Should Apple do away with OS X?
Josh McKee
Josh
Lars Träger
> The name, not the operating system.
So Josh's slogan for the Mac would be: "It's just another PC running an
OS without a name."
--
Lars T.
Jim Lee Jr.
Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.net> wrote:
> The name, not the operating system.
>
> Josh
Get your nose out of the Guiness stout and come up with some names.
John C. Randolph
> The name, not the operating system.
I'm sure they will, when they ship OS XI.
-jcr
TheLetterK
> The name, not the operating system.
Both.
>
> Josh
George Graves
TheLetterK <no...@none.net> wrote:
You Windroids/Linuxheads would love that wouldn't you?
Steve Carroll
Lars.T...@epost.de (Lars Träger) wrote:
Or...the OS formally known as X ;)
--
Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD - Snit
Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls
like myself - Snit
I am a bigger liar than Steve - Snit
C Lund
Jim Lee Jr.
C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
> In article <jtmckee-E3FDED...@netnews.comcast.net>,
> Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.net> wrote:
>
> > The name, not the operating system.
>
> Why?
>
> Trolling, josh? ;)
>
> > Josh
Josh is a Windoze user, so it is his nature to troll CSMA.
Mike
news:jtmckee-E3FDED...@netnews.comcast.net...
> The name, not the operating system.
>
> Josh
No.
What they should do away with is exclusively bundling the OS with their
hardware. It should also be sold separately for anyone with any PC to buy.
There's nothing special about Apple's hardware.
Mike
Donald L McDaniel
I, who run XP on my Apple Intel PC, see no problem with calling
Apple's OS "OS 10". It distinguishes it from other OSes.
However, now that the Apple is no longer OS-dependent, identifying its
PC with the Mac OS is irrational.
In my opinion, "Apple" refers to the manufacturer of machines which
will run several OSes.
If MacDroids choose to identify their Apple Intel PCs with an OS, they
just prove to the rest of the world how insane they truly are.
However, we all have the right to be an insane freak if that is our
choice, as long as it causes physical harm to no one.
==
Donald
===================================
TheLetterK
Yes--I would.
Edwin
"I've been through the desert on a OS with no name
It felt good to be out of the rain
In the desert you can remember your OS name
'Cause there ain't no advocates for to give you no pain
La, la ... "
George Graves
TheLetterK <no...@none.net> wrote:
Why? If you don't like it, just don't use it. Its not like its
ubiquitous or unavoidable (like Windows is). And why would you want to
deprive people who do like it of having that choice? Do you realize how
selfish and mean-spirited your attitude is? And people talk about Mac
users being fanatics. I've never seen one Mac advocate actually wish
that Windows or Linux would "go away". There's no need. We just don't
have to use them, but you can if you wish.
You also must realize that without the Mac OS to emulate, Microsoft (and
to a degree, Linux) would have nothing pushing them and development
would slow to a crawl. I realize that it's a moot point with DVR and
DVD-R gaining ascendency, but you do know that when VHS and Beta were at
it tooth and nail, ALL of the development of the VCR took place (Hi-Fi
sound, skip-scan, S-VHS, commercial marking, etc). As soon as Beta went
away, the VHS camp stopped all of their development and not one new
feature or innovation was added to the VHS machine since that day. It's
true! I suspect that something similar would occur with MS/Linux if the
Mac went away too.
--
George Graves
The health of our society is a direct result of the men
and women we choose to admire.
George Graves
The Mac was DESIGNED to run OSX not Windows. If it had been, the Intel
Macs would have RS-232 serial ports and Centronics pararllel ports, PS/2
mouse and keyboard ports, and a BIOS, etc. But it wasn't and it doesn't
have those. The OS and the Machine were designed to work together. The
fact that you can install Windows on it and get SOME Windows operability
from it is just a byproduct, a happenstance if you will, of using enough
of the Intel chipset to satisfy the requirements of another Intel-based
OS. A Mac is far from an ideal Winbox, because its not designed to be a
Winbox.
Lars Träger
> In article <3r68h21o3a55hd20r...@4ax.com>,
> Donald L McDaniel <ortho...@wildblue.invalid> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 04:09:24 +0200, Lars.T...@epost.de (Lars
> > Träger) wrote:
> >
> > >Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> The name, not the operating system.
> > >
> > >So Josh's slogan for the Mac would be: "It's just another PC running an
> > >OS without a name."
> >
> > I, who run XP on my Apple Intel PC, see no problem with calling
> > Apple's OS "OS 10". It distinguishes it from other OSes.
> >
> > However, now that the Apple is no longer OS-dependent, identifying its
> > PC with the Mac OS is irrational.
> >
> > In my opinion, "Apple" refers to the manufacturer of machines which
> > will run several OSes.
> >
> > If MacDroids choose to identify their Apple Intel PCs with an OS, they
> > just prove to the rest of the world how insane they truly are.
> >
> > However, we all have the right to be an insane freak if that is our
> > choice, as long as it causes physical harm to no one.
>
> The Mac was DESIGNED to run OSX not Windows. If it had been, the Intel
> Macs would have RS-232 serial ports and Centronics pararllel ports, PS/2
> mouse and keyboard ports, and a BIOS, etc.
Don't forget the cassette drive port - no PC is a real PC wthout it.
--
Lars T.
Josh McKee
C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
> In article <jtmckee-E3FDED...@netnews.comcast.net>,
> Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.net> wrote:
>
> > The name, not the operating system.
>
> Why?
Because it doesn't fit the Mac image. It's too "techy" sounding.
Josh
> Trolling, josh? ;)
Snit
jtmckee-E3FDED...@netnews.comcast.net on 9/21/06 6:52 PM:
> The name, not the operating system.
No. Why would they even consider getting rid of a name they have spent so
much time building a "brand" for? Maybe someday... years from now... but
why would you even think this would be a current consideration?
My guess: you are simply trolling... but maybe you have a better answer.
--
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
€ One can be actually guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
Snit
4vIQg.6008$tT6....@bignews7.bellsouth.net on 9/21/06 8:11 PM:
> Josh McKee wrote:
>> The name, not the operating system.
>
> Both.
Why do you feel this way? Jealousy is my guess.
--
€ 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
TT
> hardware. It should also be sold separately for anyone with any PC to buy.
> There's nothing special about Apple's hardware.
That nirvana won't happen for a while, if at all. Maybe Steve has to
step down first. Lots of ego there to get over. They would have some
dismal years of no hardware sales and the software, while enjoying a
tremendous gain would take a while to replace the hardware revenue.
After a few years, if Apple gets its head out of its ass and looks to
the future, they would rule. But it would take years. And they would
have to inject that OS with a little more logic. Like a Windows skin so
when a Windows user tries a Mac, they don't have to learn a bunch of new
commands to do virtually the same thing they were just doing in Windows.
More Apple ego to overcome though for that to happen. This is what
happens when a company is swayed by shareholder opinion - not the vision
of its directors.
George Graves
TT <nos...@please.ok> wrote:
What I'd like to see is for Apple to devlope a runtime module which
would allow Windows apps to run under OSX at full speed and would look
like OSX apps when running under the mac OS (I've read that this is
possible). If they did that, then there would no longer be any reason to
keep developing two versions of every software title and everything
would be cross-platform. This would make MacOS much more popular, and
would spur software development by freeing-up a lot of resources. If
they did that, it wouldn't matter if Apple stopped building Macs and
only developed the OS and the peripheral software. I'm not holding my
breath, however.
Wayne Stuart
> The name, not the operating system.
Yeah, sure, why not. Let's call it Nigel!
--
This message was brought to you by Wayne Stuart - Have a nice day!
Wayne Stuart
Wayne Stuart
Steven de Mena
"George Graves" <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:gmgraves-ECEF69...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
I wonder if Microsoft would sue them? Because people would no longer
need to buy their OSs.
Some company is trying something along these lines, called Crossfire or
something like that. Maybe its connected to that Wine initiative. It
won't run any app but they have a list of compatible Microsoft apps and
they run in OS X (but probably without the look?)
Steve
Steve
Mike
news:gmgraves-ECEF69...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> would allow Windows apps to run under OSX at full speed and would look
> like OSX apps when running under the mac OS (I've read that this is
> possible).
Yeah, because running Windows apps better than Windows 3.1 did *so* much for
OS/2 didn't it!?!
>If they did that, then there would no longer be any reason to
> keep developing two versions of every software title and everything
> would be cross-platform.
Yes, people would stop writing OS X software and just concentrate on the
Windows version, since it now runs just fine on OS X. Again, this is the
OS/2 syndrome.
>This would make MacOS much more popular,
No, it would kill OS X because no one would write apps for it any longer,
except maybe Apple. Again, OS/2 and IBM already went down this road.
The result was that even IBM wouldn't pre-load OS/2 on IBM computers, and
IBM is now pushing Linux.
Mike
Steve Hix
TT <nos...@please.ok> wrote:
> > What they should do away with is exclusively bundling the OS with their
> > hardware. It should also be sold separately for anyone with any PC to
> > buy.
> > There's nothing special about Apple's hardware.
Of course not. It's *never* been just the hardware.
> That nirvana won't happen for a while, if at all. Maybe Steve has to
> step down first. Lots of ego there to get over. They would have some
> dismal years of no hardware sales and the software, while enjoying a
> tremendous gain would take a while to replace the hardware revenue.
Translation: "We're talking about Cut-me-own-throat Apple." It's
unlikely the company would survive the transistion.
> After a few years, if Apple gets its head out of its ass and looks to
> the future, they would rule. But it would take years. And they would
> have to inject that OS with a little more logic.
Make it more like Windows? What a *novel* idea!
What a clever way to make the OS pointless. A bit further in that
direction, and you would have no reason to develop it at all; just go
with Windows and be done with it.
> Like a Windows skin so
> when a Windows user tries a Mac, they don't have to learn a bunch of new
> commands to do virtually the same thing they were just doing in Windows.
Including all the exceptions exhibited by current Windows application.
Kewl.
> More Apple ego to overcome though for that to happen. This is what
> happens when a company is swayed by shareholder opinion - not the vision
> of its directors.
You really don't get it at all, do you?
Mitch
McDaniel <ortho...@wildblue.invalid> wrote:
> In my opinion, "Apple" refers to the manufacturer of machines which
> will run several OSes.
>
> If MacDroids choose to identify their Apple Intel PCs with an OS, they
> just prove to the rest of the world how insane they truly are.
Wait -- that hardware MUST run at least one OS.
How is choosing an OS, especially choosing it for a reason, a sign of
insanity?
TheLetterK
> In article <QiVQg.21449$eW5...@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
> TheLetterK <no...@none.net> wrote:
>
>> George Graves wrote:
>>> In article <4vIQg.6008$tT6....@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
>>> TheLetterK <no...@none.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Josh McKee wrote:
>>>>> The name, not the operating system.
>>>> Both.
>>>>
>>>>> Josh
>>> You Windroids/Linuxheads would love that wouldn't you?
>> Yes--I would.
>
> Why? If you don't like it, just don't use it.
You're missing my point. I would be perfectly happy for Apple to adopt a
good operating system--more choice is a good thing. I didn't say they
should abandon OS X in favor of Windows or Linux, just that they need to
get past OS X. OS X has way too many fundamental problems to easily fix.
> Its not like its
> ubiquitous or unavoidable (like Windows is). And why would you want to
> deprive people who do like it of having that choice?
Because I would rather people be using something better than OS X.
> Do you realize how
> selfish and mean-spirited your attitude is? And people talk about Mac
> users being fanatics. I've never seen one Mac advocate actually wish
> that Windows or Linux would "go away". There's no need. We just don't
> have to use them, but you can if you wish.
>
> You also must realize that without the Mac OS to emulate, Microsoft (and
> to a degree, Linux) would have nothing pushing them and development
> would slow to a crawl.
Nonsense--that might have been true 15 years ago, but these day Apple is
typically the last one to adopt a new technology. When was the last time
they actually developed something new? For the last 5 years, they've
been doing their damnedest to bring their systems on-par with the
average PC. They've gone so far as to *adopt the very same hardware*,
and start aping features directly from Windows.
The idea that Apple is an innovator is outdated. These days, Apple just
takes ideas and tries to improve/simplify them. They don't push new
ground, they don't blaze a trail for everyone else.
> I realize that it's a moot point with DVR and
> DVD-R gaining ascendency, but you do know that when VHS and Beta were at
> it tooth and nail, ALL of the development of the VCR took place (Hi-Fi
> sound, skip-scan, S-VHS, commercial marking, etc). As soon as Beta went
> away, the VHS camp stopped all of their development and not one new
> feature or innovation was added to the VHS machine since that day.
Partly because analog VHS had essentially reached the limits of what it
could do.
> It's
> true! I suspect that something similar would occur with MS/Linux if the
> Mac went away too.
They would undoubtedly push each other around. Both GNOME and KDE have
gotten to the point where they're working in new directions, rather than
copying Windows and OS X. They don't really have anything else to take
from Windows or OS X anyway--they've already implemented all the
features worth taking from them.
TheLetterK
> "TheLetterK" <no...@none.net> stated in post
> 4vIQg.6008$tT6....@bignews7.bellsouth.net on 9/21/06 8:11 PM:
>
>> Josh McKee wrote:
>>> The name, not the operating system.
>> Both.
>
> Why do you feel this way? Jealousy is my guess.
How can someone be jealous of something they own? I'd like nothing
better than for OS X to be a good operating system.
TheLetterK
> In article <3r68h21o3a55hd20r...@4ax.com>,
> Donald L McDaniel <ortho...@wildblue.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 04:09:24 +0200, Lars.T...@epost.de (Lars
>> Träger) wrote:
>>
>>> Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The name, not the operating system.
>>> So Josh's slogan for the Mac would be: "It's just another PC running an
>>> OS without a name."
>> I, who run XP on my Apple Intel PC, see no problem with calling
>> Apple's OS "OS 10". It distinguishes it from other OSes.
>>
>> However, now that the Apple is no longer OS-dependent, identifying its
>> PC with the Mac OS is irrational.
>>
>> In my opinion, "Apple" refers to the manufacturer of machines which
>> will run several OSes.
>>
>> If MacDroids choose to identify their Apple Intel PCs with an OS, they
>> just prove to the rest of the world how insane they truly are.
>>
>> However, we all have the right to be an insane freak if that is our
>> choice, as long as it causes physical harm to no one.
>
> The Mac was DESIGNED to run OSX not Windows. If it had been, the Intel
> Macs would have RS-232 serial ports and Centronics pararllel ports, PS/2
> mouse and keyboard ports, and a BIOS, etc.
Eh? None of those are a requirement for Windows, except the BIOS--and
even that can be handled by a BIOS compatibility module.
> But it wasn't and it doesn't
> have those. The OS and the Machine were designed to work together.
More correctly, the machine was designed to be compatible with OS X's
specifications. The days of custom operating systems for custom
computers are (thankfully) over.
> The
> fact that you can install Windows on it and get SOME Windows operability
> from it is just a byproduct, a happenstance if you will, of using enough
> of the Intel chipset to satisfy the requirements of another Intel-based
> OS. A Mac is far from an ideal Winbox, because its not designed to be a
> Winbox.
From everything I've heard, the Mactels work just fine for Windows.
Timberwoof
TheLetterK <no...@none.net> wrote:
No, they're not. You still have to customize U-boot and Linux for the
hardware you want to run them on. It's just relatively easy now.
> > The
> > fact that you can install Windows on it and get SOME Windows operability
> > from it is just a byproduct, a happenstance if you will, of using enough
> > of the Intel chipset to satisfy the requirements of another Intel-based
> > OS. A Mac is far from an ideal Winbox, because its not designed to be a
> > Winbox.
>
> From everything I've heard, the Mactels work just fine for Windows.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.
Timberwoof
TheLetterK <no...@none.net> wrote:
> George Graves wrote:
> > In article <QiVQg.21449$eW5...@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
> > TheLetterK <no...@none.net> wrote:
> >
> >> George Graves wrote:
> >>> In article <4vIQg.6008$tT6....@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
> >>> TheLetterK <no...@none.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Josh McKee wrote:
> >>>>> The name, not the operating system.
> >>>> Both.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Josh
> >>> You Windroids/Linuxheads would love that wouldn't you?
> >> Yes--I would.
> >
> > Why? If you don't like it, just don't use it.
>
> You're missing my point. I would be perfectly happy for Apple to adopt a
> good operating system--more choice is a good thing. I didn't say they
> should abandon OS X in favor of Windows or Linux, just that they need to
> get past OS X. OS X has way too many fundamental problems to easily fix.
Like what?
Tell me what fundamental problems of OS X affect me in my daily life.
Tell ya what: you can help me with a languishing project. I have two
identical BW G3s, one with OS X Server and one with Yellow Dog Linux.
Suggest some experiments I could run (I know Apache, PHP, and MySQL; I
have a phast Intel box with Red Hat Linux I can inflict on the test G3s)
that would illustrate the problems.
> > Its not like its
> > ubiquitous or unavoidable (like Windows is). And why would you want to
> > deprive people who do like it of having that choice?
>
> Because I would rather people be using something better than OS X.
Like what?
(Which means that what they haven't taken isn't worth taking?) And what
new stuff are they adding?
TheLetterK
> In article <Ih3Rg.28769$vX5....@bignews8.bellsouth.net>,
> TheLetterK <no...@none.net> wrote:
>
>> George Graves wrote:
>>> In article <QiVQg.21449$eW5...@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
>>> TheLetterK <no...@none.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> George Graves wrote:
>>>>> In article <4vIQg.6008$tT6....@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
>>>>> TheLetterK <no...@none.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Josh McKee wrote:
>>>>>>> The name, not the operating system.
>>>>>> Both.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Josh
>>>>> You Windroids/Linuxheads would love that wouldn't you?
>>>> Yes--I would.
>>> Why? If you don't like it, just don't use it.
>> You're missing my point. I would be perfectly happy for Apple to adopt a
>> good operating system--more choice is a good thing. I didn't say they
>> should abandon OS X in favor of Windows or Linux, just that they need to
>> get past OS X. OS X has way too many fundamental problems to easily fix.
>
> Like what?
>
> Tell me what fundamental problems of OS X affect me in my daily life.
One good example is OS X's poor window management. Dealing with a large
number of windows is rather difficult on OS X, compared with something
like Windows or GNOME/KDE. This is particularly true if you deal with a
lot of similar windows from a small number of applications (many word
documents, or many terminal windows).
>
> Tell ya what: you can help me with a languishing project. I have two
> identical BW G3s, one with OS X Server and one with Yellow Dog Linux.
> Suggest some experiments I could run (I know Apache, PHP, and MySQL; I
> have a phast Intel box with Red Hat Linux I can inflict on the test G3s)
> that would illustrate the problems.
Compare MySQL performance. That's a common way to demonstrate OS X's
horrible system call latency (a result of it's microkernel heritage).
>
>>> Its not like its
>>> ubiquitous or unavoidable (like Windows is). And why would you want to
>>> deprive people who do like it of having that choice?
>> Because I would rather people be using something better than OS X.
>
> Like what?
Who knows--that depends on the person, though I'm not sure how anyone
could consider OS X a good operating system. It doesn't do anything very
well (well, I guess it's good for desktop publishing), and handles quite
a bit very badly (it's a horrible server platform, and gaming is
absolutely pathetic--it's pretty bad for multimedia too, due to the lack
of hardware acceleration).
Generally. There are a few things that are missing (something like
Automator, for example), but for the most part, GNOME and/or KDE have
taken the useful features from Windows and OS X already.
> And what
> new stuff are they adding?
GNOME has been moving towards a spatial interface for a few years now,
and they've steadily been throwing features in. I'm not sure about their
future roadmap though. KDE 4 is going to include a number of at least
mildly innovative features--Phonon (or rather, the NMM integration in
Phonon), Solid (dynamic hardware configuration), Tenor (context linking,
rather than simple file/metadata indexing), Plasma (more specifically,
how it's going to handle applets).
A lot of the improvements are at lower levels--for example, GNOME's move
towards vector graphics rather than bitmaps.
TheLetterK
> In article <nospam-395E9A.17343622092006@shawnews>,
> TT <nos...@please.ok> wrote:
>
>>> What they should do away with is exclusively bundling the OS with their
>>> hardware. It should also be sold separately for anyone with any PC to
>>> buy.
>>> There's nothing special about Apple's hardware.
>> That nirvana won't happen for a while, if at all. Maybe Steve has to
>> step down first. Lots of ego there to get over. They would have some
>> dismal years of no hardware sales and the software, while enjoying a
>> tremendous gain would take a while to replace the hardware revenue.
>> After a few years, if Apple gets its head out of its ass and looks to
>> the future, they would rule. But it would take years. And they would
>> have to inject that OS with a little more logic. Like a Windows skin so
>> when a Windows user tries a Mac, they don't have to learn a bunch of new
>> commands to do virtually the same thing they were just doing in Windows.
>> More Apple ego to overcome though for that to happen. This is what
>> happens when a company is swayed by shareholder opinion - not the vision
>> of its directors.
>
> What I'd like to see is for Apple to devlope a runtime module which
> would allow Windows apps to run under OSX at full speed and would look
> like OSX apps when running under the mac OS (I've read that this is
> possible).
AFAIK, it's not possible to make Windows apps look+feel like Mac apps if
they were running in some sort of compatibility layer. You could get the
right window decorations, but the widgets would still look like Windows.
This is a really bad strategic decision though--you'd end up killing
native development this way. Why would companies like Adobe continue to
develop a Mac-native version of Photoshop, when the Mac users could just
run the Windows version?
> If they did that, then there would no longer be any reason to
> keep developing two versions of every software title and everything
> would be cross-platform. This would make MacOS much more popular, and
> would spur software development by freeing-up a lot of resources. If
> they did that, it wouldn't matter if Apple stopped building Macs and
> only developed the OS and the peripheral software. I'm not holding my
> breath, however.
Apple would be better off going back to NeXT's Openstep plan. Rather
than selling a system, sell a robust cross-platform application environment.
C Lund
Why do you think that?
> > Trolling, josh? ;)
The answer to this would be "yes", I think.. ;)
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
ed
TheLetterK <no...@none.net> typed:
> George Graves wrote:
>> In article <nospam-395E9A.17343622092006@shawnews>,
>> TT <nos...@please.ok> wrote:
>> What I'd like to see is for Apple to devlope a runtime module which
>> would allow Windows apps to run under OSX at full speed and would
>> look like OSX apps when running under the mac OS (I've read that
>> this is possible).
>
> AFAIK, it's not possible to make Windows apps look+feel like Mac apps
> if they were running in some sort of compatibility layer. You could
> get the right window decorations, but the widgets would still look
> like Windows.
unless an app is using custom widgets, there's no reason they couldn't look
like mac widgets.
<snip>
George Graves
TheLetterK <no...@none.net> wrote:
> George Graves wrote:
> > In article <QiVQg.21449$eW5...@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
> > TheLetterK <no...@none.net> wrote:
> >
> >> George Graves wrote:
> >>> In article <4vIQg.6008$tT6....@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
> >>> TheLetterK <no...@none.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Josh McKee wrote:
> >>>>> The name, not the operating system.
> >>>> Both.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Josh
> >>> You Windroids/Linuxheads would love that wouldn't you?
> >> Yes--I would.
> >
> > Why? If you don't like it, just don't use it.
>
> You're missing my point. I would be perfectly happy for Apple to adopt a
> good operating system--more choice is a good thing. I didn't say they
> should abandon OS X in favor of Windows or Linux, just that they need to
> get past OS X. OS X has way too many fundamental problems to easily fix.
Hmmmm. if OSX' fundamental problems are too hard to fix, the Windows'
fundamental problems must be impossible!
> > Its not like its
> > ubiquitous or unavoidable (like Windows is). And why would you want to
> > deprive people who do like it of having that choice?
>
> Because I would rather people be using something better than OS X.
There currently IS nothing better than OSX.
> > Do you realize how
> > selfish and mean-spirited your attitude is? And people talk about Mac
> > users being fanatics. I've never seen one Mac advocate actually wish
> > that Windows or Linux would "go away". There's no need. We just don't
> > have to use them, but you can if you wish.
> > You also must realize that without the Mac OS to emulate, Microsoft (and
> > to a degree, Linux) would have nothing pushing them and development
> > would slow to a crawl.
>
> Nonsense--that might have been true 15 years ago, but these day Apple is
> typically the last one to adopt a new technology. When was the last time
> they actually developed something new? For the last 5 years, they've
> been doing their damnedest to bring their systems on-par with the
> average PC. They've gone so far as to *adopt the very same hardware*,
> and start aping features directly from Windows.
I disagree, but that's not the point.
> The idea that Apple is an innovator is outdated. These days, Apple just
> takes ideas and tries to improve/simplify them. They don't push new
> ground, they don't blaze a trail for everyone else.
Again, that's not the point. The point is that without competition,
developement slows to a crawl, not that Apple copied this and MS copied
that.
brin...@mac.com
X.x. They have all been named for big cats, Tiger, Panther, Leopard. OS
X has been the popular reference with the OS X logo on supporting
products.
Josh McKee wrote:
> The name, not the operating system.
>
> Josh
Josh McKee
C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
> In article <jtmckee-62890C...@netnews.comcast.net>,
> Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.net> wrote:
> > In article <clund-8D8371....@amsnewsfe01.chello.com>,
> > C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
> > > > The name, not the operating system.
> > > Why?
> > Because it doesn't fit the Mac image. It's too "techy" sounding.
>
> Why do you think that?
Because it sounds like HP/UX, OS/390. It doesn't sound like the computer
for "the rest of us".
> > > Trolling, josh? ;)
>
> The answer to this would be "yes", I think.. ;)
See here's your problem: You consider anything that challenges the norm
a troll. Get a new argument Lund. You're crying wolf with this one.
Josh
Snit
It is. It is not Linux, so you whine. Whatever. Your trolling on *that*
is simply absurd.
--
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
€ OS X users are at far less risk of malware then are XP users
€ Photoshop is an image editing application
Snit
> George Graves wrote:
>> In article <QiVQg.21449$eW5...@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
>> TheLetterK <no...@none.net> wrote:
>>
>>> George Graves wrote:
>>>> In article <4vIQg.6008$tT6....@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
>>>> TheLetterK <no...@none.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Josh McKee wrote:
>>>>>> The name, not the operating system.
>>>>> Both.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Josh
>>>> You Windroids/Linuxheads would love that wouldn't you?
>>> Yes--I would.
>>
>> Why? If you don't like it, just don't use it.
>
> You're missing my point. I would be perfectly happy for Apple to adopt a
> good operating system--more choice is a good thing. I didn't say they
> should abandon OS X in favor of Windows or Linux, just that they need to
> get past OS X. OS X has way too many fundamental problems to easily fix.
Please note how in another thread you were talking about how you do not spew
your opinions as facts, yet here you are doing just that. Why?
You want to use Linux software. When you do so on a Mac it is not as
straightforward of a process as it is on Linux. My oh my! What a shock!
Get over it and stop whining about your rather ignorant position on OS X.
If you had a real complaint with OS X you should have posted it by now, and,
of course, you should have learned basic things about is such as what past
projects it was based on (yet still insist your ignorant view should be
taken as fact). You are amazingly ignorant about OS X, yet feel your
opinion should be seen as fact.
>
>> Its not like its
>> ubiquitous or unavoidable (like Windows is). And why would you want to
>> deprive people who do like it of having that choice?
>
> Because I would rather people be using something better than OS X.
Why do you think your opinion of what OS X I use should matter. Sure, OS X
is not perfect - if you have a suggestion for an OS that would serve my
needs better - or the needs of most users even - I would love to hear it.
XP does in some cases. Linux almost never does.
>> Do you realize how selfish and mean-spirited your attitude is? And people
>> talk about Mac users being fanatics. I've never seen one Mac advocate
>> actually wish that Windows or Linux would "go away". There's no need. We just
>> don't have to use them, but you can if you wish.
>>
>> You also must realize that without the Mac OS to emulate, Microsoft (and to a
>> degree, Linux) would have nothing pushing them and development would slow to
>> a crawl.
>
> Nonsense--that might have been true 15 years ago, but these day Apple is
> typically the last one to adopt a new technology. When was the last time
> they actually developed something new? For the last 5 years, they've
> been doing their damnedest to bring their systems on-par with the
> average PC. They've gone so far as to *adopt the very same hardware*,
> and start aping features directly from Windows.
You are babbling out your rear. Apple has been innovating tremendously over
the last few years. Amazingly so, really. No other OS is close.
> The idea that Apple is an innovator is outdated. These days, Apple just
> takes ideas and tries to improve/simplify them. They don't push new
> ground, they don't blaze a trail for everyone else.
Note how you spew your ignorant and unsupported opinions as facts... despite
your denial of doing so.
>> I realize that it's a moot point with DVR and
>> DVD-R gaining ascendency, but you do know that when VHS and Beta were at
>> it tooth and nail, ALL of the development of the VCR took place (Hi-Fi
>> sound, skip-scan, S-VHS, commercial marking, etc). As soon as Beta went
>> away, the VHS camp stopped all of their development and not one new
>> feature or innovation was added to the VHS machine since that day.
>
> Partly because analog VHS had essentially reached the limits of what it
> could do.
Can you support that? Are you that unimaginative?
>> It's true! I suspect that something similar would occur with MS/Linux if the
>> Mac went away too.
>
> They would undoubtedly push each other around. Both GNOME and KDE have
> gotten to the point where they're working in new directions, rather than
> copying Windows and OS X. They don't really have anything else to take
> from Windows or OS X anyway--they've already implemented all the
> features worth taking from them.
Absolutely and completely incorrect. And, of course, amazingly ignorant of
you to say, yet you state is as though it were fact.
You have, once again, proved yourself wrong.
Snit
>> Like what?
>>
>> Tell me what fundamental problems of OS X affect me in my daily life.
>
> One good example is OS X's poor window management. Dealing with a large
> number of windows is rather difficult on OS X, compared with something
> like Windows or GNOME/KDE. This is particularly true if you deal with a
> lot of similar windows from a small number of applications (many word
> documents, or many terminal windows).
I often have many windows open... right now I have in the neighborhood of
20. No concerns here. There are times I have many more. I do have dual
monitors, and that does help.
<snip />
>>>> Its not like its
>>>> ubiquitous or unavoidable (like Windows is). And why would you want to
>>>> deprive people who do like it of having that choice?
>>> Because I would rather people be using something better than OS X.
>>
>> Like what?
>
> Who knows--that depends on the person, though I'm not sure how anyone
> could consider OS X a good operating system. It doesn't do anything very
> well (well, I guess it's good for desktop publishing), and handles quite
> a bit very badly (it's a horrible server platform, and gaming is
> absolutely pathetic--it's pretty bad for multimedia too, due to the lack
> of hardware acceleration).
Note how you spew your opinions as facts. OS X, in fact, is generally
accepted to do many things very, very well - but I bet you cannot name them.
This shows your ignorance.
<snip />
>>>> It's
>>>> true! I suspect that something similar would occur with MS/Linux if the
>>>> Mac went away too.
>>> They would undoubtedly push each other around. Both GNOME and KDE have
>>> gotten to the point where they're working in new directions, rather than
>>> copying Windows and OS X. They don't really have anything else to take
>>> from Windows or OS X anyway--they've already implemented all the
>>> features worth taking from them.
>>
>> (Which means that what they haven't taken isn't worth taking?)
>
> Generally. There are a few things that are missing (something like
> Automator, for example), but for the most part, GNOME and/or KDE have
> taken the useful features from Windows and OS X already.
Yes, Linux has taken a lot... but it still does not have the consistency,
the ease of use, nor the polish of OS X. And based on its model it will not
any time soon. So be it. It does have other strengths.
--
€ There is no known malware that attacks OS X in the wild
€ There are two general types of PCs: Macs and PCs (odd naming conventions!)
€ Mac OS X 10.x.x is a version of Mac OS
TheLetterK
> "TheLetterK" <no...@none.net> stated in post
> Eh4Rg.28788$vX5....@bignews8.bellsouth.net on 9/22/06 11:15 PM:
>
>>> Like what?
>>>
>>> Tell me what fundamental problems of OS X affect me in my daily life.
>> One good example is OS X's poor window management. Dealing with a large
>> number of windows is rather difficult on OS X, compared with something
>> like Windows or GNOME/KDE. This is particularly true if you deal with a
>> lot of similar windows from a small number of applications (many word
>> documents, or many terminal windows).
>
> I often have many windows open...
I didn't say you couldn't do it, I said that OS X handles it poorly.
There is a very big difference between these two claims.
> right now I have in the neighborhood of
> 20. No concerns here.
Try quickly switching between four or five terminal windows. By
'quickly', I mean 'in under two seconds'.
> There are times I have many more. I do have dual
> monitors, and that does help.
>
> <snip />
>
>>>>> Its not like its
>>>>> ubiquitous or unavoidable (like Windows is). And why would you want to
>>>>> deprive people who do like it of having that choice?
>>>> Because I would rather people be using something better than OS X.
>>> Like what?
>> Who knows--that depends on the person, though I'm not sure how anyone
>> could consider OS X a good operating system. It doesn't do anything very
>> well (well, I guess it's good for desktop publishing), and handles quite
>> a bit very badly (it's a horrible server platform, and gaming is
>> absolutely pathetic--it's pretty bad for multimedia too, due to the lack
>> of hardware acceleration).
>
> Note how you spew your opinions as facts. OS X, in fact, is generally
> accepted to do many things very, very well - but I bet you cannot name them.
You're right--I can't name them. Why? Because there aren't very many
things that OS X is known for doing well. Desktop publishing, and
perhaps video editing. That's it.
> This shows your ignorance.
>
> <snip />
>
>>>>> It's
>>>>> true! I suspect that something similar would occur with MS/Linux if the
>>>>> Mac went away too.
>>>> They would undoubtedly push each other around. Both GNOME and KDE have
>>>> gotten to the point where they're working in new directions, rather than
>>>> copying Windows and OS X. They don't really have anything else to take
>>>> from Windows or OS X anyway--they've already implemented all the
>>>> features worth taking from them.
>>> (Which means that what they haven't taken isn't worth taking?)
>> Generally. There are a few things that are missing (something like
>> Automator, for example), but for the most part, GNOME and/or KDE have
>> taken the useful features from Windows and OS X already.
>
> Yes, Linux has taken a lot... but it still does not have the consistency,
GNOME is more consistent than OS X, if the user doesn't intentionally
break consistency. The difference is that GNOME will allow the user to
do what they want (which can mean breaking consistency), while OS X will
not.
> the ease of use,
GNOME is, IMO, easier to use than OS X.
> nor the polish of OS X.
Completely subjective. IMO, OS X is still rough and unfinished. I mean,
you guys are still using bitmaps for window decorations and icons!
> And based on its model it will not
> any time soon.
It's already met the first two criteria, and the last is too subjective
to target.
TheLetterK
I've yet to see anyone implement a Windows compatibility layer where the
widgets change to accommodate the host platform. WINE and friends
certainly don't.
Timberwoof
C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
> In article <jtmckee-62890C...@netnews.comcast.net>,
> Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.net> wrote:
> > In article <clund-8D8371....@amsnewsfe01.chello.com>,
> > C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
> > > > The name, not the operating system.
> > > Why?
> > Because it doesn't fit the Mac image. It's too "techy" sounding.
>
> Why do you think that?
>
> > > Trolling, josh? ;)
>
> The answer to this would be "yes", I think.. ;)
Maybe they should call it Apple Apple Apple Apple Apple Apple Apple
Apple Apple Apple. That's not very techy sounding.
Timberwoof
TheLetterK <no...@none.net> wrote:
As long as the widgets had the correct shapes, they could be made to
look like OS X, but they woudl act like windows.
> This is a really bad strategic decision though--you'd end up killing
> native development this way. Why would companies like Adobe continue to
> develop a Mac-native version of Photoshop, when the Mac users could just
> run the Windows version?
Funny you should mention Photoshop. World-class DTP color matching is
one answer.
> > If they did that, then there would no longer be any reason to
> > keep developing two versions of every software title and everything
> > would be cross-platform. This would make MacOS much more popular, and
> > would spur software development by freeing-up a lot of resources. If
> > they did that, it wouldn't matter if Apple stopped building Macs and
> > only developed the OS and the peripheral software. I'm not holding my
> > breath, however.
>
> Apple would be better off going back to NeXT's Openstep plan. Rather
> than selling a system, sell a robust cross-platform application environment.
Funny you should mention that. They got taken over by NeXT several years
ago...
Timberwoof
"ed" <news...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
But that's only half of the "look and feel" thing -- and in this case,
none of it.
Snit
fG4Rg.5450$7I1....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net on 9/22/06 11:41 PM:
To get the look and feel of an OS X app you need more than just the look and
feel of the buttons and other widgets.
Timberwoof
TheLetterK <no...@none.net> wrote:
Is this a universal fact or an opinion based on your working style?
> > Tell ya what: you can help me with a languishing project. I have two
> > identical BW G3s, one with OS X Server and one with Yellow Dog Linux.
> > Suggest some experiments I could run (I know Apache, PHP, and MySQL; I
> > have a phast Intel box with Red Hat Linux I can inflict on the test G3s)
> > that would illustrate the problems.
>
> Compare MySQL performance. That's a common way to demonstrate OS X's
> horrible system call latency (a result of it's microkernel heritage).
Either that or of the performance tester's inability to set up
connection-sharing correctly. But that is a good idea. Got any more?
> >>> Its not like its
> >>> ubiquitous or unavoidable (like Windows is). And why would you want to
> >>> deprive people who do like it of having that choice?
> >> Because I would rather people be using something better than OS X.
> >
> > Like what?
>
> Who knows--that depends on the person, though I'm not sure how anyone
> could consider OS X a good operating system.
Hm. Even though for the past six years, people have been talking on this
very newsgroup about why t hey do like it.
> It doesn't do anything very
> well
That's not true.
> (well, I guess it's good for desktop publishing), and handles quite
> a bit very badly (it's a horrible server platform,
So far you've mentioned that improper tuning of connection sharing makes
it a bad MySQL platform. Got anything else?
> and gaming is
> absolutely pathetic--
Oh, fuck. You've hot the nail on the head. You've ruined Mac OS X for
me. I have no answer to this one. Crap. Now I have to sell my Macs and
get ...
Wait a minute! I don't play computer games! Oh, except for Solitaire.
but, I really need a creaming video card for that!
> it's pretty bad for multimedia too, due to the lack
> of hardware acceleration).
Yeah, my old G3s aren't all that great for that. But the newer ones?
given that they come with some really cool multimedia apps, and that
Macromedia/Adobe continue to make Director, Flash, and so forth for OS
X, I'm not sure you're doing good police work on that one.
Ah. A new variant on "Real Computing is whatever Macs don't do yet." So
what's so great about Gnome and KDE that I have to give up OS X for
them? So how come there's not a world of excitement about the KDE port
to OS X?
> > And what
> > new stuff are they adding?
>
> GNOME has been moving towards a spatial interface for a few years now,
> and they've steadily been throwing features in. I'm not sure about their
> future roadmap though. KDE 4 is going to include a number of at least
> mildly innovative features--Phonon (or rather, the NMM integration in
> Phonon), Solid (dynamic hardware configuration), Tenor (context linking,
> rather than simple file/metadata indexing), Plasma (more specifically,
> how it's going to handle applets).
Those sound like cool eye-candy features, but how are they improving the
behavior of the GUI? What new advances in user interface interactions
are they adding?
> A lot of the improvements are at lower levels--for example, GNOME's move
> towards vector graphics rather than bitmaps.
More eye candy.
TheLetterK
> In article <Ih3Rg.28769$vX5....@bignews8.bellsouth.net>,
> TheLetterK <no...@none.net> wrote:
>
>> George Graves wrote:
>>> In article <QiVQg.21449$eW5...@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
>>> TheLetterK <no...@none.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> George Graves wrote:
>>>>> In article <4vIQg.6008$tT6....@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
>>>>> TheLetterK <no...@none.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Josh McKee wrote:
>>>>>>> The name, not the operating system.
>>>>>> Both.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Josh
>>>>> You Windroids/Linuxheads would love that wouldn't you?
>>>> Yes--I would.
>>> Why? If you don't like it, just don't use it.
>> You're missing my point. I would be perfectly happy for Apple to adopt a
>> good operating system--more choice is a good thing. I didn't say they
>> should abandon OS X in favor of Windows or Linux, just that they need to
>> get past OS X. OS X has way too many fundamental problems to easily fix.
>
> Hmmmm. if OSX' fundamental problems are too hard to fix, the Windows'
> fundamental problems must be impossible!
Most of the Windows problems are in the userspace--it *could* be fixed,
but the effort required would be intense, and it would certainly
alienate a large number of third party developers. The market for
Windows has saturated, though, so they'll need to do something like this
eventually.
>
>>> Its not like its
>>> ubiquitous or unavoidable (like Windows is). And why would you want to
>>> deprive people who do like it of having that choice?
>> Because I would rather people be using something better than OS X.
>
> There currently IS nothing better than OSX.
Except for GNU/Linux, and Windows in some cases.
>
>>> Do you realize how
>>> selfish and mean-spirited your attitude is? And people talk about Mac
>>> users being fanatics. I've never seen one Mac advocate actually wish
>>> that Windows or Linux would "go away". There's no need. We just don't
>>> have to use them, but you can if you wish.
>
>>> You also must realize that without the Mac OS to emulate, Microsoft (and
>>> to a degree, Linux) would have nothing pushing them and development
>>> would slow to a crawl.
>> Nonsense--that might have been true 15 years ago, but these day Apple is
>> typically the last one to adopt a new technology. When was the last time
>> they actually developed something new? For the last 5 years, they've
>> been doing their damnedest to bring their systems on-par with the
>> average PC. They've gone so far as to *adopt the very same hardware*,
>> and start aping features directly from Windows.
>
> I disagree, but that's not the point.
Yes it is the point. You clearly implied that Apple was doing the
innovating, and Microsoft was just copying--that without Apple,
Microsoft would go nowhere. Microsoft has already started competing with
themselves--they *have* to keep improving the product if they want to
sell more copies to a saturated market. The majority of the
'innovations' in Vista were designed to improve over the capabilities of
XP, or to allow Vista to compete with the various *nixes. They certainly
weren't driven by Apple's 'innovation'--they were driven by a desire to
somehow convince XP users (who are, by and large, relatively content
with their system) to buy another copy of Windows.
>
>> The idea that Apple is an innovator is outdated. These days, Apple just
>> takes ideas and tries to improve/simplify them. They don't push new
>> ground, they don't blaze a trail for everyone else.
>
>
> Again, that's not the point. The point is that without competition,
> developement slows to a crawl, not that Apple copied this and MS copied
> that.
But *development is slowing to a crawl anyway*. Apple isn't providing
competition, because they aren't innovating and don't threaten
Microsoft's market. Apple is competing more with Dell and the like than
they are with Microsoft. Even then, Microsoft's main competition (today)
is the open source community--we're the only group that are actually
threatening Microsoft's markets (particularly in the server room).
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>> "TheLetterK" <no...@none.net> stated in post
>> Eh4Rg.28788$vX5....@bignews8.bellsouth.net on 9/22/06 11:15 PM:
>>
>>>> Like what?
>>>>
>>>> Tell me what fundamental problems of OS X affect me in my daily life.
>>> One good example is OS X's poor window management. Dealing with a large
>>> number of windows is rather difficult on OS X, compared with something
>>> like Windows or GNOME/KDE. This is particularly true if you deal with a
>>> lot of similar windows from a small number of applications (many word
>>> documents, or many terminal windows).
>>
>> I often have many windows open...
>
> I didn't say you couldn't do it, I said that OS X handles it poorly.
> There is a very big difference between these two claims.
>
>> right now I have in the neighborhood of
>> 20. No concerns here.
>
> Try quickly switching between four or five terminal windows. By
> 'quickly', I mean 'in under two seconds'.
OK. Done. What is the problem? I can do it in no less than three
different ways - two of them very standard to OS X and one based on my
mouse. Oh, and that does not include just clicking on the windows, which
are, by default, staggered to make it easy. Oh, heck, I forgot about
Exposé! Damn... that would be easy, too, though I tend not to use it much.
If you have a problem doing so, TLK, it is based on your ignorant, not on
the OS. Thanks for the fine example of my point.
Heck, if you wanted to make the task a little tougher you could have
suggested switching between two terminal windows, two MS Word windows, and
maybe two Safari windows, or something like that. At least then you could
have pointed out that the OS X dock is application based and not window
based... which has both strengths and weaknesses.
>> There are times I have many more. I do have dual monitors, and that does
>> help.
>>
>> <snip />
>>
>>>>>> Its not like its
>>>>>> ubiquitous or unavoidable (like Windows is). And why would you want to
>>>>>> deprive people who do like it of having that choice?
>>>>> Because I would rather people be using something better than OS X.
>>>> Like what?
>>> Who knows--that depends on the person, though I'm not sure how anyone
>>> could consider OS X a good operating system. It doesn't do anything very
>>> well (well, I guess it's good for desktop publishing), and handles quite
>>> a bit very badly (it's a horrible server platform, and gaming is
>>> absolutely pathetic--it's pretty bad for multimedia too, due to the lack
>>> of hardware acceleration).
>>
>> Note how you spew your opinions as facts. OS X, in fact, is generally
>> accepted to do many things very, very well - but I bet you cannot name them.
>
> You're right--I can't name them. Why?
Because of your ignorance. You make excuses, below, but the answer is
simple... it is your ignorance of OS X. Look above where you imply it is
time consuming or difficult to switch from one window to another in OS X ...
heck, you think this even in the same application. Does Linux even have a
standard keyboard way to do this? Command-tilde does it in almost every OS
X application (I have an 8 button mouse and have one of the buttons set to
do it, so I do not even have to go to the keyboard).
> Because there aren't very many things that OS X is known for doing well.
> Desktop publishing, and perhaps video editing. That's it.
Thanks for an example of your ignorance! I thought, maybe, I would need to
do some Googling to show you an example. I appreciate your gift.
>
>> This shows your ignorance.
>>
>> <snip />
>>
>>>>>> It's
>>>>>> true! I suspect that something similar would occur with MS/Linux if the
>>>>>> Mac went away too.
>>>>> They would undoubtedly push each other around. Both GNOME and KDE have
>>>>> gotten to the point where they're working in new directions, rather than
>>>>> copying Windows and OS X. They don't really have anything else to take
>>>>> from Windows or OS X anyway--they've already implemented all the
>>>>> features worth taking from them.
>>>> (Which means that what they haven't taken isn't worth taking?)
>>> Generally. There are a few things that are missing (something like
>>> Automator, for example), but for the most part, GNOME and/or KDE have
>>> taken the useful features from Windows and OS X already.
>>
>> Yes, Linux has taken a lot... but it still does not have the consistency,
>
> GNOME is more consistent than OS X, if the user doesn't intentionally
> break consistency. The difference is that GNOME will allow the user to
> do what they want (which can mean breaking consistency), while OS X will
> not.
This has been covered and you have been proved wrong. Heck, I gave specific
examples and the "best" you could do was whine about the differences between
Aqua and Metal... you fall apart every time you try to defend your view
there. Heck, you get so desperate you run to non OS X standard
applications, as though *that* will help your point. LOL!
>> the ease of use,
>
> GNOME is, IMO, easier to use than OS X.
Hmmm, I must admit I do not know of any direct study that compares the two,
but from watching students use both - students who do not know OS X or
GNOMNE well, they clearly take to OS X faster and openly belittle Linux. I
will grant that some also, at first, speak poorly of OS X... but that
generally changes. As they learn Linux more they tend to like it less.
>> nor the polish of OS X.
>
> Completely subjective. IMO, OS X is still rough and unfinished. I mean,
> you guys are still using bitmaps for window decorations and icons!
I am talking in terms of consistency between applications, *not* adding
every feature under the sun for the sake of adding it (though KDE does that
much worse than GNOME), etc.
>> And based on its model it will not any time soon.
>
> It's already met the first two criteria, and the last is too subjective
> to target.
Based on the nature of Linux, at least for now, you have too many cooks to
build a consistent UI between applications. I will grant that projects such
as Ubuntu are trying to change that... and I wish them well. So far they
have done a pretty darn good job.
--
€ 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
TheLetterK
> "TheLetterK" <no...@none.net> stated in post
> Ih3Rg.28769$vX5....@bignews8.bellsouth.net on 9/22/06 10:07 PM:
>
>> George Graves wrote:
>>> In article <QiVQg.21449$eW5...@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
>>> TheLetterK <no...@none.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> George Graves wrote:
>>>>> In article <4vIQg.6008$tT6....@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
>>>>> TheLetterK <no...@none.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Josh McKee wrote:
>>>>>>> The name, not the operating system.
>>>>>> Both.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Josh
>>>>> You Windroids/Linuxheads would love that wouldn't you?
>>>> Yes--I would.
>>> Why? If you don't like it, just don't use it.
>> You're missing my point. I would be perfectly happy for Apple to adopt a
>> good operating system--more choice is a good thing. I didn't say they
>> should abandon OS X in favor of Windows or Linux, just that they need to
>> get past OS X. OS X has way too many fundamental problems to easily fix.
>
> Please note how in another thread you were talking about how you do not spew
> your opinions as facts, yet here you are doing just that. Why?
The opinions were labeled as such, and the facts are verifiable. OS X
has many fundamental problems, and fixing them would not be easy. Fixing
the syscall latency problem would require Apple to replace the kernel,
for example.
>
> You want to use Linux software.
I want to use standard *nix software--Apple does claim to sell a
Unix-like, do they not?
> When you do so on a Mac it is not as
> straightforward of a process as it is on Linux. My oh my! What a shock!
You're taking my complaints about the 'OS X does everything GNU/Linux
does' claim and using it to justify this unrelated point. If Apple could
provide quality software (that is compatible with what I was using
before) at reasonable prices, I would be happy to use it. Instead, they
provide marginally decent software at insanely high prices.
> Get over it and stop whining about your rather ignorant position on OS X.
Snit, I'd bet good money that I've been using OS X longer than you
have--and probably have a better understanding of the system as a whole.
Unless you got in on the beta program, you need to reevaluate your position.
> If you had a real complaint with OS X you should have posted it by now,
I have many real complaints and have posted them many times. Everything
I've complained about has *directly* affected my OS X experience at one
point or another.
> and,
> of course, you should have learned basic things about is such as what past
> projects it was based on (yet still insist your ignorant view should be
> taken as fact). You are amazingly ignorant about OS X,
This coming from the person who thinks OS X is a fork of FreeBSD? You
have no room to call *anyone* ignorant about OS X, shit.
> yet feel your
> opinion should be seen as fact.
>>> Its not like its
>>> ubiquitous or unavoidable (like Windows is). And why would you want to
>>> deprive people who do like it of having that choice?
>> Because I would rather people be using something better than OS X.
>
> Why do you think your opinion of what OS X I use should matter. Sure, OS X
> is not perfect - if you have a suggestion for an OS that would serve my
> needs better - or the needs of most users even - I would love to hear it.
> XP does in some cases. Linux almost never does.
GNU/Linux almost always would--the only people that would be served
worse by GNU/Linux are video/photo editing people, and desktop
publishing folks.
>
>>> Do you realize how selfish and mean-spirited your attitude is? And people
>>> talk about Mac users being fanatics. I've never seen one Mac advocate
>>> actually wish that Windows or Linux would "go away". There's no need. We just
>>> don't have to use them, but you can if you wish.
>>>
>>> You also must realize that without the Mac OS to emulate, Microsoft (and to a
>>> degree, Linux) would have nothing pushing them and development would slow to
>>> a crawl.
>> Nonsense--that might have been true 15 years ago, but these day Apple is
>> typically the last one to adopt a new technology. When was the last time
>> they actually developed something new? For the last 5 years, they've
>> been doing their damnedest to bring their systems on-par with the
>> average PC. They've gone so far as to *adopt the very same hardware*,
>> and start aping features directly from Windows.
>
> You are babbling out your rear. Apple has been innovating tremendously over
> the last few years.
With what? Even their greatest success--the iPod--was a permutation on a
similar idea. They didn't even develop the interface independently. You
might be able to argue that iTMS was an independent development, but
that was mostly a matter of Steve Jobs having the weight to force the
issue on the recording companies where the others did not. Apple's
operating system is a year or two behind their main competition
(technology wise), and their hardware is *standard PC hardware*. They
switched from a unique and independent platform to *tel clones, and you
have the audacity to insist that they are great innovators?
> Amazingly so, really. No other OS is close.
The only reason OS X is still in the race is because they based it on
Nextstep--Nextstep was *that* far ahead of everything else on the
workstation space.
>
>> The idea that Apple is an innovator is outdated. These days, Apple just
>> takes ideas and tries to improve/simplify them. They don't push new
>> ground, they don't blaze a trail for everyone else.
>
> Note how you spew your ignorant and unsupported opinions as facts... despite
> your denial of doing so.
Can you provide a single example of something that Apple has
independently developed in the last 5 years?
>
>>> I realize that it's a moot point with DVR and
>>> DVD-R gaining ascendency, but you do know that when VHS and Beta were at
>>> it tooth and nail, ALL of the development of the VCR took place (Hi-Fi
>>> sound, skip-scan, S-VHS, commercial marking, etc). As soon as Beta went
>>> away, the VHS camp stopped all of their development and not one new
>>> feature or innovation was added to the VHS machine since that day.
>> Partly because analog VHS had essentially reached the limits of what it
>> could do.
>
> Can you support that?
It was an analog tape reel system (albeit one contained inside a
cassette). There's not much else that it could have handled--they
certainly couldn't have improved the quality, nor were there many
features that could have been added.
> Are you that unimaginative?
Are you that blind to reality?
>
>>> It's true! I suspect that something similar would occur with MS/Linux if the
>>> Mac went away too.
>> They would undoubtedly push each other around. Both GNOME and KDE have
>> gotten to the point where they're working in new directions, rather than
>> copying Windows and OS X. They don't really have anything else to take
>> from Windows or OS X anyway--they've already implemented all the
>> features worth taking from them.
>
> Absolutely and completely incorrect.
Name something other than automator.
> And, of course, amazingly ignorant of
> you to say, yet you state is as though it were fact.
Yes, I did state that as fact. For good reason.
>
> You have, once again, proved yourself wrong.
No I haven't. Notice your lack of supporting evidence--all you've done
is question my claims. If you had any shred of evidence to counter them,
you would have expounded upon it at length as if the feature(s) were
critical to the survival of the human species (no matter how obscure the
feature may be).
Josh McKee
"brin...@mac.com" <brin...@mac.com> wrote:
> There have been several names through various releases for Apple's OS
> X.x. They have all been named for big cats, Tiger, Panther, Leopard. OS
> X has been the popular reference with the OS X logo on supporting
> products.
But the base name remains "OS X".
Josh
Snit
Services.
Having standard menu items, such as preferences, located in the same place
in almost all standard applications.
Services, both sharing a standard location and even just existing - though,
I admit, they do not work with all Carbon applications.
Having a professional look where text is not cut off willy-nilly, where
dialogs rarely have typos, etc.
Ability to set default applications by file, not just file type
Auto-sizing windows
Built in parental controls (I believe some flavors of Linux are getting
closer)
Services for handicapped users, built in by default (again, Linux has
*some* of this)
Folder Actions
Having such things as Photoshop, Dreamweaver, and MS Office as standard apps
More consistent hot keys
Application packages (the application folder appears as a single application
icon to the general user)
Save status notification
Target Disk Mode
And on and on and on and on. As stated, your knowledge of OS X is minimal.
>
>> And, of course, amazingly ignorant of
>> you to say, yet you state is as though it were fact.
>
> Yes, I did state that as fact. For good reason.
>
>>
>> You have, once again, proved yourself wrong.
>
> No I haven't. Notice your lack of supporting evidence--all you've done
> is question my claims. If you had any shred of evidence to counter them,
> you would have expounded upon it at length as if the feature(s) were
> critical to the survival of the human species (no matter how obscure the
> feature may be).
You have stated such basic things as your *opinion* that OS X is not a good
OS, that it is not based on what it is based on, etc. Your opinions have
been shown to be wrong, even using your own evidence, and yet you persist in
repeating them as though they were facts. This is not only dishonest of
you, TLK, it is contrary to your claims where you state you do not state
your opinions as facts. When pressed you whine about when you use
non-standard OS X software it does not work as standard OS X software does,
or, sometimes, you whine that software on OS X does not work as software on
Linux does - and then you give your *opinion* that the Linux way is better,
yet you state it as fact.
Above you whine that you do not *think* Apple has been innovative, even
though they clearly have been... very much so, really. This is not an
opinion, this is verifiable based on the products they have released over
the last several years.
Donald L McDaniel
wrote:
>In article <3r68h21o3a55hd20r...@4ax.com>,
> Donald L McDaniel <ortho...@wildblue.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 04:09:24 +0200, Lars.T...@epost.de (Lars
>> Träger) wrote:
>>
>> >Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> The name, not the operating system.
>> >
>> >So Josh's slogan for the Mac would be: "It's just another PC running an
>> >OS without a name."
>>
>> I, who run XP on my Apple Intel PC, see no problem with calling
>> Apple's OS "OS 10". It distinguishes it from other OSes.
>>
>> However, now that the Apple is no longer OS-dependent, identifying its
>> PC with the Mac OS is irrational.
>>
>> In my opinion, "Apple" refers to the manufacturer of machines which
>> will run several OSes.
>>
>> If MacDroids choose to identify their Apple Intel PCs with an OS, they
>> just prove to the rest of the world how insane they truly are.
>>
>> However, we all have the right to be an insane freak if that is our
>> choice, as long as it causes physical harm to no one.
>
>The Mac was DESIGNED to run OSX not Windows. If it had been, the Intel
>Macs would have RS-232 serial ports and Centronics pararllel ports, PS/2
>mouse and keyboard ports, and a BIOS, etc. But it wasn't and it doesn't
>have those. The OS and the Machine were designed to work together. The
>fact that you can install Windows on it and get SOME Windows operability
>from it is just a byproduct, a happenstance if you will, of using enough
>of the Intel chipset to satisfy the requirements of another Intel-based
>OS. A Mac is far from an ideal Winbox, because its not designed to be a
>Winbox.
George, you are just showing your ignorance.
In the first place, parallel ports are pretty much a thing of the
past. I really don't know why manufacturers keep putting them in
their machines (other than for ancient legacy printers). I don't even
possess a parallel printer (which are almost ALL ancient "dot-matrix"
printers). My printers are BOTH standard USB printers, and may just
as easily be used in XP as in OS X. In fact the manufacturer's disk
which I received with my newest Epson provides both OS X or XP drivers
and software.
PS/2 mice and keyboards are also pretty much things of the past, since
almost all Microsoft keyboards and mice are now USB or Bluetooth
devices. Again, PS/2 keyboards and mice are left on newer machines
only for legacy devices. The standards today for external device
connectivity on Wintels are USB 1.1, USB 2.0, Firewire 400, and
Firewire 800. How is this different on an Apple Intel PC than it is
on a Wintel PC? I do not even POSSESS a PS/2 mouse or keyboard, much
less USE one
Newest Intel-based servers no longer use a BIOS. They use the
industry-standard EFI partition. With the release of Vista upon us,
EFI will become the standard on desktop machines, also. In a few
years, a BIOS on desktop machines will be a thing of the past, since
the Wintel world is quickly catching up with industry standards. So
Windows will no longer be crippled by requiring a BIOS on the
motherboard (logic board to Macdroids). At that time, there will be
NO NEED for Boot Camp Assistant, since an Apple Intel PC with XP or
Vista installed on it will be ONE HUNDRED PERCENT a "Wintel" machine,
and will have NO NEED for OS X to be installed on it. AS far as I am
concerned, OS X is NOTHING but a sophisticated BOOT MANAGER for
Windows. Soon, I will no longer even NEED the crappy piece of horse
dung called OS X. As far as I am concerned, it can't be too soon,
either.
I get ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of all Windows operability on my Apple Intel
PC, since I do not use legacy devices, nor have I for several years,
even on my old Wintel machines.
The ONLY device I have any problem with is the proprietary Apple
Remote. This is because Apple does not use a standard IR chip in its
Remote, not because IR is not a standard with Wintels. Indeed, IR
has been a STANDARD on the majority of Wintels for many years. Hell,
I even remember having an IR port on my old "Packard-Hell" (way back
in 1991).
XP and Vista both run the 1.83GHZ dual-core processor powering my
Apple Intel PC at 100 percent of its rated speed.
XP uses 100% of ALL the opcodes of the Intel chip in my Apple Intel
PCs
My 300GB SATA-2 HD (in fact, it is manufactured by the SAME
manufacturer -- Maxtor -- who manufactures the stock 160GB SATA-2 HD
which was originally in my Apple Intel iMac 17" PC) gets the HIGHEST
DMA speed the Apple SATA controller is rated at (DMA 5), and is in the
SAME series of Maxtor SATA HDs as the stock 160GB SATA-2 HD.
In fact, I do not even have to boot into OS X (other than its boot
manager), if I choose not to.
So tell me, George, just WHAT "Windows operability" am I not able to
use?
==
Donald
===================================
Donald L McDaniel
Träger) wrote:
>George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <3r68h21o3a55hd20r...@4ax.com>,
>> Donald L McDaniel <ortho...@wildblue.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 04:09:24 +0200, Lars.T...@epost.de (Lars
>> > Träger) wrote:
>> >
>> > >Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.net> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> The name, not the operating system.
>> > >
>> > >So Josh's slogan for the Mac would be: "It's just another PC running an
>> > >OS without a name."
>> >
>> > I, who run XP on my Apple Intel PC, see no problem with calling
>> > Apple's OS "OS 10". It distinguishes it from other OSes.
>> >
>> > However, now that the Apple is no longer OS-dependent, identifying its
>> > PC with the Mac OS is irrational.
>> >
>> > In my opinion, "Apple" refers to the manufacturer of machines which
>> > will run several OSes.
>> >
>> > If MacDroids choose to identify their Apple Intel PCs with an OS, they
>> > just prove to the rest of the world how insane they truly are.
>> >
>> > However, we all have the right to be an insane freak if that is our
>> > choice, as long as it causes physical harm to no one.
>>
>> The Mac was DESIGNED to run OSX not Windows. If it had been, the Intel
>> Macs would have RS-232 serial ports and Centronics pararllel ports, PS/2
>> mouse and keyboard ports, and a BIOS, etc.
>
>Don't forget the cassette drive port - no PC is a real PC wthout it.
Jesus, Lars. Where did you come up with that one? Your ass?
==
Donald
===================================
Josh McKee
I don't think George knows as I don't believe he even owns an Intel
based Macintosh?
Josh
Timberwoof
Steven de Mena
"Donald L McDaniel" <ortho...@wildblue.invalid> wrote in message
news:3jpah2pvr96r628v3...@4ax.com...
> George, you are just showing your ignorance.
> In the first place, parallel ports are pretty much a thing of the
> past. I really don't know why manufacturers keep putting them in
> their machines (other than for ancient legacy printers).
I have an HP LaserJet parallel printer that works great.
> PS/2 mice and keyboards are also pretty much things of the past, since
> almost all Microsoft keyboards and mice are now USB or Bluetooth
> devices.
Really? Microsoft only makes *two* Bluetooth mice. The other cordless
mice (about 13 models) are wireless.
> Newest Intel-based servers no longer use a BIOS. They use the
> industry-standard EFI partition.
If they support EFO they also have a CSM to allow booting from devices
that require a BIOS. (Just like Apple Intel Macs now). How else would
you boot to a Windows Server setup CD?
> With the release of Vista upon us,
> EFI will become the standard on desktop machines, also.
Vista does not support EFI.
> In a few
> years, a BIOS on desktop machines will be a thing of the past, since
> the Wintel world is quickly catching up with industry standards. So
> Windows will no longer be crippled by requiring a BIOS on the
> motherboard (logic board to Macdroids). At that time, there will be
> NO NEED for Boot Camp Assistant, since an Apple Intel PC with XP or
> Vista installed on it will be ONE HUNDRED PERCENT a "Wintel" machine,
> and will have NO NEED for OS X to be installed on it. AS far as I am
> concerned, OS X is NOTHING but a sophisticated BOOT MANAGER for
> Windows. Soon, I will no longer even NEED the crappy piece of horse
> dung called OS X. As far as I am concerned, it can't be too soon,
> either.
Boot Camp is not required NOW for Windows XP. I have shown and proven
that.
Steve
TheLetterK
I have a few inkjet printers with parallel support laying around. Two of
them don't have USB, but the other does.
> My printers are BOTH standard USB printers, and may just
> as easily be used in XP as in OS X. In fact the manufacturer's disk
> which I received with my newest Epson provides both OS X or XP drivers
> and software.
>
> PS/2 mice and keyboards are also pretty much things of the past, since
> almost all Microsoft keyboards and mice are now USB or Bluetooth
> devices.
It's nice having a USB keyboard around, since it will often initiate
when USB keyboards do not.
> Again, PS/2 keyboards and mice are left on newer machines
> only for legacy devices. The standards today for external device
> connectivity on Wintels are USB 1.1, USB 2.0, Firewire 400, and
> Firewire 800.
You forgot bluetooth, eSATA, and RS-232 serial (it's still pretty
common, though not for consumer electronics).
> How is this different on an Apple Intel PC than it is
> on a Wintel PC? I do not even POSSESS a PS/2 mouse or keyboard, much
> less USE one
>
> Newest Intel-based servers no longer use a BIOS. They use the
> industry-standard EFI partition.
It's not an industry standard until the industry standardizes on it.
> With the release of Vista upon us,
> EFI will become the standard on desktop machines, also. In a few
> years, a BIOS on desktop machines will be a thing of the past, since
> the Wintel world is quickly catching up with industry standards. So
> Windows will no longer be crippled by requiring a BIOS on the
> motherboard (logic board to Macdroids).
It still has a BIOS, it's just not your standard Award/Phoenix/whatever
BIOS.
> At that time, there will be
> NO NEED for Boot Camp Assistant,
There isn't today--it's the firmware update that allows Windows to boot
on Macs. Boot Camp just simplifies partitioning and provides drivers.
> since an Apple Intel PC with XP or
> Vista installed on it will be ONE HUNDRED PERCENT a "Wintel" machine,
> and will have NO NEED for OS X to be installed on it. AS far as I am
> concerned, OS X is NOTHING but a sophisticated BOOT MANAGER for
> Windows.
It's not required for booting.
> Soon, I will no longer even NEED the crappy piece of horse
> dung called OS X. As far as I am concerned, it can't be too soon,
> either.
You can get rid of it today, though I don't know how firmware updates
will work.
>
> I get ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of all Windows operability on my Apple Intel
> PC, since I do not use legacy devices, nor have I for several years,
> even on my old Wintel machines.
>
> The ONLY device I have any problem with is the proprietary Apple
> Remote. This is because Apple does not use a standard IR chip in its
> Remote, not because IR is not a standard with Wintels. Indeed, IR
> has been a STANDARD on the majority of Wintels for many years. Hell,
> I even remember having an IR port on my old "Packard-Hell" (way back
> in 1991).
Eh? I've only got one machine with IR capabilities--the HTPC, because it
was provided by the TV card.
>
> XP and Vista both run the 1.83GHZ dual-core processor powering my
> Apple Intel PC at 100 percent of its rated speed.
>
> XP uses 100% of ALL the opcodes of the Intel chip in my Apple Intel
> PCs
>
> My 300GB SATA-2 HD (in fact, it is manufactured by the SAME
> manufacturer -- Maxtor -- who manufactures the stock 160GB SATA-2 HD
> which was originally in my Apple Intel iMac 17" PC) gets the HIGHEST
> DMA speed the Apple SATA controller is rated at (DMA 5), and is in the
> SAME series of Maxtor SATA HDs as the stock 160GB SATA-2 HD.
>
> In fact, I do not even have to boot into OS X (other than its boot
> manager), if I choose not to.
Eh? You're not using BootX to load Windows on that Mactel. BootX
wouldn't even load Windows--it only handles ELF and Mach-O kernels.
George Graves
Can your Windows OS find the Airport card or Bluetooth chip in your Mac?
--
George Graves
The health of our society is a direct result of the men
and women we choose to admire.
Steven de Mena
"TheLetterK" <no...@none.net> wrote in message
news:WReRg.14489$8s6....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>> With the release of Vista upon us,
>> EFI will become the standard on desktop machines, also. In a few
>> years, a BIOS on desktop machines will be a thing of the past, since
>> the Wintel world is quickly catching up with industry standards. So
>> Windows will no longer be crippled by requiring a BIOS on the
>> motherboard (logic board to Macdroids).
>
> It still has a BIOS, it's just not your standard
> Award/Phoenix/whatever BIOS.
Actually it can. AMI, for example, created their own EFI CSM. Maybe
Award, Phoenix, etc, will do so also.
http://www.ami.com/support/doc/EFI-FAQ.pdf#search=%22intel%20efi%20csm%22
Steve
George Graves
TheLetterK <no...@none.net> wrote:
> George Graves wrote:
> > In article <QiVQg.21449$eW5...@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
> > TheLetterK <no...@none.net> wrote:
> >
> >> George Graves wrote:
> >>> In article <4vIQg.6008$tT6....@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
> >>> TheLetterK <no...@none.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Josh McKee wrote:
> >>>>> The name, not the operating system.
> >>>> Both.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Josh
> >>> You Windroids/Linuxheads would love that wouldn't you?
> >> Yes--I would.
> >
> > Why? If you don't like it, just don't use it.
>
> You're missing my point. I would be perfectly happy for Apple to adopt a
> good operating system--more choice is a good thing. I didn't say they
> should abandon OS X in favor of Windows or Linux, just that they need to
> get past OS X. OS X has way too many fundamental problems to easily fix.
>
> > Its not like its
> > ubiquitous or unavoidable (like Windows is). And why would you want to
> > deprive people who do like it of having that choice?
>
> Because I would rather people be using something better than OS X.
>
> > Do you realize how
> > selfish and mean-spirited your attitude is? And people talk about Mac
> > users being fanatics. I've never seen one Mac advocate actually wish
> > that Windows or Linux would "go away". There's no need. We just don't
> > have to use them, but you can if you wish.
> >
> > You also must realize that without the Mac OS to emulate, Microsoft (and
> > to a degree, Linux) would have nothing pushing them and development
> > would slow to a crawl.
>
> Nonsense--that might have been true 15 years ago, but these day Apple is
> typically the last one to adopt a new technology. When was the last time
> they actually developed something new? For the last 5 years, they've
> been doing their damnedest to bring their systems on-par with the
> average PC. They've gone so far as to *adopt the very same hardware*,
> and start aping features directly from Windows.
>
> The idea that Apple is an innovator is outdated. These days, Apple just
> takes ideas and tries to improve/simplify them. They don't push new
> ground, they don't blaze a trail for everyone else.
>
> > I realize that it's a moot point with DVR and
> > DVD-R gaining ascendency, but you do know that when VHS and Beta were at
> > it tooth and nail, ALL of the development of the VCR took place (Hi-Fi
> > sound, skip-scan, S-VHS, commercial marking, etc). As soon as Beta went
> > away, the VHS camp stopped all of their development and not one new
> > feature or innovation was added to the VHS machine since that day.
>
> Partly because analog VHS had essentially reached the limits of what it
> could do.
Not true.
George Graves
TheLetterK <no...@none.net> wrote:
You'll get an argument from me about that.
I disagree.
Steven de Mena
"George Graves" <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:gmgraves-C36B25...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
You need to install the drivers, then it works. The drivers are not
built in to XP.
Steve
TheLetterK
OS X's window management is application-based. This is great if you're
working with a lot of single-window applications. However, this is
detrimental if working with a large number of similar windows, spawned
by a small number of applications. What's the fastest way to select a
specific window among a group of 20, on a single display? Most people
would answer "Expose", but it doesn't work well at distinguishing
between many similar windows--especially if there are a lot of other
windows on-screen.
>
>
>>> Tell ya what: you can help me with a languishing project. I have two
>>> identical BW G3s, one with OS X Server and one with Yellow Dog Linux.
>>> Suggest some experiments I could run (I know Apache, PHP, and MySQL; I
>>> have a phast Intel box with Red Hat Linux I can inflict on the test G3s)
>>> that would illustrate the problems.
>> Compare MySQL performance. That's a common way to demonstrate OS X's
>> horrible system call latency (a result of it's microkernel heritage).
>
> Either that or of the performance tester's inability to set up
> connection-sharing correctly.
There have been many people to run these benchmarks--I've yet to see one
that didn't place Os X well below GNU/Linux in terms of performance.
> But that is a good idea. Got any more?
http://sekhon.berkeley.edu/macosx/ describes another symptom of this
same flaw.
>
>>>>> Its not like its
>>>>> ubiquitous or unavoidable (like Windows is). And why would you want to
>>>>> deprive people who do like it of having that choice?
>>>> Because I would rather people be using something better than OS X.
>>> Like what?
>> Who knows--that depends on the person, though I'm not sure how anyone
>> could consider OS X a good operating system.
>
> Hm. Even though for the past six years, people have been talking on this
> very newsgroup about why t hey do like it.
>
>> It doesn't do anything very
>> well
>
> That's not true.
>
>> (well, I guess it's good for desktop publishing), and handles quite
>> a bit very badly (it's a horrible server platform,
>
> So far you've mentioned that improper tuning of connection sharing makes
> it a bad MySQL platform.
The problem is latency in system calls, not an improper tuning of
connection sharing. OS X's MySQL problems are very well known, and there
are other examples of this same flaw causing performance problems in
different packages.
> Got anything else?
>
>> and gaming is
>> absolutely pathetic--
>
> Oh, fuck. You've hot the nail on the head. You've ruined Mac OS X for
> me. I have no answer to this one. Crap. Now I have to sell my Macs and
> get ...
>
> Wait a minute! I don't play computer games! Oh, except for Solitaire.
> but, I really need a creaming video card for that!
But *many* people do.
>
>> it's pretty bad for multimedia too, due to the lack
>> of hardware acceleration).
>
> Yeah, my old G3s aren't all that great for that. But the newer ones?
> given that they come with some really cool multimedia apps, and that
> Macromedia/Adobe continue to make Director, Flash, and so forth for OS
> X, I'm not sure you're doing good police work on that one.
I'm not talking about content creation, I'm talking about playback. Have
you actually looked at Apple's hardware requirements for 1080p H.264
decoding? Then compared them to something like PureVideo or Avivo?
I'm excited about it.
>
>
>>> And what
>>> new stuff are they adding?
>> GNOME has been moving towards a spatial interface for a few years now,
>> and they've steadily been throwing features in. I'm not sure about their
>> future roadmap though. KDE 4 is going to include a number of at least
>> mildly innovative features--Phonon (or rather, the NMM integration in
>> Phonon), Solid (dynamic hardware configuration), Tenor (context linking,
>> rather than simple file/metadata indexing), Plasma (more specifically,
>> how it's going to handle applets).
>
> Those sound like cool eye-candy features, but how are they improving the
> behavior of the GUI?
Nothing there is eye candy, save perhaps Plasma. Phonon is a new media
backend for KDE (the innovative part is the NMM integration). Solid is a
new API for handling dynamic hardware environments. Tenor is a
contextual linking engine (which will provide searching/indexing and a
lot more). Plasma is partly about better eye-candy, but they're also
reworking how applets are handled.
> What new advances in user interface interactions
> are they adding?
Who knows. It's not really about what the KDE folks ship out of the box,
it's what the community does with the new tools they provide.
>
>> A lot of the improvements are at lower levels--for example, GNOME's move
>> towards vector graphics rather than bitmaps.
>
> More eye candy.
How is that eye candy? I guess it makes icon scaling smooth. Of greater
importance is the potential for true resolution independence.
TheLetterK
> "TheLetterK" <no...@none.net> stated in post
> CedRg.14479$8s6....@bignews4.bellsouth.net on 9/23/06 9:30 AM:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>> "TheLetterK" <no...@none.net> stated in post
>>> Eh4Rg.28788$vX5....@bignews8.bellsouth.net on 9/22/06 11:15 PM:
>>>
>>>>> Like what?
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell me what fundamental problems of OS X affect me in my daily life.
>>>> One good example is OS X's poor window management. Dealing with a large
>>>> number of windows is rather difficult on OS X, compared with something
>>>> like Windows or GNOME/KDE. This is particularly true if you deal with a
>>>> lot of similar windows from a small number of applications (many word
>>>> documents, or many terminal windows).
>>> I often have many windows open...
>> I didn't say you couldn't do it, I said that OS X handles it poorly.
>> There is a very big difference between these two claims.
>>
>>> right now I have in the neighborhood of
>>> 20. No concerns here.
>> Try quickly switching between four or five terminal windows. By
>> 'quickly', I mean 'in under two seconds'.
>
> OK. Done. What is the problem?
Distinguishing which window you wanted to go to, when you had 20 other
windows on the screen. Distinguishing between terminal windows in expose
is not easy, if you have even 10 windows open at once.
> I can do it in no less than three
> different ways - two of them very standard to OS X and one based on my
> mouse. Oh, and that does not include just clicking on the windows, which
> are, by default, staggered to make it easy. Oh, heck, I forgot about
> Exposé! Damn... that would be easy, too, though I tend not to use it much.
>
> If you have a problem doing so, TLK, it is based on your ignorant, not on
> the OS. Thanks for the fine example of my point.
Ignorance of what? I'm aware of all of OS X's window switching methods,
and a handful of alternatives provided by third parties. *None* of them
do a good job.
>
> Heck, if you wanted to make the task a little tougher you could have
> suggested switching between two terminal windows, two MS Word windows, and
> maybe two Safari windows, or something like that.
No, the point is that distinguishing between multiple similar windows on
a full screen is difficult on OS X. I'm not trying to make the task
hard, I'm trying to describe the problem *That I have actually
encountered*. People who use many distinct windows never notice it, but
if you do a lot of work in the CLI, it really comes back to bite you in
the ass.
> At least then you could
> have pointed out that the OS X dock is application based and not window
> based... which has both strengths and weaknesses.
It's never a strength, and often a weakness.
>
>>> There are times I have many more. I do have dual monitors, and that does
>>> help.
>>>
>>> <snip />
>>>
>>>>>>> Its not like its
>>>>>>> ubiquitous or unavoidable (like Windows is). And why would you want to
>>>>>>> deprive people who do like it of having that choice?
>>>>>> Because I would rather people be using something better than OS X.
>>>>> Like what?
>>>> Who knows--that depends on the person, though I'm not sure how anyone
>>>> could consider OS X a good operating system. It doesn't do anything very
>>>> well (well, I guess it's good for desktop publishing), and handles quite
>>>> a bit very badly (it's a horrible server platform, and gaming is
>>>> absolutely pathetic--it's pretty bad for multimedia too, due to the lack
>>>> of hardware acceleration).
>>> Note how you spew your opinions as facts. OS X, in fact, is generally
>>> accepted to do many things very, very well - but I bet you cannot name them.
>> You're right--I can't name them. Why?
>
> Because of your ignorance.
I've been using OS X longer than you have, Shit--and I'm absolutely
certain that I have a better understanding of the system
> You make excuses, below, but the answer is
> simple... it is your ignorance of OS X.
If I'm ignorant, that makes you a vegetable.
> Look above where you imply it is
> time consuming or difficult to switch from one window to another in OS X ...
It *is* difficult, because in real life you have to spend time
determining which window you want to switch to. This takes a
(relatively) long time on OS X.
> heck, you think this even in the same application. Does Linux even have a
> standard keyboard way to do this?
You should know by now that anything can be accomplished on GNU/Linux.
> Command-tilde does it in almost every OS
> X application (I have an 8 button mouse and have one of the buttons set to
> do it, so I do not even have to go to the keyboard).
>
>> Because there aren't very many things that OS X is known for doing well.
>> Desktop publishing, and perhaps video editing. That's it.
>
> Thanks for an example of your ignorance!
No ignorance demonstrated.
> I thought, maybe, I would need to
> do some Googling to show you an example. I appreciate your gift.
I'm saddened that you consider a statement of truth a gift. You really
were abused as a child, weren't you?
>>> This shows your ignorance.
>>>
>>> <snip />
>>>
>>>>>>> It's
>>>>>>> true! I suspect that something similar would occur with MS/Linux if the
>>>>>>> Mac went away too.
>>>>>> They would undoubtedly push each other around. Both GNOME and KDE have
>>>>>> gotten to the point where they're working in new directions, rather than
>>>>>> copying Windows and OS X. They don't really have anything else to take
>>>>>> from Windows or OS X anyway--they've already implemented all the
>>>>>> features worth taking from them.
>>>>> (Which means that what they haven't taken isn't worth taking?)
>>>> Generally. There are a few things that are missing (something like
>>>> Automator, for example), but for the most part, GNOME and/or KDE have
>>>> taken the useful features from Windows and OS X already.
>>> Yes, Linux has taken a lot... but it still does not have the consistency,
>> GNOME is more consistent than OS X, if the user doesn't intentionally
>> break consistency. The difference is that GNOME will allow the user to
>> do what they want (which can mean breaking consistency), while OS X will
>> not.
>
> This has been covered and you have been proved wrong.
Can you reference this 'coverage'? I seem to recall arguments about
Windows consistancy vs. OS X's, but never GNOME's.
> Heck, I gave specific
> examples and the "best" you could do was whine about the differences between
> Aqua and Metal...
Aqua, Metal, the Unified theme... Oh, and the discrepancies between the
standard interface, X11, Java, and Classic. Not to mention the glaring
inconsistencies within the applications themselves, and the widespread
violations of Apple's own HIG. Your counter 'argument' was that
inconsistent visual themes didn't impact consistency--which clearly
demonstrates that you know *nothing* about UI design.
> you fall apart every time you try to defend your view
> there.
That is merely your perception, Shit. You're the one lacking counter
evidence, and your arguments basically amount to "I'm right, nya nya
nya." No matter how many examples someone points at to demonstrate their
claim, you blindly continue to insist that they provide no evidence, or
that the evidence given is irrelevant. Worse still, you fall back on
straw men and disingenuous quote mangling to portray the argument in
your favor. You are one of the worst trolls that inhabit CSMA, Shit.
*Edwin* is more prone to fits of reason than you are.
The fact that you *dismiss* the clear examples of wild inconsistencies
within OS X's visual theme puts to rest any doubts that any reader may
have as to your objectivity.
> Heck, you get so desperate you run to non OS X standard
> applications, as though *that* will help your point. LOL!
OS X claims that they sell a Unix-like operating syste, do they not? If
so, then the inconsistencies caused by people doing so are legitimate
complaints.
>
>>> the ease of use,
>> GNOME is, IMO, easier to use than OS X.
>
> Hmmm, I must admit I do not know of any direct study that compares the two,
> but from watching students use both - students who do not know OS X or
> GNOMNE well, they clearly take to OS X faster and openly belittle Linux.
From my experience, the reverse it true. The large majority of people
I've seen try the two end up finding GNOME easier to use. This is
probably because GNOME more closely matches that which they are familiar
with (Windows).
> I
> will grant that some also, at first, speak poorly of OS X... but that
> generally changes. As they learn Linux more they tend to like it less.
I have yet to encounter anyone who increasingly dislikes GNU/Linux
through use. I've met people who dislike it at first use, but most of
them come to appreciate it more through usage.
>
>>> nor the polish of OS X.
>> Completely subjective. IMO, OS X is still rough and unfinished. I mean,
>> you guys are still using bitmaps for window decorations and icons!
>
> I am talking in terms of consistency between applications, *not* adding
> every feature under the sun for the sake of adding it (though KDE does that
> much worse than GNOME), etc.
Why not add every feature under the sun. It's not as if all features are
turned on from the starting gate. If I want to use a taskbar, I should
be allowed to do so.
>
>>> And based on its model it will not any time soon.
>> It's already met the first two criteria, and the last is too subjective
>> to target.
>
> Based on the nature of Linux, at least for now, you have too many cooks to
> build a consistent UI between applications.
People have been saying this for years, yet in practice GNOME or KDE
remain at least as consistent as OS X, if not moreso.
> I will grant that projects such
> as Ubuntu are trying to change that...
All Ubuntu does is package already existing applications. The fact that
you think they are 'trying to change that' is a counter argument to your
claim that many cooks cannot produce a consistent soup.
> and I wish them well. So far they
> have done a pretty darn good job.
IOW, the whole community has done what you claimed they could not.
TheLetterK
I thought Photoshop implemented it's own color matching. Still, if it's
good enough for the majority of Photoshop users to be using Windows,
then clearly it would be good enough for the Mac users.
>
>>> If they did that, then there would no longer be any reason to
>>> keep developing two versions of every software title and everything
>>> would be cross-platform. This would make MacOS much more popular, and
>>> would spur software development by freeing-up a lot of resources. If
>>> they did that, it wouldn't matter if Apple stopped building Macs and
>>> only developed the OS and the peripheral software. I'm not holding my
>>> breath, however.
>> Apple would be better off going back to NeXT's Openstep plan. Rather
>> than selling a system, sell a robust cross-platform application environment.
>
> Funny you should mention that. They got taken over by NeXT several years
> ago...
Yes, very funny. They buyout Next and end up getting taken over by the
people working at NeXT. Still, this is one of the reasons I'm angry at
Apple. They took an excellent platform like Nextstep and managed to fuck
it up so severely that I actually dislike using it.
TheLetterK
Eh? What more are you going to do for a media that only handles linear
playback?
George Graves
Here's the point since you obviously misssed it. You can't install
drivers that DON'T EXIST and aren't likely to.
George Graves
TheLetterK <no...@none.net> wrote:
On the Mac, you have a choice between Adobe's CM and ColorSync.
ColorSync works between all applications (even MS Word) and Adobe's only
works between Adobe products. Now why would someone who has their system
calibrated with ColorSync want to use Adobe's limited system? I'll give
you a hint about this system. Adobe implemented it because Windows'
color matching/calibration is so lame.
Steven de Mena
>> > Can your Windows OS find the Airport card or Bluetooth chip in your
>> > Mac?
>>
>> You need to install the drivers, then it works. The drivers are not
>> built in to XP.
>
> Here's the point since you obviously misssed it. You can't install
> drivers that DON'T EXIST and aren't likely to.
What do you mean? I had the Bluetooth Mighty Mouse working in Windows
XP. I didn't bother to check Airport as I have a hard-wired connection.
Any PC needs drivers these days, as the 5-6 year old Windows XP disc is
not likely to have the appropriate driver.
If there is some point you are trying to make, come right out and make
it.
Steve
Snit
All that from you, TLK, and the facts stay the same:
You asked me to do a task in OS X... switch between Terminal windows I did
so. Easily. Used multiple methods even. I did not, however, use Exposé -
and I specifically stated that. You whined that Exposé would not handle that
particular task well and concluded that OS X does not allow windows
switching as well as Linux... though you not only did not list a single
method Linux has that OS X does not have, nor did you talk about the fact
that OS X uses the *same* hot key combo in almost all standard programs,
something that is not true for Linux. You also, as you often do when you
know you have made a fool of yourself, sank to name calling and bizarre
claims (such as, of all things, *child abuse*, I do not care what in your
life makes that come to your mind). Did you think that made you sound
clever... or maybe thought you could obfuscate your ignorance about how to
switch windows in OS X? Whatever your reason, TLK, let me assure you that
your ignorance is still noted along with your immature name calling.
In relation to a consistent interface you used the *exact* cop out I
predicted you would, "Heck, you get so desperate you run to non OS X
standard applications, as though *that* will help your point." As noted, OS
X is simply more consistent, as shown by the many, many examples you have
been given, but you cannot handle that. Such is life. I do not mind you
being ignorant. It is sad that you do not seem to mind it either, but that
is your choice and your problem. Again, TLK, your running to Metal, Aqua,
and Unified is *still* very weak support in the face of the much more
important data you ignore, such as hot keys, placement of widgets, placement
of menu items, professionally laid out text, etc. Linux, as a whole, simply
does not have these things, even in its "standard" applications. You can -
and do - pretend otherwise, and that is your choice. It does not change the
fact that Apple's greater consistency *does* make it an easier to use and,
for most, more pleasant environment to work in. Your "I'm right, nya nya
nya" comments simply do not change that... no matter who you attribute your
comments to.
Ah, and then their is your laughable ignorance of the reasons why adding
every feature under the sun is a detriment. You still do not see why that
is a bad thing, do you? I suspect you do not... your ignorance is very easy
to predict.
Ah, and you also referred to the folks how bundle "Ubuntu" as "the whole
community"... presumably of Linux users. This shows you are ignorant even
of the Linux world. I had expected better of you there... but you do
continually amaze me with how little you know and understand. So be it.
Maybe you will show me other things you are ignorant about. While I would
prefer to see you learn and grow, I am not above laughing at your arrogant
ignorance.
Oh, and you claim to have used OS X "a lot longer" than I have. How do you
even pretend to know this? Oh, you were merely lying again. Such is life.
But, let us assume your claim was correct - why do you think you would be so
much less knowledgeable about OS X than I am if I have used it for less
time? Do you really think you are that much slower of a learner than I am?
Whatever... your BS is just that, BS. In the end, TLK, you remain ignorant,
as shown by your lack of understanding of how to do a basic task such as
move between windows.
"I'm right, nya nya nya." - TheLetterK
How clever of you. LOL!
ed
TheLetterK <no...@none.net> typed:
> ed wrote:
>> In news:jm4Rg.28789$vX5....@bignews8.bellsouth.net,
>> TheLetterK <no...@none.net> typed:
>>> George Graves wrote:
>>>> In article <nospam-395E9A.17343622092006@shawnews>,
>>>> TT <nos...@please.ok> wrote:
>>>> What I'd like to see is for Apple to devlope a runtime module which
>>>> would allow Windows apps to run under OSX at full speed and would
>>>> look like OSX apps when running under the mac OS (I've read that
>>>> this is possible).
>>> AFAIK, it's not possible to make Windows apps look+feel like Mac
>>> apps
>>> if they were running in some sort of compatibility layer. You could
>>> get the right window decorations, but the widgets would still look
>>> like Windows.
>>
>> couldn't look like mac widgets.
>
> I've yet to see anyone implement a Windows compatibility layer where
> the widgets change to accommodate the host platform. WINE and friends
> certainly don't.
doesn't mean there's a reason they *couldn't*.
George Graves
TheLetterK <no...@none.net> wrote:
Sigh. First of all VHS tape handling has always been lousy. Beta
shuffled tape much more elegantly and quickly and without as much
complication as VHS. Beta could shuffle tape without either partially or
fully disengaging it, VHS has never been able to do that. The VHS camp
would have eventually redesigned their transport to be more like the
Beta transport because the VHS mechanism was too hard on the tape. They
never did it, so VHS never had true skip-scan (do a high-speed search
and drop directly and instantly into play or record at a given point.
VHS transports have to re-load the tape before dropping into play).
Secondly, VHS Hi-Fi sound never worked correctly because of the way it
was designed. They never fixed it. And there were lots of other features
that could have been added as electronics became cheaper and cheaper.
Things like real time-base correction, drop-out compensation, refinement
of SVHS so that it worked well on ordinary tape, program marking, lots
of things that were never implemented because without competition, they
didn't have to.
ed
Timberwoof <timberw...@infernosoft.com> typed:
> In article <fG4Rg.5450$7I1....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
> "ed" <news...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>
>> In news:jm4Rg.28789$vX5....@bignews8.bellsouth.net,
>> TheLetterK <no...@none.net> typed:
>>>> In article <nospam-395E9A.17343622092006@shawnews>,
>>>> TT <nos...@please.ok> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>> What I'd like to see is for Apple to devlope a runtime module which
>>>> would allow Windows apps to run under OSX at full speed and would
>>>> look like OSX apps when running under the mac OS (I've read that
>>>> this is possible).
>>>
>>> AFAIK, it's not possible to make Windows apps look+feel like Mac
>>> apps
>>> if they were running in some sort of compatibility layer. You could
>>> get the right window decorations, but the widgets would still look
>>> like Windows.
>>
>> unless an app is using custom widgets, there's no reason they
>> couldn't look like mac widgets.
>
> none of it.
no sh!t sherlock, i was only addressing that part. ;P
Donald L McDaniel
<st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
>
>"Donald L McDaniel" <ortho...@wildblue.invalid> wrote in message
>news:3jpah2pvr96r628v3...@4ax.com...
>
>> George, you are just showing your ignorance.
>> In the first place, parallel ports are pretty much a thing of the
>> past. I really don't know why manufacturers keep putting them in
>> their machines (other than for ancient legacy printers).
>
>I have an HP LaserJet parallel printer that works great.
>
>> PS/2 mice and keyboards are also pretty much things of the past, since
>> almost all Microsoft keyboards and mice are now USB or Bluetooth
>> devices.
>
>Really? Microsoft only makes *two* Bluetooth mice. The other cordless
>mice (about 13 models) are wireless.
You did notice that I said "USB or Bluetooth devices", Steve?
>
>> Newest Intel-based servers no longer use a BIOS. They use the
>> industry-standard EFI partition.
>
>If they support EFO they also have a CSM to allow booting from devices
>that require a BIOS. (Just like Apple Intel Macs now). How else would
>you boot to a Windows Server setup CD?
>
>> With the release of Vista upon us,
>> EFI will become the standard on desktop machines, also.
>
>Vista does not support EFI.
Not yet, Steve. But EFI will be supported in the Server version of
Vista. And Microsoft has intimated that they will develop it for the
Workstation versions of Vista once it is released for servers.
>
>> In a few
>> years, a BIOS on desktop machines will be a thing of the past, since
>> the Wintel world is quickly catching up with industry standards. So
>> Windows will no longer be crippled by requiring a BIOS on the
>> motherboard (logic board to Macdroids). At that time, there will be
>> NO NEED for Boot Camp Assistant, since an Apple Intel PC with XP or
>> Vista installed on it will be ONE HUNDRED PERCENT a "Wintel" machine,
>> and will have NO NEED for OS X to be installed on it. AS far as I am
>> concerned, OS X is NOTHING but a sophisticated BOOT MANAGER for
>> Windows. Soon, I will no longer even NEED the crappy piece of horse
>> dung called OS X. As far as I am concerned, it can't be too soon,
>> either.
>
>Boot Camp is not required NOW for Windows XP. I have shown and proven
>that.
>
>Steve
>
Actually, Steve, you have NOT yet "shown and proven it" (unless you
posted a step-by-step procedure to do it on my Intel iMac.)
But you HAVE "claimed it", more than once.
Until you post a step-by-step procedure to do it on an Intel Mac, you
will have neither shown, nor proven it.
==
Donald
===================================
Steven de Mena
"Donald L McDaniel" <ortho...@wildblue.invalid> wrote in message
> Actually, Steve, you have NOT yet "shown and proven it" (unless you
> posted a step-by-step procedure to do it on my Intel iMac.)
>
> But you HAVE "claimed it", more than once.
>
> Until you post a step-by-step procedure to do it on an Intel Mac, you
> will have neither shown, nor proven it.
LOL
Fuck You.
Am I supposed to have to "prove" something to you?
Anyways I don't think your brother would approve of you tinkering with
his iMac.
Steve
Snit
>>> This is a really bad strategic decision though--you'd end up killing
>>> native development this way. Why would companies like Adobe continue to
>>> develop a Mac-native version of Photoshop, when the Mac users could just
>>> run the Windows version?
>>
>> Funny you should mention Photoshop. World-class DTP color matching is
>> one answer.
>
> I thought Photoshop implemented it's own color matching. Still, if it's
> good enough for the majority of Photoshop users to be using Windows,
> then clearly it would be good enough for the Mac users.
The fact is that OS X still has the top of the line color matching
capabilities that neither XP nor Linux have. This does not seem to bother
you. I am OK with that. Can you at least accept the fact of it, even if it
is not something that bothers you?
>>
>>>> If they did that, then there would no longer be any reason to
>>>> keep developing two versions of every software title and everything
>>>> would be cross-platform. This would make MacOS much more popular, and
>>>> would spur software development by freeing-up a lot of resources. If
>>>> they did that, it wouldn't matter if Apple stopped building Macs and
>>>> only developed the OS and the peripheral software. I'm not holding my
>>>> breath, however.
>>> Apple would be better off going back to NeXT's Openstep plan. Rather
>>> than selling a system, sell a robust cross-platform application environment.
>>
>> Funny you should mention that. They got taken over by NeXT several years
>> ago...
>
> Yes, very funny. They buyout Next and end up getting taken over by the
> people working at NeXT. Still, this is one of the reasons I'm angry at
> Apple. They took an excellent platform like Nextstep and managed to fuck
> it up so severely that I actually dislike using it.
Apple likely cares more about general users, power users, and technical
users than, well, whiners such as yourself. Curious, though, what would you
like Apple to do to please *you*? If you had an hour to spend with Jobs and
he agreed to take your suggestions, what would you suggest... anything that
is not moronic? I suspect very little if anything.
--
€ 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
Mitch
<gmgraves-6D14BD...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>, George
Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Sigh. First of all VHS tape handling has always been lousy. Beta
> shuffled tape much more elegantly and quickly and without as much
> complication as VHS. Beta could shuffle tape without either partially or
> fully disengaging it, VHS has never been able to do that. The VHS camp
> would have eventually redesigned their transport to be more like the
> Beta transport because the VHS mechanism was too hard on the tape. They
> never did it, so VHS never had true skip-scan (do a high-speed search
> and drop directly and instantly into play or record at a given point.
> VHS transports have to re-load the tape before dropping into play).
> Secondly, VHS Hi-Fi sound never worked correctly because of the way it
> was designed. They never fixed it. And there were lots of other features
> that could have been added as electronics became cheaper and cheaper.
> Things like real time-base correction, drop-out compensation, refinement
> of SVHS so that it worked well on ordinary tape, program marking, lots
> of things that were never implemented because without competition, they
> didn't have to.
I LOVE seeing this kind of hard info.
George, do you know of any brands of VHS that have tried to use these
technologies? Is there one brand that uses them more, or better?
Steven de Mena
"Mitch" <mi...@hawaii.rr> wrote in message
news:230920061301227430%mi...@hawaii.rr...
JVC always seemed to be near the top. My last JVC deck was S-VHS,
supported S-VHS on standard tape, and had some sort of time-base
correction built-in. It's been years since I had it. Also supported
VCR-Plus (with a cable mouse included) to make taping TV shows easier.
I think it was $700 or so at the time (!).
Steve
Donald L McDaniel
They must be rather old printers.
Until someone can post a step-by-step procedure to do this on my Intel
iMac, I will be a little leery trying it.
>> since an Apple Intel PC with XP or
>> Vista installed on it will be ONE HUNDRED PERCENT a "Wintel" machine,
>> and will have NO NEED for OS X to be installed on it. AS far as I am
>> concerned, OS X is NOTHING but a sophisticated BOOT MANAGER for
>> Windows.
>
>It's not required for booting.
Again, until that is proven in this newsgroup, I will not believe it,
knowing that XP requires a BIOS to boot.
No, I am using BootCamp Assistant.
==
Donald
===================================
Donald L McDaniel
That's great, Steve, but what does that have to do with my Apple Intel
PC?
==
Donald
===================================
Steven de Mena
"Donald L McDaniel" <ortho...@wildblue.invalid> wrote in message
news:akebh25pop3fqpl4a...@4ax.com...
If you have not caught on, this issue is closed now. No one is going to
feel any obligation to further "prove" anything to you, as frankly, we
don't care if you believe it or not.
Steve
Steven de Mena
"Donald L McDaniel" <ortho...@wildblue.invalid> wrote in message
news:4hgbh2tjkhn7b48q0...@4ax.com...
Nothing Don. I made it all up. Stick with your system the way it is.
Steve
Donald L McDaniel
wrote:
Yes, George. In the first place, Windows has a Bluetooth driver
included on its installation CD, so the built-in Apple hardware is not
necessary. All I have to do is use the Bluetooth Radio provided with
my Microsoft Bluetooth keyboard and mouse set, and install its
software. Nevertheless, there is an Apple Bluetooth driver provided
in the set of Windows drivers the Boot Camp software burns for
installation under XP.
(In fact, George, Windows can recognize and use ANY hardware device,
provided there is a Windows driver installed for it. You don't think
Microsoft manufactures ALL the devices and drivers Windows can use, do
you? If you do, you are really stupid. And I don't believe you are.)
No, George, Windows can use ANY device there is a driver for, just as
OS X can.
And the Airport card uses a standard Broadcom wireless driver, easily
downloaded from Broadcom. Or the Windows driver disk one burns with
BootCamp contains one which works just as well.
Face it, George, Apple has no monopoly on either Bluetooth or
Wireless, or ANY hardware, for that matter. ALL the devices on my
Apple Intel PC are standard off-the-shelf devices manufactured by
people who serve the entire micro-computer market, not just Apple.
There is really nothing "unique" about Apple machines except perhaps
the IR controller (and that's simply a matter of Apple providing a
Windows driver for it, which is not a technical consideration -- it's
actually a political consideration), and the OS provided with them, of
course. If that makes Apple's unique, then all micro-computers are
"unique".
Now that Apple has joined the Intel camp, my Apple Intel PC is really
nothing but a standard Wintel PC, minus the standard Wintel BIOS
chipset and the Windows OS, which may easily be installed using
Apple's own Boot Camp software, which enables Windows to boot and
configure the hardware using the EFI partition, rather than a standard
BIOS chipset. In otherwords, Apple's BootCamp software is simply a
hack to get around the lack of a BIOS chip on the Apple Intel PC, plus
a third-party partition manager/Boot Manager (and a poor one at that:
Most third-party Windows Partition managers will repartition a Hard
drive non-destructively, while BootCamp won't (except for OS X, of
course).
Or, if you prefer, all Wintel machines are now standard Apple Intel
PCs, minus OS X, and the Apple Boot ROM.
I really see no difference between the two machines, other than the
OS, and the TPM chip on Apple Intel PCs. And even that may easily be
gotten around so that OS X may be installed with ease on ANY standard
Wintel PC.
Please, George, stop making a fool of yourself. I respect you too
much to see you keep doing it.
==
Donald
===================================
Timberwoof
TheLetterK <no...@none.net> wrote:
Do you mean like WMV (Windows Media Video)?
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.
TheLetterK
AFAIK it should be:
1) Insert Windows CD.
2) Boot from CD.
3) Install as normal.
EFI shouldn't enter into it at all once the compatibility module is
installed.
>
>>> since an Apple Intel PC with XP or
>>> Vista installed on it will be ONE HUNDRED PERCENT a "Wintel" machine,
>>> and will have NO NEED for OS X to be installed on it. AS far as I am
>>> concerned, OS X is NOTHING but a sophisticated BOOT MANAGER for
>>> Windows.
>> It's not required for booting.
>
> Again, until that is proven in this newsgroup, I will not believe it,
> knowing that XP requires a BIOS to boot.
Hence why you needed to install the compatibility module--that's what
was installed by the firmware update.
Which is not OS X's bootloader.
TheLetterK
No, I mean like analog tape reels.
TheLetterK
> "TheLetterK" <no...@none.net> stated in post
> VMfRg.9009$zF5....@bignews1.bellsouth.net on 9/23/06 12:19 PM:
>
>>>> This is a really bad strategic decision though--you'd end up killing
>>>> native development this way. Why would companies like Adobe continue to
>>>> develop a Mac-native version of Photoshop, when the Mac users could just
>>>> run the Windows version?
>>> Funny you should mention Photoshop. World-class DTP color matching is
>>> one answer.
>> I thought Photoshop implemented it's own color matching. Still, if it's
>> good enough for the majority of Photoshop users to be using Windows,
>> then clearly it would be good enough for the Mac users.
>
> The fact is that OS X still has the top of the line color matching
> capabilities that neither XP nor Linux have.
Do you really need 'top of the line' system-wide color management, when
'good enough' will do just fine? Is it worth the difference in cost?
Apparently not, given how many people use Windows for professional
content creation.
> This does not seem to bother
> you. I am OK with that. Can you at least accept the fact of it, even if it
> is not something that bothers you?
>>>>> If they did that, then there would no longer be any reason to
>>>>> keep developing two versions of every software title and everything
>>>>> would be cross-platform. This would make MacOS much more popular, and
>>>>> would spur software development by freeing-up a lot of resources. If
>>>>> they did that, it wouldn't matter if Apple stopped building Macs and
>>>>> only developed the OS and the peripheral software. I'm not holding my
>>>>> breath, however.
>>>> Apple would be better off going back to NeXT's Openstep plan. Rather
>>>> than selling a system, sell a robust cross-platform application environment.
>>> Funny you should mention that. They got taken over by NeXT several years
>>> ago...
>> Yes, very funny. They buyout Next and end up getting taken over by the
>> people working at NeXT. Still, this is one of the reasons I'm angry at
>> Apple. They took an excellent platform like Nextstep and managed to fuck
>> it up so severely that I actually dislike using it.
>
> Apple likely cares more about general users, power users, and technical
> users than, well, whiners such as yourself.
If they cared about power/technical users, I wouldn't be complaining.
> Curious, though, what would you
> like Apple to do to please *you*?
Stop making the *nix environment the red headed stepchild.
> If you had an hour to spend with Jobs and
> he agreed to take your suggestions, what would you suggest...
My suggestions would go beyond simply suggestions to improve OS X. IMO,
they need to drop OS X and start working on reimplementing their UI and
application environment on a custom GNU/Linux distribution. This would
allow them to stop wasting their time reinventing the wheel (developing
their own *nix), and start focusing their efforts on developing end-user
applications (what they are traditionally best at writing). It would
have the side effect of giving them name recognition in the server room.
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>> "TheLetterK" <no...@none.net> stated in post
>> VMfRg.9009$zF5....@bignews1.bellsouth.net on 9/23/06 12:19 PM:
>>
>>>>> This is a really bad strategic decision though--you'd end up killing
>>>>> native development this way. Why would companies like Adobe continue to
>>>>> develop a Mac-native version of Photoshop, when the Mac users could just
>>>>> run the Windows version?
>>>> Funny you should mention Photoshop. World-class DTP color matching is
>>>> one answer.
>>> I thought Photoshop implemented it's own color matching. Still, if it's good
>>> enough for the majority of Photoshop users to be using Windows, then clearly
>>> it would be good enough for the Mac users.
>>>
>> The fact is that OS X still has the top of the line color matching
>> capabilities that neither XP nor Linux have.
>>
> Do you really need 'top of the line' system-wide color management, when 'good
> enough' will do just fine? Is it worth the difference in cost? Apparently not,
> given how many people use Windows for professional content creation.
No, *I* do not have a need for top of the line color management... though I
note you at least hint you understand Apple has that where Linux does not.
That is a step in the right direction for you.
>> This does not seem to bother you. I am OK with that. Can you at least
>> accept the fact of it, even if it is not something that bothers you?
You seem to be reaching that point, though you are hesitant to state it
clearly.
>>>>>> If they did that, then there would no longer be any reason to
>>>>>> keep developing two versions of every software title and everything
>>>>>> would be cross-platform. This would make MacOS much more popular, and
>>>>>> would spur software development by freeing-up a lot of resources. If
>>>>>> they did that, it wouldn't matter if Apple stopped building Macs and
>>>>>> only developed the OS and the peripheral software. I'm not holding my
>>>>>> breath, however.
>>>>> Apple would be better off going back to NeXT's Openstep plan. Rather
>>>>> than selling a system, sell a robust cross-platform application
>>>>> environment.
>>>> Funny you should mention that. They got taken over by NeXT several years
>>>> ago...
>>> Yes, very funny. They buyout Next and end up getting taken over by the
>>> people working at NeXT. Still, this is one of the reasons I'm angry at
>>> Apple. They took an excellent platform like Nextstep and managed to fuck
>>> it up so severely that I actually dislike using it.
>>
>> Apple likely cares more about general users, power users, and technical
>> users than, well, whiners such as yourself.
>
> If they cared about power/technical users, I wouldn't be complaining.
Incorrect.
>> Curious, though, what would you like Apple to do to please *you*?
>>
> Stop making the *nix environment the red headed stepchild.
Can you be specific? And, of course, do you realize you just supported my
claims about your whining about OS X. You are whining about a non-standard
use of OS X... and doing so in vague terms at that. In other words, you are
just whining. In the past, your whines have mostly consisted of your
"concern" that OS X is not Linux. Oh well.
>> If you had an hour to spend with Jobs and
>> he agreed to take your suggestions, what would you suggest...
>
> My suggestions would go beyond simply suggestions to improve OS X.
They start and end with your incessant and meaningless whining.
> IMO, they need to drop OS X and start working on reimplementing their UI and
> application environment on a custom GNU/Linux distribution.
Gee, I have noted that your primary whine is that OS X is not Linux... and
here you go proving I am correct. You have claimed GNOME is as good as OS
X, yet here you are describing yourself begging Jobs to move the OS X
interface to Linux. Quite telling.
> This would allow them to stop wasting their time reinventing the wheel
> (developing their own *nix)
Hey, TLK, OS X runs on top of a technologies based on FreeBSD and Mach. How
are you still ignorant about that?
> , and start focusing their efforts on developing end-user applications (what
> they are traditionally best at writing).
You mean the very ones you put down and whine about? LOL!
> It would have the side effect of giving them name recognition in the server
> room.
>
>> anything that is not moronic? I suspect very little if anything.
And I was correct.
Henry Flam
<timberwoof.spam-EC...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net>,
Timberwoof <timberw...@infernosoft.com> wrote:
> In article <o8sah25b5or0ejgvg...@4ax.com>,
> Donald L McDaniel <ortho...@wildblue.invalid> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 22:53:46 +0200, Lars.T...@epost.de (Lars
> > Träger) wrote:
> >
> > >George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> In article <3r68h21o3a55hd20r...@4ax.com>,
> > >> Donald L McDaniel <ortho...@wildblue.invalid> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 04:09:24 +0200, Lars.T...@epost.de (Lars
> > >> > Träger) wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > >Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.net> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > >> The name, not the operating system.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >So Josh's slogan for the Mac would be: "It's just another PC running
> > >> > >an
> > >> > >OS without a name."
> > >> >
> > >> > I, who run XP on my Apple Intel PC, see no problem with calling
> > >> > Apple's OS "OS 10". It distinguishes it from other OSes.
> > >> >
> > >> > However, now that the Apple is no longer OS-dependent, identifying its
> > >> > PC with the Mac OS is irrational.
> > >> >
> > >> > In my opinion, "Apple" refers to the manufacturer of machines which
> > >> > will run several OSes.
> > >> >
> > >> > If MacDroids choose to identify their Apple Intel PCs with an OS, they
> > >> > just prove to the rest of the world how insane they truly are.
> > >> >
> > >> > However, we all have the right to be an insane freak if that is our
> > >> > choice, as long as it causes physical harm to no one.
> > >>
> > >> The Mac was DESIGNED to run OSX not Windows. If it had been, the Intel
> > >> Macs would have RS-232 serial ports and Centronics pararllel ports, PS/2
> > >> mouse and keyboard ports, and a BIOS, etc.
> > >
> > >Don't forget the cassette drive port - no PC is a real PC wthout it.
> >
> > Jesus, Lars. Where did you come up with that one? Your ass?
>
> He's being sarcastic. Duuuh.
There are still people, like John Slade, who would still like to have
the floppy back. No doubt it's the 5 1/4 type that they want. <g>
Timberwoof
Henry Flam <hf...@telus.net> wrote:
Nawww. PCs aren't real computers. REAL computers use 8" floppies. LSI-11
forever!
Timberwoof
TheLetterK <no...@none.net> wrote:
> Snit wrote:
> > "TheLetterK" <no...@none.net> stated in post
> > VMfRg.9009$zF5....@bignews1.bellsouth.net on 9/23/06 12:19 PM:
> >
> >>>> This is a really bad strategic decision though--you'd end up killing
> >>>> native development this way. Why would companies like Adobe continue to
> >>>> develop a Mac-native version of Photoshop, when the Mac users could just
> >>>> run the Windows version?
> >>> Funny you should mention Photoshop. World-class DTP color matching is
> >>> one answer.
> >> I thought Photoshop implemented it's own color matching. Still, if it's
> >> good enough for the majority of Photoshop users to be using Windows,
> >> then clearly it would be good enough for the Mac users.
> >
> > The fact is that OS X still has the top of the line color matching
> > capabilities that neither XP nor Linux have.
>
> Do you really need 'top of the line' system-wide color management, when
> 'good enough' will do just fine? Is it worth the difference in cost?
> Apparently not, given how many people use Windows for professional
> content creation.
What an interesting double standard.
Where You perceive Windows or Linux to be better, it's a failing of the
Mac OS. Where you perceive the Mac OS to be better, it doesn't matter.
That pretty much ends your credibility in this discussion.
Oh, so there's nothing Apple can do to please you. Okay.
> > If you had an hour to spend with Jobs and
> > he agreed to take your suggestions, what would you suggest...
>
> My suggestions would go beyond simply suggestions to improve OS X. IMO,
> they need to drop OS X and start working on reimplementing their UI and
> application environment on a custom GNU/Linux distribution. This would
> allow them to stop wasting their time reinventing the wheel (developing
> their own *nix), and start focusing their efforts on developing end-user
> applications (what they are traditionally best at writing). It would
> have the side effect of giving them name recognition in the server room.
Most of that makes no sense. The kernel works fine for most applications
(if it doesn't meet your needs as a server, then don't use it; if it's
not good enough as a game console, then don't use it). An all along I
thought it was Linux that was reinventing everything. After Linux is not
Unix, it's unix-like.
But your idea about developing end-user applications is pretty good. I
have some ideas they could work on. It's neat that they have the iMac,
for they could make a whole series of simple apps for the home user:
iPhoto would talk to cameras, iTunes would do internet radio and talk to
an MP3 player, iMovie would be their video editing app, and then iDVD
would tie in with that to be a simple but powerful DVD editing tool.
And then, to top it off, they could make pro versions of all those apps
so that teenagers who thought they were to good to use mere iMovie or
iDVD could have wet dreams over the thousand-dollar versions.
Do you think Steve would go along with that idea?
> > anything that
> > is not moronic? I suspect very little if anything.
--
Snit
timberwoof.spam-B3...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net on 9/23/06
10:36 PM:
>>>>>> This is a really bad strategic decision though--you'd end up killing
>>>>>> native development this way. Why would companies like Adobe continue to
>>>>>> develop a Mac-native version of Photoshop, when the Mac users could just
>>>>>> run the Windows version?
>>>>> Funny you should mention Photoshop. World-class DTP color matching is
>>>>> one answer.
>>>> I thought Photoshop implemented it's own color matching. Still, if it's
>>>> good enough for the majority of Photoshop users to be using Windows,
>>>> then clearly it would be good enough for the Mac users.
>>>
>>> The fact is that OS X still has the top of the line color matching
>>> capabilities that neither XP nor Linux have.
>>
>> Do you really need 'top of the line' system-wide color management, when
>> 'good enough' will do just fine? Is it worth the difference in cost?
>> Apparently not, given how many people use Windows for professional
>> content creation.
>
> What an interesting double standard.
>
> Where You perceive Windows or Linux to be better, it's a failing of the
> Mac OS. Where you perceive the Mac OS to be better, it doesn't matter.
>
> That pretty much ends your credibility in this discussion.
Add to that his major complaint about OS X: it is not Linux. Heck, he
finally admitted that to me, below:
IMO, they need to drop OS X and start working on reimplementing
their UI and application environment on a custom GNU/Linux distribution.
So TLK thinks the OS X interface sucks (he cannot even find a good way to
switch between windows) and he thinks GNOME is just as good, but he is mad
at Apple because they will not port OS X to Linux. Poor guy! LOL!
And, as even TLK has admitted, Linux folks work hard to copy OS X and
Windows... and he even admits they try to throw in every feature they can -
instead of picking and choosing and making a good, workable, easy to use,
and consistent interface (well, he backs off on the last part... he suddenly
back pedals and claims Linux UIs are consistent... oops!)
> But your idea about developing end-user applications is pretty good. I
> have some ideas they could work on. It's neat that they have the iMac,
> for they could make a whole series of simple apps for the home user:
> iPhoto would talk to cameras, iTunes would do internet radio and talk to
> an MP3 player, iMovie would be their video editing app, and then iDVD
> would tie in with that to be a simple but powerful DVD editing tool.
>
> And then, to top it off, they could make pro versions of all those apps
> so that teenagers who thought they were to good to use mere iMovie or
> iDVD could have wet dreams over the thousand-dollar versions.
>
> Do you think Steve would go along with that idea?
Never going to happen. You are dreaming. :)
George Graves
"Steven de Mena" <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> "George Graves" <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:gmgraves-FA87EF...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> >> > Can your Windows OS find the Airport card or Bluetooth chip in your
> >> > Mac?
> >>
> >> You need to install the drivers, then it works. The drivers are not
> >> built in to XP.
> >
> > Here's the point since you obviously misssed it. You can't install
> > drivers that DON'T EXIST and aren't likely to.
>
> What do you mean? I had the Bluetooth Mighty Mouse working in Windows
> XP. I didn't bother to check Airport as I have a hard-wired connection.
With the internal Mac Bluetooth circuitry, or with a USB dongle? Sure
the USB dongle will work, but Macs can come with built-in Bluetooth, and
I don't believe that there are Windows drivers for it - which is what I
meant. There are no Windows drivers for the internal Airport card either.
I also wonder if Windows installed on an Intel Mac can address either
the internal i-sight camera or the built-in microphone either.
> Any PC needs drivers these days, as the 5-6 year old Windows XP disc is
> not likely to have the appropriate driver.
>
> If there is some point you are trying to make, come right out and make
> it.
That a Mac is designed for OSX not for Windows, and that an Intel Mac
will run Windows is just gravy. But Windows can't address a lot of the
built-in Apple hardware because there are no drivers to allow it. That
makes it crippled hardware for Windows and NOT an ideal match. That
plain enough for you?
George Graves
Mitch <mi...@hawaii.rr> wrote:
JVC has built a couple of high-end S-VHS machines that included a crude
form of TBC, but they never developed it. The same machine also would
record S-VHS on ordinary tape, just not very well (its extremely noisy).
They never developed that either. Nobody ever changed the VHS transport
design (AFAIK), but there was no reason why they couldn't have, other
than they saw no reason to since they no longer had any competition.
Steven de Mena
I was using the Mighty Mouse with the Bluetooth BTO option of my Mac
Pro.
As usual you are completely wrong.
With Boot Camp Beta 1.1, the Macintosh Drivers CD includes drivers to
support these within Windows XP:
a.. Apple Bluetooth [1.0.0.1]
b.. Apple Keyboard Support [1.0.0.1]
c.. Apple Trackpad [1.0.0.0]
d.. iSight Camera [1.0.0.0]
e.. Startup Disk Control Panel for Windows XP [1.0.0.3]
f.. Atheros 802.11 Wireless [4.2.2.27]
g.. ATI Graphics [8.27.0.0]
h.. Broadcom Wireless [4.80.28.7]
i.. Intel Chipset Software [6.2.1]
j.. Intel Integrated Graphics [6.14.10.4543]
k.. Marvel Yukon Ethernet [8.49.2.3]
l.. nVidia Graphics [9.1.3.1]
m.. Realtek Audio [5.10.0.5267]
n.. SigmaTel Audio [5.1.0.5082.0]
Steve
George Graves
I know that! But the Mac already bluetooth built-in but Windows can't
use it. THAT'S my point.
>
> (In fact, George, Windows can recognize and use ANY hardware device,
> provided there is a Windows driver installed for it. You don't think
> Microsoft manufactures ALL the devices and drivers Windows can use, do
> you? If you do, you are really stupid. And I don't believe you are.)
> No, George, Windows can use ANY device there is a driver for, just as
> OS X can.
>
> And the Airport card uses a standard Broadcom wireless driver, easily
> downloaded from Broadcom. Or the Windows driver disk one burns with
> BootCamp contains one which works just as well.
How does the Windows driver know where to look for the airport card? Or
the built-in i-Sight Camera, or the built-in microphone. I simply don't
believe that Windows can use these things.