A cheapo Acer laptop matches Macbook Pro in benchmarks!
tom_...@earthlink.net
and a Wintel box, both running XP.
The Wintel box performed just as well as the Mac - the scores were
almost identical. See:
http://reviews.cnet.com/4531-10921_7-6484737.html?tag=blog
So, tell me again, where is the Mac performance advantage????
Stew
No, Tom, it's now "the superior hardware" that makes Macs better. You have
to keep up with the new Maccie buzz phrases.
Steve Carroll
tom_...@earthlink.net wrote:
It can natively run XP on par with a PC *and* it will run rings around
most any Windows box attempting to run OSX.
--
"Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD" - Snit
"Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls
like myself" - Snit
"At least you can see my "total lack of ... dishonestly and obnoxiousness" -Snit
Tim Crowley
yawn. you should stick with your Dell, dude.
Alan Baker
It runs Mac OS X.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Steve Carroll
Stew <ant...@yahoo.com> wrote:
So you think the fact that Macs can now run OSX and XP makes then
inferior? Gotcha;)
Jim Lee Jr.
"Tim Crowley" <timmyt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> tom_...@earthlink.net wrote:
> > Ah, finally we have it. Heads up performance comparisons for a Mac
> > and a Wintel box, both running XP.
> >
> > The Wintel box performed just as well as the Mac - the scores were
> > almost identical. See:
> >
> > http://reviews.cnet.com/4531-10921_7-6484737.html?tag=blog
> >
> > So, tell me again, where is the Mac performance advantage????
>
>
> Yawn. you should stick with your Dell, dude.
While he sits in his cell.
--
Microsoft and Windoze: The combination that made computing dangerous.
Apple and OS X: The combination that made computing insanely great.
"VISTA" an acronym for the top five Windows problems: Viruses,
Intrusions, Spyware, Trojans and Adware.
As long as the OS was from Apple and not MS I wouldn't care
Sandman
Snit
mr-64A90B.08...@individual.net on 4/7/06 11:56 PM:
Even here, Sandman, where I largely agree with you, I find it humorous how
little depth you are able to articulate about a subject. Too damned funny!
--
€ As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >> Ah, finally we have it. Heads up performance comparisons for a Mac
> >> and a Wintel box, both running XP.
> >>
> >> The Wintel box performed just as well as the Mac - the scores were
> >> almost identical. See:
> >>
> >> http://reviews.cnet.com/4531-10921_7-6484737.html?tag=blog
> >>
> >> So, tell me again, where is the Mac performance advantage????
> >
> > OSX
>
> Even here, Sandman, where I largely agree with you, I find it humorous how
> little depth you are able to articulate about a subject.
Tom is - just like you - a troll with a poorly thought out agenda. I
don't waste much time trying to persuade trolls that they are wrong. I
rather just tell them and see them get upset - like you just did.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C05CAD9D.4B25C%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>>> Ah, finally we have it. Heads up performance comparisons for a Mac
>>>> and a Wintel box, both running XP.
>>>>
>>>> The Wintel box performed just as well as the Mac - the scores were
>>>> almost identical. See:
>>>>
>>>> http://reviews.cnet.com/4531-10921_7-6484737.html?tag=blog
>>>>
>>>> So, tell me again, where is the Mac performance advantage????
>>>
>>> OSX
>>
>> Even here, Sandman, where I largely agree with you, I find it humorous how
>> little depth you are able to articulate about a subject.
>
> Tom is - just like you - a troll with a poorly thought out agenda.
So you say, but in your normal trollish fashion you offer no support. My
"agenda" is an easy one: be honest and honorable. You will no doubt spew
some trolling response to that, but you will fail to offer support. You
will just troll.
> I don't waste much time trying to persuade trolls that they are wrong. I
> rather just tell them and see them get upset - like you just did.
Objective Troll Criteria: Projecting
Three times that one came back to bite you... in just a few minutes. Poor
Sandman.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >> Even here, Sandman, where I largely agree with you, I find it humorous how
> >> little depth you are able to articulate about a subject.
> >
> > Tom is - just like you - a troll with a poorly thought out agenda.
>
> So you say
Yep.
--
Sandman[.net]
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> My "agenda" is an easy one: be honest and honorable.
Merriam-Webster's
agenda:
a list or outline of things to be considered or done.
an underlying often ideological plan or program.
-------------------
Cambridge:
a list of aims or possible future achievements.
------------------
etc, etc......
And how long must this remain your 'agenda' without you making any effort to
realize it?
--
"I have become very cautious in my wording - to the point of including
enough disclaimers as to make the actual point harder to see."-Snit
Snit
C05D97CF.44B1%wa...@wally.world.net on 4/8/06 1:39 AM:
> On 8/4/06 3:44 PM, in article C05CB805.4B27E%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
> "Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>
>> My "agenda" is an easy one: be honest and honorable.
>
> Merriam-Webster's
> agenda:
>
> a list or outline of things to be considered or done.
> an underlying often ideological plan or program.
> -------------------
> Cambridge:
>
> a list of aims or possible future achievements.
> ------------------
>
> etc, etc......
>
> And how long must this remain your 'agenda' without you making any effort to
> realize it?
Do not assume I am like you.
Being honest and honorable is not just a current act, but also a plan for
the future. It is not just something you experiment with and do once or
maybe occasionally. I am honest and honorable darn near all the time and I
plan to keep it that way.
Leave it to you to *not* understand that.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-64A90B.08...@individual.net on 4/7/06 11:56 PM:
>
> > In article <nned32to1005obgip...@4ax.com>,
> > tom_...@earthlink.net wrote:
> >
> >> Ah, finally we have it. Heads up performance comparisons for a Mac
> >> and a Wintel box, both running XP.
> >>
> >> The Wintel box performed just as well as the Mac - the scores were
> >> almost identical. See:
> >>
> >> http://reviews.cnet.com/4531-10921_7-6484737.html?tag=blog
> >>
> >> So, tell me again, where is the Mac performance advantage????
> >
> > OSX
> >
> Even here, Sandman, where I largely agree with you, I find it humorous how
> little depth you are able to articulate about a subject. Too damned funny!
Not every post need be filled with the equivalent of verbal diarrhea,
like your posts.
Walter Bushell
Measure both running Mac OS X applications.
--
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any
charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his
peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totali-
tarian government whether Nazi or Communist." -- W. Churchill, Nov 21, 1943
Tim Murray
OS X.
Josh McKee
Tim Murray <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote:
If it performed just as well where's the advantage?
Josh
tom_...@earthlink.net
wrote:
Not to worry, I intend to stay with a full-feature Windows machine.
George Graves
tom_...@earthlink.net wrote:
But the Mac will run OSX at full speed too, and the cheap "full featured
Windows Machine" won't. We get two machines for our money a Windows
machine and a Mac. You just get a Windows machines. So Sorry.
--
George Graves
The health of our society is a direct result of the men
and women we choose to admire.
Mitch
<tom_...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> Ah, finally we have it. Heads up performance comparisons for a Mac
> >> and a Wintel box, both running XP.
Okay; although I don't think you've noticed that performance isn't the
only, and often isn't even the primary issue for many users.
> >> The Wintel box performed just as well as the Mac - the scores were
> >> almost identical. See:
> >>
> >> http://reviews.cnet.com/4531-10921_7-6484737.html?tag=blog
> >>
> >> So, tell me again, where is the Mac performance advantage????
The scores were almost identical -- AND the prices were almost
identical. $2300-2500 for either the Acer or the Apple.
So why does that subject say 'cheapo Acer'? Are you simply not even
trying to be reasonable or accurate?
> >yawn. you should stick with your Dell, dude.
>
> Not to worry, I intend to stay with a full-feature Windows machine.
I presume you will somewhere explain how a Windows machine is more
full-featured than a Mac machine?
As far as I can see, Windows is significantly less capable and
feature-rich.
There certainly is no difference given in that article.
Mitch
Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
> > > So, tell me again, where is the Mac performance advantage????
> > >
> >
> > OS X.
>
> If it performed just as well where's the advantage?
Don't you understand? All these people are saying the advantage is that
you DON'T have to deal with Windows!
You are getting comparable performance, from a machine with the same
capabilities, at the SAME PRICE, while being able to completely avoid
Windows and all it's risks, and still use Windows if you need or want
to.
Tim Crowley
I'm sorry.
Tim Crowley
if? If you were an honest person, you wouldn't disgust me so.
Snit
1144545831.4...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com on 4/8/06 6:23 PM:
Gee, the last time I asked you to support your accusations against Josh
about lying you choked and started calling me all sorts of names.
It was clear what disgusted you was asking you to support your accusations.
Ilgaz Ocal
If I have ever claimed Mac performance advantage, it was for RISC
architecture and custom mainboards,chipsets manufactured by Apple.
I am not into these "mactels". In fact upgrading my single g5 1600
which works very comfortable to dual 2300 in a week.
Just to clarify :)
Comparison with Acer? Eh, Mr. Jobs deserved it, it is something he
would care, not us.
Ilgaz
Tim Murray
As a user since DOS, I see OS X as more productive overall. It's an advantage
for me, and that's what counts.
Josh McKee
Tim Murray <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote:
I believe that the OP was referring to the hardware, not the OS.
Josh
Tim Crowley
Josh McKee wrote:
> In article <0001HW.C05E1865...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>,
> Tim Murray <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 8, 2006, Josh McKee wrote:
> > > In article <0001HW.C05D8237...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>,
> > > Tim Murray <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Apr 7, 2006, tom_...@earthlink.net wrote:
> > >>> Ah, finally we have it. Heads up performance comparisons for a Mac
> > >>> and a Wintel box, both running XP.
> > >>>
> > >>> The Wintel box performed just as well as the Mac - the scores were
> > >>> almost identical. See:
> > >>>
> > >>> http://reviews.cnet.com/4531-10921_7-6484737.html?tag=blog
> > >>>
> > >>> So, tell me again, where is the Mac performance advantage????
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> OS X.
> > >
> > > If it performed just as well where's the advantage?
> > >
> > > Josh
> >
> > As a user since DOS, I see OS X as more productive overall. It's an advantage
> > for me, and that's what counts.
>
> I believe that the OP was referring to the hardware, not the OS.
hahahahaha. there's the integrity thing again. hint: of of the two
pieces of hardware runs OSX. the other does not. If you were a real
man, at this point you would feel shame.
Tim Murray
The advantage in the hardware is that the Mac runs both. The advantage in the
Mac OS is that it's more productive to me. Thus, whether referring to HW or
SW makes no difference. But I suspect you knew that.
StormDrain
tom_...@earthlink.net wrote:
> Ah, finally we have it. Heads up performance comparisons for a Mac
> and a Wintel box, both running XP.
>
> The Wintel box performed just as well as the Mac - the scores were
> almost identical. See:
>
> http://reviews.cnet.com/4531-10921_7-6484737.html?tag=blog
>
> So, tell me again, where is the Mac performance advantage????
Now we need a Mac comparison with Wintel running OSX apps and maybe a
couple OSS apps, you know, the way Mac users probably use their
computers.
--
SD
"Such warnings, however, have to contend with the Mac
OS X's impressive lack of major security incidents."
-That's the bottom line.
Tim Crowley
StormDrain wrote:
> In article <nned32to1005obgip...@4ax.com>,
> tom_...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> > Ah, finally we have it. Heads up performance comparisons for a Mac
> > and a Wintel box, both running XP.
> >
> > The Wintel box performed just as well as the Mac - the scores were
> > almost identical. See:
> >
> > http://reviews.cnet.com/4531-10921_7-6484737.html?tag=blog
> >
> > So, tell me again, where is the Mac performance advantage????
>
> Now we need a Mac comparison with Wintel running OSX apps and maybe a
> couple OSS apps, you know, the way Mac users probably use their
> computers.
>
Tom and Josh don't care about real world comparisons. They just
trolling. Nothing to see here.
Josh McKee
Tim Murray <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote:
> On Apr 9, 2006, Josh McKee wrote:
> > In article <0001HW.C05E1865...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>,
> > Tim Murray <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Apr 8, 2006, Josh McKee wrote:
> >>> In article <0001HW.C05D8237...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>,
> >>> Tim Murray <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Apr 7, 2006, tom_...@earthlink.net wrote:
> >>>>> Ah, finally we have it. Heads up performance comparisons for a Mac
> >>>>> and a Wintel box, both running XP.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The Wintel box performed just as well as the Mac - the scores were
> >>>>> almost identical. See:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://reviews.cnet.com/4531-10921_7-6484737.html?tag=blog
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, tell me again, where is the Mac performance advantage????
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> OS X.
> >>>
> >>> If it performed just as well where's the advantage?
> >>>
> >>> Josh
> >>
> >> As a user since DOS, I see OS X as more productive overall. It's an
> >> advantage
> >> for me, and that's what counts.
> >
> > I believe that the OP was referring to the hardware, not the OS.
> >
> > Josh
>
> The advantage in the hardware is that the Mac runs both.
Why is that an advantage? Didn't you just say that OS X is what counts?
> The advantage in the Mac OS is that it's more productive to me.
I'm sure it is if you're not experienced with Windows. Likewise Windows
is more productive than OS X for people who know Windows but not OS X.
And for people like me who know both neither is more productive.
> Thus, whether referring to HW or SW makes no difference. But I suspect you
> knew that.
I know that you're likely biased against Windows and thus that's why you
find it less productive.
Josh
Mitch
Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
> > The advantage in the hardware is that the Mac runs both.
>
> Why is that an advantage? Didn't you just say that OS X is what counts?
It's a minor advantage, I'm supposing, or a POTENTIAL advantage.
(The same kind of advantage as when a Windows user claims there is
twice as much software for Windows, but then never uses anything but
the commonest programs, because those are the ones most people use!)
I doubt most Mac users need it, and some few will probably use it just
for a couple games.
> > The advantage in the Mac OS is that it's more productive to me.
>
> I'm sure it is if you're not experienced with Windows. Likewise Windows
> is more productive than OS X for people who know Windows but not OS X.
> And for people like me who know both neither is more productive.
TO make a statement about the operating systems, though, we have to
either take an average of experienced users, or talk about a 'blank
slate' type new user using both.
> > Thus, whether referring to HW or SW makes no difference. But I suspect you
> > knew that.
>
> I know that you're likely biased against Windows and thus that's why you
> find it less productive.
Entirely wrong; I'm not using only my own experience with it to make
that statement, nor is my statement unsupported by expert studies.
It should be plain, no matter what other expertise you might have, that
users have to 'manage' Windows itself more than Mac users have to
'manage' Mac OS. That alone, regardless of every other issue, proves
the point.
Mitch
<mi...@hawaii.rr> wrote:
> The scores were almost identical -- AND the prices were almost
> identical. $2300-2500 for either the Acer or the Apple.
> So why does that subject say 'cheapo Acer'?
Still waiting for Tom Elam to reply to this;
why does that subject claim a 'cheapo Acer'?
I took it as a price reference;
were you referring to product _quality_?
Tim Murray
> In article <0001HW.C05EBFF7...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, Tim
> Murray <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 9, 2006, Josh McKee wrote:
>>> Tim Murray <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Apr 8, 2006, Josh McKee wrote:
>>>>> Tim Murray <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2006, tom_...@earthlink.net wrote:
>>>>>>> Ah, finally we have it. Heads up performance comparisons for a Mac
>>>>>>> and a Wintel box, both running XP.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Wintel box performed just as well as the Mac - the scores were
>>>>>>> almost identical. See:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://reviews.cnet.com/4531-10921_7-6484737.html?tag=blog
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, tell me again, where is the Mac performance advantage????
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OS X.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it performed just as well where's the advantage?
>>>>> Josh
>>>>
>>>> As a user since DOS, I see OS X as more productive overall. It's an
>>>> advantage for me, and that's what counts.
>>>
>>> I believe that the OP was referring to the hardware, not the OS.
>>> Josh
>>
>> The advantage in the hardware is that the Mac runs both.
>
> Why is that an advantage? Didn't you just say that OS X is what counts?
You mentioned the OP referred to hardware. The Mac hardware is an advantage
because it does both. OS X is an advantage because I find it more productive.
I'm not going to play who's-on -first games.
>> The advantage in the Mac OS is that it's more productive to me.
>
> I'm sure it is if you're not experienced with Windows. Likewise Windows is
> more productive than OS X for people who know Windows but not OS X. And
> for people like me who know both neither is more productive.
Perhaps you didn't catch the meaning of "as a user since DOS". I know both.
My Windows knowledge and productivity can run rings around other long-time
Windows users, but nonetheless, OS X is more productive, for me. Not by much,
but enough to be a factor in my work.
>> Thus, whether referring to HW or SW makes no difference. But I suspect
>> you knew that.
>
> I know that you're likely biased against Windows and thus that's why you
> find it less productive.
Bias has a meaning of unfairness. I simply find OS X to be better, that's
all, in the ways that are important to me.
Josh McKee
Tim Murray <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote:
How? Specific examples please.
> >> Thus, whether referring to HW or SW makes no difference. But I suspect
> >> you knew that.
> >
> > I know that you're likely biased against Windows and thus that's why you
> > find it less productive.
>
> Bias has a meaning of unfairness. I simply find OS X to be better, that's
> all, in the ways that are important to me.
I think you find it better because you're biased. I have yet to see
anyone present any sound reason why OS X makes someone who is familiar
with both more productive. I use both every day. And I don't find one to
be any more or less productive. What does impact my productivity are the
applications that I use.
Josh
Josh McKee
Mitch <mi...@hawaii.rr> wrote:
> In article <jtmckee-4E1FD8...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
>
> > > The advantage in the hardware is that the Mac runs both.
> >
> > Why is that an advantage? Didn't you just say that OS X is what counts?
>
> It's a minor advantage, I'm supposing, or a POTENTIAL advantage.
How?
> (The same kind of advantage as when a Windows user claims there is
> twice as much software for Windows, but then never uses anything but
> the commonest programs, because those are the ones most people use!)
> I doubt most Mac users need it, and some few will probably use it just
> for a couple games.
>
> > > The advantage in the Mac OS is that it's more productive to me.
> >
> > I'm sure it is if you're not experienced with Windows. Likewise Windows
> > is more productive than OS X for people who know Windows but not OS X.
> > And for people like me who know both neither is more productive.
>
> TO make a statement about the operating systems, though, we have to
> either take an average of experienced users, or talk about a 'blank
> slate' type new user using both.
I think that an experienced user of either operating system will find
both to be just as productive assuming the same applications they need
to do their jobs is available for both. Likewise I think that an new
user without any experience on either would find both to be just as
productive again assuming that the same applications they need to do
their job are available.
> > > Thus, whether referring to HW or SW makes no difference. But I suspect
> > > you
> > > knew that.
> >
> > I know that you're likely biased against Windows and thus that's why you
> > find it less productive.
>
> Entirely wrong; I'm not using only my own experience with it to make
> that statement, nor is my statement unsupported by expert studies.
Seems to me that Mac zealots routinely rely on the "experiences" of
others when forming an opinion of Windows. But I'm willing to look at
these studies. Can you please provide references to current studies?
As for your experience I have to question what level of experience you
have with Windows. You can't even figure out how to do a simple
extension mapping in Windows.
Josh
Tim Murray
I will probably be accused of waffling, but it's hard to explain. One would
have to understand my work and *how* I work. I would tell, and have told,
the very same thing to people who are friends and who are not out to attack.
Little things like the way I can use aliases (yes, I know about Windows
links), reassigning certain files to certain apps (which you can't do in
Windows at all), and Default Folder X help me sail through my work. I like
how I can open one file in more than two apps and not be told "sorry, the
file is already in use". I like how I can drag-and-drop a lot more kinds of
objects between a lot more applications. I like how I can move a file that's
open in an application to a new location -- even the trash -- without having
to close the app first.
And I might elaborate one something I said earlier. When I show someone how
to do something in Windows, *every time* I hear, "slow down, you're banging
keys so fast I can't tell what you're doing!" In other words, my
productivity in Windows exceeds by orders of magnitude the productivity of
other long-time Windows users. Few people know that in Windows you can copy
and paste path and filename strings in dialogs, or that in a File > Open
dialog, you can open a file with another application or drag files in and out
of the dialogs. Few know that you can drag a file to a button on the task
bar and back up again, to launch it. Few know that to navigate through
folders you only have to type a few letters and use the arrow keys to quickly
get to a location. Yet with all that, I still get more done, faster, in OS X.
>>>> Thus, whether referring to HW or SW makes no difference. But I suspect
>>>> you knew that.
>>>
>>> I know that you're likely biased against Windows and thus that's why you
>>> find it less productive.
>>
>> Bias has a meaning of unfairness. I simply find OS X to be better, that's
>> all, in the ways that are important to me.
>
> I think you find it better because you're biased. I have yet to see anyone
> present any sound reason why OS X makes someone who is familiar with both
> more productive. I use both every day. And I don't find one to be any more
> or less productive. What does impact my productivity are the applications
> that I use.
Agreed, except for the biased part -- it implies an undue negativity. There
is a lot to like in Windows, particularly (for me, anyway) it's usability of
the keyboard over the mouse; I don't like the reliance of the mouse in Mac.
I just happen to like OS X better *over all*.
Snit
0001HW.C05F4868...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net on 4/9/06 8:25 PM:
>>> Perhaps you didn't catch the meaning of "as a user since DOS". I know
>>> both. My Windows knowledge and productivity can run rings around other
>>> long-time Windows users, but nonetheless, OS X is more productive, for
>>> me. Not by much, but enough to be a factor in my work.
>>
>> How? Specific examples please.
>
> I will probably be accused of waffling, but it's hard to explain. One would
> have to understand my work and *how* I work. I would tell, and have told,
> the very same thing to people who are friends and who are not out to attack.
> Little things like the way I can use aliases (yes, I know about Windows
> links)
Aliases are more "stable" than shortcuts. You can move the original around
all you want on a Mac without it breaking. I know I use this often. I will
download software to my desktop. If I like it and want to keep it I will
make an alias in a common applications folder and *then* move it to my
Applications folder. On a Windows machine I would not be able to move the
application in most cases without it breaking, but if I could I would have
to move the app first and *then* make the alias. This is a more time
consuming work flow. Macs save time with aliases.
> , reassigning certain files to certain apps (which you can't do in Windows at
> all),
I have brought this one up and been flamed heavily - but more in the Linux
group than here. There is no doubt this is a Mac benefit.
> and Default Folder X help me sail through my work. I like
> how I can open one file in more than two apps and not be told "sorry, the
> file is already in use".
This is useful, but it does have the down side of allowing both to save...
where you may overwrite changes.
> I like how I can drag-and-drop a lot more kinds of objects between a lot more
> applications.
On Windows I often get stung by this... like trying to drag a file onto the
OE icon to create a mail message with an attachment. Easy stuff like that.
> I like how I can move a file that's open in an application to a
> new location -- even the trash -- without having to close the app first.
Yes, that comes in handy as well - as does being able to jump to that file
(or the application) in the Finder very easily.
>
> And I might elaborate one something I said earlier. When I show someone how
> to do something in Windows, *every time* I hear, "slow down, you're banging
> keys so fast I can't tell what you're doing!" In other words, my
> productivity in Windows exceeds by orders of magnitude the productivity of
> other long-time Windows users. Few people know that in Windows you can copy
> and paste path and filename strings in dialogs,
And few know how to do that on a Mac. :) Yes, it can be done.
> or that in a File > Open dialog, you can open a file with another application
> or drag files in and out of the dialogs.
I prefer the OS X drag feature for Open and Save dialogs.
> Few know that you can drag a file to a button on the task bar and back up
> again, to launch it.
Why not just have it where you drag it to the icon? But, yes, I knew this
one, too.
> Few know that to navigate through folders you only have to type a few letters
> and use the arrow keys to quickly get to a location. Yet with all that, I
> still get more done, faster, in OS X.
Ditto here. I used to be a trainer at Intuit for both the Quicken and
TurboTax "businesses". I was the primary OS trainer for both Windows and
Mac. Mac folks who learned Windows often wondered why people put up with
the chunkiness of it - Windows folks who learned the Mac often were amazed
at how easy things could be. The experiences were anything by synonymous.
>>>>> Thus, whether referring to HW or SW makes no difference. But I suspect
>>>>> you knew that.
>>>>
>>>> I know that you're likely biased against Windows and thus that's why you
>>>> find it less productive.
>>>
>>> Bias has a meaning of unfairness. I simply find OS X to be better, that's
>>> all, in the ways that are important to me.
>>
>> I think you find it better because you're biased. I have yet to see anyone
>> present any sound reason why OS X makes someone who is familiar with both
>> more productive. I use both every day. And I don't find one to be any more
>> or less productive. What does impact my productivity are the applications
>> that I use.
>
> Agreed, except for the biased part -- it implies an undue negativity. There
> is a lot to like in Windows, particularly (for me, anyway) it's usability of
> the keyboard over the mouse; I don't like the reliance of the mouse in Mac.
> I just happen to like OS X better *over all*.
Agreed... I have a page where I compare the two OSs. Each has its
strengths: <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win/>.
--
€ Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
by anyone other than perverts
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
Mitch
<SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> Agreed... I have a page where I compare the two OSs. Each has its
> strengths: <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win/>.
I like it; specific charges in most cases, and a few interesting
comments about differences.
A few people here need to take a look at that page.
Snit
on 4/9/06 11:19 PM:
> In article <C05F2BC6.4B782%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, Snit
> <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> Agreed... I have a page where I compare the two OSs. Each has its
>> strengths: <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win/>.
>
> I like it; specific charges in most cases, and a few interesting
> comments about differences.
Exactly. It has changed over time - if I cannot support a claim on the page
it is removed, and if someone brings up a point on the page I often add it
(I do not add every point, so there may be some bias as to which points are
added).
> A few people here need to take a look at that page.
Many have - since it does not show blind acceptance of either OS it has
angered several. Such is life.
Thanks for your comments.
Steve Carroll
Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
Learn about what Core Audio is capable of... you won't need specific
examples.
>
> > >> Thus, whether referring to HW or SW makes no difference. But I suspect
> > >> you knew that.
> > >
> > > I know that you're likely biased against Windows and thus that's why you
> > > find it less productive.
> >
> > Bias has a meaning of unfairness. I simply find OS X to be better, that's
> > all, in the ways that are important to me.
>
> I think you find it better because you're biased.
Maybe he finds it better because, for *him* it's better. Sounds like you
are asking him to trust your judgement because you claim to know both
OSes well. He's made the same claim, yet, you're not willing to extend
to him what you are asking of him. Know the word for that, Josh?
> I have yet to see
> anyone present any sound reason why OS X makes someone who is familiar
> with both more productive.
Bullshit. Pulling a Snit and asking for what has been provided over and
over won't help you here.
> I use both every day. And I don't find one to
> be any more or less productive. What does impact my productivity are the
> applications that I use.
>
> Josh
--
"Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD" - Snit
"Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls
like myself" - Snit
"At least you can see my "total lack of ... dishonestly and obnoxiousness" -Snit
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Murray" <no-...@thankyou.com> stated in post
> 0001HW.C05F4868...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net on 4/9/06 8:25 PM:
>
> >>> Perhaps you didn't catch the meaning of "as a user since DOS". I know
> >>> both. My Windows knowledge and productivity can run rings around other
> >>> long-time Windows users, but nonetheless, OS X is more productive, for
> >>> me. Not by much, but enough to be a factor in my work.
> >>
> >> How? Specific examples please.
> >
> > I will probably be accused of waffling, but it's hard to explain. One would
> > have to understand my work and *how* I work. I would tell, and have told,
> > the very same thing to people who are friends and who are not out to
> > attack.
> > Little things like the way I can use aliases (yes, I know about Windows
> > links)
>
> Aliases are more "stable" than shortcuts. You can move the original around
> all you want on a Mac without it breaking. I know I use this often. I will
> download software to my desktop. If I like it and want to keep it I will
> make an alias in a common applications folder and *then* move it to my
> Applications folder. On a Windows machine I would not be able to move the
> application in most cases without it breaking, but if I could I would have
> to move the app first and *then* make the alias. This is a more time
> consuming work flow. Macs save time with aliases.
If the OSes are as even as Josh claims wrt productivity, what you are
presenting here is an example of lost productivity on Windows as
compared to OSX... an example that is directly attributable to the OS.
Same goes for all the malware bullshit Josh and other Win-zealots say
isn't a problem despite BILLIONS of dollars spent on LOST PRODUCTIVITY.
No, Snit... I don't expect you to be honest and go against the only
support you've ever had in here... other trolls.
Snit
noone-81AE80....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 4/10/06 10:51 AM:
First you say I am going against what Josh says.
Then you say I will not go against what Josh says.
Which do you *really* believe, or is your brain so ruined by the drugs you
speak so freely about that you really can hold such contradictory views at
once?
Unlike you, Steve, I have no need for silly coalitions. Where Josh and I
agree - great. Where we disagree - no problem. What was the last issue you
were willing to state you disagreed with Wally on? Tim Adams? Elizabeth?
Your other trolling group think buddies?
Can you point to a single example, Steve? Betcha that you can't - other
than maybe some semantic game BS "disagreement" where you pretend to
disagree with what type trolling one of your "marks" is committing.
--
€ Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
€ Teaching is a "real job"
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
Steve Carroll
Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
> In article <090420061443590560%mi...@hawaii.rr>,
> Mitch <mi...@hawaii.rr> wrote:
>
> > In article <jtmckee-4E1FD8...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> > Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > The advantage in the hardware is that the Mac runs both.
> > >
> > > Why is that an advantage? Didn't you just say that OS X is what counts?
> >
> > It's a minor advantage, I'm supposing, or a POTENTIAL advantage.
>
> How?
>
> > (The same kind of advantage as when a Windows user claims there is
> > twice as much software for Windows, but then never uses anything but
> > the commonest programs, because those are the ones most people use!)
> > I doubt most Mac users need it, and some few will probably use it just
> > for a couple games.
> >
> > > > The advantage in the Mac OS is that it's more productive to me.
> > >
> > > I'm sure it is if you're not experienced with Windows. Likewise Windows
> > > is more productive than OS X for people who know Windows but not OS X.
> > > And for people like me who know both neither is more productive.
> >
> > TO make a statement about the operating systems, though, we have to
> > either take an average of experienced users, or talk about a 'blank
> > slate' type new user using both.
>
> I think that an experienced user of either operating system will find
> both to be just as productive assuming the same applications they need
> to do their jobs is available for both.
Think what you like... it needn't have to do with reality... in fact,
BILLIONS and BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars spent say otherwise.
> Likewise I think that an new
> user without any experience on either would find both to be just as
> productive again assuming that the same applications they need to do
> their job are available.
>
> > > > Thus, whether referring to HW or SW makes no difference. But I suspect
> > > > you
> > > > knew that.
> > >
> > > I know that you're likely biased against Windows and thus that's why you
> > > find it less productive.
> >
> > Entirely wrong; I'm not using only my own experience with it to make
> > that statement, nor is my statement unsupported by expert studies.
>
> Seems to me that Mac zealots routinely rely on the "experiences" of
> others when forming an opinion of Windows.
Sure... and that's why people laugh at you on this ng. The fact is, it's
much more 'routine' that the *Mac users* in this ng have first hand
experience with Windows to make the claims they have. It was nice of you
to finally put a description to the term 'Mac zealot', though... I'll
let Lund know he's on your list. So, who else is a 'Mac zealot' in your
opinion, Josh?
> But I'm willing to look at
> these studies. Can you please provide references to current studies?
What'd be the point? You'll deny no matter what they say.
> As for your experience I have to question what level of experience you
> have with Windows. You can't even figure out how to do a simple
> extension mapping in Windows.
That's it... now you can call him a 'Mac zealot', too... all based on
his lack of experience with Windows. It doesn't seem to occur to you
that it's people experience with Windows that has them buying the
relatively overpriced Mac.
> Josh
>
> > It should be plain, no matter what other expertise you might have, that
> > users have to 'manage' Windows itself more than Mac users have to
> > 'manage' Mac OS. That alone, regardless of every other issue, proves
> > the point.
Ouch. Josh will have a difficult time getting down into the trenches
against that statement. Not even his bosom pal Snit, who claims to make
more money helping people with their Windows problems than he does with
the Mac, is coming to his rescue
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Though I didn't "say" it, or even write it... you did do this, via a
small example that you didn't even confront Josh with... you did it
indirectly. Like everyone reading, you had the opportunity to address
his statement I quote below... but you didn't take it.
> Then you say I will not go against what Josh says.
That's because I don't believe you will, at least, not to the same
extent you often do for others who disagree with you. Let's test it...
Josh stated: "I have yet to see anyone present any sound reason why OS X
makes someone who is familiar with both more productive."
Do you think Josh is telling the truth when he says the malware argument
isn't a "sound reason"? Or do you think he doesn't believe that BILLIONS
of dollars spent constitutes a loss of productivity? Does his position
seem 'reasonable' to you? Here's the real test: How would you react if
Wally was claiming what Josh is obviously claiming with this statement?
Careful, I can show you how you have reacted with other posters on
similar topics. Yeah... best not to answer... toss up another red
herring;)
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Mitch" <mi...@hawaii.rr> stated in post 090420062019561197%mi...@hawaii.rr
> on 4/9/06 11:19 PM:
>
> > In article <C05F2BC6.4B782%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, Snit
> > <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> Agreed... I have a page where I compare the two OSs. Each has its
> >> strengths: <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win/>.
> >
> > I like it; specific charges in most cases, and a few interesting
> > comments about differences.
>
> Exactly. It has changed over time - if I cannot support a claim on the page
> it is removed, and if someone brings up a point on the page I often add it
> (I do not add every point, so there may be some bias as to which points are
> added).
Hmmm, I wonder what the Wintrolls thinks of your page... have any ever
told you? By the way, you are missing things for OSX in the way of
advantages (Pro Audio - check out Core Audio)... and you're obviously
missing things on the Windows side. You do have a good page going,
though... but you really should fill in the blanks for XP.
Snit
>> First you say I am going against what Josh says.
>
> Though
If you want to have a discussion with me, Steve, you will have to stop
dishonestly snipping.
Snit
> In article <C05F495C.4B7A4%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Mitch" <mi...@hawaii.rr> stated in post 090420062019561197%mi...@hawaii.rr
>> on 4/9/06 11:19 PM:
>>
>>> In article <C05F2BC6.4B782%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, Snit
>>> <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Agreed... I have a page where I compare the two OSs. Each has its
>>>> strengths: <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win/>.
>>>
>>> I like it; specific charges in most cases, and a few interesting
>>> comments about differences.
>>
>> Exactly. It has changed over time - if I cannot support a claim on the page
>> it is removed, and if someone brings up a point on the page I often add it
>> (I do not add every point, so there may be some bias as to which points are
>> added).
>
> Hmmm, I wonder what the Wintrolls thinks of your page... have any ever
> told you? By the way, you are missing things for OSX in the way of
> advantages (Pro Audio - check out Core Audio)... and you're obviously
> missing things on the Windows side. You do have a good page going,
> though... but you really should fill in the blanks for XP.
By all means, Steve, make suggestions. I would take them even from you...
assuming I read the post in question.
I have added Core Audio.
Lars Träger
> In article <0001HW.C05EBFF7...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>,
> Tim Murray <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 9, 2006, Josh McKee wrote:
> > > In article <0001HW.C05E1865...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>,
> > > Tim Murray <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> As a user since DOS, I see OS X as more productive overall. It's an
> > >> advantage
> > >> for me, and that's what counts.
> > >
> > > I believe that the OP was referring to the hardware, not the OS.
> > >
> > > Josh
> >
> > The advantage in the hardware is that the Mac runs both.
>
> Why is that an advantage? Didn't you just say that OS X is what counts?
Yes. he did. So?
Oh, you don't understand that the Mac runs both and the other doesn't.
Both as in OS X (and Windows). As opposed to Windows but NOT OS X.
--
Lars T.
Josh McKee
Tim Murray <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote:
Not by me. I appreciate your taking the time.
> One would have to understand my work and *how* I work. I would tell, and have
> told, the very same thing to people who are friends and who are not out to
> attack. Little things like the way I can use aliases (yes, I know about
> Windows links),
What specifically do you do with them?
> reassigning certain files to certain apps (which you can't do in Windows at
> all)
What do you mean? Are you referring to file extensions?
> and Default Folder X help me sail through my work.
Default Folder X is not an OS X feature.
> I like how I can open one file in more than two apps and not be told "sorry,
> the file is already in use".
This has nothing to do with Windows but rather how the applications open
the file. You can test this by creating a new text document in notepad.
Then try opening it in Wordpad. You should be able to do so.
> I like how I can drag-and-drop a lot more kinds of objects between a lot more
> applications.
This is kind of ambiguous.
> I like how I can move a file that's open in an application to a new location
> -- even the trash -- without having to close the app first.
You can do this in Windows too. Take the test text file from above and
drag it to the Recycle bin while it's open in Notepad. You can even
empty the Rcycle Bin while it's open in Notepad.
> And I might elaborate one something I said earlier. When I show someone how
> to do something in Windows, *every time* I hear, "slow down, you're banging
> keys so fast I can't tell what you're doing!"
Why would this be any different in OS X?
> In other words, my productivity in Windows exceeds by orders of magnitude the
> productivity of other long-time Windows users.
No. What you're doing is teaching someone how to do something. And, as
with all things that people are just learning, they can't do it as fast
as you can.
> Few people know that in Windows you can copy and paste path and filename
> strings in dialogs, or that in a File > Open dialog, you can open a file with
> another application or drag files in and out of the dialogs. Few know that
> you can drag a file to a button on the task bar and back up again, to launch
> it. Few know that to navigate through folders you only have to type a few
> letters and use the arrow keys to quickly get to a location. Yet with all that,
> I still get more done, faster, in OS X.
Not sure what you're trying to say by giving examples of users ignorance
to Windows.
> >>>> Thus, whether referring to HW or SW makes no difference. But I suspect
> >>>> you knew that.
> >>>
> >>> I know that you're likely biased against Windows and thus that's why you
> >>> find it less productive.
> >>
> >> Bias has a meaning of unfairness. I simply find OS X to be better, that's
> >> all, in the ways that are important to me.
> >
> > I think you find it better because you're biased. I have yet to see anyone
> > present any sound reason why OS X makes someone who is familiar with both
> > more productive. I use both every day. And I don't find one to be any more
> > or less productive. What does impact my productivity are the applications
> > that I use.
>
> Agreed, except for the biased part -- it implies an undue negativity. There
> is a lot to like in Windows, particularly (for me, anyway) it's usability of
> the keyboard over the mouse; I don't like the reliance of the mouse in Mac.
> I just happen to like OS X better *over all*.
I don't have any issues with preferring OS X over Windows. I do too. But
that doesn't make Windows less productive.
Josh
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-E86C22....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 4/10/06 1:02 PM:
>
> >> First you say I am going against what Josh says.
> >
> > Though
>
> If you want to have a discussion with me, Steve, you will have to stop
> dishonestly snipping.
I was correct... you ran... again;)
Snit
> In article <C0600AA6.4B86D%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
>> noone-E86C22....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 4/10/06 1:02 PM:
>>
>>>> First you say I am going against what Josh says.
>>>
>>> Though
>>
>> If you want to have a discussion with me, Steve, you will have to stop
>> dishonestly snipping.
>
> I was correct... you ran... again;)
Is that what you call your snipping these days. Do you *ever* tell the
truth?
Tim Murray
>> One would have to understand my work and *how* I work. I would tell, and
>> have told, the very same thing to people who are friends and who are not
>> out to attack. Little things like the way I can use aliases (yes, I know
>> about Windows links),
>
> What specifically do you do with them?
I use them to point to objects in resource libraries.
>
>> reassigning certain files to certain apps (which you can't do in Windows
>> at all)
>
> What do you mean? Are you referring to file extensions?
I can map xyz.ps to Text Wrangler, and abc.ps to Distiller.
>> and Default Folder X help me sail through my work.
>
> Default Folder X is not an OS X feature.
No, but you do it in Windows.
>> I like how I can open one file in more than two apps and not be told
>> "sorry, the file is already in use".
>
> This has nothing to do with Windows but rather how the applications open
> the file. You can test this by creating a new text document in notepad.
> Then try opening it in Wordpad. You should be able to do so.
Yes, you can find apps in Windows. But more in Mac.
>> I like how I can drag-and-drop a lot more kinds of objects between a lot
>> more applications.
>
> This is kind of ambiguous.
The others got it.
>> I like how I can move a file that's open in an application to a new
>> location -- even the trash -- without having to close the app first.
>
> You can do this in Windows too. Take the test text file from above and
> drag it to the Recycle bin while it's open in Notepad. You can even empty
> the Rcycle Bin while it's open in Notepad.
Yes, but again, more apps -- all, for all I know -- let you do it in Mac.
>> And I might elaborate one something I said earlier. When I show someone
>> how to do something in Windows, *every time* I hear, "slow down, you're
>> banging keys so fast I can't tell what you're doing!"
>
> Why would this be any different in OS X?
I'm trying to illustrate that I know what I'm doing in Windows.
>
>> In other words, my productivity in Windows exceeds by orders of magnitude
>> the productivity of other long-time Windows users.
>
> No. What you're doing is teaching someone how to do something. And, as
> with all things that people are just learning, they can't do it as fast as
> you can.
Yes. The point was can accomplish most tasks faster in OS X even thought I
know Windows so well.
>> Few people know that in Windows you can copy and paste path and filename
>> strings in dialogs, or that in a File > Open dialog, you can open a file
>> with another application or drag files in and out of the dialogs. Few
>> know that you can drag a file to a button on the task bar and back up
>> again, to launch it. Few know that to navigate through folders you only
>> have to type a few letters and use the arrow keys to quickly get to a
>> location. Yet with all that, I still get more done, faster, in OS X.
>
> Not sure what you're trying to say by giving examples of users ignorance
> to Windows.
I'm saying that even with my knowledge of Windows I can still get things done
faster in Mac.
>
>>>>>> Thus, whether referring to HW or SW makes no difference. But I
>>>>>> suspect you knew that.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know that you're likely biased against Windows and thus that's why
>>>>> you find it less productive.
>>>>
>>>> Bias has a meaning of unfairness. I simply find OS X to be better,
>>>> that's all, in the ways that are important to me.
>>>
>>> I think you find it better because you're biased. I have yet to see
>>> anyone present any sound reason why OS X makes someone who is familiar
>>> with both more productive. I use both every day. And I don't find one to
>>> be any more or less productive. What does impact my productivity are the
>>> applications that I use.
>>
>> Agreed, except for the biased part -- it implies an undue negativity.
>> There is a lot to like in Windows, particularly (for me, anyway) it's
>> usability of the keyboard over the mouse; I don't like the reliance of
>> the mouse in Mac.
>>
>> I just happen to like OS X better *over all*.
>
> I don't have any issues with preferring OS X over Windows. I do too. But
> that doesn't make Windows less productive.
I said *I* find OS X more productive.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-39CABD....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 4/10/06 5:56 PM:
>
> > In article <C0600AA6.4B86D%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> >> noone-E86C22....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 4/10/06 1:02 PM:
> >>
> >>>> First you say I am going against what Josh says.
> >>>
> >>> Though
> >>
> >> If you want to have a discussion with me, Steve, you will have to stop
> >> dishonestly snipping.
> >
> > I was correct... you ran... again;)
>
> Is that what you call your snipping these days. Do you *ever* tell the
> truth?
All the time... and you recognize that I do in that special way you
have... running.
Snit
> In article <C0605766.4B8FB%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
>> noone-39CABD....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 4/10/06 5:56 PM:
>>
>>> In article <C0600AA6.4B86D%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
>>>> noone-E86C22....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 4/10/06 1:02 PM:
>>>>
>>>>>> First you say I am going against what Josh says.
>>>>>
>>>>> Though
>>>>
>>>> If you want to have a discussion with me, Steve, you will have to stop
>>>> dishonestly snipping.
>>>
>>> I was correct... you ran... again;)
>>
>> Is that what you call your snipping these days. Do you *ever* tell the
>> truth?
>
> All the time... and you recognize that I do in that special way you
> have... running.
LOL! Only for you, Steve, is your cowardly running a sign of telling the
truth. By the way, your many lies contradict your claim. Can you find a
single post of yours from the last month where you were not dishonest?
Here, let's make that a challenge to you: find *one* post of yours from the
last month were you have not told an outright lie. I have no doubt you will
run from this challenge, being that you cannot win it.
Snit
jtmckee-437660...@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 4/10/06 5:41 PM:
>>> How? Specific examples please.
>>
>> I will probably be accused of waffling, but it's hard to explain.
>
> Not by me. I appreciate your taking the time.
>
>> One would have to understand my work and *how* I work. I would tell, and
>> have told, the very same thing to people who are friends and who are not out
>> to attack. Little things like the way I can use aliases (yes, I know about
>> Windows links),
>
> What specifically do you do with them?
I cannot speak for him, but here is part of my common work flow:
Download an application to the desktop [1]
Play with it
If I like it I create an alias and move it to the where I want it [2]
I then move the application to the Application folder [1]
Items depicted by a [1] are not recommended on Windows because you generally
cannot not move applications around so easily. The item depicted by a [2]
is not suggested on Windows because the Shortcut will break. Mac aliases
are not broken when you move and rename a file. Not so for XP shortcuts.
Add to that it is easier to find what an alias points to than it is to find
what a shortcut points to and you end up with a nice set of advantages for
the Mac.
>> reassigning certain files to certain apps (which you can't do in Windows at
>> all)
>
> What do you mean? Are you referring to file extensions?
You can set file associations not just by class of file (or file extension)
but also by individual file on a Mac. This comes in handy.
>
>> and Default Folder X help me sail through my work.
>
> Default Folder X is not an OS X feature.
Nor are games an XP "feature" but they are an advantage of the XP platform.
>> I like how I can open one file in more than two apps and not be told "sorry,
>> the file is already in use".
>
> This has nothing to do with Windows but rather how the applications open
> the file. You can test this by creating a new text document in notepad.
> Then try opening it in Wordpad. You should be able to do so.
This being inconsistent on Windows is not a good thing.
Somewhat related: on most Mac programs you can tell if your current file has
been saved by looking at the close dot - it has a dark center if you need to
save. This comes in handy as well, especially for training purposes but
also elsewhere.
>
>> I like how I can drag-and-drop a lot more kinds of objects between a lot more
>> applications.
>
> This is kind of ambiguous.
>
>> I like how I can move a file that's open in an application to a new location
>> -- even the trash -- without having to close the app first.
>
> You can do this in Windows too. Take the test text file from above and
> drag it to the Recycle bin while it's open in Notepad. You can even
> empty the Rcycle Bin while it's open in Notepad.
This generally does not work with Windows.
>
>> And I might elaborate one something I said earlier. When I show someone how
>> to do something in Windows, *every time* I hear, "slow down, you're banging
>> keys so fast I can't tell what you're doing!"
>
> Why would this be any different in OS X?
It is less visually intuitive. On a Mac, for example, look at how windows
minimize. You know exactly where they go. The graphics on Windows are not
as clear. People say this is mere eye candy, but it also serves a very
important purpose.
>
>> In other words, my productivity in Windows exceeds by orders of magnitude the
>> productivity of other long-time Windows users.
>
> No. What you're doing is teaching someone how to do something. And, as
> with all things that people are just learning, they can't do it as fast
> as you can.
Based on his context he is likely showing long time Windows users how to do
something.
XP has usability issues that, in general, make users less productive. He
offered some examples above. There are others and, of course, some counter
examples where XP does stuff better.
-hh
> Ah, finally we have it. Heads up performance comparisons for a Mac
> and a Wintel box, both running XP.
>
> The Wintel box performed just as well as the Mac - the scores were
> almost identical. See:
>
> http://reviews.cnet.com/4531-10921_7-6484737.html?tag=blog
>
> So, tell me again, where is the Mac performance advantage????
The Mac does so while being a full pound lighter...5.6lbs vs 6.6lbs.
Just because some twit claims that the specs are nearly identical
doesn't mean that they actually are. And anyone who ignores weight &
battery life in a Notebook comparison isn't worthy to do the
comparison.
The Mac is also cheaper than the Acer.
Gosh, funny how Tommy missed that one. :-)
-hh
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Josh McKee" <jtm...@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> stated in post
> jtmckee-437660...@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 4/10/06 5:41 PM:
>
> >>> How? Specific examples please.
> >>
> >> I will probably be accused of waffling, but it's hard to explain.
> >
> > Not by me. I appreciate your taking the time.
> >
> >> One would have to understand my work and *how* I work. I would tell, and
> >> have told, the very same thing to people who are friends and who are not
> >> out
> >> to attack. Little things like the way I can use aliases (yes, I know about
> >> Windows links),
> >
> > What specifically do you do with them?
>
> I cannot speak for him
Interesting. What makes him so different than all the other people you
keep trying to speak for?
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-918ED7....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 4/10/06 7:50 PM:
>
> > In article <C0605766.4B8FB%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> >> noone-39CABD....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 4/10/06 5:56 PM:
> >>
> >>> In article <C0600AA6.4B86D%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> >>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> >>>> noone-E86C22....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 4/10/06 1:02 PM:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> First you say I am going against what Josh says.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Though
> >>>>
> >>>> If you want to have a discussion with me, Steve, you will have to stop
> >>>> dishonestly snipping.
> >>>
> >>> I was correct... you ran... again;)
> >>
> >> Is that what you call your snipping these days. Do you *ever* tell the
> >> truth?
> >
> > All the time... and you recognize that I do in that special way you
> > have... running.
>
> LOL! Only for you, Steve
Not true... I've seen you run from realities pointed out by Tim Adams,
Tim Crowley, Wally, Sandman, Elizabot, TheLetterK, George Graves,
DawgTail, Sandman, Alan Baker, Edwin, etc.
Josh McKee
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Josh McKee" <jtm...@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> stated in post
> jtmckee-437660...@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 4/10/06 5:41 PM:
>
> >>> How? Specific examples please.
> >>
> >> I will probably be accused of waffling, but it's hard to explain.
> >
> > Not by me. I appreciate your taking the time.
> >
> >> One would have to understand my work and *how* I work. I would tell, and
> >> have told, the very same thing to people who are friends and who are not
> >> out
> >> to attack. Little things like the way I can use aliases (yes, I know about
> >> Windows links),
> >
> > What specifically do you do with them?
>
> I cannot speak for him, but here is part of my common work flow:
>
> Download an application to the desktop [1]
This would depend on the application and how it installs itself.
> Play with it
> If I like it I create an alias and move it to the where I want it [2]
> I then move the application to the Application folder [1]
>
> Items depicted by a [1] are not recommended on Windows because you generally
> cannot not move applications around so easily.
Agreed. But I have to ask: Why would you want to move it from the
"Program Files" directory where it most likely was installed?
> The item depicted by a [2] is not suggested on Windows because the Shortcut
> will break. Mac aliases are not broken when you move and rename a file. Not so for XP
> shortcuts.
I am able to move the target file from place to place without the
shortcut breaking. I'm able to rename the target file without the
shortcut breaking. I am able to move and rename the target file without
the shortcut breaking. Perhaps I'm missing something?
> Add to that it is easier to find what an alias points to than it is to find
> what a shortcut points to and you end up with a nice set of advantages for
> the Mac.
1. Right click the shortcut.
2. Select "Properties".
3. Select "Find Target..."
That doesn't seem to difficult.
But I have to question the value of all of this. Unless repeated quite
often I can't see any slight advantage the Mac might have as being
sufficient enough to increase productivity.
> >> reassigning certain files to certain apps (which you can't do in Windows
> >> at
> >> all)
> >
> > What do you mean? Are you referring to file extensions?
>
> You can set file associations not just by class of file (or file extension)
> but also by individual file on a Mac. This comes in handy.
And I cannot for the life of me figure out how this could be a
significant productivity enhancer.
But if I need to open a file with something other than the default I can
always right click on it and choose "Open With..." which lists the most
common programs for that type of file. If that program is not listed
then I have the option to choose any program on the system.
> >> and Default Folder X help me sail through my work.
> >
> > Default Folder X is not an OS X feature.
>
> Nor are games an XP "feature" but they are an advantage of the XP platform.
I don't feel that either are appropriate for this discussion.
> >> I like how I can open one file in more than two apps and not be told
> >> "sorry,
> >> the file is already in use".
> >
> > This has nothing to do with Windows but rather how the applications open
> > the file. You can test this by creating a new text document in notepad.
> > Then try opening it in Wordpad. You should be able to do so.
>
> This being inconsistent on Windows is not a good thing.
This has nothing to do with Windows or OS X. This has everything to do
with the application and whether/how it locks a file. For example:
1. Open a file in Excel and then save it.
2. While the file is still open throw it in the trash.
3. Try to empty the trash. You'll receive a "This operation cannot be
completed because the item <name> is in use". You are then given the
option to "Stop" or "Continue". Choosing "Continue" does not result in
the file being deleted. Most people would consider this a good thing.
Now:
1. Open a file in TextEdit and then save it.
2. While the file is still open throw it in the trash.
3. Empty the trash. Note that the file will be deleted.
This is consistency? To make matters worse you can delete the Excel file
by selecting "Secure Empty Trash". That's even more inconsistent.
> Somewhat related: on most Mac programs you can tell if your current file has
> been saved by looking at the close dot - it has a dark center if you need to
> save. This comes in handy as well, especially for training purposes but
> also elsewhere.
I fail to see how this has any benefit to productivity.
> >> I like how I can drag-and-drop a lot more kinds of objects between a lot
> >> more
> >> applications.
> >
> > This is kind of ambiguous.
> >
> >> I like how I can move a file that's open in an application to a new
> >> location
> >> -- even the trash -- without having to close the app first.
> >
> > You can do this in Windows too. Take the test text file from above and
> > drag it to the Recycle bin while it's open in Notepad. You can even
> > empty the Rcycle Bin while it's open in Notepad.
>
> This generally does not work with Windows.
See my comment above. And I would think that this is a good thing.
> >> And I might elaborate one something I said earlier. When I show someone
> >> how
> >> to do something in Windows, *every time* I hear, "slow down, you're
> >> banging
> >> keys so fast I can't tell what you're doing!"
> >
> > Why would this be any different in OS X?
>
> It is less visually intuitive. On a Mac, for example, look at how windows
> minimize. You know exactly where they go. The graphics on Windows are not
> as clear. People say this is mere eye candy, but it also serves a very
> important purpose.
I keep hearing things like this. But I don't see any facts to support
that OS X is any more productive. I use both every day. I don't see it
as a problem.
> >> In other words, my productivity in Windows exceeds by orders of magnitude
> >> the
> >> productivity of other long-time Windows users.
> >
> > No. What you're doing is teaching someone how to do something. And, as
> > with all things that people are just learning, they can't do it as fast
> > as you can.
>
> Based on his context he is likely showing long time Windows users how to do
> something.
And?
And these issues are?
> He offered some examples above.
He offered differences. He did not offer anything that I saw that makes
the Macintosh any more (or less) productive than Windows. I also saw
claims that appear to be wrong. I get the impression that the lost
productivity is more a result of unfamiliarity with Windows than
anything inherent in Windows.
> There are others and, of course, some counter examples where XP does stuff
> better.
Josh
Josh McKee
Tim Murray <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 2006, Josh McKee wrote:
> >> One would have to understand my work and *how* I work. I would tell, and
> >> have told, the very same thing to people who are friends and who are not
> >> out to attack. Little things like the way I can use aliases (yes, I know
> >> about Windows links),
> >
> > What specifically do you do with them?
>
> I use them to point to objects in resource libraries.
And Windows shortcuts cannot be used because?
> >> reassigning certain files to certain apps (which you can't do in Windows
> >> at all)
> >
> > What do you mean? Are you referring to file extensions?
>
> I can map xyz.ps to Text Wrangler, and abc.ps to Distiller.
And how is this a big productivity booster? For that matter how is this
a productivity booster?
> >> and Default Folder X help me sail through my work.
> >
> > Default Folder X is not an OS X feature.
>
> No, but you do it in Windows.
Do what in Windows?
> >> I like how I can open one file in more than two apps and not be told
> >> "sorry, the file is already in use".
> >
> > This has nothing to do with Windows but rather how the applications open
> > the file. You can test this by creating a new text document in notepad.
> > Then try opening it in Wordpad. You should be able to do so.
>
> Yes, you can find apps in Windows. But more in Mac.
Which has nothing to do with Windows itself. Remember we're talking
about Windows being the reason.
> >> I like how I can drag-and-drop a lot more kinds of objects between a lot
> >> more applications.
> >
> > This is kind of ambiguous.
>
> The others got it.
Good for them. But it's still ambiguous.
> >> I like how I can move a file that's open in an application to a new
> >> location -- even the trash -- without having to close the app first.
> >
> > You can do this in Windows too. Take the test text file from above and
> > drag it to the Recycle bin while it's open in Notepad. You can even empty
> > the Rcycle Bin while it's open in Notepad.
>
> Yes, but again, more apps -- all, for all I know -- let you do it in Mac.
That's the problem. I don't think that you do know. See my response to
Snit about this topic.
> >> And I might elaborate one something I said earlier. When I show someone
> >> how to do something in Windows, *every time* I hear, "slow down, you're
> >> banging keys so fast I can't tell what you're doing!"
> >
> > Why would this be any different in OS X?
>
> I'm trying to illustrate that I know what I'm doing in Windows.
I'm not sure that you know enough. You've made a number of erroneous
statements about Windows.
> >> In other words, my productivity in Windows exceeds by orders of magnitude
> >> the productivity of other long-time Windows users.
> >
> > No. What you're doing is teaching someone how to do something. And, as
> > with all things that people are just learning, they can't do it as fast as
> > you can.
>
> Yes. The point was can accomplish most tasks faster in OS X even thought I
> know Windows so well.
No. All that proves is that you know how to do *that* specific thing
well. That doesn't mean you know Windows well.
> >> Few people know that in Windows you can copy and paste path and filename
> >> strings in dialogs, or that in a File > Open dialog, you can open a file
> >> with another application or drag files in and out of the dialogs. Few
> >> know that you can drag a file to a button on the task bar and back up
> >> again, to launch it. Few know that to navigate through folders you only
> >> have to type a few letters and use the arrow keys to quickly get to a
> >> location. Yet with all that, I still get more done, faster, in OS X.
> >
> > Not sure what you're trying to say by giving examples of users ignorance
> > to Windows.
>
> I'm saying that even with my knowledge of Windows I can still get things done
> faster in Mac.
Which could mean that you know the Mac better than Windows.
> >>>>>> Thus, whether referring to HW or SW makes no difference. But I
> >>>>>> suspect you knew that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I know that you're likely biased against Windows and thus that's why
> >>>>> you find it less productive.
> >>>>
> >>>> Bias has a meaning of unfairness. I simply find OS X to be better,
> >>>> that's all, in the ways that are important to me.
> >>>
> >>> I think you find it better because you're biased. I have yet to see
> >>> anyone present any sound reason why OS X makes someone who is familiar
> >>> with both more productive. I use both every day. And I don't find one to
> >>> be any more or less productive. What does impact my productivity are the
> >>> applications that I use.
> >>
> >> Agreed, except for the biased part -- it implies an undue negativity.
> >> There is a lot to like in Windows, particularly (for me, anyway) it's
> >> usability of the keyboard over the mouse; I don't like the reliance of
> >> the mouse in Mac.
> >>
> >> I just happen to like OS X better *over all*.
> >
> > I don't have any issues with preferring OS X over Windows. I do too. But
> > that doesn't make Windows less productive.
>
> I said *I* find OS X more productive.
I don't doubt that. That doesn't mean that Windows couldn't be just as
productive. It just means that you've learned how to do what you need to
do more efficiently on a Macintosh. That does not mean that you could
not find a way to do the task on Windows just as efficiently.
Josh
Snit
> In article <0001HW.C0608C3D...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>,
> Tim Murray <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 10, 2006, Josh McKee wrote:
>>>> One would have to understand my work and *how* I work. I would tell, and
>>>> have told, the very same thing to people who are friends and who are not
>>>> out to attack. Little things like the way I can use aliases (yes, I know
>>>> about Windows links),
>>>
>>> What specifically do you do with them?
>>
>> I use them to point to objects in resource libraries.
>
> And Windows shortcuts cannot be used because?
>
>>>> reassigning certain files to certain apps (which you can't do in Windows
>>>> at all)
>>>
>>> What do you mean? Are you referring to file extensions?
>>
>> I can map xyz.ps to Text Wrangler, and abc.ps to Distiller.
>
> And how is this a big productivity booster? For that matter how is this
> a productivity booster?
This is one of those features that Windows users do not have at all that Mac
users, once they get used to using it, often find to be very useful. I use
this in lab settings often - if I want a JPG, for example, to be opened with
iPhoto instead of the default Preview I can set up one folder of images to
work the way I want. The user does not need to know to do anything other
than double click on the file.
I use this for files of my own that I want to open with one particular
program. A few seconds of one time setup and I never have to think about it
again - I can focus on the task and not the tool. It is pretty cool.
>>>> and Default Folder X help me sail through my work.
>>>
>>> Default Folder X is not an OS X feature.
>>
>> No, but you do it in Windows.
>
> Do what in Windows?
>
>>>> I like how I can open one file in more than two apps and not be told
>>>> "sorry, the file is already in use".
>>>
>>> This has nothing to do with Windows but rather how the applications open
>>> the file. You can test this by creating a new text document in notepad.
>>> Then try opening it in Wordpad. You should be able to do so.
>>
>> Yes, you can find apps in Windows. But more in Mac.
>
> Which has nothing to do with Windows itself. Remember we're talking
> about Windows being the reason.
I tend to focus on the experience of the OSs, not technically whose "fault"
something is.
>
>>>> I like how I can drag-and-drop a lot more kinds of objects between a lot
>>>> more applications.
>>>
>>> This is kind of ambiguous.
>>
>> The others got it.
>
> Good for them. But it's still ambiguous.
>
>>>> I like how I can move a file that's open in an application to a new
>>>> location -- even the trash -- without having to close the app first.
>>>
>>> You can do this in Windows too. Take the test text file from above and
>>> drag it to the Recycle bin while it's open in Notepad. You can even empty
>>> the Rcycle Bin while it's open in Notepad.
>>
>> Yes, but again, more apps -- all, for all I know -- let you do it in Mac.
>
> That's the problem. I don't think that you do know. See my response to
> Snit about this topic.
>
>>>> And I might elaborate one something I said earlier. When I show someone
>>>> how to do something in Windows, *every time* I hear, "slow down, you're
>>>> banging keys so fast I can't tell what you're doing!"
>>>
>>> Why would this be any different in OS X?
>>
>> I'm trying to illustrate that I know what I'm doing in Windows.
>
> I'm not sure that you know enough. You've made a number of erroneous
> statements about Windows.
Do you have examples?
It is very possible one toll offers greater productivity tools than the
other (in general).
Josh McKee
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Josh McKee" <jtm...@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> stated in post
> jtmckee-528F2F...@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 4/11/06 3:49 PM:
>
> > In article <0001HW.C0608C3D...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>,
> > Tim Murray <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote:
[ snip ]
> >> I can map xyz.ps to Text Wrangler, and abc.ps to Distiller.
> >
> > And how is this a big productivity booster? For that matter how is this
> > a productivity booster?
>
> This is one of those features that Windows users do not have at all that Mac
> users, once they get used to using it, often find to be very useful. I use
> this in lab settings often - if I want a JPG, for example, to be opened with
> iPhoto instead of the default Preview I can set up one folder of images to
> work the way I want. The user does not need to know to do anything other
> than double click on the file.
This is a solution looking for a problem. While I can seem some limited
use for this I cannot see it being something that's a huge productivity
enhancer.
> I use this for files of my own that I want to open with one particular
> program. A few seconds of one time setup and I never have to think about it
> again - I can focus on the task and not the tool. It is pretty cool.
I did a quick search and didn't find any utilities for Windows which
allow this. I suspect that's because there has been little, if any,
demand for such a feature.
> >> Yes, you can find apps in Windows. But more in Mac.
> >
> > Which has nothing to do with Windows itself. Remember we're talking
> > about Windows being the reason.
>
> I tend to focus on the experience of the OSs, not technically whose "fault"
> something is.
Regardless it's a non-issue. The behavior is the same on Windows and OS
X. Some apps lock the file. Some do not.
> >> I'm trying to illustrate that I know what I'm doing in Windows.
> >
> > I'm not sure that you know enough. You've made a number of erroneous
> > statements about Windows.
>
> Do you have examples?
His claim that a document cannot be open in two programs at the same
time.
> > I don't doubt that. That doesn't mean that Windows couldn't be just as
> > productive. It just means that you've learned how to do what you need to
> > do more efficiently on a Macintosh. That does not mean that you could
> > not find a way to do the task on Windows just as efficiently.
>
> It is very possible one toll offers greater productivity tools than the
> other (in general).
I think that one tool works differently than another tool. And that Mac
zealots are willing to give an alternative tool a fair shake and instead
complain that the alternative doesn't work the same.
I'm not saying that OS X doesn't have some nice features compared to
Windows. However I find it very difficult to believe that one could be
so much more productive than the other. I feel that Mac users don't even
try to work through issues they encounter with Windows. Instead they opt
to come here and complain about how they can't do x in Windows. They
seek out problems and not solutions when it comes to Windows.
Josh
Tim Murray
> Tim Murray <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 10, 2006, Josh McKee wrote:
>>>> One would have to understand my work and *how* I work. I would tell,
>>>> and have told, the very same thing to people who are friends and who
>>>> are not out to attack. Little things like the way I can use aliases
>>>> (yes, I know about Windows links),
>>>
>>> What specifically do you do with them?
>>
>> I use them to point to objects in resource libraries.
>
> And Windows shortcuts cannot be used because?
I saw your response to Snit about moving Windows shortcut targets. In my
experience they break a lot easier in Windows.
>>>> reassigning certain files to certain apps (which you can't do in
>>>> Windows at all)
>>>
>>> What do you mean? Are you referring to file extensions?
>>
>> I can map xyz.ps to Text Wrangler, and abc.ps to Distiller.
>
> And how is this a big productivity booster? For that matter how is this a
> productivity booster?
It's a production process I use to develop PostScript job control files that
end in .ps. I can just double-click them and edit in a text editor and not
launch Distiller. Yes, I can right-click in Windows, but the points are that
(1) it speeds things up for me in Mac, and (2) you can't do it all in
Windows.
>>>> and Default Folder X help me sail through my work.
>>>
>>> Default Folder X is not an OS X feature.
>>
>> No, but you do it in Windows.
>
> Do what in Windows?
Mistyped. I meant you don't have a similar app in Windows. If there is one,
let me know and I'll retract this one and install it tomorrow!
>>>> I like how I can open one file in more than two apps and not be told
>>>> "sorry, the file is already in use".
>>>
>>> This has nothing to do with Windows but rather how the applications open
>>> the file. You can test this by creating a new text document in notepad.
>>> Then try opening it in Wordpad. You should be able to do so.
>>
>> Yes, you can find apps in Windows. But more in Mac.
>
> Which has nothing to do with Windows itself. Remember we're talking about
> Windows being the reason.
Would you like a microscope to go with that hair-splitting razor? Let's not
go into whether a sentence is about Windows operating system, Windows apps
that normally ship with Windows, or third-party Windows apps. I approach
this whole productivity thing from the perspective of the entire box in front
of me.
>>>> I like how I can drag-and-drop a lot more kinds of objects between a
>>>> lot more applications.
>>>
>>> This is kind of ambiguous.
>>
>> The others got it.
>
> Good for them. But it's still ambiguous.
>
>>>> I like how I can move a file that's open in an application to a new
>>>> location -- even the trash -- without having to close the app first.
>>>
>>> You can do this in Windows too. Take the test text file from above and
>>> drag it to the Recycle bin while it's open in Notepad. You can even
>>> empty the Rcycle Bin while it's open in Notepad.
>>
>> Yes, but again, more apps -- all, for all I know -- let you do it in Mac.
>
> That's the problem. I don't think that you do know. See my response to
> Snit about this topic.
>
>>>> And I might elaborate one something I said earlier. When I show someone
>>>> how to do something in Windows, *every time* I hear, "slow down, you're
>>>> banging keys so fast I can't tell what you're doing!"
>>>
>>> Why would this be any different in OS X?
>>
>> I'm trying to illustrate that I know what I'm doing in Windows.
>
> I'm not sure that you know enough. You've made a number of erroneous
> statements about Windows.
Such as? And that does NOT include Windows apps versus Windows operating
system.
>>>> In other words, my productivity in Windows exceeds by orders of
>>>> magnitude the productivity of other long-time Windows users.
>>>
>>> No. What you're doing is teaching someone how to do something. And, as
>>> with all things that people are just learning, they can't do it as fast
>>> as you can.
>>
>> Yes. The point was can accomplish most tasks faster in OS X even though
>> I know Windows so well.
>
> No. All that proves is that you know how to do *that* specific thing well.
> That doesn't mean you know Windows well.
I can't prove my knowledge of Windows in a newsgroup, so take it or leave it.
>>>> Few people know that in Windows you can copy and paste path and
>>>> filename strings in dialogs, or that in a File > Open dialog, you can
>>>> open a file with another application or drag files in and out of the
>>>> dialogs. Few know that you can drag a file to a button on the task bar
>>>> and back up again, to launch it. Few know that to navigate through
>>>> folders you only have to type a few letters and use the arrow keys to
>>>> quickly get to a location. Yet with all that, I still get more done,
>>>> faster, in OS X.
>>>
>>> Not sure what you're trying to say by giving examples of users ignorance
>>> to Windows.
>>
>> I'm saying that even with my knowledge of Windows I can still get things
>> done faster in Mac.
>
> Which could mean that you know the Mac better than Windows.
It could, but it doesn't.
>>>>>>>> Thus, whether referring to HW or SW makes no difference. But I
>>>>>>>> suspect you knew that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know that you're likely biased against Windows and thus that's why
>>>>>>> you find it less productive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bias has a meaning of unfairness. I simply find OS X to be better,
>>>>>> that's all, in the ways that are important to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you find it better because you're biased. I have yet to see
>>>>> anyone present any sound reason why OS X makes someone who is familiar
>>>>> with both more productive. I use both every day. And I don't find one
>>>>> to be any more or less productive. What does impact my productivity
>>>>> are the applications that I use.
>>>>
>>>> Agreed, except for the biased part -- it implies an undue negativity.
>>>> There is a lot to like in Windows, particularly (for me, anyway) it's
>>>> usability of the keyboard over the mouse; I don't like the reliance of
>>>> the mouse in Mac.
>>>>
>>>> I just happen to like OS X better *over all*.
>>>
>>> I don't have any issues with preferring OS X over Windows. I do too. But
>>> that doesn't make Windows less productive.
>>
>> I said *I* find OS X more productive.
>
> I don't doubt that. That doesn't mean that Windows couldn't be just as
> productive. It just means that you've learned how to do what you need to
> do more efficiently on a Macintosh. That does not mean that you could not
> find a way to do the task on Windows just as efficiently.
You would be absolutely correct if I did not know Windows so well. But I
can't prove it, so, well, whatever...
Josh McKee
Tim Murray <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 2006, Josh McKee wrote:
> > Tim Murray <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Apr 10, 2006, Josh McKee wrote:
> >>>> One would have to understand my work and *how* I work. I would tell,
> >>>> and have told, the very same thing to people who are friends and who
> >>>> are not out to attack. Little things like the way I can use aliases
> >>>> (yes, I know about Windows links),
> >>>
> >>> What specifically do you do with them?
> >>
> >> I use them to point to objects in resource libraries.
> >
> > And Windows shortcuts cannot be used because?
>
> I saw your response to Snit about moving Windows shortcut targets. In my
> experience they break a lot easier in Windows.
Which doesn't explain why you can't use shortcuts.
> > And how is this a big productivity booster? For that matter how is this a
> > productivity booster?
>
> It's a production process I use to develop PostScript job control files that
> end in .ps. I can just double-click them and edit in a text editor and not
> launch Distiller. Yes, I can right-click in Windows, but the points are that
> (1) it speeds things up for me in Mac,
Speeds things up? Right clicking and selecting the an alternate
application doesn't consume much time. Hardly the things that result in
decreased productivity.
> and (2) you can't do it all in Windows.
I suspect that's because there hasn't been a demand for it. I couldn't
even locate a third party application that would do this (though I have
to say that I didn't look too hard). I see this as a solution looking
for a real problem.
> >> Yes, you can find apps in Windows. But more in Mac.
> >
> > Which has nothing to do with Windows itself. Remember we're talking about
> > Windows being the reason.
>
> Would you like a microscope to go with that hair-splitting razor?
Such as you are with your statement of " Yes, you can find apps in
Windows. But more in Mac."?
> Let's not go into whether a sentence is about Windows operating system, Windows apps
> that normally ship with Windows, or third-party Windows apps. I approach this whole
> productivity thing from the perspective of the entire box in front of me.
And I have to question how much effort you put into being productive on
the Windows platform.
> > I'm not sure that you know enough. You've made a number of erroneous
> > statements about Windows.
>
> Such as? And that does NOT include Windows apps versus Windows operating
> system.
Such as the inability to open a file in two applications at the same
time.
> > No. All that proves is that you know how to do *that* specific thing well.
> > That doesn't mean you know Windows well.
>
> I can't prove my knowledge of Windows in a newsgroup, so take it or leave it.
You can to a degree. However when you make statements that are clearly
in error one has to question your knowledge.
Josh
Tim Murray
>> Let's not go into whether a sentence is about Windows operating system,
>> Windows apps that normally ship with Windows, or third-party Windows
>> apps. I approach this whole productivity thing from the perspective of
>> the entire box in front of me.
>
> And I have to question how much effort you put into being productive on
> the Windows platform.
I have owned my own business since 1988, mostly working in Windows in the
1990 to 2003 (when I bought a PowerBook), and I even teach classes in
productivity. So question all you want. I know productivity like Liz Taylor
knows Scotch.
>>> I'm not sure that you know enough. You've made a number of erroneous
>>> statements about Windows.
>>
>> Such as? And that does NOT include Windows apps versus Windows operating
>> system.
>
> Such as the inability to open a file in two applications at the same time.
You are correct. I worded it like it was not possible in Windows.
>>> No. All that proves is that you know how to do *that* specific thing
>>> well. That doesn't mean you know Windows well.
>>
>> I can't prove my knowledge of Windows in a newsgroup, so take it or leave
>> it.
>
> You can to a degree. However when you make statements that are clearly in
> error one has to question your knowledge.
Whatever....
Josh McKee
Tim Murray <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 2006, Josh McKee wrote:
> >> Let's not go into whether a sentence is about Windows operating system,
> >> Windows apps that normally ship with Windows, or third-party Windows
> >> apps. I approach this whole productivity thing from the perspective of
> >> the entire box in front of me.
> >
> > And I have to question how much effort you put into being productive on
> > the Windows platform.
>
> I have owned my own business since 1988, mostly working in Windows in the
> 1990 to 2003 (when I bought a PowerBook), and I even teach classes in
> productivity. So question all you want. I know productivity like Liz Taylor
> knows Scotch.
You may know productivity (whatever that is supposed to mean) but that
doesn't mean that you know how to be as productive with Windows as you
are with OS X.
Josh
Snit
> In article <C06076C4.4B937%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Josh McKee" <jtm...@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> stated in post
>> jtmckee-437660...@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 4/10/06 5:41 PM:
>>
>>>>> How? Specific examples please.
>>>>
>>>> I will probably be accused of waffling, but it's hard to explain.
>>>
>>> Not by me. I appreciate your taking the time.
>>>
>>>> One would have to understand my work and *how* I work. I would tell, and
>>>> have told, the very same thing to people who are friends and who are not
>>>> out to attack. Little things like the way I can use aliases (yes, I know
>>>> about Windows links),
>>>
>>> What specifically do you do with them?
>>
>> I cannot speak for him, but here is part of my common work flow:
>>
>> Download an application to the desktop [1]
>
> This would depend on the application and how it installs itself.
Correct: on a Mac the norm is to have no installer or when you do to let a
user install *and* move an application as they please. On XP this is not
the case. You can blame XP or you can blame 3rd parties, but it is still a
part of a users experience on the OSs.
>
>> Play with it
>> If I like it I create an alias and move it to the where I want it [2]
>> I then move the application to the Application folder [1]
>>
>> Items depicted by a [1] are not recommended on Windows because you generally
>> cannot not move applications around so easily.
>
> Agreed. But I have to ask: Why would you want to move it from the
> "Program Files" directory where it most likely was installed?
That is not where I install stuff on my Mac. I put it in a "holding area"
as I test it - keeps it handy. Sometimes I download software and leave it
there a while until I get a chance to test it. I move it to a subfolder on
my desktop and then later to the Applications folder. This is a great
organizational aid that I cannot do on Windows. I suppose I could make
shortcuts and the like for Windows, but even then I would have to point to
an icon in a folder for most apps. On a Mac the folder appears as one icon
- so even this is easier to do: if I have an alias to an app I can jump to
the application (a quick hot key on OS X, not so on XP) and then delete that
one icon. In XP I have to work harder to get to the original, then move up
a directory. Windows does not even auto-select the folder I just came from
(as OS X does) so I have to look for it and *then* delete it. Heck, even
when I have an app in a folder I can use the proxy icon to throw it out or
move up and it is already selected.
All sorts of examples of how OS X allows me to be more efficient there. :)
>> The item depicted by a [2] is not suggested on Windows because the Shortcut
>> will break. Mac aliases are not broken when you move and rename a file. Not
>> so for XP
>> shortcuts.
>
> I am able to move the target file from place to place without the
> shortcut breaking. I'm able to rename the target file without the
> shortcut breaking. I am able to move and rename the target file without
> the shortcut breaking. Perhaps I'm missing something?
Sometimes they seem to work just fine; sometimes they work after they "hunt"
for the target; and sometimes they outright fail. What is the pattern? I
played a little today. Here is what I found; I...
* Installed Firefox to the desktop (I happen to know it lets you
move it around)
* I created a shortcut to the application on the desktop.
It worked fine.
* I moved the Firefox folder to My Programs
The shortcut worked, but it took it a few seconds. It clearly
was having to be updated - something that is not the case on OS X
* I moved the folder back to the desktop
The shortcut failed. I got the message "Windows is searching for
Firefox.exe. To Locate the file yourself, click Browse."
Worse that than, during the couple minutes I let it run I could not use any
other icon on the desktop.
>
>> Add to that it is easier to find what an alias points to than it is to find
>> what a shortcut points to and you end up with a nice set of advantages for
>> the Mac.
>
> 1. Right click the shortcut.
> 2. Select "Properties".
> 3. Select "Find Target..."
>
> That doesn't seem to difficult.
No, but it is not *as* simple as the Mac. File > Show Original or Command R
(or contextual menus *or* the action menu). The one that makes the biggest
difference for me is the quick hotkey. With newer users they can easily use
the menus - but using the Property sheet is more cumbersome.
Hmmm, related thought: since the "Find Target..." command does not open up a
dialog, why does it have the ... at the end? That goes against the
standards.
>
> But I have to question the value of all of this. Unless repeated quite
> often I can't see any slight advantage the Mac might have as being
> sufficient enough to increase productivity.
I use jump to the target often on a Mac but not as often on Windows - it is
just not as convenient on XP. You can use the same hot key on a Mac, for
what it is worth, in searches from Spotlight and elsewhere on the system -
that makes a lot of sense. How do you get to the "target" of an item in an
XP search? Properties > Find Target... Nope. Why not?
>
>>>> reassigning certain files to certain apps (which you can't do in Windows at
>>>> all)
>>>
>>> What do you mean? Are you referring to file extensions?
>>
>> You can set file associations not just by class of file (or file extension)
>> but also by individual file on a Mac. This comes in handy.
>
> And I cannot for the life of me figure out how this could be a
> significant productivity enhancer.
>
> But if I need to open a file with something other than the default I can
> always right click on it and choose "Open With..." which lists the most
> common programs for that type of file. If that program is not listed
> then I have the option to choose any program on the system.
OS X has that, too. This is a different feature - and one that allows me to
have files that I can just double click, not do anything special, and have
them open with a "non-default" application... this allows a user to focus on
the task and not the tool.
>
>>>> and Default Folder X help me sail through my work.
>>>
>>> Default Folder X is not an OS X feature.
>>
>> Nor are games an XP "feature" but they are an advantage of the XP platform.
>
> I don't feel that either are appropriate for this discussion.
When talking about productivity and work flows, anything that effects that
is open game to me. If you are talking the "task" of playing Half-Life 2 or
some such game, XP is simply the better tool.
>
>>>> I like how I can open one file in more than two apps and not be told
>>>> "sorry,
>>>> the file is already in use".
>>>
>>> This has nothing to do with Windows but rather how the applications open
>>> the file. You can test this by creating a new text document in notepad.
>>> Then try opening it in Wordpad. You should be able to do so.
>>
>> This being inconsistent on Windows is not a good thing.
>
> This has nothing to do with Windows or OS X. This has everything to do
> with the application and whether/how it locks a file. For example:
>
> 1. Open a file in Excel and then save it.
> 2. While the file is still open throw it in the trash.
> 3. Try to empty the trash. You'll receive a "This operation cannot be
> completed because the item <name> is in use". You are then given the
> option to "Stop" or "Continue". Choosing "Continue" does not result in
> the file being deleted. Most people would consider this a good thing.
>
> Now:
>
> 1. Open a file in TextEdit and then save it.
> 2. While the file is still open throw it in the trash.
> 3. Empty the trash. Note that the file will be deleted.
>
> This is consistency? To make matters worse you can delete the Excel file
> by selecting "Secure Empty Trash". That's even more inconsistent.
It is inconsistent. Agreed. And it is a part of the OS X experience.
Still, XP is less consistent than the Mac.
Related issue: most programs on a Mac allow me to rename files from the
Finder even when the file is open. Not so in Windows. This is a benefit
for OS X.
>
>> Somewhat related: on most Mac programs you can tell if your current file has
>> been saved by looking at the close dot - it has a dark center if you need to
>> save. This comes in handy as well, especially for training purposes but
>> also elsewhere.
>
> I fail to see how this has any benefit to productivity.
If I have several files open in several programs I know at a glance which is
saved - assuming of course their windows are open.
>
>>>> I like how I can drag-and-drop a lot more kinds of objects between a lot
>>>> more applications.
>>>>
>>> This is kind of ambiguous.
>>>
>>>> I like how I can move a file that's open in an application to a new
>>>> location -- even the trash -- without having to close the app first.
>>>>
>>> You can do this in Windows too. Take the test text file from above and drag
>>> it to the Recycle bin while it's open in Notepad. You can even empty the
>>> Rcycle Bin while it's open in Notepad.
>>>
>> This generally does not work with Windows.
>
> See my comment above. And I would think that this is a good thing.
Not sure being able to empty the trash is good - but being able to move
files is.
>
>>>> And I might elaborate one something I said earlier. When I show someone how
>>>> to do something in Windows, *every time* I hear, "slow down, you're banging
>>>> keys so fast I can't tell what you're doing!"
>>>>
>>> Why would this be any different in OS X?
>>>
>> It is less visually intuitive. On a Mac, for example, look at how windows
>> minimize. You know exactly where they go. The graphics on Windows are not
>> as clear. People say this is mere eye candy, but it also serves a very
>> important purpose.
>>
> I keep hearing things like this. But I don't see any facts to support
> that OS X is any more productive. I use both every day. I don't see it
> as a problem.
Other than telling you about the feature and explaining to you why it helps
with productivity I am not sure what else to do.
>
>>>> In other words, my productivity in Windows exceeds by orders of magnitude
>>>> the productivity of other long-time Windows users.
>>>>
>>> No. What you're doing is teaching someone how to do something. And, as with
>>> all things that people are just learning, they can't do it as fast as you
>>> can.
>>>
>> Based on his context he is likely showing long time Windows users how to do
>> something.
>
> And?
It is an indication he likely knows Windows relatively well.
I know for me I use both and learned both at the same time - though both
have changed quite a lot over time, it has been consistently true that not
only do I find Macs easier to use, I find that others do to - assuming they
know them both well.
Some are listed above: shortcuts not working as well as aliases, not being
able to jump to "targets" as easily or quickly, being able to tell which
files have been saved, being able to see file titles as opposed to
application names in the taskbar / dock, being able to move applications,
etc. We can also add creating new folders from hot keys, auto-select of
folders on moving to the parent, better search, better scriptability, folder
actions, clipboard viewer, color selection tools, etc. I assume you have
seen my page on the topic: <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win/>.
>
>> He offered some examples above.
>
> He offered differences. He did not offer anything that I saw that makes
> the Macintosh any more (or less) productive than Windows. I also saw
> claims that appear to be wrong. I get the impression that the lost
> productivity is more a result of unfamiliarity with Windows than
> anything inherent in Windows.
What do you think effects productivity? Where do you think he was wrong?
>
>> There are others and, of course, some counter examples where XP does stuff
>> better.
>
> Josh
--
Snit
> In article <C0618630.4BAA9%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Josh McKee" <jtm...@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> stated in post
>> jtmckee-528F2F...@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 4/11/06 3:49 PM:
>>
>>> In article <0001HW.C0608C3D...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>,
>>> Tim Murray <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote:
>
> [ snip ]
>
>>>> I can map xyz.ps to Text Wrangler, and abc.ps to Distiller.
>>>
>>> And how is this a big productivity booster? For that matter how is this
>>> a productivity booster?
>>
>> This is one of those features that Windows users do not have at all that Mac
>> users, once they get used to using it, often find to be very useful. I use
>> this in lab settings often - if I want a JPG, for example, to be opened with
>> iPhoto instead of the default Preview I can set up one folder of images to
>> work the way I want. The user does not need to know to do anything other
>> than double click on the file.
>
> This is a solution looking for a problem. While I can seem some limited
> use for this I cannot see it being something that's a huge productivity
> enhancer.
I would not say it is a deal breaker for Windows to not have it, but it is
one of those things that makes the Mac a more productive environment for
many.
>
>> I use this for files of my own that I want to open with one particular
>> program. A few seconds of one time setup and I never have to think about it
>> again - I can focus on the task and not the tool. It is pretty cool.
>
> I did a quick search and didn't find any utilities for Windows which
> allow this. I suspect that's because there has been little, if any,
> demand for such a feature.
I hate to say this, but that sounds like what the Linux folks say: if it is
not in Linux then it must not be good so it does not count. Not having a
way to do this on Windows does not diminish the utility of this feature on a
Mac.
>
>>>> Yes, you can find apps in Windows. But more in Mac.
>>>
>>> Which has nothing to do with Windows itself. Remember we're talking
>>> about Windows being the reason.
>>
>> I tend to focus on the experience of the OSs, not technically whose "fault"
>> something is.
>
> Regardless it's a non-issue. The behavior is the same on Windows and OS
> X. Some apps lock the file. Some do not.
On OS X darn near all programs will let me alter the names of the files in
the Finder - even when the file is open. If the file is not I can then
resave the file and the application will know to save it to the renamed file
(there are some exceptions to this). I can move the file and even delete
it, though I cannot empty the trash. If, for some reason, I cannot rename a
file it will not go into rename "mode"... which makes sense.
On XP I have not played with this as much, but I know you generally cannot
move or rename a file, but it *will* let you go into rename mode. Why let
you start the process if you cannot finish it? Makes no sense.
>
>>>> I'm trying to illustrate that I know what I'm doing in Windows.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure that you know enough. You've made a number of erroneous
>>> statements about Windows.
>>
>> Do you have examples?
>
> His claim that a document cannot be open in two programs at the same
> time.
For the most part he is right, though you can open it in an editor and in a
program that just views it (such as in IE). There may be some exceptions to
this.
>
>>> I don't doubt that. That doesn't mean that Windows couldn't be just as
>>> productive. It just means that you've learned how to do what you need to
>>> do more efficiently on a Macintosh. That does not mean that you could
>>> not find a way to do the task on Windows just as efficiently.
>>
>> It is very possible one toll offers greater productivity tools than the
>> other (in general).
>
> I think that one tool works differently than another tool. And that Mac
> zealots are willing to give an alternative tool a fair shake and instead
> complain that the alternative doesn't work the same.
Please note I list pros and cons of each.
> I'm not saying that OS X doesn't have some nice features compared to
> Windows. However I find it very difficult to believe that one could be
> so much more productive than the other. I feel that Mac users don't even
> try to work through issues they encounter with Windows. Instead they opt
> to come here and complain about how they can't do x in Windows. They
> seek out problems and not solutions when it comes to Windows.
There is some truth to that as well.
Snit
> In article <0001HW.C061C69E...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>,
> Tim Murray <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 11, 2006, Josh McKee wrote:
>>> Tim Murray <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Apr 10, 2006, Josh McKee wrote:
>>>>>> One would have to understand my work and *how* I work. I would tell,
>>>>>> and have told, the very same thing to people who are friends and who
>>>>>> are not out to attack. Little things like the way I can use aliases
>>>>>> (yes, I know about Windows links),
>>>>>
>>>>> What specifically do you do with them?
>>>>
>>>> I use them to point to objects in resource libraries.
>>>
>>> And Windows shortcuts cannot be used because?
>>
>> I saw your response to Snit about moving Windows shortcut targets. In my
>> experience they break a lot easier in Windows.
>
> Which doesn't explain why you can't use shortcuts.
Here I agree with you - I am not sure what he means about not being able to
create a short cut in a resource library. Maybe OS X packages?
>
>>> And how is this a big productivity booster? For that matter how is this a
>>> productivity booster?
>>
>> It's a production process I use to develop PostScript job control files that
>> end in .ps. I can just double-click them and edit in a text editor and not
>> launch Distiller. Yes, I can right-click in Windows, but the points are that
>> (1) it speeds things up for me in Mac,
>
> Speeds things up? Right clicking and selecting the an alternate
> application doesn't consume much time. Hardly the things that result in
> decreased productivity.
The physical action takes very little time. Having to stop thought
processes to *again* figure out which application of many you already
decided would be best for this particular file or set of files not only slow
you down when you open that file but leads you to slowing down and creates
distractions for files you *do* want to open with the default.
When used well this OS X feature is a pretty big benefit... one that is
grossly underestimated by those that do not use it.
>
>> and (2) you can't do it all in Windows.
>
> I suspect that's because there hasn't been a demand for it. I couldn't
> even locate a third party application that would do this (though I have
> to say that I didn't look too hard). I see this as a solution looking
> for a real problem.
The file extension dependence in XP makes it unlikely you will see a
solution.
Steve Carroll
Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
I'm looking for a productivity solution here... I want multiple apps to
simultaneously address one multichannel audio device in Windows so that
I can use all the channels I have paid for at once while getting better
productivity.
Josh McKee
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
How? I am having a really difficult time trying to arrive at a scenario
where this is a productivity enhancer.
> >> I use this for files of my own that I want to open with one particular
> >> program. A few seconds of one time setup and I never have to think about
> >> it
> >> again - I can focus on the task and not the tool. It is pretty cool.
> >
> > I did a quick search and didn't find any utilities for Windows which
> > allow this. I suspect that's because there has been little, if any,
> > demand for such a feature.
>
> I hate to say this, but that sounds like what the Linux folks say: if it is
> not in Linux then it must not be good so it does not count. Not having a
> way to do this on Windows does not diminish the utility of this feature on a
> Mac.
Where is the utility? Note that I'm not saying that it's never useful. I
just don't see this as a significant productivity enhancer.
> >>>> Yes, you can find apps in Windows. But more in Mac.
> >>>
> >>> Which has nothing to do with Windows itself. Remember we're talking
> >>> about Windows being the reason.
> >>
> >> I tend to focus on the experience of the OSs, not technically whose
> >> "fault"
> >> something is.
> >
> > Regardless it's a non-issue. The behavior is the same on Windows and OS
> > X. Some apps lock the file. Some do not.
>
> On OS X darn near all programs will let me alter the names of the files in
> the Finder - even when the file is open.
Again: How is this a significant productivity booster? How often are you
guys renaming files while they're open?
> If the file is not I can then resave the file and the application will know
> to save it to the renamed file (there are some exceptions to this).
You two were telling me that the Macintosh was consistent. Now you're
saying it's not. I see this as no different than Windows.
> I can move the file and even delete it, though I cannot empty the trash.
Then you're not really deleting it.
> If, for some reason, I cannot rename a file it will not go into rename "mode".
> .. which makes sense.
It does. But again how is this a productivity enhancer?
> On XP I have not played with this as much, but I know you generally cannot
> move or rename a file, but it *will* let you go into rename mode. Why let
> you start the process if you cannot finish it? Makes no sense.
No. But again I have to ask: How is this a productivity enhancer?
Recall that I am not challenging you two on the Macintoshes refinement.
I think that the Macintosh pays attention to these details much more so
than Windows. But I don't see any of this as a productivity enhancer. Or
lack of a productivity impediment.
> >>>> I'm trying to illustrate that I know what I'm doing in Windows.
> >>>
> >>> I'm not sure that you know enough. You've made a number of erroneous
> >>> statements about Windows.
> >>
> >> Do you have examples?
> >
> > His claim that a document cannot be open in two programs at the same
> > time.
>
> For the most part he is right,
No. He said that you cannot. I gave an example where you could.
> though you can open it in an editor and in a program that just views it
> (such as in IE). There may be some exceptions to this.
There are no exceptions. The behavior is dependent on the programs and
how they open the file. On both platforms.
> >>> I don't doubt that. That doesn't mean that Windows couldn't be just as
> >>> productive. It just means that you've learned how to do what you need to
> >>> do more efficiently on a Macintosh. That does not mean that you could
> >>> not find a way to do the task on Windows just as efficiently.
> >>
> >> It is very possible one toll offers greater productivity tools than the
> >> other (in general).
> >
> > I think that one tool works differently than another tool. And that Mac
> > zealots are willing to give an alternative tool a fair shake and instead
> > complain that the alternative doesn't work the same.
>
> Please note I list pros and cons of each.
>
> > I'm not saying that OS X doesn't have some nice features compared to
> > Windows. However I find it very difficult to believe that one could be
> > so much more productive than the other. I feel that Mac users don't even
> > try to work through issues they encounter with Windows. Instead they opt
> > to come here and complain about how they can't do x in Windows. They
> > seek out problems and not solutions when it comes to Windows.
>
> There is some truth to that as well.
There's a lot of truth to it.
Josh
Tim Crowley
Josh McKee wrote:
> > >>> And how is this a big productivity booster? For that matter how is this
> > >>> a productivity booster?
>>>>>>I cannot see it being something that's a huge productivity
...> > > enhancer.
>>>>>I am having a really difficult time trying to arrive at a scenario
> where this is a productivity enhancer.
>
> Where is the utility? Note that I'm not saying that it's never useful. I
> just don't see this as a significant productivity enhancer.
> Again: How is this a significant productivity booster? How often are you
> guys renaming files while they're open?
>
> It does. But again how is this a productivity enhancer?
> No. But again I have to ask: How is this a productivity enhancer?
> But I don't see any of this as a productivity enhancer. Or
> lack of a productivity impediment.
> > > Mac Zealot
> > >
>>>I find it very difficult to believe that one could be
> > > so much more productive than the other.
I have a suggestion, Josh. Look up the word productive. hint: saying
the same bullshit lies over and over is NOT productive.
Snit
I generally have jpgs open with Preview. I do have some, though, that I
want to open in other programs - and almost always want to open them in
other programs. Sure, I could just remember to select them and override the
defaults, but why? Why not just change the defaults for those files?
Let me turn the question around on you a bit: why have default applications
at all for file types? Why not always just have a list for a user to select
from?
>>>> I use this for files of my own that I want to open with one particular
>>>> program. A few seconds of one time setup and I never have to think about
>>>> it again - I can focus on the task and not the tool. It is pretty cool.
>>>>
>>> I did a quick search and didn't find any utilities for Windows which allow
>>> this. I suspect that's because there has been little, if any, demand for
>>> such a feature.
>>>
>> I hate to say this, but that sounds like what the Linux folks say: if it is
>> not in Linux then it must not be good so it does not count. Not having a way
>> to do this on Windows does not diminish the utility of this feature on a Mac.
>>
> Where is the utility? Note that I'm not saying that it's never useful. I just
> don't see this as a significant productivity enhancer.
See above.
>
>>>>>> Yes, you can find apps in Windows. But more in Mac.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Which has nothing to do with Windows itself. Remember we're talking about
>>>>> Windows being the reason.
>>>>>
>>>> I tend to focus on the experience of the OSs, not technically whose "fault"
>>>> something is.
>>>>
>>> Regardless it's a non-issue. The behavior is the same on Windows and OS X.
>>> Some apps lock the file. Some do not.
>>>
>> On OS X darn near all programs will let me alter the names of the files in
>> the Finder - even when the file is open.
>
> Again: How is this a significant productivity booster? How often are you
> guys renaming files while they're open?
I do it as often as I want. On a Mac. On Windows I never do it - and when
I try it acts as though it will let me. Silly time waster.
>> If the file is not I can then resave the file and the application will know
>> to save it to the renamed file (there are some exceptions to this).
>
> You two were telling me that the Macintosh was consistent. Now you're
> saying it's not. I see this as no different than Windows.
In what way am I saying OS X is not consistent?
>
>> I can move the file and even delete it, though I cannot empty the trash.
>
> Then you're not really deleting it.
Ok, I can move it to the Trash.
Actually I am glad you brought this up - on a Mac the option is "Move to
Trash". On Windows the option is "Delete", even though it does not delete
it, it merely moves it to the "Recycle Bin". Your comment about not really
deleting it is not, to me, a huge deal, but you are right that when an OS
says it is deleting something it should. OS X does. XP does not.
>
>> If, for some reason, I cannot rename a file it will not go into rename
>> "mode".
>> .. which makes sense.
>
> It does. But again how is this a productivity enhancer?
It hurts productivity to allow a user to enter a mode that cannot be used.
Why let a user enter rename mode if you cannot rename the file? At least XP
no longer lets you enter the * and / and the like to file names and only
after tells you not to use those characters.
>> On XP I have not played with this as much, but I know you generally cannot
>> move or rename a file, but it *will* let you go into rename mode. Why let
>> you start the process if you cannot finish it? Makes no sense.
>
> No. But again I have to ask: How is this a productivity enhancer?
How is it not? How is letting a user enter a mode they cannot really use
anything other than a time wasting silly productivity waster?
>
> Recall that I am not challenging you two on the Macintoshes refinement.
> I think that the Macintosh pays attention to these details much more so
> than Windows. But I don't see any of this as a productivity enhancer. Or
> lack of a productivity impediment.
Such refinement allows users to get work done more easily, more accurately,
more pleasantly and more quickly. Why else have such refinement?
>>>>>> I'm trying to illustrate that I know what I'm doing in Windows.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure that you know enough. You've made a number of erroneous
>>>>> statements about Windows.
>>>>
>>>> Do you have examples?
>>>
>>> His claim that a document cannot be open in two programs at the same
>>> time.
>>
>> For the most part he is right,
>
> No. He said that you cannot. I gave an example where you could.
>
>> though you can open it in an editor and in a program that just views it
>> (such as in IE). There may be some exceptions to this.
>
> There are no exceptions. The behavior is dependent on the programs and
> how they open the file. On both platforms.
What were you examples again (I could dig through the thread, but prefer not
to)
>
>>>>> I don't doubt that. That doesn't mean that Windows couldn't be just as
>>>>> productive. It just means that you've learned how to do what you need to
>>>>> do more efficiently on a Macintosh. That does not mean that you could
>>>>> not find a way to do the task on Windows just as efficiently.
>>>>
>>>> It is very possible one toll offers greater productivity tools than the
>>>> other (in general).
>>>
>>> I think that one tool works differently than another tool. And that Mac
>>> zealots are willing to give an alternative tool a fair shake and instead
>>> complain that the alternative doesn't work the same.
>>
>> Please note I list pros and cons of each.
>>
>>> I'm not saying that OS X doesn't have some nice features compared to
>>> Windows. However I find it very difficult to believe that one could be
>>> so much more productive than the other. I feel that Mac users don't even
>>> try to work through issues they encounter with Windows. Instead they opt
>>> to come here and complain about how they can't do x in Windows. They
>>> seek out problems and not solutions when it comes to Windows.
>>
>> There is some truth to that as well.
>
> There's a lot of truth to it.
I think there is truth both ways. OS X, as you seem to agree, is more
"refined". I would argue that this refinement allows the users of the OS to
get more done and to do so more quickly. Of course, if you know the quirks
of a system and how to work around them this becomes less of an issue, but
for most users they just want to focus on getting the work done - not on
using the tool.
Josh McKee
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Josh McKee" <jtm...@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> stated in post
> jtmckee-0F5DA7...@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 4/13/06 5:01 PM:
>
> > In article <C061D511.4BB52%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
[ snip ]
> >> I would not say it is a deal breaker for Windows to not have it, but it is
> >> one of those things that makes the Mac a more productive environment for
> >> many.
> >
> > How? I am having a really difficult time trying to arrive at a scenario
> > where this is a productivity enhancer.
>
> I generally have jpgs open with Preview. I do have some, though, that I
> want to open in other programs - and almost always want to open them in
> other programs. Sure, I could just remember to select them and override the
> defaults, but why? Why not just change the defaults for those files?
Again: It's a nice feature. But I cannot for the life of me see an
absence of this being a hinderance to productivity.
> Let me turn the question around on you a bit: why have default applications
> at all for file types? Why not always just have a list for a user to select
> from?
Because the majority of times you're going to want to open a specific
file type with a specific application. For those times that you do not
the ability to select an alternative is fairly easy and straightforward.
Again: I'm not arguing against this capability. I'm questioning its
value in enhancing productivity. I could see more value in it if you
could configure the containing folder up to automatically set the
application association for the files contained within.
[ snip ]
> >> On OS X darn near all programs will let me alter the names of the files in
> >> the Finder - even when the file is open.
> >
> > Again: How is this a significant productivity booster? How often are you
> > guys renaming files while they're open?
>
> I do it as often as I want. On a Mac. On Windows I never do it - and when
> I try it acts as though it will let me. Silly time waster.
Given the amount of time that you're likely to encounter this issue I
think it's fair to say that the occasional time that you encounter the
issue is going to have almost zero impact on productivity.
> >> If the file is not I can then resave the file and the application will
> >> know to save it to the renamed file (there are some exceptions to this).
> >
> > You two were telling me that the Macintosh was consistent. Now you're
> > saying it's not. I see this as no different than Windows.
>
> In what way am I saying OS X is not consistent?
You're building the case that OS X is consistent compared to Windows.
Then you say: "(there are some exceptions to this)"
> >> I can move the file and even delete it, though I cannot empty the trash.
> >
> > Then you're not really deleting it.
>
> Ok, I can move it to the Trash.
>
> Actually I am glad you brought this up - on a Mac the option is "Move to
> Trash". On Windows the option is "Delete", even though it does not delete
> it, it merely moves it to the "Recycle Bin". Your comment about not really
> deleting it is not, to me, a huge deal, but you are right that when an OS
> says it is deleting something it should. OS X does. XP does not.
My comment was regarding your statement that you could delete the file.
Emptying the trash is when the file deletion occurs, not when it's moved
to the trash. Therefore your statement of "...and even delete it..." was
in error. You cannot delete it.
> >> If, for some reason, I cannot rename a file it will not go into rename
> >> "mode".
> >> .. which makes sense.
> >
> > It does. But again how is this a productivity enhancer?
>
> It hurts productivity to allow a user to enter a mode that cannot be used.
Given the amount of times that this is likely to happen I cannot see
this being a negative impact to productivity.
> Why let a user enter rename mode if you cannot rename the file? At least XP
> no longer lets you enter the * and / and the like to file names and only
> after tells you not to use those characters.
Again: I'm not questioning the feature. I'm questioning the impact that
missing said feature would have on productivity. I just don't see it as
impactive.
> >> On XP I have not played with this as much, but I know you generally cannot
> >> move or rename a file, but it *will* let you go into rename mode. Why let
> >> you start the process if you cannot finish it? Makes no sense.
> >
> > No. But again I have to ask: How is this a productivity enhancer?
>
> How is it not? How is letting a user enter a mode they cannot really use
> anything other than a time wasting silly productivity waster?
See above.
> > Recall that I am not challenging you two on the Macintoshes refinement.
> > I think that the Macintosh pays attention to these details much more so
> > than Windows. But I don't see any of this as a productivity enhancer. Or
> > lack of a productivity impediment.
>
> Such refinement allows users to get work done more easily, more accurately,
> more pleasantly and more quickly. Why else have such refinement?
See above.
[ snip ]
> >> For the most part he is right,
> >
> > No. He said that you cannot. I gave an example where you could.
> >
> >> though you can open it in an editor and in a program that just views it
> >> (such as in IE). There may be some exceptions to this.
> >
> > There are no exceptions. The behavior is dependent on the programs and
> > how they open the file. On both platforms.
>
> What were you examples again (I could dig through the thread, but prefer not
> to)
Not sure which example you're referring to so here are a couple.
For the Macintosh:
1. Open a file in Excel and then save it.
2. While the file is still open throw it in the trash.
3. Try to empty the trash. You'll receive a "This operation cannot be
completed because the item <name> is in use". You are then given the
option to "Stop" or "Continue". Choosing "Continue" does not result in
the file being deleted. Most people would consider this a good thing.
Now:
1. Open a file in TextEdit and then save it.
2. While the file is still open throw it in the trash.
3. Empty the trash. Note that the file will be deleted.
This is consistency? To make matters worse you can delete the Excel file
by selecting "Secure Empty Trash". That's even more inconsistent.
For the PC:
1. Open a file in Notepad and then save it.
2. While the file is open in Notepad open it with Wordpad.
[ snip ]
> >>> I'm not saying that OS X doesn't have some nice features compared to
> >>> Windows. However I find it very difficult to believe that one could be
> >>> so much more productive than the other. I feel that Mac users don't even
> >>> try to work through issues they encounter with Windows. Instead they opt
> >>> to come here and complain about how they can't do x in Windows. They
> >>> seek out problems and not solutions when it comes to Windows.
> >>
> >> There is some truth to that as well.
> >
> > There's a lot of truth to it.
>
> I think there is truth both ways. OS X, as you seem to agree, is more
> "refined". I would argue that this refinement allows the users of the OS to
> get more done and to do so more quickly.
But I have yet to see anything support that argument. Using both on a
daily basis I find neither more or less productive.
> Of course, if you know the quirks of a system and how to work around them this
> becomes less of an issue, but for most users they just want to focus on getting
> the work done - not on using the tool.
Josh
Snit
> In article <C06455B2.4BE11%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Josh McKee" <jtm...@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> stated in post
>> jtmckee-0F5DA7...@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 4/13/06 5:01 PM:
>>
>>> In article <C061D511.4BB52%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
> [ snip ]
>
>>>> I would not say it is a deal breaker for Windows to not have it, but it is
>>>> one of those things that makes the Mac a more productive environment for
>>>> many.
>>>
>>> How? I am having a really difficult time trying to arrive at a scenario
>>> where this is a productivity enhancer.
>>
>> I generally have jpgs open with Preview. I do have some, though, that I
>> want to open in other programs - and almost always want to open them in
>> other programs. Sure, I could just remember to select them and override the
>> defaults, but why? Why not just change the defaults for those files?
>
> Again: It's a nice feature. But I cannot for the life of me see an
> absence of this being a hinderance to productivity.
>
>> Let me turn the question around on you a bit: why have default applications
>> at all for file types? Why not always just have a list for a user to select
>> from?
>
> Because the majority of times you're going to want to open a specific
> file type with a specific application.
Why base it only on file type? Why not base in on how you are using the
file - that is what OS X allows you to do. XP does not.
> For those times that you do not the ability to select an alternative is fairly
> easy and straightforward.
For a relatively experienced user, sure. Even then, though, you have to do
something "different" to open the file.
>
> Again: I'm not arguing against this capability. I'm questioning its
> value in enhancing productivity. I could see more value in it if you
> could configure the containing folder up to automatically set the
> application association for the files contained within.
I think that would be a cool addition - I bet with Automator / Folder
Actions this could be done fairly easily if you wanted.
>
> [ snip ]
>
>>>> On OS X darn near all programs will let me alter the names of the files in
>>>> the Finder - even when the file is open.
>>>
>>> Again: How is this a significant productivity booster? How often are you
>>> guys renaming files while they're open?
>>
>> I do it as often as I want. On a Mac. On Windows I never do it - and when
>> I try it acts as though it will let me. Silly time waster.
>
> Given the amount of time that you're likely to encounter this issue I
> think it's fair to say that the occasional time that you encounter the
> issue is going to have almost zero impact on productivity.
The benefit OS X has to productivity is it works overall in a more
consistent and "more refined" way, as you say. This leads to less
frustration, more trust, greater likelihood of experimentation - and this
leads to better productivity. I have seen this repeatedly in different
offices and schools.
>>>> If the file is not I can then resave the file and the application will
>>>> know to save it to the renamed file (there are some exceptions to this).
>>>
>>> You two were telling me that the Macintosh was consistent. Now you're
>>> saying it's not. I see this as no different than Windows.
>>
>> In what way am I saying OS X is not consistent?
>
> You're building the case that OS X is consistent compared to Windows.
> Then you say: "(there are some exceptions to this)"
OS X is more consistent than XP, but it is not perfect.
>
>>>> I can move the file and even delete it, though I cannot empty the trash.
>>>
>>> Then you're not really deleting it.
>>
>> Ok, I can move it to the Trash.
>>
>> Actually I am glad you brought this up - on a Mac the option is "Move to
>> Trash". On Windows the option is "Delete", even though it does not delete
>> it, it merely moves it to the "Recycle Bin". Your comment about not really
>> deleting it is not, to me, a huge deal, but you are right that when an OS
>> says it is deleting something it should. OS X does. XP does not.
>
> My comment was regarding your statement that you could delete the file.
> Emptying the trash is when the file deletion occurs, not when it's moved
> to the trash.
Agreed.
> Therefore your statement of "...and even delete it..." was
> in error. You cannot delete it.
Correct: and this brought up another area where OS X is more descriptive /
accurate than Windows. Another Mac advantage. :)
>
>>>> If, for some reason, I cannot rename a file it will not go into rename
>>>> "mode".
>>>> .. which makes sense.
>>>
>>> It does. But again how is this a productivity enhancer?
>>
>> It hurts productivity to allow a user to enter a mode that cannot be used.
>
> Given the amount of times that this is likely to happen I cannot see
> this being a negative impact to productivity.
See the comments on trust, above.
Keep in mind this is not the only oddity with renaming and even creating
files in XP. A while back I compared making new folders in XP vs. OS X.
<http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/interface/New_Folder/>
Note how XP is inconsistent while OS X is consistent. This leads to less
confusion and better productivity. While any one of these things we are
mentioning may not be huge, they create quite a pile of OS X advantages. To
be fair, there are also some counter examples, but I think you would be hard
pressed to find as many areas where XP has consistency and ease of use that
OS X lacks.
>
>> Why let a user enter rename mode if you cannot rename the file? At least XP
>> no longer lets you enter the * and / and the like to file names and only
>> after tells you not to use those characters.
>
> Again: I'm not questioning the feature. I'm questioning the impact that
> missing said feature would have on productivity. I just don't see it as
> impactive.
See above about trust, etc.
>>>> On XP I have not played with this as much, but I know you generally cannot
>>>> move or rename a file, but it *will* let you go into rename mode. Why let
>>>> you start the process if you cannot finish it? Makes no sense.
>>>
>>> No. But again I have to ask: How is this a productivity enhancer?
>>
>> How is it not? How is letting a user enter a mode they cannot really use
>> anything other than a time wasting silly productivity waster?
>
> See above.
Mostly you have said you do not see it as a productivity issue, but I do not
really understand why. What things do you think effect productivity?
Yes, that is the example I was looking for - and, yes, OS X is being
inconsistent there. I doubt people often try to throw away open files, and
when they do both programs handle the situation fairly well (TextEdit
recreates the file on save), but it is an oddity. Personally I have never
seen this have an effect on anyone's work, but I can imagine situations
where it might.
>
> For the PC:
>
> 1. Open a file in Notepad and then save it.
> 2. While the file is open in Notepad open it with Wordpad.
>
> [ snip ]
>
>>>>> I'm not saying that OS X doesn't have some nice features compared to
>>>>> Windows. However I find it very difficult to believe that one could be
>>>>> so much more productive than the other. I feel that Mac users don't even
>>>>> try to work through issues they encounter with Windows. Instead they opt
>>>>> to come here and complain about how they can't do x in Windows. They
>>>>> seek out problems and not solutions when it comes to Windows.
>>>>
>>>> There is some truth to that as well.
>>>
>>> There's a lot of truth to it.
>>
>> I think there is truth both ways. OS X, as you seem to agree, is more
>> "refined". I would argue that this refinement allows the users of the OS to
>> get more done and to do so more quickly.
>
> But I have yet to see anything support that argument. Using both on a
> daily basis I find neither more or less productive.
I use both on a daily basis as well, and find OS X to be, in general, more
productive. While there will be personal differences, I would bet that most
people who use both tend to lean my way.
It is also true that people's perception of their productivity is not always
the same as their actual productivity. I did some small studies of this at
Intuit. People tend to grossly underestimate their time lost to computer
problems (not to mention other issues).
>
>> Of course, if you know the quirks of a system and how to work around them
>> this becomes less of an issue, but for most users they just want to focus on
>> getting the work done - not on using the tool.
>
> Josh
Josh McKee
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Josh McKee" <jtm...@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> stated in post
> jtmckee-A56F94...@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 4/11/06 6:08 PM:
[ snip ]
> >>> And how is this a big productivity booster? For that matter how is this a
> >>> productivity booster?
> >>
> >> It's a production process I use to develop PostScript job control files
> >> that end in .ps. I can just double-click them and edit in a text editor and
> >> not launch Distiller. Yes, I can right-click in Windows, but the points are
> >> that (1) it speeds things up for me in Mac,
> >
> > Speeds things up? Right clicking and selecting the an alternate
> > application doesn't consume much time. Hardly the things that result in
> > decreased productivity.
>
> The physical action takes very little time. Having to stop thought
> processes to *again* figure out which application of many you already
> decided would be best for this particular file or set of files not only slow
> you down when you open that file but leads you to slowing down and creates
> distractions for files you *do* want to open with the default.
Why would you need to again think of the application? If you know you
want to open a certain file in a particular application what is there to
think about? You already know you don't want the default.
> When used well this OS X feature is a pretty big benefit... one that is
> grossly underestimated by those that do not use it.
I do not see a pretty big benefit out of it. Therefore I don't use it.
And so far I haven't seen an example given that demonstrates that lack
of this feature is a hinderance to productivity.
[ snip ]
Josh
Josh McKee
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Josh McKee" <jtm...@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> stated in post
> jtmckee-C03B8B...@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 4/14/06 2:01 PM:
[ snip ]
> > Because the majority of times you're going to want to open a specific
> > file type with a specific application.
>
> Why base it only on file type? Why not base in on how you are using the
> file - that is what OS X allows you to do. XP does not.
Remember that this discussion is not on why things are done a certain
way. It's about do these examples result in increased productivity.
> > For those times that you do not the ability to select an alternative is
> > fairly easy and straightforward.
>
> For a relatively experienced user, sure. Even then, though, you have to do
> something "different" to open the file.
Which takes all of a second or two. Hardly an impact to productivity.
[ snip ]
> >> It hurts productivity to allow a user to enter a mode that cannot be used.
> >
> > Given the amount of times that this is likely to happen I cannot see
> > this being a negative impact to productivity.
>
> See the comments on trust, above.
>
> Keep in mind this is not the only oddity with renaming and even creating
> files in XP. A while back I compared making new folders in XP vs. OS X.
> <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/interface/New_Folder/>
>
> Note how XP is inconsistent while OS X is consistent. This leads to less
> confusion and better productivity. While any one of these things we are
> mentioning may not be huge, they create quite a pile of OS X advantages. To
> be fair, there are also some counter examples, but I think you would be hard
> pressed to find as many areas where XP has consistency and ease of use that
> OS X lacks.
I don't see any of the examples provided so far as being big
productivity enhancers. Even when combined together. To me the big
productivity enhancers/detractors are in the applications.
> >>>> On XP I have not played with this as much, but I know you generally
> >>>> cannot
> >>>> move or rename a file, but it *will* let you go into rename mode. Why
> >>>> let
> >>>> you start the process if you cannot finish it? Makes no sense.
> >>>
> >>> No. But again I have to ask: How is this a productivity enhancer?
> >>
> >> How is it not? How is letting a user enter a mode they cannot really use
> >> anything other than a time wasting silly productivity waster?
> >
> > See above.
>
> Mostly you have said you do not see it as a productivity issue, but I do not
> really understand why. What things do you think effect productivity?
Knowledge and familiarity with the tools that you use. Applications.
[ snip ]
> > For the Macintosh:
> >
> > 1. Open a file in Excel and then save it.
> > 2. While the file is still open throw it in the trash.
> > 3. Try to empty the trash. You'll receive a "This operation cannot be
> > completed because the item <name> is in use". You are then given the
> > option to "Stop" or "Continue". Choosing "Continue" does not result in
> > the file being deleted. Most people would consider this a good thing.
> >
> > Now:
> >
> > 1. Open a file in TextEdit and then save it.
> > 2. While the file is still open throw it in the trash.
> > 3. Empty the trash. Note that the file will be deleted.
> >
> > This is consistency? To make matters worse you can delete the Excel file
> > by selecting "Secure Empty Trash". That's even more inconsistent.
>
> Yes, that is the example I was looking for - and, yes, OS X is being
> inconsistent there. I doubt people often try to throw away open files, and
> when they do both programs handle the situation fairly well (TextEdit
> recreates the file on save), but it is an oddity. Personally I have never
> seen this have an effect on anyone's work, but I can imagine situations
> where it might.
Which removes one of the "advantages" mentioned earlier.
[ snip ]
> >> I think there is truth both ways. OS X, as you seem to agree, is more
> >> "refined". I would argue that this refinement allows the users of the OS
> >> to
> >> get more done and to do so more quickly.
> >
> > But I have yet to see anything support that argument. Using both on a
> > daily basis I find neither more or less productive.
>
> I use both on a daily basis as well, and find OS X to be, in general, more
> productive. While there will be personal differences, I would bet that most
> people who use both tend to lean my way.
I disagree. I think that this is a belief that Mac users have convinced
themselves is true.
> It is also true that people's perception of their productivity is not always
> the same as their actual productivity. I did some small studies of this at
> Intuit. People tend to grossly underestimate their time lost to computer
> problems (not to mention other issues).
That would depend on the type of computer problem. I doubt that the
given examples have resulted in any significant increase in productivity.
Josh
Snit
> In article <C061D67C.4BB55%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Josh McKee" <jtm...@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> stated in post
>> jtmckee-A56F94...@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 4/11/06 6:08 PM:
>
> [ snip ]
>
>>>>> And how is this a big productivity booster? For that matter how is this a
>>>>> productivity booster?
>>>>
>>>> It's a production process I use to develop PostScript job control files
>>>> that end in .ps. I can just double-click them and edit in a text editor
>>>> and
>>>> not launch Distiller. Yes, I can right-click in Windows, but the points are
>>>> that (1) it speeds things up for me in Mac,
>>>
>>> Speeds things up? Right clicking and selecting the an alternate
>>> application doesn't consume much time. Hardly the things that result in
>>> decreased productivity.
>>
>> The physical action takes very little time. Having to stop thought
>> processes to *again* figure out which application of many you already
>> decided would be best for this particular file or set of files not only slow
>> you down when you open that file but leads you to slowing down and creates
>> distractions for files you *do* want to open with the default.
>
> Why would you need to again think of the application? If you know you
> want to open a certain file in a particular application what is there to
> think about? You already know you don't want the default.
You are assuming you have thought about what application you generally use
with a specific file, *and* thought about how this is not the "standard"
application. It is more efficient to let the computer handle these details.
>
>> When used well this OS X feature is a pretty big benefit... one that is
>> grossly underestimated by those that do not use it.
>
> I do not see a pretty big benefit out of it. Therefore I don't use it.
> And so far I haven't seen an example given that demonstrates that lack
> of this feature is a hinderance to productivity.
Use it for a while and see how you like it.
--
Snit
> In article <C0657095.4BF22%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Josh McKee" <jtm...@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> stated in post
>> jtmckee-C03B8B...@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 4/14/06 2:01 PM:
>
> [ snip ]
>
>>> Because the majority of times you're going to want to open a specific
>>> file type with a specific application.
>>
>> Why base it only on file type? Why not base in on how you are using the
>> file - that is what OS X allows you to do. XP does not.
>
> Remember that this discussion is not on why things are done a certain
> way. It's about do these examples result in increased productivity.
Allowing a user to focus on how a file is used and not on its file type is
one that that increased productivity.
>>> For those times that you do not the ability to select an alternative is
>>> fairly easy and straightforward.
>>
>> For a relatively experienced user, sure. Even then, though, you have to do
>> something "different" to open the file.
>
> Which takes all of a second or two. Hardly an impact to productivity.
Except when you open the file in the default because you forget to open it
with another program, then you have to quit that application. This is often
more than a "second or two".
Also keep in mind that humans are not like computers - when such a thing
happens it effects not just the time it takes to correct the situation but
also the time it takes to re-focus, etc.
>
> [ snip ]
>
>>>> It hurts productivity to allow a user to enter a mode that cannot be used.
>>>
>>> Given the amount of times that this is likely to happen I cannot see
>>> this being a negative impact to productivity.
>>
>> See the comments on trust, above.
>>
>> Keep in mind this is not the only oddity with renaming and even creating
>> files in XP. A while back I compared making new folders in XP vs. OS X.
>> <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/interface/New_Folder/>
>>
>> Note how XP is inconsistent while OS X is consistent. This leads to less
>> confusion and better productivity. While any one of these things we are
>> mentioning may not be huge, they create quite a pile of OS X advantages. To
>> be fair, there are also some counter examples, but I think you would be hard
>> pressed to find as many areas where XP has consistency and ease of use that
>> OS X lacks.
>
> I don't see any of the examples provided so far as being big
> productivity enhancers. Even when combined together. To me the big
> productivity enhancers/detractors are in the applications.
Can you give an example of one application being more productive than
another (or more of an enhancement to productivity, really).
>
>>>>>> On XP I have not played with this as much, but I know you generally
>>>>>> cannot move or rename a file, but it *will* let you go into rename mode.
>>>>>> Why let you start the process if you cannot finish it? Makes no sense.
>>>>>>
>>>>> No. But again I have to ask: How is this a productivity enhancer?
>>>>>
>>>> How is it not? How is letting a user enter a mode they cannot really use
>>>> anything other than a time wasting silly productivity waster?
>>>>
>>> See above.
>>
>> Mostly you have said you do not see it as a productivity issue, but I do not
>> really understand why. What things do you think effect productivity?
>
> Knowledge and familiarity with the tools that you use. Applications.
Can you be specific with application examples and how you see them effecting
productivity?
>
> [ snip ]
>
>>> For the Macintosh:
>>>
>>> 1. Open a file in Excel and then save it.
>>> 2. While the file is still open throw it in the trash.
>>> 3. Try to empty the trash. You'll receive a "This operation cannot be
>>> completed because the item <name> is in use". You are then given the
>>> option to "Stop" or "Continue". Choosing "Continue" does not result in
>>> the file being deleted. Most people would consider this a good thing.
>>>
>>> Now:
>>>
>>> 1. Open a file in TextEdit and then save it.
>>> 2. While the file is still open throw it in the trash.
>>> 3. Empty the trash. Note that the file will be deleted.
>>>
>>> This is consistency? To make matters worse you can delete the Excel file
>>> by selecting "Secure Empty Trash". That's even more inconsistent.
>>
>> Yes, that is the example I was looking for - and, yes, OS X is being
>> inconsistent there. I doubt people often try to throw away open files, and
>> when they do both programs handle the situation fairly well (TextEdit
>> recreates the file on save), but it is an oddity. Personally I have never
>> seen this have an effect on anyone's work, but I can imagine situations
>> where it might.
>
> Which removes one of the "advantages" mentioned earlier.
Reduces perhaps.
>
> [ snip ]
>
>>>> I think there is truth both ways. OS X, as you seem to agree, is more
>>>> "refined". I would argue that this refinement allows the users of the OS
>>>> to get more done and to do so more quickly.
>>>
>>> But I have yet to see anything support that argument. Using both on a
>>> daily basis I find neither more or less productive.
>>
>> I use both on a daily basis as well, and find OS X to be, in general, more
>> productive. While there will be personal differences, I would bet that most
>> people who use both tend to lean my way.
>
> I disagree. I think that this is a belief that Mac users have convinced
> themselves is true.
How many people have you known who are proficient in both? I have worked
with and taught many Windows users how to use Macs (and vice versa). From
my experience Windows users are often amazed at how much more productive /
how much easier the Mac is. The reverse is much less often true.
>
>> It is also true that people's perception of their productivity is not always
>> the same as their actual productivity. I did some small studies of this at
>> Intuit. People tend to grossly underestimate their time lost to computer
>> problems (not to mention other issues).
>
> That would depend on the type of computer problem. I doubt that the
> given examples have resulted in any significant increase in productivity.
The work being looked at was computer tech support, documenting creation,
database entry and other business work.
Josh McKee
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Josh McKee" <jtm...@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> stated in post
> jtmckee-05BB6C...@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 4/11/06 3:42 PM:
[ snip ]
> >> Play with it If I like it I create an alias and move it to the where I want
> >> it [2] I then move the application to the Application folder [1]
> >>
> >> Items depicted by a [1] are not recommended on Windows because you
> >> generally cannot not move applications around so easily.
> >
> > Agreed. But I have to ask: Why would you want to move it from the
> > "Program Files" directory where it most likely was installed?
>
> That is not where I install stuff on my Mac.
But it is where most applications are installed on Windows.
> I put it in a "holding area" as I test it - keeps it handy.
Why does the use of a "holding area" make it handy to access?
> Sometimes I download software and leave it there a while until I get a chance
> to test it. I move it to a subfolder on my desktop and then later to the
> Applications folder. This is a great organizational aid that I cannot do on
> Windows.
What benefit is it providing?
> I suppose I could make shortcuts and the like for Windows, but even then I
> would have to point to an icon in a folder for most apps.
Not sure what you're saying with that statement.
> On a Mac the folder appears as one icon - so even this is easier to do: if I
> have an alias to an app I can jump to the application (a quick hot key on OS X, not so on XP) and then delete that
> one icon. In XP I have to work harder to get to the original, then move up
> a directory.
Why not just use the shortcut on the desktop that's typically created
when the application is installed? Or accessing the program from the
start menu that, again, is typically created when the software is
installed? It sounds as if you're creating a lot of unnecessary work.
This is how most people try applications in Windows:
1. Download.
2. Double click to install.
3. Go through install process.
4. Use the desktop icon or start menu short cut to access the
application.
5. Un-install it if they don't like it.
5. Leave it where it is if they do like it.
> Windows does not even auto-select the folder I just came from (as OS X does) so
> I have to look for it and *then* delete it. Heck, even when I have an app in a
> folder I can use the proxy icon to throw it out or move up and it is already
> selected.
>
> All sorts of examples of how OS X allows me to be more efficient there. :)
It appears to be nothing more than an example of how things are
different more than an example of efficiency that would lead to
significantly increased productivity.
Why are you constantly moving things around? You're giving great
examples as to the refinement of OS X. But you're not giving examples of
how these refinements add up to increased productivity. Your need to
constantly move things around is likely to impact productivity more than
these example of refinement help it.
> >> Add to that it is easier to find what an alias points to than it is to
> >> find
> >> what a shortcut points to and you end up with a nice set of advantages for
> >> the Mac.
> >
> > 1. Right click the shortcut.
> > 2. Select "Properties".
> > 3. Select "Find Target..."
> >
> > That doesn't seem to difficult.
>
> No, but it is not *as* simple as the Mac. File > Show Original or Command R
> (or contextual menus *or* the action menu).
Again: How frequently do you need to find the target in order to make
this a productivity enhancer? The Windows way is easy.
> The one that makes the biggest difference for me is the quick hotkey. With
> newer users they can easily use the menus - but using the Property sheet is
> more cumbersome.
>
> Hmmm, related thought: since the "Find Target..." command does not open up a
> dialog, why does it have the ... at the end? That goes against the
> standards.
> >
> > But I have to question the value of all of this. Unless repeated quite
> > often I can't see any slight advantage the Mac might have as being
> > sufficient enough to increase productivity.
>
> I use jump to the target often on a Mac but not as often on Windows - it is
> just not as convenient on XP.
Why? What are you doing that requires you to move files or rename them
frequently while they're open? The need to find the target of an alias
so frequently? I would suggest that you're really disorganized if you're
doing these activities frequently enough to warrant these examples as
being productivity enhancers. I would further suggest that said
disorganization is draining productivity more than these examples are
helping.
> You can use the same hot key on a Mac, for what it is worth, in searches from
> Spotlight and elsewhere on the system - that makes a lot of sense. How do you
> get to the "target" of an item in an XP search? Properties > Find Target...
> Nope. Why not?
Not sure what you're asking about here.
> > But if I need to open a file with something other than the default I can
> > always right click on it and choose "Open With..." which lists the most
> > common programs for that type of file. If that program is not listed
> > then I have the option to choose any program on the system.
>
> OS X has that, too. This is a different feature - and one that allows me to
> have files that I can just double click, not do anything special, and have
> them open with a "non-default" application... this allows a user to focus on
> the task and not the tool.
I'm still not seeing the big productivity enhancement with this feature.
> >>>> and Default Folder X help me sail through my work.
> >>>
> >>> Default Folder X is not an OS X feature.
> >>
> >> Nor are games an XP "feature" but they are an advantage of the XP
> >> platform.
> >
> > I don't feel that either are appropriate for this discussion.
>
> When talking about productivity and work flows, anything that effects that
> is open game to me. If you are talking the "task" of playing Half-Life 2 or
> some such game, XP is simply the better tool.
You're the second person to hold this view. Therefore I will keep this
in mind the next time a Mac user complains that Windows cannot do
something without a third party product.
> > 1. Open a file in TextEdit and then save it.
> > 2. While the file is still open throw it in the trash.
> > 3. Empty the trash. Note that the file will be deleted.
> >
> > This is consistency? To make matters worse you can delete the Excel file
> > by selecting "Secure Empty Trash". That's even more inconsistent.
>
> It is inconsistent. Agreed. And it is a part of the OS X experience.
> Still, XP is less consistent than the Mac.
What you have failed to do is correlate these inconsistencies with any
significant amount of lost productivity.
> Related issue: most programs on a Mac allow me to rename files from the
> Finder even when the file is open. Not so in Windows. This is a benefit
> for OS X.
Again: Why the need to rename these so frequently while they're open?
> >> Somewhat related: on most Mac programs you can tell if your current file
> >> has been saved by looking at the close dot - it has a dark center if you need
> >> to save. This comes in handy as well, especially for training purposes but
> >> also elsewhere.
> >
> > I fail to see how this has any benefit to productivity.
>
> If I have several files open in several programs I know at a glance which is
> saved - assuming of course their windows are open.
And how does this significantly increase productivity?
> >>>> I like how I can drag-and-drop a lot more kinds of objects between a lot
> >>>> more applications.
> >>>>
> >>> This is kind of ambiguous.
> >>>
> >>>> I like how I can move a file that's open in an application to a new
> >>>> location -- even the trash -- without having to close the app first.
> >>>>
> >>> You can do this in Windows too. Take the test text file from above and
> >>> drag it to the Recycle bin while it's open in Notepad. You can even empty the
> >>> Rcycle Bin while it's open in Notepad.
> >>>
> >> This generally does not work with Windows.
> >
> > See my comment above. And I would think that this is a good thing.
>
> Not sure being able to empty the trash is good - but being able to move
> files is.
Again with the moving of files while they're open. Why do you do this so
frequently?
> >> It is less visually intuitive. On a Mac, for example, look at how windows
> >> minimize. You know exactly where they go. The graphics on Windows are
> >> not as clear. People say this is mere eye candy, but it also serves a very
> >> important purpose.
> >>
> > I keep hearing things like this. But I don't see any facts to support
> > that OS X is any more productive. I use both every day. I don't see it
> > as a problem.
>
> Other than telling you about the feature and explaining to you why it helps
> with productivity I am not sure what else to do.
I am in complete agreement with you that the Macintosh is a more refined
system. However I don't see these refinements translated into
productivity enhancers. At least not to the extent that they're must
haves. You've done a great job of advocating some of the advantages of
the Macintosh. But when push comes to shove most people don't find these
advantages significant enough to buy a Macintosh.
> >>>> In other words, my productivity in Windows exceeds by orders of
> >>>> magnitude the productivity of other long-time Windows users.
> >>>>
> >>> No. What you're doing is teaching someone how to do something. And, as
> >>> with all things that people are just learning, they can't do it as fast as
> >>> you can.
> >>>
> >> Based on his context he is likely showing long time Windows users how to
> >> do something.
> >
> > And?
>
> It is an indication he likely knows Windows relatively well.
Knowing how to do one thing in Windows (or any other OS for that matter)
does not make you an expert in Windows.
> I know for me I use both and learned both at the same time - though both
> have changed quite a lot over time, it has been consistently true that not
> only do I find Macs easier to use, I find that others do to - assuming they
> know them both well.
A myth only held by Mac users. Without some supporting facts this
statement is nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of Mac users.
[ snip ]
> >> XP has usability issues that, in general, make users less productive.
> >
> > And these issues are?
>
> Some are listed above: shortcuts not working as well as aliases,
They may not work as well but do they work 99.9% of people's needs?
> not being able to jump to "targets" as easily or quickly,
You're talking one extra click in Windows. Unless you're doing this so
frequently it's a non-issue. And I would suggest that if you're doing it
frequently enough to make it an issue you may want to re-evaluate what
you're doing and how you're going about doing it.
> being able to tell which files have been saved,
Many Windows applications gray out the little disk icon to indicate that
a file has been saved.
> being able to see file titles as opposed to application names in the taskbar
I see document names in the taskbar. Just tried it in Word.
> / dock, being able to move applications, etc.
Why the fascination with moving applications? Put them where you want
them in the first place.
> We can also add creating new folders from hot keys,
Right click, New, Folder.
> auto-select of folders on moving to the parent, better search, better
> scriptability, folder actions, clipboard viewer, color selection tools, etc.
Windows has a clipboard viewer. Color selection tools?
> I assume you have seen my page on the topic:
> <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win/>.
I have. And it wasn't any more convincing then what you're provided here.
> >> He offered some examples above.
> >
> > He offered differences. He did not offer anything that I saw that makes
> > the Macintosh any more (or less) productive than Windows. I also saw
> > claims that appear to be wrong. I get the impression that the lost
> > productivity is more a result of unfamiliarity with Windows than
> > anything inherent in Windows.
>
> What do you think effects productivity?
Being familiar with your tools. Applications.
> Where do you think he was wrong?
Not sure what you're asking here.
Josh
Josh McKee
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
You would have already had to configure a non-default application on the
Mac. At that point I think that you've already identified it as
non-standard.
> >> When used well this OS X feature is a pretty big benefit... one that is
> >> grossly underestimated by those that do not use it.
> >
> > I do not see a pretty big benefit out of it. Therefore I don't use it.
> > And so far I haven't seen an example given that demonstrates that lack
> > of this feature is a hinderance to productivity.
>
> Use it for a while and see how you like it.
This capability isn't new to me. I just don't see it as a significant
productivity enhancer.
Josh
Sandman
Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
> > On a Mac the folder appears as one icon - so even this is easier to do: if
> > I
> > have an alias to an app I can jump to the application (a quick hot key on
> > OS X, not so on XP) and then delete that
> > one icon. In XP I have to work harder to get to the original, then move up
> > a directory.
>
> Why not just use the shortcut on the desktop that's typically created
> when the application is installed? Or accessing the program from the
> start menu that, again, is typically created when the software is
> installed? It sounds as if you're creating a lot of unnecessary work.
> This is how most people try applications in Windows:
>
> 1. Download.
> 2. Double click to install.
> 3. Go through install process.
> 4. Use the desktop icon or start menu short cut to access the
> application.
> 5. Un-install it if they don't like it.
> 5. Leave it where it is if they do like it.
And on the Mac:
1. Download
2. Double click to launch from the DMG that's automatically mounted
3. Delete DMG or install application
No installation process, no uninstallation process. Sweet.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C061D265.4BB4E%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Josh McKee" <jtm...@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> stated in post
>> jtmckee-05BB6C...@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 4/11/06 3:42 PM:
>
> [ snip ]
>
>>>> Play with it If I like it I create an alias and move it to the where I want
>>>> it [2] I then move the application to the Application folder [1]
>>>>
>>>> Items depicted by a [1] are not recommended on Windows because you
>>>> generally cannot not move applications around so easily.
>>>
>>> Agreed. But I have to ask: Why would you want to move it from the
>>> "Program Files" directory where it most likely was installed?
>>
>> That is not where I install stuff on my Mac.
>
> But it is where most applications are installed on Windows.
>
>> I put it in a "holding area" as I test it - keeps it handy.
>
> Why does the use of a "holding area" make it handy to access?
Open a folder and see the program there. Visually easy to see.
>
>> Sometimes I download software and leave it there a while until I get a chance
>> to test it. I move it to a subfolder on my desktop and then later to the
>> Applications folder. This is a great organizational aid that I cannot do on
>> Windows.
>
> What benefit is it providing?
Efficiency.
>
>> I suppose I could make shortcuts and the like for Windows, but even then I
>> would have to point to an icon in a folder for most apps.
>
> Not sure what you're saying with that statement.
If I wanted to build the same modes of efficiency on Windows I would have to
jump through more hoops and still have a lesser solution.
>
>> On a Mac the folder appears as one icon - so even this is easier to do: if I
>> have an alias to an app I can jump to the application (a quick hot key on OS
>> X, not so on XP) and then delete that one icon. In XP I have to work harder
>> to get to the original, then move up a directory.
>
> Why not just use the shortcut on the desktop that's typically created
> when the application is installed? Or accessing the program from the
> start menu that, again, is typically created when the software is
> installed? It sounds as if you're creating a lot of unnecessary work.
Having an icon on the desktop is not the same as having the target there.
This is especially true of the application is in a sub-folder, as is the
case with most Windows software.
> This is how most people try applications in Windows:
>
> 1. Download.
> 2. Double click to install.
> 3. Go through install process.
> 4. Use the desktop icon or start menu short cut to access the
> application.
> 5. Un-install it if they don't like it.
> 5. Leave it where it is if they do like it.
Correct: they have to re-install if they want it on multiple computers, put
the program with other good programs where it does not "stand out" as being
in "test" mode, and generally place it in a shared user space and not just
in their home folder.
>> Windows does not even auto-select the folder I just came from (as OS X does)
>> so I have to look for it and *then* delete it. Heck, even when I have an app
>> in a folder I can use the proxy icon to throw it out or move up and it is
>> already selected.
>>
>> All sorts of examples of how OS X allows me to be more efficient there. :)
>
> It appears to be nothing more than an example of how things are
> different more than an example of efficiency that would lead to
> significantly increased productivity.
How so? What alternate methods does XP have to:
* select a folder on move to parent
* jump to a target with a hot key
* work with proxy icons
* find where an application is in the folder structure
* jump to the parent folder of an open file
Etc.
>
>>>> The item depicted by a [2] is not suggested on Windows because the Shortcut
>>>> will break. Mac aliases are not broken when you move and rename a file.
>>>> Not so for XP shortcuts.
>>>>
>>> I am able to move the target file from place to place without the shortcut
>>> breaking. I'm able to rename the target file without the shortcut breaking.
>>> I am able to move and rename the target file without the shortcut breaking.
>>> Perhaps I'm missing something?
>>
>> Sometimes they seem to work just fine; sometimes they work after they "hunt"
>> for the target; and sometimes they outright fail. What is the pattern? I
>> played a little today. Here is what I found; I...
>>
>> * Installed Firefox to the desktop (I happen to know it lets you
>> move it around)
>> * I created a shortcut to the application on the desktop.
>> It worked fine.
>> * I moved the Firefox folder to My Programs
>> The shortcut worked, but it took it a few seconds. It clearly
>> was having to be updated - something that is not the case on OS X
>> * I moved the folder back to the desktop
>> The shortcut failed. I got the message "Windows is searching for
>> Firefox.exe. To Locate the file yourself, click Browse."
>>
>> Worse that than, during the couple minutes I let it run I could not use any
>> other icon on the desktop.
>
> Why are you constantly moving things around?
The question was about shortcuts breaking if you move things. Why should I
be restricted from doing so?
> You're giving great examples as to the refinement of OS X. But you're not
> giving examples of how these refinements add up to increased productivity.
> Your need to constantly move things around is likely to impact productivity
> more than these example of refinement help it.
I look forward to your examples of things that effect productivity. If
saving time and frustration with a more refined GUI does not count I am not
sure what does to you.
How do you select the "real" file when you do a search in XP? You can go to
parent folder, which is pretty close, but it is not intuitive and not like
the rest of the OS.
>
>>> But if I need to open a file with something other than the default I can
>>> always right click on it and choose "Open With..." which lists the most
>>> common programs for that type of file. If that program is not listed
>>> then I have the option to choose any program on the system.
>>
>> OS X has that, too. This is a different feature - and one that allows me to
>> have files that I can just double click, not do anything special, and have
>> them open with a "non-default" application... this allows a user to focus on
>> the task and not the tool.
>
> I'm still not seeing the big productivity enhancement with this feature.
>
>>>>>> and Default Folder X help me sail through my work.
>>>>>
>>>>> Default Folder X is not an OS X feature.
>>>>
>>>> Nor are games an XP "feature" but they are an advantage of the XP
>>>> platform.
>>>
>>> I don't feel that either are appropriate for this discussion.
>>
>> When talking about productivity and work flows, anything that effects that
>> is open game to me. If you are talking the "task" of playing Half-Life 2 or
>> some such game, XP is simply the better tool.
>
> You're the second person to hold this view. Therefore I will keep this
> in mind the next time a Mac user complains that Windows cannot do
> something without a third party product.
Feel free to keep it in mind, but also keep it in context. :)
When I compare XP to OS X, I compare not just the OSs - if all you have is
an OS then you likely will get very little done. I look at common work
environments... or even uncommon ones depending on context.
You have noted that you do not - how do you conclude most people do not?
From what I have seen, a good number of people who know both system *do* see
the advantages to productivity that saving time and frustration offers them.
>
>>>>>> In other words, my productivity in Windows exceeds by orders of
>>>>>> magnitude the productivity of other long-time Windows users.
>>>>>>
>>>>> No. What you're doing is teaching someone how to do something. And, as
>>>>> with all things that people are just learning, they can't do it as fast as
>>>>> you can.
>>>>>
>>>> Based on his context he is likely showing long time Windows users how to
>>>> do something.
>>>
>>> And?
>>
>> It is an indication he likely knows Windows relatively well.
>
> Knowing how to do one thing in Windows (or any other OS for that matter)
> does not make you an expert in Windows.
Nor did he suggest that.
>
>> I know for me I use both and learned both at the same time - though both
>> have changed quite a lot over time, it has been consistently true that not
>> only do I find Macs easier to use, I find that others do to - assuming they
>> know them both well.
>
> A myth only held by Mac users. Without some supporting facts this
> statement is nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of Mac users.
What facts do you want me to gather - the reviews from my old classes? I
will not make those public.
>
> [ snip ]
>
>>>> XP has usability issues that, in general, make users less productive.
>>>
>>> And these issues are?
>>
>> Some are listed above: shortcuts not working as well as aliases,
>
> They may not work as well but do they work 99.9% of people's needs?
>
>> not being able to jump to "targets" as easily or quickly,
>
> You're talking one extra click in Windows. Unless you're doing this so
> frequently it's a non-issue. And I would suggest that if you're doing it
> frequently enough to make it an issue you may want to re-evaluate what
> you're doing and how you're going about doing it.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to get to a target / original file on a
regular basis.
>> being able to tell which files have been saved,
>
> Many Windows applications gray out the little disk icon to indicate that
> a file has been saved.
Some do. Not sure if I would go with "most".
>
>> being able to see file titles as opposed to application names in the taskbar
>
> I see document names in the taskbar. Just tried it in Word.
Depends on the order they are listed (which is inconsistent in XP) and how
many items you have. And the settings of the taskbar.
>
>> / dock, being able to move applications, etc.
>
> Why the fascination with moving applications? Put them where you want
> them in the first place.
Depending on how I am using them I want them in different places. Sounds
like learned the limitations of Windows, got used to them, and do not grow
your work habits when the environment lets you.
>> We can also add creating new folders from hot keys,
>
> Right click, New, Folder.
Not as easy as a quick hot key. Previously I have also shown you
inconsistencies with creation of new folders on XP.
>
>> auto-select of folders on moving to the parent, better search, better
>> scriptability, folder actions, clipboard viewer, color selection tools, etc.
>
> Windows has a clipboard viewer.
The clipboard view is not installed by default and is not on most systems.
Even when it is installed it is not even included in the Start menu by
default.
> Color selection tools?
>
>> I assume you have seen my page on the topic:
>> <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win/>.
>
> I have. And it wasn't any more convincing then what you're provided here.
>
>>>> He offered some examples above.
>>>
>>> He offered differences. He did not offer anything that I saw that makes
>>> the Macintosh any more (or less) productive than Windows. I also saw
>>> claims that appear to be wrong. I get the impression that the lost
>>> productivity is more a result of unfamiliarity with Windows than
>>> anything inherent in Windows.
>>
>> What do you think effects productivity?
>
> Being familiar with your tools. Applications.
>
>> Where do you think he was wrong?
>
> Not sure what you're asking here.
>
> Josh
Snit
Once. You do not need to do so every time you open the file.
>
>>>> When used well this OS X feature is a pretty big benefit... one that is
>>>> grossly underestimated by those that do not use it.
>>>
>>> I do not see a pretty big benefit out of it. Therefore I don't use it.
>>> And so far I haven't seen an example given that demonstrates that lack
>>> of this feature is a hinderance to productivity.
>>
>> Use it for a while and see how you like it.
>
> This capability isn't new to me. I just don't see it as a significant
> productivity enhancer.
You stated you do not use it. I suggest you do.
You seem to have learned your work habits from the more restrictive
environment of Windows and now use OS X but do not stretch out much in the
more open space you have to work. If so, that likely does effect your
productivity on a Mac.
Josh McKee
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
That wasn't the behavior of the software for the printer that I just
installed:
1. Double click the DMG file.
2. Run Installer (Package).
Josh
Sandman
Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
> > > 1. Download.
> > > 2. Double click to install.
> > > 3. Go through install process.
> > > 4. Use the desktop icon or start menu short cut to access the
> > > application.
> > > 5. Un-install it if they don't like it.
> > > 5. Leave it where it is if they do like it.
> >
> > And on the Mac:
> >
> > 1. Download
> > 2. Double click to launch from the DMG that's automatically mounted
> > 3. Delete DMG or install application
> >
> > No installation process, no uninstallation process. Sweet.
>
> That wasn't the behavior of the software for the printer that I just
> installed:
But is for most apps, regardless if one can find special cases. You're
basically saying that the printer software was as bad as Windows.
On the same note, Filezilla for Windows is a good as most apps on OSX
is - it is a drag-install.
--
Sandman[.net]
Tim Murray
> I don't see any of the examples provided so far as being big
> productivity enhancers. Even when combined together. To me the big
> productivity enhancers/detractors are in the applications.
Josh, you go on and on about how *you* don't see such-and-such as a
productivity enhancer or detractor. It's the pronouns that are the key here:
Your productivity enhancer/detractor is not my enhancer/detractor.
In my work there is no task I can't accomplish entirely in Windows, mainly
since the apps I use day to day are available on both platforms; or, even if
the apps are not available directly, the task can be accomplished by
something similar, as in Graphic Converter versus ACDSee.
You will never be satisfied with any so-called proof because there really is
nothing more than how much you or I or Snit or anyone can get done at the end
of the day. If MuahMan can't figure out the compass icon is Safari, then
Windows is more productive for him. At end of the day -- or more importantly
at the end of the task when I cut my invoice -- I can get more done in OS X.
But that's just me, after years and years of Windows. Deal with it.
Josh McKee
Tim Murray <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote:
I believe that you've convinced yourself that you're more productive on
the Macintosh than Windows. It's like the toolbar shortcuts found in
most applications these days. They lead us to believe that they're
making us so much more efficient. But at the end of the day our
productivity would be the same without them as it is with them.
Josh
Snit
Toolbars can and do increase productivity for many. Look at the blogs on
the next version of Office for some pretty cool thoughts on this.
<http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/about.aspx>. Not sure if the result will
work, but I have to give MS credit - they are re-thinking the UI of Office
and re-doing the toolbars (or, really, replacing them) in part to increase
productivity of many of their users. If what they do works well for Office
and is copied in other apps, for a change MS may be a true innovator in
application UI. What MS is working on certainly seems to make more sense
to me that Apple's Keynote and Pages UI. Apple is also trying new paradigms
with those but - especially with Pages - I think they are failing. The UI
is not one that helps make users more productive.
Josh McKee
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Josh McKee" <jtm...@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> stated in post
> jtmckee-096D86...@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 4/16/06 10:27 AM:
>
> > In article <C0657095.4BF22%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> "Josh McKee" <jtm...@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> stated in post
> >> jtmckee-C03B8B...@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 4/14/06 2:01 PM:
> >
> > [ snip ]
> >
> >>> Because the majority of times you're going to want to open a specific
> >>> file type with a specific application.
> >>
> >> Why base it only on file type? Why not base in on how you are using the
> >> file - that is what OS X allows you to do. XP does not.
> >
> > Remember that this discussion is not on why things are done a certain
> > way. It's about do these examples result in increased productivity.
>
> Allowing a user to focus on how a file is used and not on its file type is
> one that that increased productivity.
I don't see this being any different on either platform. Using "Open
With..." on Windows is doing the exact same thing that you're doing in
OS X: Allowing the user to choose the tool that they would like to use
to work with the file.
> >>> For those times that you do not the ability to select an alternative is
> >>> fairly easy and straightforward.
> >>
> >> For a relatively experienced user, sure. Even then, though, you have to
> >> do
> >> something "different" to open the file.
> >
> > Which takes all of a second or two. Hardly an impact to productivity.
>
> Except when you open the file in the default because you forget to open it
> with another program, then you have to quit that application. This is often
> more than a "second or two".
>
> Also keep in mind that humans are not like computers - when such a thing
> happens it effects not just the time it takes to correct the situation but
> also the time it takes to re-focus, etc.
And I'm sure that you always remember to preset the "Open With"
application in OS X before double clicking it? This is one of the
drawbacks I see with this feature. It has to be set up in advance before
it can be used.
> > I don't see any of the examples provided so far as being big
> > productivity enhancers. Even when combined together. To me the big
> > productivity enhancers/detractors are in the applications.
>
> Can you give an example of one application being more productive than
> another (or more of an enhancement to productivity, really).
UltraEdit over Notepad. Specifically column mode.
> >> I use both on a daily basis as well, and find OS X to be, in general, more
> >> productive. While there will be personal differences, I would bet that
> >> most
> >> people who use both tend to lean my way.
> >
> > I disagree. I think that this is a belief that Mac users have convinced
> > themselves is true.
>
> How many people have you known who are proficient in both?
Not very many due to the Macintoshes low market share.
> I have worked with and taught many Windows users how to use Macs (and vice
> versa). From my experience Windows users are often amazed at how much more
> productive / how much easier the Mac is. The reverse is much less often true.
I suspect that there is some influence on the students due to the
instructors preference.
> >> It is also true that people's perception of their productivity is not
> >> always
> >> the same as their actual productivity. I did some small studies of this
> >> at
> >> Intuit. People tend to grossly underestimate their time lost to computer
> >> problems (not to mention other issues).
> >
> > That would depend on the type of computer problem. I doubt that the
> > given examples have resulted in any significant increase in productivity.
>
> The work being looked at was computer tech support, documenting creation,
> database entry and other business work.
Tech support is understandable. The others are more the result of the
applications being used.
Josh
Josh McKee
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <jtmckee-9CCD7B...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
>
> > > > 1. Download.
> > > > 2. Double click to install.
> > > > 3. Go through install process.
> > > > 4. Use the desktop icon or start menu short cut to access the
> > > > application.
> > > > 5. Un-install it if they don't like it.
> > > > 5. Leave it where it is if they do like it.
> > >
> > > And on the Mac:
> > >
> > > 1. Download
> > > 2. Double click to launch from the DMG that's automatically mounted
> > > 3. Delete DMG or install application
> > >
> > > No installation process, no uninstallation process. Sweet.
> >
> > That wasn't the behavior of the software for the printer that I just
> > installed:
>
> But is for most apps, regardless if one can find special cases. You're
> basically saying that the printer software was as bad as Windows.
So was the scanner software. So is "flip4mac". So is DivX Pro. So is
PGP. So is StuffIt Expander 10. Seems using an installer is a lot more
common than Mac users want to admit.
Josh
Josh McKee
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Josh McKee" <jtm...@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> stated in post
> jtmckee-F9887B...@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 4/16/06 11:55 AM:
>
> > In article <C061D265.4BB4E%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> "Josh McKee" <jtm...@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> stated in post
> >> jtmckee-05BB6C...@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 4/11/06 3:42 PM:
> >
> > [ snip ]
> >
> >>>> Play with it If I like it I create an alias and move it to the where I
> >>>> want
> >>>> it [2] I then move the application to the Application folder [1]
> >>>>
> >>>> Items depicted by a [1] are not recommended on Windows because you
> >>>> generally cannot not move applications around so easily.
> >>>
> >>> Agreed. But I have to ask: Why would you want to move it from the
> >>> "Program Files" directory where it most likely was installed?
> >>
> >> That is not where I install stuff on my Mac.
> >
> > But it is where most applications are installed on Windows.
> >
> >> I put it in a "holding area" as I test it - keeps it handy.
> >
> > Why does the use of a "holding area" make it handy to access?
>
> Open a folder and see the program there. Visually easy to see.
Again: Why do you find this necessary?
> >> Sometimes I download software and leave it there a while until I get a
> >> chance to test it. I move it to a subfolder on my desktop and then later to the
> >> Applications folder. This is a great organizational aid that I cannot do
> >> on Windows.
> >
> > What benefit is it providing?
>
> Efficiency.
Not if you're doing it for unnecessary reasons. It sounds like you're
doing something that generally is unnecessary.
> >> I suppose I could make shortcuts and the like for Windows, but even then I
> >> would have to point to an icon in a folder for most apps.
> >
> > Not sure what you're saying with that statement.
>
> If I wanted to build the same modes of efficiency on Windows I would have to
> jump through more hoops and still have a lesser solution.
I still am not sure what you're trying to accomplish. What problem are
you trying to solve?
> > Why not just use the shortcut on the desktop that's typically created
> > when the application is installed? Or accessing the program from the
> > start menu that, again, is typically created when the software is
> > installed? It sounds as if you're creating a lot of unnecessary work.
>
> Having an icon on the desktop is not the same as having the target there.
It's not. Why is the distinction so important?
> This is especially true of the application is in a sub-folder, as is the
> case with most Windows software.
?
> > This is how most people try applications in Windows:
> >
> > 1. Download.
> > 2. Double click to install.
> > 3. Go through install process.
> > 4. Use the desktop icon or start menu short cut to access the
> > application.
> > 5. Un-install it if they don't like it.
> > 5. Leave it where it is if they do like it.
>
> Correct: they have to re-install
Why would they have to re-install if they put the application where it
should go in the first place?
> if they want it on multiple computers,
Where did this come from?
> put the program with other good programs where it does not "stand out" as being
> in "test" mode, and generally place it in a shared user space and not just
> in their home folder.
Why would you care if it's in "test" mode or not? Install it, try it, if
you like it leave it where its at. If not uninstall it. It appears that
you're making a lot of extra work for yourself.
> >> Windows does not even auto-select the folder I just came from (as OS X
> >> does)
> >> so I have to look for it and *then* delete it. Heck, even when I have an
> >> app
> >> in a folder I can use the proxy icon to throw it out or move up and it is
> >> already selected.
> >>
> >> All sorts of examples of how OS X allows me to be more efficient there.
> >> :)
> >
> > It appears to be nothing more than an example of how things are
> > different more than an example of efficiency that would lead to
> > significantly increased productivity.
>
> How so? What alternate methods does XP have to:
> * select a folder on move to parent
> * jump to a target with a hot key
> * work with proxy icons
> * find where an application is in the folder structure
> * jump to the parent folder of an open file
>
> Etc.
What you're doing is applying the Mac way of doing things instead of
looking at how you might be able to achieve the same end result in
Windows through another method. For example you're now qualifying
locating the target of an alias with using a hot-key. Why not just use
the "Find Target..." menu selection in Windows as previously described?
> >> Worse that than, during the couple minutes I let it run I could not use
> >> any other icon on the desktop.
> >
> > Why are you constantly moving things around?
>
> The question was about shortcuts breaking if you move things. Why should I
> be restricted from doing so?
No. The question is why are you moving things so frequently that broken
shortcuts result? I don't move the targets of shortcuts all that often.
And when I do they continue to work. This is not to say that they don't
occasionally break. But the number of times that I actually do it
combined with the number of times that they actually break makes me
question how much of a productivity booster your example is. That is
unless I'm moving them around so much as to make it a frequent
occurrence. And then I would ask myself: Why am I moving these targets
around so much?
> >> You can use the same hot key on a Mac, for what it is worth, in searches
> >> from Spotlight and elsewhere on the system - that makes a lot of sense. How do
> >> you get to the "target" of an item in an XP search? Properties > Find
> >> Target... Nope. Why not?
> >
> > Not sure what you're asking about here.
>
> How do you select the "real" file when you do a search in XP? You can go to
> parent folder, which is pretty close, but it is not intuitive and not like
> the rest of the OS.
I guess I'm still not understanding what you're asking because the
answer is so obvious that you must be talking about something else:
Select it from the search results window.
> >> When talking about productivity and work flows, anything that effects that
> >> is open game to me. If you are talking the "task" of playing Half-Life 2
> >> or some such game, XP is simply the better tool.
> >
> > You're the second person to hold this view. Therefore I will keep this
> > in mind the next time a Mac user complains that Windows cannot do
> > something without a third party product.
>
> Feel free to keep it in mind, but also keep it in context. :)
>
> When I compare XP to OS X, I compare not just the OSs - if all you have is
> an OS then you likely will get very little done. I look at common work
> environments... or even uncommon ones depending on context.
Odd. That didn't appear to be your position in your rebuttal to the
clipboard viewer in Windows.
> > I am in complete agreement with you that the Macintosh is a more refined
> > system. However I don't see these refinements translated into
> > productivity enhancers. At least not to the extent that they're must
> > haves. You've done a great job of advocating some of the advantages of
> > the Macintosh. But when push comes to shove most people don't find these
> > advantages significant enough to buy a Macintosh.
>
> You have noted that you do not - how do you conclude most people do not?
Because Windows has > 90% marketshare? I would imagine that if OS X were
really much more productive than Windows that we would find the industry
using it more than Windows. I suspect that such is not the case. There
are other, more meaningful, factors.
> >> It is an indication he likely knows Windows relatively well.
> >
> > Knowing how to do one thing in Windows (or any other OS for that matter)
> > does not make you an expert in Windows.
>
> Nor did he suggest that.
Then what was he suggesting? And why did you respond with such a
conclusion?
> >> I know for me I use both and learned both at the same time - though both
> >> have changed quite a lot over time, it has been consistently true that not
> >> only do I find Macs easier to use, I find that others do to - assuming
> >> they know them both well.
> >
> > A myth only held by Mac users. Without some supporting facts this
> > statement is nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of Mac users.
>
> What facts do you want me to gather - the reviews from my old classes? I
> will not make those public.
Something more than the word of Mac users who have convinced themselves
that OS X is more productive than Windows. We keep hearing from Mac
advocates about studies. How about providing one of these studies?
> > You're talking one extra click in Windows. Unless you're doing this so
> > frequently it's a non-issue. And I would suggest that if you're doing it
> > frequently enough to make it an issue you may want to re-evaluate what
> > you're doing and how you're going about doing it.
>
> There is nothing wrong with wanting to get to a target / original file on a
> regular basis.
I didn't say that there was anything wrong with it. What I am wondering
is why do you want to do it on a regular basis?
> >> being able to tell which files have been saved,
> >
> > Many Windows applications gray out the little disk icon to indicate that
> > a file has been saved.
>
> Some do. Not sure if I would go with "most".
If it's so important then choose those that do.
> >> being able to see file titles as opposed to application names in the
> >> taskbar
> >
> > I see document names in the taskbar. Just tried it in Word.
>
> Depends on the order they are listed (which is inconsistent in XP) and how
> many items you have. And the settings of the taskbar.
But they are there. Your statement implied that they were not.
> >> / dock, being able to move applications, etc.
> >
> > Why the fascination with moving applications? Put them where you want
> > them in the first place.
>
> Depending on how I am using them I want them in different places. Sounds
> like learned the limitations of Windows, got used to them, and do not grow
> your work habits when the environment lets you.
Or perhaps it's just merely not understanding why you would want to move
them around. With Windows I install the application, typically in the
"Program Folders" folder. I don't know why I would want to move them
from there at a later time.
> >> We can also add creating new folders from hot keys,
> >
> > Right click, New, Folder.
>
> Not as easy as a quick hot key.
By what degree? Perhaps if you were talking more than a few milliseconds
I would agree with you. But since you're not I don't see the distinction
as all that important.
> Previously I have also shown you inconsistencies with creation of new folders
> on XP.
I must have missed that. Can you repeat it?
> >> auto-select of folders on moving to the parent, better search, better
> >> scriptability, folder actions, clipboard viewer, color selection tools,
> >> etc.
> >
> > Windows has a clipboard viewer.
>
> The clipboard view is not installed by default and is not on most systems.
What happened to "When I compare XP to OS X, I compare not just the OSs
- if all you have is an OS then you likely will get very little done. I
look at common work environments... or even uncommon ones depending on
context."
If you need this functionality then install it. To find fault because
it's not installed by default just goes to show your bias towards OS X.
> Even when it is installed it is not even included in the Start menu by
> default.
Then put it there.
Josh
Tim Murray
> I believe that you've convinced yourself that you're more productive on
> the Macintosh than Windows.
You believe wrong. First, I'm incredibly pragmatic, and when it comes to OS
an apps, screw the brand, screw Steve, and screw Bill: the one who gets the
most done for me gets my credit card number.
> It's like the toolbar shortcuts found in most applications these days.
> They lead us to believe that they're making us so much more efficient. But
> at the end of the day our productivity would be the same without them as
> it is with them.
Incorrect. I've spent lots of time in usability labs behind a one-way mirror,
complete with video recorders of eye movements and retina dialation, hand
movements, and recording audio of utterance. If one takes the time to learn
the keyboard shortcuts, toolbars are incredibly unproductive.
Josh McKee
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Josh McKee" <jtm...@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> stated in post
> jtmckee-DC431A...@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 4/16/06 12:07 PM:
> > You would have already had to configure a non-default application on the
> > Mac. At that point I think that you've already identified it as
> > non-standard.
>
> Once. You do not need to do so every time you open the file.
Agreed. But since you've already identified it as a non-standard why
should there be any thought to it being non-standard in subsequent usage?
> >> Use it for a while and see how you like it.
> >
> > This capability isn't new to me. I just don't see it as a significant
> > productivity enhancer.
>
> You stated you do not use it. I suggest you do.
>
> You seem to have learned your work habits from the more restrictive
> environment of Windows and now use OS X but do not stretch out much in the
> more open space you have to work. If so, that likely does effect your
> productivity on a Mac.
Not at all. I've been using the Macintosh for quite a few years starting
with MacOS 7. I always like the type/creator code capability of the
Macintosh. I thought it was a much better design than file extensions.
I've never agreed with the idea that the file type should be tied to the
filename.
With that said I still don't see the productivity boost by having this
feature. Using "Open With..." on Windows has not been a drain on my
productivity.
Josh
Josh McKee
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Again: I think that many people have convinced themselves that they're
being more productive.
> Look at the blogs on the next version of Office for some pretty cool thoughts
> on this.
A blog is nothing more than someone's opinion. Much like yours and mine
that we're posting here.
Josh
Josh McKee
Tim Murray <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote:
You're going to have to do better if you want to sell people on the
Macintosh. I haven't seen anything presented that would convert a
Windows user to OS X. The simple fact is that if OS X were so much more
productive than Windows people would be using it instead of Windows.
Josh
Tim Murray
> You're going to have to do better if you want to sell people on the
> Macintosh. I haven't seen anything presented that would convert a Windows
> user to OS X.
I've already done better. I just got a last-model G4 1.67 MHz version, and
this week I'm selling my three-year-old PowerBook to a guy in the office. It
took only a short demo, and he's a pretty knowledgeable Windows user. Several
others in the office have converted at home.
> The simple fact is that if OS X were so much more productive than Windows
> people would be using it instead of Windows.
Somewhere buried in CSMA is a link to a survey or something that mentions
Macs tend to be preferred by those who are driven by tight deadlines. That's
the way is at my corporate clients; for example, advertising, who needs to
get stuff out yesterday, has either (1) stuck with Macs, or (2) switched back
after a painful stint with Windows.