and it is
very small. It can autohide (with the task bar), if you
like that sort of thing.
Indeed it is just *too* small for my taste.
I don't use it.
> As I'm sure you've gathered by now, I
> think the way the Dock doesn't differentiate between launching and
> switching applications makes both faster.
I don't think this is so; it would be a better program
launcher if that's all it did, even if it were otherwise
unchanged.
There'd be more room for app icons, obviously,
and it wouldn't move around unless you were
changing the set of apps it holds.
Dan Johnson
>> Well, you seem to feel that way. Or perhaps I should say you seem to feel
>> that
>> all right-thinking people would wish to run OS X; but maybe you exclude
>> me
>> from that particular fraternity. :D
>
> What makes you think that?
You seem to feel that having OS X available justifies
buying a Macintosh to run Windows on.
Surely one must *want* to run OS X before this
makes the slightest bit of sense, no?
[snip]
>> Yes, that's true. Yet it seems you need to have somewhat particular needs
>> for
>> the Mac to be the best bet. Media *production* isn't as popular as
>> *consumption*, where Windows seems to have the lead.
>
> The area Windows has a consumption lead is, you guessed it, Windows Media.
Not just that! Don't forget Media Center.
> Go figure. As far as needed particular needs, the "general" needs of
> e-mail, some word processing, web surfing and the like are handled,
> generally, better on a Mac than on Windows - at least for most people.
That's a very small set of functionality you are talking
about! Frankly, you make the Mac sound worse than
it is. :D
[snip]
>> XP's technology to handle this is quite elderly, but it is servicable,
>> and I
>> was quite surprised, when a first bought a Mac, that Apple had not done
>> at
>> least as much.
>
> You can change systems fonts, headline fonts, application fonts, etc.
> Check
> out Tinkertool.
This is not included with the OS, and anyway it isn't
the same thing as resolution independance. It changes
only particular, selected fonts.
>> We'll see if it comes in 10.5; but do not forget that even when it does
>> come,
>> app support must be provided for it to work.
>
> It may work out of the box - though icons and the like may need to be
> updated to work best with it.
I've tried the developer preview included with Tiger;
it does not 'work out of the box' any more than Window's
technology does. App support is required.
[snip]
>> This is not my experience. I find that there's a lot of apps with OS 9
>> UI, or
>> parts of it. It some cases this does extend to windowing methods, too.
>
> Here are some Save and Print dialogs. Tell me which you think are more
> consistent. <http://www.gallopinginsanity.com/csma/interface/dialogs/>
Dialogs are an easy case to build an argument around. If I were
going to bother making such a dialog, I would use preferences
screens or property dialoges for my examples.
But the UI differences go deeper than that on Mac OS X;
the OS 9 apps have a very different "multiple windows"
aesthetic than you see on OS X.
I should make a separate post about this; it's interesting
in its way. And I can spin it as "Apple Sux0rs" easily
enough. :D
>> MS's open/save dialogs are a bit of a weak point- surprisingly many apps
>> still
>> use the Win3.0 dialogs even now.
>
> How about print?
The situation seems to be to be a bit better for
the print dialog on Windows than for open/save.
> How about window widgets (can we use that term
> any more? Damn you Apple!)
You mean the controls in the title bar? These
are very consistant. A very few apps add
an additional control or two next to the
standard ones.
But even those silly apps that ditch the whole
Windows UI for some wacky thing of their own
design preserve those buttons with only cosmetic
changes, or so I have found.
And I have found this to be true on the Mac also,
except for Classic apps. Windows arguable scores
here, since Win16 apps get 'modern' title bars
on modern windows, for what that's worth.
[snip]
>> I do not mean Apple is morally obliged to give away software.
>> I mean it is a point in MS's favor that they do so.
>
> Quicktime is free (not pro). iTunes is free. Spotlight came with the
> OS....
> what did MS give you again that Apple did not?
Recently?
Windows Desktop Search.
Visual C# Express Edition.
These are both "bundle with the OS" things
for Apple.
[snip- Mac apps burning CPU with no windows open]
>> I feel Windows approach is more elegant here; processes are
>> an implementation detail, to be managed by the apps not the user.
>
> I think the user should be able to easily start and quit *most* programs.
> There are exceptions (background tasks that would confuse Joe User).
I think the user should easily open and close windows or
other UI elements, and let the apps manage their processes
automatically.
This seems to work quite well in Windows.
>> If an app really, truely needs a slow startup, it can keep its own
>> process
>> alive automatically.
>
> This happens too much on Windows as far as I am concerned.
I have seen Acrobat Reader do this, sometimes, and a few
open source projects do it, but most software does the right
thing: fast startup, eager shutdown.
[snip- bringing up Photoshop]
>> I wonder why that is. I would have expected the palettes to draw
>> instantly;
>> maybe it was paged out?
>
> No... they definitively take a split second to fill in. The window is
> there
> but the internal stuff to the window is not.
That's strange. Palettes are just an array of icons,
visually, right? They're not having to spin up OpenGL
to do pixel-shaded 3D palettes or anything like
that, are they?
[snip]
>> I recognize that Word is a far, far more powerful tool, and quite a lot
>> faster
>> too. But Clippy Must Die.
>
> Clippy did die with 2003.
He's in there... lurking... just a mouse click away.
> And in 2007 lots of other BS goes away - menus
> that only half show up unless you force the other half or wait, toolbars
> that get messed up and have to be re-set, etc. I am pretty impressed with
> Office 2007 - well, I have not even played with the beta, but so far it
> looks good.
I've heard good things about the next Office too.
Indeed, I think MS may be heading for a UI redesign
more serious than Aqua was; they seem to feel that
menu bars are obsolete and must go. IE7 and WMP11
also don't have menu bars by default.
I am not unsympathetic. My experience has been that
many, if not most users do not even notice the menu
bar.
[snip]
>> Exactly. Nobody wants to buy software that is *already* obsolete, even if
>> the
>> hardware speed advantage is so great that it's theoretically a win.
>
> At the same time I can understand Adobe taking their time... the code is
> old. MS is taking their time with Office as well, though speed is a lot
> less of an issue there.
I expect Adobe is going with all deliberate speed, but
it's not as critical for them as for Apple; they've
still got a Windows version and all, should it come to
that.
[snip]
Patrick Nihill
daniel...@vzavenue.net says...
> "Patrick Nihill" <pa_n...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1f507013e...@news.individual.de...
> >> I can understand why they'd transition anyway- better
> >> to do it now than when they are in real financial trouble
> >> after all- but why rush it?
> >
> > I suppose because they knew they could get away with it. Let's face it,
> > the current Mac userbase is not likely to be averse to quick transitions
> > or dependent on crucial older applications that they must maintain
> > compatibility with. If they were, they'd probably already have left the
> > platform.
>
> I usually resist this proposition, though I can't disprove it,
> because I don't like where it leads: that the Mac has
> already driven off all the 'normal' users, leaving an
> assortment of platform zealots, MS-haters, and such.
I don't think that follows at all. It mainly excludes the larger
enterprise market, which is typically dependent on bespoke applications
that must continue to run no matter what. And also businesses and more
conservative users who need a very clear and economically-justifiable
reason to upgrade to any kind of new software.
That leaves the Mac userbase comprising of the prosumer-types who like
to stay cutting-edge, regular joes who are happy with the software that
comes with their system, and professionals in markets where it is
necessary to stay current with software developments (for example, video
production).
I think this fits the profile of the Mac userbase pretty well, without
needing to dismiss us all as either Zealots or MS-haters. Oxford and
GreyCloud are more than enough to cover those categories :-D
> > A slow transition would not have done an awful lot to appease the
> > current userbase, and would have delayed Apple's ability to start
> > offering more compelling products to the vast hordes of non-Mac users.
>
> Does the current userbase need appeasing?
No, so Apple didn't. The current userbase is obviously concerned with
new stuff, rather than stability* or extensive backward-compatibility.
*I obviously mean don't mean this in the sense of OS-crashing stability,
I mean overall platform stability.
> It does seem to me that Apple is locking itself out of
> the largest markets by behaving in this way.
I agree, but only if, having completely abandoned both the old Mac
hardware and software, and brought in an entirely new system in its
place, they now continue to behave like this.
Look at it this way - it's not like Apple, in, say, 1999, had any
enterpise credibility to lose. OS 9 was terrible, and totally
uninteresting to any large business customer. Apple have no great wealth
of enterprise customers from that era that are now pissed off with them,
and slowly transitioning while maintaining compatibility would not have
impressed them, because it didn't affect them.
Doing so would only be delaying the arrival of the point where Apple
actually had a platform worthy of serious consideration. I believe they
now have that platform, and that this is, in effect, ground zero for
Apple in the enterprise. If they really want a slice of that market,
then from this point forward they will need to take backward
compatibility as seriously as Microsoft does.
<snip>
> >> Yes; and it comes up more quickly that the
> >> Finder; also just having any old Finder window
> >> isn't enough, you need to then navigate to the
> >> right place.
> >
> > You need to click on any of the shortcuts you've dragged to the sidebar
> > in the Finder window, just like you have to click on one of the pre-
> > defined shortcuts in the Start menu.
>
> I prefer to use the Finder sidebar for navigation
> rather than program launching, myself. It's
> not that big, and the icons get smaller (like
> in the dock) if you overload it.
You're misunderstanding me, I was referring to navigation as well. I was
using the Finder's sidebar as a substitute for the *folder* shortcuts in
the Start menu.
<snip>
Patrick Nihill
daniel...@vzavenue.net says...
> "Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote in message
> news:C10BB3E0.5B142%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID...
<snip>
> >> I do not mean Apple is morally obliged to give away software.
> >> I mean it is a point in MS's favor that they do so.
> >
> > Quicktime is free (not pro). iTunes is free. Spotlight came with the
> > OS....
> > what did MS give you again that Apple did not?
>
> Recently?
>
> Windows Desktop Search.
> Visual C# Express Edition.
>
> These are both "bundle with the OS" things
> for Apple.
XCode is a free download from Apple.
<snip>
ZnU
"Dan Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
> "Patrick Nihill" <pa_n...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1f507013e...@news.individual.de...
> >> I can understand why they'd transition anyway- better to do it now
> >> than when they are in real financial trouble after all- but why
> >> rush it?
> >
> > I suppose because they knew they could get away with it. Let's face
> > it, the current Mac userbase is not likely to be averse to quick
> > transitions or dependent on crucial older applications that they
> > must maintain compatibility with. If they were, they'd probably
> > already have left the platform.
>
> I usually resist this proposition, though I can't disprove it,
> because I don't like where it leads: that the Mac has already driven
> off all the 'normal' users, leaving an assortment of platform
> zealots, MS-haters, and such.
No, the Mac user base in merely comprised of a self-selected group of
people who value progress over legacy support. You've made it pretty
clear that you consider this to be the wrong choice, but going so far as
to imply that anyone who makes it must be some kind of irrational
platform zealot is a bit much, isn't it?
> > A slow transition would not have done an awful lot to appease the
> > current userbase, and would have delayed Apple's ability to start
> > offering more compelling products to the vast hordes of non-Mac users.
>
> Does the current userbase need appeasing?
See above. The Mac's current user based in best "appeased" by Apple
shipping great new stuff on a regular basis.
> It does seem to me that Apple is locking itself out of
> the largest markets by behaving in this way.
The corporate enterprise market, possibly. I've argued for quite some
time though that the corporate enterprise market is probably headed in a
different direction from the rest of the personal computer market. I
think Apple probably realizes this, and realizes that its strengths lie
elsewhere, and so isn't even really bothering to pay lip service to what
the enterprise market wants anymore.
> [snip- intel transition]
> >> Do you feel this was all planned as one exercise? I
> >> thought they had been trying to make a go of PPC/OS X,
> >> and that's why the G5 happened.
> >
> > I wouldn't go so far as to say this was all planned from the start, as
> > such. But it was cleary *a* plan that has been kept under consideration
> > all this time.
>
> The way I figure it, the Intel switch was always an option,
> but it was a desparate one, which could potentially kill
> the company if it went wrong.
>
> That they did not attempt this during the G4 stall shows,
> I think, that they thought this plan terribly risky.
I think the idea of moving to Intel was probably originally conceived of
as a last-ditch option, and the Intel port of OS X was maintained so
Apple would have that option, if all else failed. But then things
changed a bit.
Transitive's emulation technology, the first solution for running PPC
code on x86 at reasonable speeds, came along. This made the transition
vastly less risky, and turned it into something that was reasonable to
do by choice, rather than out of necessity. By the time Apple actually
pulled the trigger, Transative's technology (and Intel's roadmap) had
changed it from a desperate last-ditch option into a relatively safe and
obvious move.
> The the revenues they are now getting from the iPod
> changed this equation; they are now pretty sure they'll
> survive, even if the Intel switch is a complete disaster.
> Even in the worst possible case, they just become an MP3
> maker and music distributor.
Absurd fear-mongering. There was never any significant risk to the
survival of the platform in this transition.
[snip]
imout...@mac.com
> In article <12ee36f...@news.supernews.com>,
> "Dan Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
>
> I think the idea of moving to Intel was probably originally conceived of
> as a last-ditch option, and the Intel port of OS X was maintained so
> Apple would have that option, if all else failed. But then things
> changed a bit.
fwiw, I know for a fact that regular OS X x86 builds were going on in
mid-2000, and quite likely earlier. The NeXT stuff had to be ported
FROM x86 to PPC, so most of the work was just getting the Mac side of
the house ready for x86, which in turn was just letting enough time to
go by to be able to kill Classic.
(reinstalling XP this morning ... I'm like on my 6th reboot already :()
Dan Johnson
>> > I suppose because they knew they could get away with it. Let's face it,
>> > the current Mac userbase is not likely to be averse to quick
>> > transitions
>> > or dependent on crucial older applications that they must maintain
>> > compatibility with. If they were, they'd probably already have left the
>> > platform.
>>
>> I usually resist this proposition, though I can't disprove it,
>> because I don't like where it leads: that the Mac has
>> already driven off all the 'normal' users, leaving an
>> assortment of platform zealots, MS-haters, and such.
>
> I don't think that follows at all. It mainly excludes the larger
> enterprise market, which is typically dependent on bespoke applications
> that must continue to run no matter what. And also businesses and more
> conservative users who need a very clear and economically-justifiable
> reason to upgrade to any kind of new software.
It does that, but it seems to me that you've depicted
an Apple that does not try to retain its customers,
but instead expects commitment on their part.
And that spells 'platform zealot' to me. :D
> That leaves the Mac userbase comprising of the prosumer-types who like
> to stay cutting-edge, regular joes who are happy with the software that
> comes with their system, and professionals in markets where it is
> necessary to stay current with software developments (for example, video
> production).
Pretty much all of these guys are going to care
about compatibility, though. Not as much as your
enterprise with its bespoke apps, but they'd still
care.
[snip]
> I think this fits the profile of the Mac userbase pretty well, without
> needing to dismiss us all as either Zealots or MS-haters. Oxford and
> GreyCloud are more than enough to cover those categories :-D
The prospect that the entire MAc userbase is
composed of various shades oif GreyCloud
is certainly enough to give me pause!
:D
[snip]
>> > A slow transition would not have done an awful lot to appease the
>> > current userbase, and would have delayed Apple's ability to start
>> > offering more compelling products to the vast hordes of non-Mac users.
>>
>> Does the current userbase need appeasing?
>
> No, so Apple didn't.
It seems to me hat normal users would require
some appeasing, and that Rosetta is an attempt
to do so.
[snip]
>> It does seem to me that Apple is locking itself out of
>> the largest markets by behaving in this way.
>
> I agree, but only if, having completely abandoned both the old Mac
> hardware and software, and brought in an entirely new system in its
> place, they now continue to behave like this.
They have, haven't they?
> Look at it this way - it's not like Apple, in, say, 1999, had any
> enterpise credibility to lose. OS 9 was terrible, and totally
> uninteresting to any large business customer. Apple have no great wealth
> of enterprise customers from that era that are now pissed off with them,
> and slowly transitioning while maintaining compatibility would not have
> impressed them, because it didn't affect them.
This is all quite true; and I don't think the
situation has changed much, nor that Apple is
interested in changing it.
> Doing so would only be delaying the arrival of the point where Apple
> actually had a platform worthy of serious consideration. I believe they
> now have that platform, and that this is, in effect, ground zero for
> Apple in the enterprise. If they really want a slice of that market,
> then from this point forward they will need to take backward
> compatibility as seriously as Microsoft does.
I agree that with OS 9 in 2000, they were in a desparate
place and needed to fix it *right now*; I can see why
then did it as fast as they could.
But why rush the Intel transition *now*?
[snip]
>> I prefer to use the Finder sidebar for navigation
>> rather than program launching, myself. It's
>> not that big, and the icons get smaller (like
>> in the dock) if you overload it.
>
> You're misunderstanding me, I was referring to navigation as well. I was
> using the Finder's sidebar as a substitute for the *folder* shortcuts in
> the Start menu.
Oh, I see. I do that too on the Mac, but on Windows
I use the start menu for both.
Dan Johnson
[snip]
>> Visual C# Express Edition.
>>
>> These are both "bundle with the OS" things
>> for Apple.
>
> XCode is a free download from Apple.
XCode is bundled with the OS, and the latest
XCode runs only on the latest OS. Apple
does ship downloadable updates to this and
other parts of the OS, however.
Still, a Jaguar user cannot use XCode 2.4; and
I expect that when XCode 3 ships, it will
be with Leopard, and for Leopard users only.
Dan Johnson
news:znu-12951F.1...@individual.net...
>> I usually resist this proposition, though I can't disprove it,
>> because I don't like where it leads: that the Mac has already driven
>> off all the 'normal' users, leaving an assortment of platform
>> zealots, MS-haters, and such.
>
> No, the Mac user base in merely comprised of a self-selected group of
> people who value progress over legacy support.
Does this mean that all the OS 9 userbase is gone
now? Those guys sure didn't 'value progress'. :D
> You've made it pretty
> clear that you consider this to be the wrong choice, but going so far as
> to imply that anyone who makes it must be some kind of irrational
> platform zealot is a bit much, isn't it?
Well, as I said, I try to resist going down this line
of thought because it leads me there, and I
do think it is a 'bit much'.
[snip]
>> It does seem to me that Apple is locking itself out of
>> the largest markets by behaving in this way.
>
> The corporate enterprise market, possibly. I've argued for quite some
> time though that the corporate enterprise market is probably headed in a
> different direction from the rest of the personal computer market. I
> think Apple probably realizes this, and realizes that its strengths lie
> elsewhere, and so isn't even really bothering to pay lip service to what
> the enterprise market wants anymore.
You may be right.
Still, that's a very big part of the computing
world. Apple seems, to me, to be enclosing
themselves in a niche.
That may be their best choice at this point,
of course.
[snip]
>> That they did not attempt this during the G4 stall shows,
>> I think, that they thought this plan terribly risky.
>
> I think the idea of moving to Intel was probably originally conceived of
> as a last-ditch option, and the Intel port of OS X was maintained so
> Apple would have that option, if all else failed. But then things
> changed a bit.
Yes, I quite agree.
> Transitive's emulation technology, the first solution for running PPC
> code on x86 at reasonable speeds, came along. This made the transition
> vastly less risky, and turned it into something that was reasonable to
> do by choice, rather than out of necessity. By the time Apple actually
> pulled the trigger, Transative's technology (and Intel's roadmap) had
> changed it from a desperate last-ditch option into a relatively safe and
> obvious move.
I don't think this is right; Apple has a pretty good
emulation story for the 680x0->PPC transition too,
so high-quality emulation is *not* a new development.
Almost certainly they expected to do emulation if
they ever 'pulled the trigger' on the transition;
if it works better than it did in the mid nineties,
that's great- but clearly not required.
>> The the revenues they are now getting from the iPod
>> changed this equation; they are now pretty sure they'll
>> survive, even if the Intel switch is a complete disaster.
>> Even in the worst possible case, they just become an MP3
>> maker and music distributor.
>
> Absurd fear-mongering.
I say "this is not so risky" and it's "absurd fear
mongering"?
> There was never any significant risk to the
> survival of the platform in this transition.
Sure there was. If the major developers
had decided they'd had enough and bailed,
that'd be all she wrote.
This would be more likely if the Mac were
more obviously struggling for survival,
of course.
But the markshare numbers *are* low, and
the transition was sprung on develoeprs by
surprise, and they cannot have been too
pleased at all this.
Indeed, some *are* bailing. If Metrowerks
was not bailing, this transition would have
been a lot easier!
So far it looks to me like enough are staying
that the Mac will make it.
Patrick Nihill
daniel...@vzavenue.net says...
> "Patrick Nihill" <pa_n...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1f512adf9...@news.individual.de...
> >> > I suppose because they knew they could get away with it. Let's face it,
> >> > the current Mac userbase is not likely to be averse to quick
> >> > transitions
> >> > or dependent on crucial older applications that they must maintain
> >> > compatibility with. If they were, they'd probably already have left the
> >> > platform.
> >>
> >> I usually resist this proposition, though I can't disprove it,
> >> because I don't like where it leads: that the Mac has
> >> already driven off all the 'normal' users, leaving an
> >> assortment of platform zealots, MS-haters, and such.
> >
> > I don't think that follows at all. It mainly excludes the larger
> > enterprise market, which is typically dependent on bespoke applications
> > that must continue to run no matter what. And also businesses and more
> > conservative users who need a very clear and economically-justifiable
> > reason to upgrade to any kind of new software.
>
> It does that, but it seems to me that you've depicted
> an Apple that does not try to retain its customers,
> but instead expects commitment on their part.
>
> And that spells 'platform zealot' to me. :D
I think I've depicted an Apple that tries to retain its customers by
offering them a steady stream of fancy new toys and software. (And an
exciting new instruction set!)
> > That leaves the Mac userbase comprising of the prosumer-types who like
> > to stay cutting-edge, regular joes who are happy with the software that
> > comes with their system, and professionals in markets where it is
> > necessary to stay current with software developments (for example, video
> > production).
>
> Pretty much all of these guys are going to care
> about compatibility, though. Not as much as your
> enterprise with its bespoke apps, but they'd still
> care.
They're obviously not totally oblivious to it, but it is down their list
of priorities, and can be overcome with some judicious use of Aluminium
and Genie Effect :-)
<snip>
> >> > A slow transition would not have done an awful lot to appease the
> >> > current userbase, and would have delayed Apple's ability to start
> >> > offering more compelling products to the vast hordes of non-Mac users.
> >>
> >> Does the current userbase need appeasing?
> >
> > No, so Apple didn't.
>
> It seems to me hat normal users would require
> some appeasing, and that Rosetta is an attempt
> to do so.
Well obviously to attempt to move over with literally no apps whatsoever
would be a little extreme, so Rosetta is kind of a given.
I was talking about their effort to maintain backwards compatibility
with OS 9 software, which is a more realistic kind of cut-off when
considering how users would view their compatibility track record.
> [snip]
> >> It does seem to me that Apple is locking itself out of
> >> the largest markets by behaving in this way.
> >
> > I agree, but only if, having completely abandoned both the old Mac
> > hardware and software, and brought in an entirely new system in its
> > place, they now continue to behave like this.
>
> They have, haven't they?
>
> > Look at it this way - it's not like Apple, in, say, 1999, had any
> > enterpise credibility to lose. OS 9 was terrible, and totally
> > uninteresting to any large business customer. Apple have no great wealth
> > of enterprise customers from that era that are now pissed off with them,
> > and slowly transitioning while maintaining compatibility would not have
> > impressed them, because it didn't affect them.
>
> This is all quite true; and I don't think the
> situation has changed much, nor that Apple is
> interested in changing it.
I also doubt whether Apple has the stomache for the sort of dour slog
being a player in the enterprise market typically is. I do think though
that OS X on the current generation of Mac hardware is a far more
realistic enterprise platform, from a technical point of view, than OS 9
could ever have been.
> > Doing so would only be delaying the arrival of the point where Apple
> > actually had a platform worthy of serious consideration. I believe they
> > now have that platform, and that this is, in effect, ground zero for
> > Apple in the enterprise. If they really want a slice of that market,
> > then from this point forward they will need to take backward
> > compatibility as seriously as Microsoft does.
>
> I agree that with OS 9 in 2000, they were in a desparate
> place and needed to fix it *right now*; I can see why
> then did it as fast as they could.
>
> But why rush the Intel transition *now*?
The laptop situation before the transition could have been considered
pretty much as dire as the the OS 9 situation was in 2000. It didn't
have as interesting a story behind it as the failure to adequately
replace OS 9, but it was still killing Apple's portable sales. The surge
in their laptop sales since the Intel transition would seem to suggest
that users were more interested in competitive performance than legacy
support.
The faster the transition occurs, and the more and more Universal
applications appear, the stronger Apple's portable sales are likely to
get. Apple will probably see this as vindicating their decision to
transition so quickly. They knew their userbase well.
<snip>
Donald L McDaniel
Personally, I prefer slums over ritzy pads.
At least I can put my feet up on the coffee table, and burp if I have
to.
==
Donald L. McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread.
==========================================================
ZnU
"Dan Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
> "ZnU" <z...@fake.invalid> wrote in message
> news:znu-12951F.1...@individual.net...
> >> I usually resist this proposition, though I can't disprove it,
> >> because I don't like where it leads: that the Mac has already
> >> driven off all the 'normal' users, leaving an assortment of
> >> platform zealots, MS-haters, and such.
> >
> > No, the Mac user base in merely comprised of a self-selected group
> > of people who value progress over legacy support.
>
> Does this mean that all the OS 9 userbase is gone now? Those guys
> sure didn't 'value progress'. :D
I'm not sure what you mean. Apple has taken a more aggressive approach
to trading off compatibility for progress, vs. the Classic Mac OS era,
it's true. This probably has resulted in some shifting of the user base.
People who weren't happy with the new approach may have left, and people
who found it more attractive may have hopped on board.
But many people used the Mac -- even in the OS 9 days -- because they
perceived it as being ahead, and I'd think those folks would be fairly
likely to accept Apple's current approach, understanding that it helps
Apple stay ahead.
> > You've made it pretty clear that you consider this to be the wrong
> > choice, but going so far as to imply that anyone who makes it must
> > be some kind of irrational platform zealot is a bit much, isn't it?
>
> Well, as I said, I try to resist going down this line of thought
> because it leads me there, and I do think it is a 'bit much'.
>
> [snip]
> >> It does seem to me that Apple is locking itself out of the largest
> >> markets by behaving in this way.
> >
> > The corporate enterprise market, possibly. I've argued for quite
> > some time though that the corporate enterprise market is probably
> > headed in a different direction from the rest of the personal
> > computer market. I think Apple probably realizes this, and realizes
> > that its strengths lie elsewhere, and so isn't even really
> > bothering to pay lip service to what the enterprise market wants
> > anymore.
>
> You may be right.
>
> Still, that's a very big part of the computing world. Apple seems, to
> me, to be enclosing themselves in a niche.
>
> That may be their best choice at this point, of course.
The consumer market + creative professionals + tech-heads who want a
good desktop *nix + the education market... doesn't seem like a niche.
It's at least four niches, which together comprise a very significant
fraction of the market; maybe more than half. And every one of those
"niches" except possibly education almost certainly has higher margins
than corporate sales.
Look, everyone specializes. Why Apple doesn't focus more on backwards
compatibility to appeal more to the enterprise? Well, why doesn't Dell
hire some decent industrial designers, write its own integrated suite of
consumer media applications and open lots of retail stores to appeal
more to consumers?
That's just not Dell's thing. And putting a minitower in every cubicle
isn't Apple's thing.
> [snip]
> >> That they did not attempt this during the G4 stall shows,
> >> I think, that they thought this plan terribly risky.
> >
> > I think the idea of moving to Intel was probably originally conceived of
> > as a last-ditch option, and the Intel port of OS X was maintained so
> > Apple would have that option, if all else failed. But then things
> > changed a bit.
>
> Yes, I quite agree.
>
> > Transitive's emulation technology, the first solution for running PPC
> > code on x86 at reasonable speeds, came along. This made the transition
> > vastly less risky, and turned it into something that was reasonable to
> > do by choice, rather than out of necessity. By the time Apple actually
> > pulled the trigger, Transative's technology (and Intel's roadmap) had
> > changed it from a desperate last-ditch option into a relatively safe and
> > obvious move.
>
> I don't think this is right; Apple has a pretty good
> emulation story for the 680x0->PPC transition too,
> so high-quality emulation is *not* a new development.
>
> Almost certainly they expected to do emulation if
> they ever 'pulled the trigger' on the transition;
> if it works better than it did in the mid nineties,
> that's great- but clearly not required.
Efficiently emulating PPC on x86 was long regarded as being an extremely
difficult task. It's apparently much easier to emulate CISC
architectures on RISC architectures than to do the reverse. PPC on x86
had been tried before, with extremely poor results. When Transitive
first announced its technology, there was widespread skepticism.
It would have been a bit silly of Apple to just assume this problem
could be made to go away at the right time. There's no indication they
were ever working on this in-house, which suggests either they thought
it would be so easy they could do it in a hurry if they needed it (which
seems unlikely, given what everyone else thought), or they didn't think
they could do it at all, so they didn't bother, and they just accepted
that if they ever did have to activate their last-ditch contingency
plans, it would be ugly. (Thus the reason for the plans being considered
last-ditch.)
> >> The the revenues they are now getting from the iPod
> >> changed this equation; they are now pretty sure they'll
> >> survive, even if the Intel switch is a complete disaster.
> >> Even in the worst possible case, they just become an MP3
> >> maker and music distributor.
> >
> > Absurd fear-mongering.
>
> I say "this is not so risky" and it's "absurd fear
> mongering"?
You're saying it was not so risky for Apple, but implying it was
extremely risky for the Mac platform. It wasn't.
> > There was never any significant risk to the survival of the
> > platform in this transition.
>
> Sure there was. If the major developers had decided they'd had enough
> and bailed, that'd be all she wrote.
A scenario in which Apple announced and began implementing an
architecture transition and then major developers decided not to support
it and the platform dropped dead... was basically impossible. I rather
suspect the major developers were consulted before Apple decided to go
down this road, and if they hadn't been on board, Apple would still be
on PPC.
(One can imagine an interesting alternate history where Apple jumped to,
for instance, a version of Cell, but with somewhat better execution of
regular PPC code than the PS3 model, and ended up with systems which
were slower than x86 machines for common desktop tasks, but were
monstrous beasts for media with the right software. It wouldn't have
been such a bad fit for the consumer and creative pro markets.)
> This would be more likely if the Mac were more obviously struggling
> for survival, of course.
>
> But the markshare numbers *are* low, and the transition was sprung on
> develoeprs by surprise, and they cannot have been too pleased at all
> this.
>
> Indeed, some *are* bailing. If Metrowerks was not bailing, this
> transition would have been a lot easier!
IMO, the writing was on the wall there for a long time, once Apple
expressed an interest in making the premier tools for Mac development
(and giving them away free, no less).
> So far it looks to me like enough are staying that the Mac will make
> it.
In other news, the sun is expected to rise tomorrow....