My Leopard impressions
Sandman
Anyway, my impressions so far:
1. Installation was a breeze. Archive & Install took half an hour and
only one reboot.
2. My Epson Stylus Photo 2100 doesn't seem to work. They have a
unified Stylus Photo driver set, but when printing to it, nothing
happens.
3. Both my MacBook Pro and my Mac Pro is considerably snappier when
starting applications
4. Windows being darker means there's more contrast. I don't think
that's a good idea.
5. Overall, glossiness is tuned way down. Windows Vista really has a
lot to catch up to in terms of UI slickness.
6. I hate the translucent menu bar. I did the Dock 3D fix immediately
but I can't fix the menu bar. When I'm using applications that have a
top toolbar (like photoshop) that's opaque, it looks ridiculous.
7. Cover Flow in the Finder... what's the point? :)
8. Spaces works really good. I use it on my laptop. It's adequately
advanced in its setup and feels well thought out. On my Mac Pro with
two 30" and one 20" monitor, it's unneccesary, and actually looks
stupid when used.
9. I had too much data on my Mac Pro to be able to test Time Machine.
Or rather, my backup drive was way too small.
10. The new menu help system is really cool and really helpful
11. Todos and notes in mail may prove to be useful, actually. I like
that you can turn any text from any mail into a system-global todo.
12. Upon invoking the spotlight window (not the menu) it starts out by
showing me *everything* on my Mac and when I begin typing, it narrows
the result down. That seems stupid. Other than that, Spotlight seems
even quicker.
13. The network browser is really nice
14. The new folder icons are nice in 16x16, but otherwise they look
boring. I see a huge market for applications like Candybar here.
15. Software Update didn't work when I installed 10.5, the servers
didn't contain the appropriate data for Software Update. It works now
that you guys have 10.5. D'oh! :)
16. But now that it works, when updating something, the main window is
replaced by a smaller progress window. Looks allright.
17. Spaces works great in conjunction with Exposé. I.e. you can grab a
file from the desktop and while dragging it both change space and then
change window with exposé. Works great.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
mr-6BC708.09...@News.Individual.NET on 10/27/07 12:25 AM:
> Since we are ahead of you guys, I had it installed hours before you :)
>
> Anyway, my impressions so far:
>
> 1. Installation was a breeze. Archive & Install took half an hour and
> only one reboot.
>
> 2. My Epson Stylus Photo 2100 doesn't seem to work. They have a
> unified Stylus Photo driver set, but when printing to it, nothing
> happens.
Does a sheet of paper come out at all? Leopard has more transparency so
maybe you are getting completely transparent printing? :)
> 3. Both my MacBook Pro and my Mac Pro is considerably snappier when
> starting applications
I have heard other say this... good.
> 4. Windows being darker means there's more contrast. I don't think
> that's a good idea.
Can you post a screen shot of a "problem" area?
> 5. Overall, glossiness is tuned way down. Windows Vista really has a
> lot to catch up to in terms of UI slickness.
Vista is... weird.
> 6. I hate the translucent menu bar. I did the Dock 3D fix immediately
> but I can't fix the menu bar. When I'm using applications that have a
> top toolbar (like photoshop) that's opaque, it looks ridiculous.
Background image with a white bar... sad but I think that is the best option
there is now.
> 7. Cover Flow in the Finder... what's the point? :)
Looking for images it might be cool?
> 8. Spaces works really good. I use it on my laptop. It's adequately
> advanced in its setup and feels well thought out. On my Mac Pro with
> two 30" and one 20" monitor, it's unneccesary, and actually looks
> stupid when used.
I can imagine!
> 9. I had too much data on my Mac Pro to be able to test Time Machine.
> Or rather, my backup drive was way too small.
Fair enough. I look forward to playing with it.
> 10. The new menu help system is really cool and really helpful
Good... Apple has needed help here for a while, so to speak.
> 11. Todos and notes in mail may prove to be useful, actually. I like
> that you can turn any text from any mail into a system-global todo.
That is very cool.
> 12. Upon invoking the spotlight window (not the menu) it starts out by
> showing me *everything* on my Mac and when I begin typing, it narrows
> the result down. That seems stupid. Other than that, Spotlight seems
> even quicker.
Not that big of a deal... I suppose if you want to find something by date or
alphabetically seeing it all *might* be good? Might?
> 13. The network browser is really nice
And I hear Apple *finally* got over the damned slow downs when a server is
not acting "right". About time!
> 14. The new folder icons are nice in 16x16, but otherwise they look
> boring. I see a huge market for applications like Candybar here.
>
> 15. Software Update didn't work when I installed 10.5, the servers
> didn't contain the appropriate data for Software Update. It works now
> that you guys have 10.5. D'oh! :)
LOL! OK..
> 16. But now that it works, when updating something, the main window is
> replaced by a smaller progress window. Looks allright.
Good... less space is good.
> 17. Spaces works great in conjunction with Exposé. I.e. you can grab a
> file from the desktop and while dragging it both change space and then
> change window with exposé. Works great.
Doubt I will use it... but good to hear it works well. :)
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
John
"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message
news:mr-6BC708.09...@News.Individual.NET...
> Since we are ahead of you guys, I had it installed hours before you :)
>
> Anyway, my impressions so far:
>
> 1. Installation was a breeze. Archive & Install took half an hour and
> only one reboot.
>
> 2. My Epson Stylus Photo 2100 doesn't seem to work. They have a
> unified Stylus Photo driver set, but when printing to it, nothing
> happens.
>
Sounds like technical incompetence. The 2100 works with Leopard with no
problems.
> 3. Both my MacBook Pro and my Mac Pro is considerably snappier when
> starting applications
>
Too bad they both still have the nut at the keyboard problem!!
> 4. Windows being darker means there's more contrast. I don't think
> that's a good idea.
>
> 5. Overall, glossiness is tuned way down. Windows Vista really has a
> lot to catch up to in terms of UI slickness.
>
> 6. I hate the translucent menu bar. I did the Dock 3D fix immediately
> but I can't fix the menu bar. When I'm using applications that have a
> top toolbar (like photoshop) that's opaque, it looks ridiculous.
>
Sounds like you are using an inappropriate background. No problems on this
end.
> 7. Cover Flow in the Finder... what's the point? :)
Slick and works great on this end. Of course when you are viewing folders
with thousands of porn images like you do it probably doesn' thave much
value.
>
> 8. Spaces works really good. I use it on my laptop. It's adequately
> advanced in its setup and feels well thought out. On my Mac Pro with
> two 30" and one 20" monitor, it's unneccesary, and actually looks
> stupid when used.
>
Anybody that has 2 30 inch monitors seriously NEEDS to get a life!!!
> 9. I had too much data on my Mac Pro to be able to test Time Machine.
> Or rather, my backup drive was way too small.
>
I was technically competent enough to install 3 750 Gig drives in my Mac pro
for a total of four harddrives. Must have taken all of ten minutes. I
assigned Time Machine to harddrive 4 and it works.
> 10. The new menu help system is really cool and really helpful
>
I hate say it but Mac Help STILL isn't as comprehebnsive as what is in Win
XP and Vista. Of course with Mac everything is so logical help is
virtually never needed.
> 11. Todos and notes in mail may prove to be useful, actually. I like
> that you can turn any text from any mail into a system-global todo.
>
> 12. Upon invoking the spotlight window (not the menu) it starts out by
> showing me *everything* on my Mac and when I begin typing, it narrows
> the result down. That seems stupid. Other than that, Spotlight seems
> even quicker.
>
Sounds like a personal problem. No problem with Spotlight on this end.
Works great!!
> 13. The network browser is really nice
>
Well sorta!!
Hugh Jwang
>
>
> Sounds like you are using an inappropriate background. No problems on
> this end.
>
feature of allowing you to have a random slideshow of desktop
backgrounds. I have a folder with 2,000 high quality desktop background
images that I like to have randomly changed by the OS every few minutes.
Some of these make the top menu bar look silly, or hard to read. A
feature I have enjoyed in the previous two versions of OS X is now not
so pleasant courtesy of some of the "so-called" advances in Leopard.
Steve de Mena
>> 2. My Epson Stylus Photo 2100 doesn't seem to work. They have a
>> unified Stylus Photo driver set, but when printing to it, nothing
>> happens.
>>
>
> Sounds like technical incompetence. The 2100 works with Leopard with no
> problems.
To make such a broad statement, I assume that comment is based on a
survey of every single Leopard user who owns this printer. Or did you
just see the 2100 on a list of supported printers?
>>
>> 6. I hate the translucent menu bar. I did the Dock 3D fix immediately
>> but I can't fix the menu bar. When I'm using applications that have a
>> top toolbar (like photoshop) that's opaque, it looks ridiculous.
>>
>
>
> Sounds like you are using an inappropriate background. No problems on
> this end.
What exactly is an "inappropriate background"? I have many pretty
scenic pictures thay rotate every hour. Some of them make the top
menu illegible. The top menu looked fine in Tiger. LEOPARD ISSUE.
>> 8. Spaces works really good. I use it on my laptop. It's adequately
>> advanced in its setup and feels well thought out. On my Mac Pro with
>> two 30" and one 20" monitor, it's unneccesary, and actually looks
>> stupid when used.
>>
>
> Anybody that has 2 30 inch monitors seriously NEEDS to get a life!!!
>
Sounds like jealousy to me.
>
>
>> 9. I had too much data on my Mac Pro to be able to test Time Machine.
>> Or rather, my backup drive was way too small.
>>
>
> I was technically competent enough to install 3 750 Gig drives in my Mac
> pro for a total of four harddrives. Must have taken all of ten minutes.
> I assigned Time Machine to harddrive 4 and it works.
I have five internal drives (4 750GB SATA and 1 500GB PATA), a 4-
drive 2.8TB eSATA external RAID, a 1.5 TB FW800 external drive, and a
250 GB FW400 external drive. I thus have too much data to test Time
Machine. Does that make me "technically incompetent"?
Steve
Steve de Mena
I only have about 50 high quality images rotating, but my experience
is identical to Hugh's.
Steve
David Empson
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-6BC708.09...@News.Individual.NET on 10/27/07 12:25 AM:
>
> > 6. I hate the translucent menu bar. I did the Dock 3D fix immediately
> > but I can't fix the menu bar. When I'm using applications that have a
> > top toolbar (like photoshop) that's opaque, it looks ridiculous.
>
> Background image with a white bar... sad but I think that is the best option
> there is now.
My desktop background is a photo I took myself of a night shot of
Wellington. It is black along the top, and I didn't even notice the menu
bar was translucent. Any solid colour would suffice.
> > 8. Spaces works really good. I use it on my laptop. It's adequately
> > advanced in its setup and feels well thought out. On my Mac Pro with
> > two 30" and one 20" monitor, it's unneccesary, and actually looks
> > stupid when used.
>
> I can imagine!
I'm annoyed at its lack of options for reassigning keys. The default of
Ctrl-arrows will conflict with FileMaker Pro, which uses Ctrl-Up and
Ctrl-Down to step through records.
The only alternatives are Command-arrows (used all the time in text
editing) and Option-arrows (also used frequently in text editing).
I'd like to be able to use something like Command-Option-arrow.
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
Daniel Johnson
>
> Anyway, my impressions so far:
[snip]
> 2. My Epson Stylus Photo 2100 doesn't seem to work. They have a
> unified Stylus Photo driver set, but when printing to it, nothing
> happens.
Compatibility problems? On a Mac? That can't be! :D
> 3. Both my MacBook Pro and my Mac Pro is considerably snappier when
> starting applications
Facinating, but did you *time* it? New stuff always 'feels'
a bit faster just because it is new and less boring. :D
Apple has in the past managed to improve performance
with OS releases, but less each time. I figured Leopard
might be the release where it was, for the first time, slower
on the same hardware.
[snip]
> 5. Overall, glossiness is tuned way down. Windows Vista really has a
> lot to catch up to in terms of UI slickness.
I do not think Vista has ever been trying to emulate The Steve's
spare, barren aesthetic. It *wants* to be flashy.
> 6. I hate the translucent menu bar. I did the Dock 3D fix immediately
> but I can't fix the menu bar. When I'm using applications that have a
> top toolbar (like photoshop) that's opaque, it looks ridiculous.
I am surprised to hear this: I was sure I had read that in late
builds apple had added a preference to control the degree
of opacity, and that it could be turned off.
Is this not so? I sure hope Apple didn't, since then Vista
gets another 'win': you can turn Vista's transparency
off with a checkbox, for a sort of 'Aero Plastic' look. It's
faster that way, too.
> 7. Cover Flow in the Finder... what's the point? :)
Well, they had to leapfrog over XP's 'Filmstrip view'. :D
> 8. Spaces works really good. I use it on my laptop. It's adequately
> advanced in its setup and feels well thought out. On my Mac Pro with
> two 30" and one 20" monitor, it's unneccesary, and actually looks
> stupid when used.
Stupid? How so?
<gets out notebook>
> 9. I had too much data on my Mac Pro to be able to test Time Machine.
> Or rather, my backup drive was way too small.
That's a problem with the basic design of Time Machine. You need
to at least one copy of all the data you backup on a media that
supports random access. You can't just store deltas, like Previous
Versions, or span the backup across multiple small cheap media,
like any sensible backup program.
The upshot is that it increases your disk space usage by a
factor of 2 or more. I have read that it actually requires
a 20% extra, above the size of the data to back up,
so it's a factor of 2.2.
Vista's Volume Shadow Copy wants 15% of your disk,
not 51%. And you get System Restore for that, too.
> 10. The new menu help system is really cool and really helpful
It's basically a "search the menu bar" feature, right?
> 11. Todos and notes in mail may prove to be useful, actually. I like
> that you can turn any text from any mail into a system-global todo.
Are they any different from sending an email to yourself?
When The Steve demoed this, it appeared completely
trivial.
> 12. Upon invoking the spotlight window (not the menu) it starts out by
> showing me *everything* on my Mac and when I begin typing, it narrows
> the result down. That seems stupid. Other than that, Spotlight seems
> even quicker.
That's odd. Tiger Spotlight didn't do that, did it?
> 13. The network browser is really nice
It is a tradition among OS makers to completely rework
the network UI on every major release. Microsoft is quite
religious about that. Nice to see Apple joining the fun. :D
> 14. The new folder icons are nice in 16x16, but otherwise they look
> boring. I see a huge market for applications like Candybar here.
I thought that at 16x16 the various folder 'badges' would
be unreadable. What do you think?
> 15. Software Update didn't work when I installed 10.5, the servers
> didn't contain the appropriate data for Software Update. It works now
> that you guys have 10.5. D'oh! :)
Were there any updates pending for Leopard?
> 16. But now that it works, when updating something, the main window is
> replaced by a smaller progress window. Looks allright.
Screenies! Screenies!
> 17. Spaces works great in conjunction with Exposé. I.e. you can grab a
> file from the desktop and while dragging it both change space and then
> change window with exposé. Works great.
I have read that Spaces makes Expose work less well, since if you want to
'Expose' all your windows, you have to do that inside of Spaces- and
that makes all the windows really really small.
Perhaps the key here is to just pick one- Expose or Spaces- and use
that.
Daniel Johnson
news:4723102d$0$32493$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> John wrote:
> What exactly is an "inappropriate background"? I have many pretty scenic
> pictures thay rotate every hour. Some of them make the top menu
> illegible. The top menu looked fine in Tiger. LEOPARD ISSUE.
Screenies! Screenies!
Actually, I am curious- I figured that once Leopard adopted
a higher opacity and blurred the background, there would be
no problem. It's not a proplem in Vista, even for the taskbar
which does not use "white glow" effect, and so should be
comparable.
I do not understand what Leopard is doing wrong here.
[snip]
Sandman
"Daniel Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
> > 2. My Epson Stylus Photo 2100 doesn't seem to work. They have a
> > unified Stylus Photo driver set, but when printing to it, nothing
> > happens.
>
> Compatibility problems? On a Mac? That can't be! :D
Well, at least it's not as Vista!
> > 3. Both my MacBook Pro and my Mac Pro is considerably snappier when
> > starting applications
>
> Facinating, but did you *time* it? New stuff always 'feels'
> a bit faster just because it is new and less boring. :D
That would explain a lot about your opinions of Vista, yeah.
> Apple has in the past managed to improve performance
> with OS releases, but less each time. I figured Leopard
> might be the release where it was, for the first time, slower
> on the same hardware.
That's one thing they haven't copied from MS.
> > 5. Overall, glossiness is tuned way down. Windows Vista really has a
> > lot to catch up to in terms of UI slickness.
>
> I do not think Vista has ever been trying to emulate The Steve's
> spare, barren aesthetic. It *wants* to be flashy.
So why do Vista look like OSX 10.0, but just with the usual failed
attempt.
> > 6. I hate the translucent menu bar. I did the Dock 3D fix immediately
> > but I can't fix the menu bar. When I'm using applications that have a
> > top toolbar (like photoshop) that's opaque, it looks ridiculous.
>
> I am surprised to hear this: I was sure I had read that in late
> builds apple had added a preference to control the degree
> of opacity, and that it could be turned off.
>
> Is this not so? I sure hope Apple didn't, since then Vista
> gets another 'win': you can turn Vista's transparency
> off with a checkbox, for a sort of 'Aero Plastic' look. It's
> faster that way, too.
Only problem is that on Vista, everything is transparent, so you have
to turn it off to be able to actually use it. There is no denying that
the menu bar is stupid in Leopard, but it's a far cry from the UI
horrors in Vista.
> > 7. Cover Flow in the Finder... what's the point? :)
>
> Well, they had to leapfrog over XP's 'Filmstrip view'. :D
They did that years ago.
> > 9. I had too much data on my Mac Pro to be able to test Time Machine.
> > Or rather, my backup drive was way too small.
>
> That's a problem with the basic design of Time Machine.
Nopes. It's a problem when the backup drive is too small.
> You need to at least one copy of all the data you backup on a media
> that supports random access.
No you don't.
> You can't just store deltas, like Previous Versions, or span the
> backup across multiple small cheap media, like any sensible backup
> program.
"Any sensible backup program" doesn't cover the same usage as Time
Machine, however.
> The upshot is that it increases your disk space usage by a
> factor of 2 or more. I have read that it actually requires
> a 20% extra, above the size of the data to back up,
> so it's a factor of 2.2.
>
> Vista's Volume Shadow Copy wants 15% of your disk,
> not 51%. And you get System Restore for that, too.
Which, of course, is why Vistas solution is worse. If you can't figure
out why...
> > 10. The new menu help system is really cool and really helpful
>
> It's basically a "search the menu bar" feature, right?
Just as spotlight is "basically a search function, right?"
> > 11. Todos and notes in mail may prove to be useful, actually. I like
> > that you can turn any text from any mail into a system-global todo.
>
> Are they any different from sending an email to yourself?
Huh?
> When The Steve demoed this, it appeared completely
> trivial.
I don't know who "The Steve" is or what demo you saw, but the
functionality of turning any text in any email into a global todo is
very useful.
> > 12. Upon invoking the spotlight window (not the menu) it starts out by
> > showing me *everything* on my Mac and when I begin typing, it narrows
> > the result down. That seems stupid. Other than that, Spotlight seems
> > even quicker.
>
> That's odd. Tiger Spotlight didn't do that, did it?
If it did, would I have listed is as an impression here, Dan? :)
> > 13. The network browser is really nice
>
> It is a tradition among OS makers to completely rework
> the network UI on every major release. Microsoft is quite
> religious about that. Nice to see Apple joining the fun. :D
When will MS begin? Their network browser has been broken for decades.
> > 14. The new folder icons are nice in 16x16, but otherwise they look
> > boring. I see a huge market for applications like Candybar here.
>
> I thought that at 16x16 the various folder 'badges' would
> be unreadable. What do you think?
They're not.
> > 15. Software Update didn't work when I installed 10.5, the servers
> > didn't contain the appropriate data for Software Update. It works now
> > that you guys have 10.5. D'oh! :)
>
> Were there any updates pending for Leopard?
Of course not. But there were updates to Aperture.
> > 16. But now that it works, when updating something, the main window is
> > replaced by a smaller progress window. Looks allright.
>
> Screenies! Screenies!
For what? A smaller window with a progress bar? Surely you're joking.
> > 17. Spaces works great in conjunction with Exposé. I.e. you can grab a
> > file from the desktop and while dragging it both change space and then
> > change window with exposé. Works great.
>
> I have read that Spaces makes Expose work less well, since if you want to
> 'Expose' all your windows, you have to do that inside of Spaces- and
> that makes all the windows really really small.
Nopes. Exposé works just like before, just as good, just as nice and
just as helpful.
> Perhaps the key here is to just pick one- Expose or Spaces- and use
> that.
Nopes. They work perfectly together.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
"Daniel Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
It's not a problem in Vista? Haha, that's Dan the Windows APologist in
full effect.
Windows title bar transparency is an atrocity in Windows Vista. One of
the worst UI choices ever.
--
Sandman[.net]
Daniel Johnson
> In article <13i6egv...@news.supernews.com>,
> "Daniel Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
>
>> > 2. My Epson Stylus Photo 2100 doesn't seem to work. They have a
>> > unified Stylus Photo driver set, but when printing to it, nothing
>> > happens.
>>
>> Compatibility problems? On a Mac? That can't be! :D
>
> Well, at least it's not as Vista!
As compatible as Vista? Well, no-one expected it to be. It's Mac:
it hardly works with anything. :D
[snip]
>> Facinating, but did you *time* it? New stuff always 'feels'
>> a bit faster just because it is new and less boring. :D
>
> That would explain a lot about your opinions of Vista, yeah.
Possibly; Vista really does 'feel' faster to me on the same
hardware, but I don't really trust that subjective impression.
Maybe I'm being distracted by all the shiny!
>> Apple has in the past managed to improve performance
>> with OS releases, but less each time. I figured Leopard
>> might be the release where it was, for the first time, slower
>> on the same hardware.
>
> That's one thing they haven't copied from MS.
Well, give them time. They'll catch up. :D
>> > 5. Overall, glossiness is tuned way down. Windows Vista really has a
>> > lot to catch up to in terms of UI slickness.
>>
>> I do not think Vista has ever been trying to emulate The Steve's
>> spare, barren aesthetic. It *wants* to be flashy.
>
> So why do Vista look like OSX 10.0, but just with the usual failed
> attempt.
It doesn't. Seriously, nobody could actually *look* at them and
think they look the same.
[snip]
>> Is this not so? I sure hope Apple didn't, since then Vista
>> gets another 'win': you can turn Vista's transparency
>> off with a checkbox, for a sort of 'Aero Plastic' look. It's
>> faster that way, too.
>
> Only problem is that on Vista, everything is transparent, so you have
> to turn it off to be able to actually use it. There is no denying that
> the menu bar is stupid in Leopard, but it's a far cry from the UI
> horrors in Vista.
Unless you like transparency, of course. :D
But in Vista, you can turn it off. I take it, since you did not
answer, that you cannot do this in Leopard.
That makes Vista the better choice for users who don't
like all that flashy, shiny glass. Ironic, isn't it?
[snip]
>> > 7. Cover Flow in the Finder... what's the point? :)
>>
>> Well, they had to leapfrog over XP's 'Filmstrip view'. :D
>
> They did that years ago.
You mean in iTunes? I don't recall anything like that in
the Finder before Leopard. Which is in no way a criticism,
mind.
[snip]
>> That's a problem with the basic design of Time Machine.
>
> Nopes. It's a problem when the backup drive is too small.
Well, a "flaw" in the design, even if it poses no problem
in practice for you.
>> You need to at least one copy of all the data you backup on a media
>> that supports random access.
>
> No you don't.
I think you do. How else can you swoop through time?
>> You can't just store deltas, like Previous Versions, or span the
>> backup across multiple small cheap media, like any sensible backup
>> program.
>
> "Any sensible backup program" doesn't cover the same usage as Time
> Machine, however.
Quite. Time Machine *also* does versioning; that's the
underlying problem, er, design flaw.
A versioning system should not require an separate volume,
and shouldn't double your disk requirements. A backup program
should be able to span backups across volumes and use cheap
media.
[snip]
>> Vista's Volume Shadow Copy wants 15% of your disk,
>> not 51%. And you get System Restore for that, too.
>
> Which, of course, is why Vistas solution is worse. If you can't figure
> out why...
I can't figure out why you'd want to burn half your 'live' disk
space on back ups. Even Vista's 15% burnoff is annoying.
>> > 10. The new menu help system is really cool and really helpful
>>
>> It's basically a "search the menu bar" feature, right?
>
> Just as spotlight is "basically a search function, right?"
Well, yes....
[snip]
>> > 13. The network browser is really nice
>>
>> It is a tradition among OS makers to completely rework
>> the network UI on every major release. Microsoft is quite
>> religious about that. Nice to see Apple joining the fun. :D
>
> When will MS begin? Their network browser has been broken for decades.
I said "completely rework".
I didn't saying anything about "fixed". :D
[snip]
>> Were there any updates pending for Leopard?
>
> Of course not. But there were updates to Aperture.
Facinating. That either means Leopard is bug free and
perfect (hmmm) or that they finish the release build
until *just* before shipping it out. Otherwise they next
set of bug-fixed would have been ready.
>> > 16. But now that it works, when updating something, the main window is
>> > replaced by a smaller progress window. Looks allright.
>>
>> Screenies! Screenies!
>
> For what? A smaller window with a progress bar? Surely you're joking.
I am a screenie junkie. :D
[snip]
Daniel Johnson
A matter of taste- but at least in Vista you can turn it *off*
if you don't like it. I think I'll do that now, just to revel in
the opacity of it all.
<click>
Takes effect instantly! Ah, Aero Plastic, bringer of that
1% of extra performance! :D
OTOH, I was questioning whether there was a legibility
problem in Leopard, and if so, why. Even you think Vista
ugly, you can read window captions and task bar captions
just fine.
I had believed that Apple had copied enough of the technology
that achieved this that Leopard would have no problems
with that.
That's why I was asking about it.
Nashton
The only atrocity here is the massacre of the English language,
perpetrated by none other than you. :)
And why is the title bar an "atrocity?"
Snit
1i6nzou.ykt3yravbgtdN%dem...@actrix.gen.nz on 10/27/07 4:32 AM:
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
>> mr-6BC708.09...@News.Individual.NET on 10/27/07 12:25 AM:
>>
>>> 6. I hate the translucent menu bar. I did the Dock 3D fix immediately
>>> but I can't fix the menu bar. When I'm using applications that have a
>>> top toolbar (like photoshop) that's opaque, it looks ridiculous.
>>
>> Background image with a white bar... sad but I think that is the best option
>> there is now.
>
> My desktop background is a photo I took myself of a night shot of
> Wellington. It is black along the top, and I didn't even notice the menu
> bar was translucent. Any solid colour would suffice.
Fair enough.
>
>>> 8. Spaces works really good. I use it on my laptop. It's adequately
>>> advanced in its setup and feels well thought out. On my Mac Pro with
>>> two 30" and one 20" monitor, it's unneccesary, and actually looks
>>> stupid when used.
>>
>> I can imagine!
>
> I'm annoyed at its lack of options for reassigning keys. The default of
> Ctrl-arrows will conflict with FileMaker Pro, which uses Ctrl-Up and
> Ctrl-Down to step through records.
>
> The only alternatives are Command-arrows (used all the time in text
> editing) and Option-arrows (also used frequently in text editing).
>
> I'd like to be able to use something like Command-Option-arrow.
Can you turn off the hot keys completely?
--
What do you call people who are afraid of Santa Claus? Claustrophobic.
Sandman
"Daniel Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
> >> > 2. My Epson Stylus Photo 2100 doesn't seem to work. They have a
> >> > unified Stylus Photo driver set, but when printing to it, nothing
> >> > happens.
> >>
> >> Compatibility problems? On a Mac? That can't be! :D
> >
> > Well, at least it's not as Vista!
[snip silly word games]
As incompatible as Vista, no.
> >> Facinating, but did you *time* it? New stuff always 'feels'
> >> a bit faster just because it is new and less boring. :D
> >
> > That would explain a lot about your opinions of Vista, yeah.
>
> Possibly; Vista really does 'feel' faster to me on the same
> hardware, but I don't really trust that subjective impression.
Haha! Yeah, I really think your denial runs this deep.
> Maybe I'm being distracted by all the shiny!
Or your ongoing obsession with lying?
> > So why do Vista look like OSX 10.0, but just with the usual failed
> > attempt.
>
> It doesn't.
It does.
[snip denial]
> > Only problem is that on Vista, everything is transparent, so you have
> > to turn it off to be able to actually use it. There is no denying that
> > the menu bar is stupid in Leopard, but it's a far cry from the UI
> > horrors in Vista.
>
> Unless you like transparency, of course. :D
Which, of course, no one does outside of a small select of WIndows
Vista apologists. Hmm, no, scratch that, I think you're pretty alone
in that group.
> But in Vista, you can turn it off. I take it, since you did not
> answer, that you cannot do this in Leopard.
Since windows aren't transparent in Leopard, it would be stupid to add
an option to turn of transparency of windows, wouldn't you say?
> That makes Vista the better choice for users who don't
> like all that flashy, shiny glass. Ironic, isn't it?
How do you figure that an operating system where you have to turn off
something to make it usable is better than an operating system that
doesn't have this "feature" in the first place?
> >> > 7. Cover Flow in the Finder... what's the point? :)
> >>
> >> Well, they had to leapfrog over XP's 'Filmstrip view'. :D
> >
> > They did that years ago.
>
> You mean in iTunes?
Nopes.
> I don't recall anything like that in
> the Finder before Leopard. Which is in no way a criticism,
> mind.
Yeah, well, no one has ever accused you of having deep knowledge about
OSX... Or Windows, for that matter. :)
> >> That's a problem with the basic design of Time Machine.
> >
> > Nopes. It's a problem when the backup drive is too small.
>
> Well, a "flaw" in the design, even if it poses no problem
> in practice for you.
No flaw. Just that the disk is too small.
> > "Any sensible backup program" doesn't cover the same usage as Time
> > Machine, however.
>
> Quite. Time Machine *also* does versioning; that's the
> underlying problem, er, design flaw.
I.e. functionality missing from other solutions, which in your eyes
becomes a "flaw" :-D
> A versioning system should not require an separate volume,
> and shouldn't double your disk requirements. A backup program
> should be able to span backups across volumes and use cheap
> media.
Now, if Time Machine was a versioning system, you'd actually be close
to having a point! Way to go, Dan!
> >> Vista's Volume Shadow Copy wants 15% of your disk,
> >> not 51%. And you get System Restore for that, too.
> >
> > Which, of course, is why Vistas solution is worse. If you can't figure
> > out why...
>
> I can't figure out why you'd want to burn half your 'live' disk
> space on back ups. Even Vista's 15% burnoff is annoying.
Well, it will come to you soon enough.
> >> > 10. The new menu help system is really cool and really helpful
> >>
> >> It's basically a "search the menu bar" feature, right?
> >
> > Just as spotlight is "basically a search function, right?"
>
> Well, yes....
Thanks for proving my point, Dan.
> >> > 13. The network browser is really nice
> >>
> >> It is a tradition among OS makers to completely rework
> >> the network UI on every major release. Microsoft is quite
> >> religious about that. Nice to see Apple joining the fun. :D
> >
> > When will MS begin? Their network browser has been broken for decades.
>
> I said "completely rework".
>
> I didn't saying anything about "fixed". :D
Windows network browser has been identically broke for decades.
> >> Were there any updates pending for Leopard?
> >
> > Of course not. But there were updates to Aperture.
>
> Facinating. That either means Leopard is bug free and
> perfect (hmmm) or that they finish the release build
> until *just* before shipping it out. Otherwise they next
> set of bug-fixed would have been ready.
*yawn* It's spelled "Fascinating", by the way.
> >> > 16. But now that it works, when updating something, the main window is
> >> > replaced by a smaller progress window. Looks allright.
> >>
> >> Screenies! Screenies!
> >
> > For what? A smaller window with a progress bar? Surely you're joking.
>
> I am a screenie junkie. :D
Wait a decade or two and Windows will have copied it.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
wrote:
> > It's not a problem in Vista? Haha, that's Dan the Windows APologist in
> > full effect.
> >
> > Windows title bar transparency is an atrocity in Windows Vista. One of
> > the worst UI choices ever.
>
> The only atrocity here is the massacre of the English language,
> perpetrated by none other than you. :)
>
> And why is the title bar an "atrocity?"
Hey "Wallmart" boy, still trying to pass off as knowledgeable in
English? That's funny!
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
"Daniel Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message
> news:mr-4D0BD0.16...@News.Individual.NET...
> > In article <13i6f47...@news.supernews.com>,
> > "Daniel Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
> >> Actually, I am curious- I figured that once Leopard adopted
> >> a higher opacity and blurred the background, there would be
> >> no problem. It's not a proplem in Vista, even for the taskbar
> >> which does not use "white glow" effect, and so should be
> >> comparable.
> >
> > It's not a problem in Vista? Haha, that's Dan the Windows APologist in
> > full effect.
> >
> > Windows title bar transparency is an atrocity in Windows Vista. One of
> > the worst UI choices ever.
>
> A matter of taste- but at least in Vista you can turn it *off*
> if you don't like it. I think I'll do that now, just to revel in
> the opacity of it all.
>
> <click>
>
> Takes effect instantly! Ah, Aero Plastic, bringer of that
> 1% of extra performance! :D
>
> OTOH, I was questioning whether there was a legibility
> problem in Leopard, and if so, why. Even you think Vista
> ugly, you can read window captions and task bar captions
> just fine.
Only an hardcore Windows Apologist can do that, Dan.
> I had believed that Apple had copied enough of the technology
> that achieved this that Leopard would have no problems
> with that.
Unfortunately, when Windows copied Apples technology, they didn't have
the brains to not use it for transparency in window title bars. So
there you are, having to turn off something that Apple doesn't have as
an option, because, well it's stupid.
> That's why I was asking about it.
--
Sandman[.net]
Daniel Johnson
>> Possibly; Vista really does 'feel' faster to me on the same
>> hardware, but I don't really trust that subjective impression.
>
> Haha! Yeah, I really think your denial runs this deep.
I'm such a troll, I even deny *myself*!
[snip]
>> But in Vista, you can turn it off. I take it, since you did not
>> answer, that you cannot do this in Leopard.
>
> Since windows aren't transparent in Leopard, it would be stupid to add
> an option to turn of transparency of windows, wouldn't you say?
Ah, I think you do not understand. Aero's glass also
appears in the start menu and (in some configurations)
the sidebar. The checkbox in "Window Color and Appearance"
turns all that off.
Apple's transparency, similarly, is not limited to just
the menubar; the menu's themselves and the dock show
it too. Can't turn it off, apparently.
>> That makes Vista the better choice for users who don't
>> like all that flashy, shiny glass. Ironic, isn't it?
>
> How do you figure that an operating system where you have to turn off
> something to make it usable is better than an operating system that
> doesn't have this "feature" in the first place?
But it does, now. Leopard has the shiny!
[snip]
>> I don't recall anything like that in
>> the Finder before Leopard. Which is in no way a criticism,
>> mind.
>
> Yeah, well, no one has ever accused you of having deep knowledge about
> OSX... Or Windows, for that matter. :)
So, what's the Tiger equivalent to "Filmstrip view", then?
[snip]
>> Quite. Time Machine *also* does versioning; that's the
>> underlying problem, er, design flaw.
>
> I.e. functionality missing from other solutions, which in your eyes
> becomes a "flaw" :-D
Vista has this feature. And it does it without a second volume
or nearly as great a waste of space, too. It's practical to use
"Previous Versions" on a laptop, for instance.
[snip]
>> >> > 10. The new menu help system is really cool and really helpful
>> >>
>> >> It's basically a "search the menu bar" feature, right?
>> >
>> > Just as spotlight is "basically a search function, right?"
>>
>> Well, yes....
>
> Thanks for proving my point, Dan.
Interesting that when I agree with you that "proves" you are
right. How come it doesn't work the other way- shouldn't
it prove you *wrong* when I disagree? :D
[snip]
Sandman
"Daniel Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
> >> Possibly; Vista really does 'feel' faster to me on the same
> >> hardware, but I don't really trust that subjective impression.
> >
> > Haha! Yeah, I really think your denial runs this deep.
>
> I'm such a troll, I even deny *myself*!
Huh? You are denying that Vista is slower on the same hardware as
Windows XP. Everyone in the civilized world knows that Vista is slower
than XP, only you would deny something so universally known.
And that's a feature in itself, considering how slow Windows XP is...
> > Since windows aren't transparent in Leopard, it would be stupid to add
> > an option to turn of transparency of windows, wouldn't you say?
>
> Ah, I think you do not understand. Aero's glass also
> appears in the start menu and (in some configurations)
> the sidebar. The checkbox in "Window Color and Appearance"
> turns all that off.
But it's only in the window borders that it's an actual problem, since
you can't get stuff behind the taskbar.
> Apple's transparency, similarly, is not limited to just
> the menubar; the menu's themselves and the dock show
> it too. Can't turn it off, apparently.
No, Leopard window borders are not transparent, thankfully.
> > How do you figure that an operating system where you have to turn off
> > something to make it usable is better than an operating system that
> > doesn't have this "feature" in the first place?
>
> But it does, now. Leopard has the shiny!
No, Leopard window borders are not transparent, thankfully.
> >> Quite. Time Machine *also* does versioning; that's the
> >> underlying problem, er, design flaw.
> >
> > I.e. functionality missing from other solutions, which in your eyes
> > becomes a "flaw" :-D
>
> Vista has this feature. And it does it without a second volume
> or nearly as great a waste of space, too. It's practical to use
> "Previous Versions" on a laptop, for instance.
Only just not as good as Time Machine, for obvious reasons.
> >> >> > 10. The new menu help system is really cool and really helpful
> >> >>
> >> >> It's basically a "search the menu bar" feature, right?
> >> >
> >> > Just as spotlight is "basically a search function, right?"
> >>
> >> Well, yes....
> >
> > Thanks for proving my point, Dan.
>
> Interesting that when I agree with you that "proves" you are
> right. How come it doesn't work the other way- shouldn't
> it prove you *wrong* when I disagree? :D
No, I demonstrated the stupidity of your usage of the word
"basically". You agreed to show you that my depiction of your
simplemindedness was an accurate one. And then I thanked you.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
>> Apple's transparency, similarly, is not limited to just
>> the menubar; the menu's themselves and the dock show
>> it too. Can't turn it off, apparently.
>
> No, Leopard window borders are not transparent, thankfully.
Well, the only real "border" they have is their shadow... and that is
transparent. :)
--
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is
generally employed only by small children and large nations. - David
Friedman
Daniel Johnson
>> > Since windows aren't transparent in Leopard, it would be stupid to add
>> > an option to turn of transparency of windows, wouldn't you say?
>>
>> Ah, I think you do not understand. Aero's glass also
>> appears in the start menu and (in some configurations)
>> the sidebar. The checkbox in "Window Color and Appearance"
>> turns all that off.
>
> But it's only in the window borders that it's an actual problem, since
> you can't get stuff behind the taskbar.
Certainly you can. For one very obvious thing, your
desktop wallpaper.
You can also get a window there if you really want to.
>> Apple's transparency, similarly, is not limited to just
>> the menubar; the menu's themselves and the dock show
>> it too. Can't turn it off, apparently.
>
> No, Leopard window borders are not transparent, thankfully.
Ah, I see I've got you stuck on "borders not transparent".
[snip]
>> Vista has this feature. And it does it without a second volume
>> or nearly as great a waste of space, too. It's practical to use
>> "Previous Versions" on a laptop, for instance.
>
> Only just not as good as Time Machine, for obvious reasons.
Not as good.. better! For obvious reasons. :D
[snip]
>> Interesting that when I agree with you that "proves" you are
>> right. How come it doesn't work the other way- shouldn't
>> it prove you *wrong* when I disagree? :D
>
> No, I demonstrated the stupidity of your usage of the word
> "basically". You agreed to show you that my depiction of your
> simplemindedness was an accurate one. And then I thanked you.
Oh, I see. I didn't realize the games you were playing
in your head about that exchange.
Never mind, then.
David Empson
> >>> 8. Spaces works really good. I use it on my laptop. It's adequately
> >>> advanced in its setup and feels well thought out. On my Mac Pro with
> >>> two 30" and one 20" monitor, it's unneccesary, and actually looks
> >>> stupid when used.
> >>
> >> I can imagine!
> >
> > I'm annoyed at its lack of options for reassigning keys. The default of
> > Ctrl-arrows will conflict with FileMaker Pro, which uses Ctrl-Up and
> > Ctrl-Down to step through records.
> >
> > The only alternatives are Command-arrows (used all the time in text
> > editing) and Option-arrows (also used frequently in text editing).
> >
> > I'd like to be able to use something like Command-Option-arrow.
>
> Can you turn off the hot keys completely?
Yes, there is a "None" option. I should have mentioned that.
There is a separate setting for selecting spaces by number (defaulting
to Ctrl-number keys, with the same basic choices).
As long as it is ignored while in a full-screen game (StarCraft), I'll
be happy to keep that one.
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
Snit
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> 8. Spaces works really good. I use it on my laptop. It's adequately
>>>>> advanced in its setup and feels well thought out. On my Mac Pro with
>>>>> two 30" and one 20" monitor, it's unneccesary, and actually looks
>>>>> stupid when used.
>>>>
>>>> I can imagine!
>>>
>>> I'm annoyed at its lack of options for reassigning keys. The default of
>>> Ctrl-arrows will conflict with FileMaker Pro, which uses Ctrl-Up and
>>> Ctrl-Down to step through records.
>>>
>>> The only alternatives are Command-arrows (used all the time in text
>>> editing) and Option-arrows (also used frequently in text editing).
>>>
>>> I'd like to be able to use something like Command-Option-arrow.
>>
>> Can you turn off the hot keys completely?
>
> Yes, there is a "None" option. I should have mentioned that.
>
> There is a separate setting for selecting spaces by number (defaulting
> to Ctrl-number keys, with the same basic choices).
Good... thanks.
>
> As long as it is ignored while in a full-screen game (StarCraft), I'll
> be happy to keep that one.
Likely what I will use.
--
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
--Albert Einstein
Sandman
"Daniel Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
> >> Ah, I think you do not understand. Aero's glass also
> >> appears in the start menu and (in some configurations)
> >> the sidebar. The checkbox in "Window Color and Appearance"
> >> turns all that off.
> >
> > But it's only in the window borders that it's an actual problem, since
> > you can't get stuff behind the taskbar.
>
> Certainly you can. For one very obvious thing, your
> desktop wallpaper.
So, in your endless Apple bashing, you actually think a wallpaper is
as disruptive as overlapping windows? Heh.
> >> Apple's transparency, similarly, is not limited to just
> >> the menubar; the menu's themselves and the dock show
> >> it too. Can't turn it off, apparently.
> >
> > No, Leopard window borders are not transparent, thankfully.
>
> Ah, I see I've got you stuck on "borders not transparent".
Huh? Vista has me stuck on borders being transparent. It's stupid and
I'm thankful OSX isn't doing that. Where di you get confused?
> >> Vista has this feature. And it does it without a second volume
> >> or nearly as great a waste of space, too. It's practical to use
> >> "Previous Versions" on a laptop, for instance.
> >
> > Only just not as good as Time Machine, for obvious reasons.
>
> Not as good.. better! For obvious reasons. :D
Now, if only claiming things made them true, you could be correct all
the time... instead of never :)
> >> Interesting that when I agree with you that "proves" you are
> >> right. How come it doesn't work the other way- shouldn't
> >> it prove you *wrong* when I disagree? :D
> >
> > No, I demonstrated the stupidity of your usage of the word
> > "basically". You agreed to show you that my depiction of your
> > simplemindedness was an accurate one. And then I thanked you.
>
> Oh, I see. I didn't realize the games you were playing
> in your head about that exchange.
Which obviously also helped me portray this simplemindedness. I fully
realise why you would use irony and sarcasm to your own Apple bashing
benefit, but I didn't suspect that you actually didn't understand
irony and sarcasm. :P
--
Sandman[.net]
Daniel Johnson
> In article <13i7e8s...@news.supernews.com>,
> "Daniel Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
>
>> > But it's only in the window borders that it's an actual problem, since
>> > you can't get stuff behind the taskbar.
>>
>> Certainly you can. For one very obvious thing, your
>> desktop wallpaper.
>
> So, in your endless Apple bashing, you actually think a wallpaper is
> as disruptive as overlapping windows? Heh.
No, actually, I think wallpaper's worse.
The new I-can't-believe-it's-not-brushed-metal window appearance
in Leopard is smooth and flat, without the many high-contrast graphics
that desktop wallpaper often exhibits.
[snip]
>> > Only just not as good as Time Machine, for obvious reasons.
>>
>> Not as good.. better! For obvious reasons. :D
>
> Now, if only claiming things made them true, you could be correct all
> the time... instead of never :)
How come "for obvious reasons" works for you, but not me?
I mean, it does work for you, right?
[snip]
>> Oh, I see. I didn't realize the games you were playing
>> in your head about that exchange.
>
> Which obviously also helped me portray this simplemindedness. I fully
> realise why you would use irony and sarcasm to your own Apple bashing
> benefit, but I didn't suspect that you actually didn't understand
> irony and sarcasm. :P
<backs away slooooowly>
Sandman
"Daniel Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
> >> Certainly you can. For one very obvious thing, your
> >> desktop wallpaper.
> >
> > So, in your endless Apple bashing, you actually think a wallpaper is
> > as disruptive as overlapping windows? Heh.
>
> No, actually, I think wallpaper's worse.
Oh, how *unexpected* !
[snip Apple sucks, Microsoft rocks!]
> >> > Only just not as good as Time Machine, for obvious reasons.
> >>
> >> Not as good.. better! For obvious reasons. :D
> >
> > Now, if only claiming things made them true, you could be correct all
> > the time... instead of never :)
>
> How come "for obvious reasons" works for you, but not me?
Because my reasons are actual and yours are made up, of course. That's
what you do, remember?
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> 2. My Epson Stylus Photo 2100 doesn't seem to work. They have a
> unified Stylus Photo driver set, but when printing to it, nothing
> happens.
This turned out to be user error or something. Upon re-adding the
printer, it works perfectly.
--
Sandman[.net]
Mitch
> And why is the title bar an "atrocity?"
Seriously?
I'd have thought it was clear. (ahem)
The standard for any UI is to make it's frontmost activity the
best-displayed, most attention-getting on the screen. That means, of
course, full opacity.
Because of that, translucency and transparency have been used to
indicate windows which are behind the focus.
Microsoft, apparently in order to show off a function they were able to
develop, applied it to the exact wrong place.
The focused window (and activity, and pointer, and everything else that
needs to stand out clearly) must never be anything but obvious and
opaque.
ZnU
Mitch <mi...@hawaii.rr> wrote:
This isn't the first time Microsoft has managed to get things precisely
backwards, and often it's pretty obvious that they do things backwards
simply because Apple does them first, the right way, and Microsoft
doesn't want to do them the same way.
So, for instance, one ends up with the Start menu at the bottom of the
screen. Having a menu at the bottom of the screen is problematic because
it makes the items with the highest visual priority (those that appear
at the top) the hardest to hit (since they're the farthest from the menu
bar).
Similarly, Microsoft has its desktop icons running down the left side of
the screen, despite the fact that items on the left are more likely to
be covered by windows, which typically cascade from the upper left to
the lower right.
--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007
Mitch
<z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> This isn't the first time Microsoft has managed to get things precisely
> backwards, and often it's pretty obvious that they do things backwards
> simply because Apple does them first, the right way, and Microsoft
> doesn't want to do them the same way.
>
> So, for instance, one ends up with the Start menu at the bottom of the
> screen. Having a menu at the bottom of the screen is problematic because
> it makes the items with the highest visual priority (those that appear
> at the top) the hardest to hit (since they're the farthest from the menu
> bar).
>
> Similarly, Microsoft has its desktop icons running down the left side of
> the screen, despite the fact that items on the left are more likely to
> be covered by windows, which typically cascade from the upper left to
> the lower right.
Exactly. But explaining it to a person who has only used Windows, and
is already subjugated to Microsoft and Windows, seems so hard to do.
It's going to work better for that person, too, but until they give it
an honest try, they might argue in favor of what they've used. Some, as
seen here, will argue as loudly as possible, even champion the devil,
just to argue against people who say there is a better way.
It's a strange world.