Which Os is better among the Windows Vista.
avdho...@gmail.com
to go for, is Home edition good, Business version or the Ultimate
version.... being professional as s/w engineer as for my home purpose
which one will suite the most.
Don Bowey
279fe936-1d30-4e81...@f80g2000hsh.googlegroups.com,
"avdho...@gmail.com" <avdho...@gmail.com> wrote:
XP
Eeyore
Mark D. Zacharias
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:473BE68E...@hotmail.com...
This seems to be the consensus. Probably at least wait until Vista is
"fixed" with a service pack or two.
Mark Z.
Eeyore
"Mark D. Zacharias" wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > avdho...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> I heard lot about the Windows Vista OS, but i am not confident which
> >> to go for, is Home edition good, Business version or the Ultimate
> >> version.... being professional as s/w engineer as for my home purpose
> >> which one will suite the most.
> >
> > Forget Vista.
> >
> > Install XP. It's MUCH better.
>
>
> This seems to be the consensus. Probably at least wait until Vista is
> "fixed" with a service pack or two.
Pointless. That'll just make it slower still.
Graham
hexHead®
you'd save a lot of time and effort by just going outside, opening
your wallet and settings fire to 2 new $100 bills.
don't even consider Vista if you're running XP and everything works.
John Tserkezis
>> This seems to be the consensus. Probably at least wait until Vista is
>> "fixed" with a service pack or two.
> Pointless. That'll just make it slower still.
The first Vista service pack appears to be just a vehicle for features
they've forgotten. It doesn't address the problems (mainly software
compatibility) that people have been mentioning.
I don't know if it'll make it slower, but it won't actually _fix_ anything.
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
<http://counter.li.org>
bz
news:j7foj3lvqi6vnjiu0...@4ax.com:
I took Vista OFF this Dell Insprion 640 laptop and put XP pro on it.
The department and university pays Microsoft for Site licencing so I can
choose without worrying about cost.
Microsoft is supposed to start shipping a NEW operating system sometime
next year.
I wish they would finish fixing one system before they start shipping
another.
I wish they didn't feel like they had to give things a 'face lift' and
change file formats every few years.
Microsoft, the company you love to hate.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
mc
>>
>> Install XP. It's MUCH better.
>
> This seems to be the consensus. Probably at least wait until Vista is
> "fixed" with a service pack or two.
I disagree with the consensus. Go for Vista Ultimate. What's wrong with
it? Just that it's new?
mc
> I wish they didn't feel like they had to give things a 'face lift' and
> change file formats every few years.
>
> Microsoft, the company you love to hate.
Of course. DOS 1.0 was perfect, and then they ruined it. Right?
Dave
<avdho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:279fe936-1d30-4e81...@f80g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Any variant of unix or linux. If you must test your code, use VMWare.
Mac OS x uses a UNIX backend, and you get the both of both worlds: pretty
eye-candy desktop from Apple with bullet-proof UNIX engine under the hood.
They come stock with a pretty hefty suite of developer tools too.
William Sommerwerck
> shipping another.
If they did, you'd have no motivation to buy the "perfect" new system.
This applies to all software companies, not just Microsoft.
Don Bowey
<dspea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
And........ It runs Windows natively.
I just put Windows XP on my MacBook Pro, and it runs it as well and as fast
as do my PCs. I installed it in a manner that allows me to switch between
OSX and Windows without re-booting, so I can easily run the Windows
applications for which there are no Mac equivalent; like the Streets and
Trips map software. It's the best of both worlds.
JeffM
>I disagree with the consensus. Go for Vista Ultimate.
>What's wrong with it?
Name something that Vista adds to your computing experience
--y'know besides:
Disk writes are slowed down to check for DRM.
(Just what I'm looking for in an OS:
It slows down while calling you a thief.)
Ever-increasingly buggy product activation. (Again: THIEF.)
Application incompatibility.
My favorite one:
"Playing Music Slows Vista's Network Performance"
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/21/1441240&mode=nested&threshold=5#20307333
.
.
The reviews for Vista that don't blast its poor performance
and resource gobbling have been pretty tepid.
M$ dropped gobs of promised stuff
to meet their WAY over-ambitious (for M$) schedule.
The reviews for Leopard and Gutsy Gibbon
have pretty much been glowing.
Compare Apple's and Ubuntu's development cycles
and you quickly see that M$ should be ashamed
to have ever shoved their latest PoS out the door.
Compare the prices as well.
Dave
"Don Bowey" <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C361C0A0.A65E7%dbo...@comcast.net...
crashes, Windows may cause the VMWare environment to crash but it will not
take down the machine. How is yours set up to allow both to run
concurrently? I am very curious.
Dave S.
Don Bowey
<dspea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Software named Parallels is used to manage the Windows installation to
enable it. I haven't looked into "how." The software Apple seems to be
pushing for directing Windows installation, sets them up so you must boot
one or the other.
Once installed, I can, at my option, switch between the Systems with a
keyclick (background is either XP or OSX), or go into a mode that makes
everything transparent and enabling sharing the clipboard and moving between
XP and OSX software. It also, seamlessly, manages printers, wireless
access, etc.
When I am "in" OSX I run the OSX version of Office, and when I am in XP it
lets me run the OSX version of Office also.
I haven't found a downside any of this, and now I find I have surplus
application specific computers. For the future, this means less money going
for application software.
People who don't want to buy an Apple computer, need an equivalent to
Parallels so they can run OSX, and leave Windows in the dust. OTOH, I like
XP, so I'm no longer an Apple-only booster, but I still don't like Microsoft
in general.
bz
@bignews9.bellsouth.net:
When I bought Level 3 basic for my TRS-80 from an unknown company named
'Microsoft', I sent in the registration card expecting that they would keep
me informed of problems and updates.
They didn't.
DOS 1.0 was a rip off of CPM. A poorly done rip off.
None of their programs have been perfect. But rather than rewrite the
software to FIX the problems while keeping the
SAME 'look and feel' and keeping the same formats for files, most software
vendors opt for making the interface look 'purty'.
It doesn't have to work. It just has to look 'purty'. Extra Purty for XP.
"Oh...that feature? It doesn't work quite right yet but go ahead and ship
it out, we will fix it later, if someone complains."
I have 9 computer on my desk. Several XP pros, a 2003 server, a mac mini, a
power mac 9500/120, a red hat linux machine.
Several of the machines are running other OS's under VMware. For example,
on the linux machine I am running Windows NT4 in a virtual environment.
On my laptop I can run dos, win3.1, win95, Vista, Plan9, WinNT4, WinXP pro,
Win2k, Win2k3, Knoppix, and others, all under VMware, and often do when
testing software.
I USE computers and software to accomplish tasks. I like it when software
'works'. I like it when it works the same way, day after day.
I don't like it when a new version comes out, looks different, acts
different and produces files that are formatted different because I know
that my users are going to be getting or sending out files that other
people can not access and I am going to need to help them fix these
problems.
I don't like it when a company (microsoft, for example) pushes their
'standards' instead of following industry standards.
I don't like it when they 'enhance' e-mail by defaulting their e-mail
client to sending in html.
I don't like it when they make their e-mail client EXECUTE programs (html,
zip files, exe files) that it finds attached to an e-mail.
I don't like it when they write their operating system, from the ground up,
assuming that no one will inject invalid date into any data field.
failing to check for buffer overflow.
There are many things about microsoft that I don't like.
No one is perfect. But Microsoft has take developing imperfections to new
heights with their release of Vista. They fixed a lot of things but MOST of
those were things that they could and should have fixed, years ago, before
shipping Window 2.0
--
bz 73 de N5BZ k
Smitty Two
Don Bowey <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote:
William S., isn't this what you said you were waiting for, before you
bought a mac? Now you can.
James Sweet
>>
>> Mac OS x uses a UNIX backend, and you get the both of both worlds:
>> pretty
>> eye-candy desktop from Apple with bullet-proof UNIX engine under the
>> hood.
>> They come stock with a pretty hefty suite of developer tools too.
>>
>>
>
> And........ It runs Windows natively.
>
> I just put Windows XP on my MacBook Pro, and it runs it as well and as
> fast
> as do my PCs. I installed it in a manner that allows me to switch between
> OSX and Windows without re-booting, so I can easily run the Windows
> applications for which there are no Mac equivalent; like the Streets and
> Trips map software. It's the best of both worlds.
>
>
If they traded the idiotic single button trackpad for an industry standard 2
button variety I'd buy one of those. Yeah, I know, there's tricks to get
around it, but I want my second button, just like *all* the competition
provides.
isw
"James Sweet" <james...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Haven't checked out the MacBooks, have you? They have a "two-finger"
right-button emulation mode that's really sweet -- better than a "real"
button because it's always right under your finger.
Plus, of course, multi-button mouses (mice?) are readily available.
Isaac
Michael Kennedy
"isw" <i...@witzend.com> wrote in message
news:isw-452F1B.1...@newsgroups.comcast.net...
I don't know if that sounds seet or like a PITA. Guess I'd have to use it
to know.
James Sweet
Yes I have, I've used one a number of times and it's one of the "tricks" I
referred to. I want a real 2 button track pad, the Toshiba laptop I use has
one, and I won't buy a laptop that doesn't. It's a feature I want, and a
feature that you can get anywhere else, nothing will change my mind.
William Sommerwerck
news:prestwhich-9FBCB...@news.phx.highwinds-media.com...
>> Software named Parallels is used to manage the Windows installation to
>> enable it. I haven't looked into "how." The software Apple seems to be
>> pushing for directing Windows installation, sets them up so you must boot
>> one or the other.
>> Once installed, I can, at my option, switch between the Systems with a
>> keyclick (background is either XP or OSX), or go into a mode that makes
>> everything transparent and enabling sharing the clipboard and moving
>> between XP and OSX software. It also, seamlessly, manages printers,
>> wireless access, etc.
Nice.
>> When I am "in" OSX I run the OSX version of Office, and when I am in
>> XP it lets me run the OSX version of Office also.
>> I haven't found a downside any of this, and now I find I have surplus
>> application specific computers. For the future, this means less money
>> going for application software.
>> People who don't want to buy an Apple computer, need an equivalent to
>> Parallels so they can run OSX, and leave Windows in the dust. OTOH,
>> I like XP, so I'm no longer an Apple-only booster, but I still don't like
>> Microsoft in general.
> William S., isn't this what you said you were waiting for, before you
> bought a mac? Now you can.
It sure sounds like it. Of course, I'm dead-broke (literally) at the moment.
But when I'm ready for a new computer, it'll be nice to have a wider choice.
I notice various commentators finally echoing my thoughts that the Mac is
"superior" primarily because it's a closed system. But the Mac doesn't
"leave Windows in the dust", simply because Windows offers a wider variety
and range of software.
I wonder if Apple will ever create an OS that will run Windows applications
directly and transparently. I don't think it's impossible, but it would
require a huge programming effort.
William Sommerwerck
> standard 2-button variety I'd buy one of those. Yeah, I know,
> there's tricks to get around it, but I want my second button,
> just like *all* the competition provides.
I remember Apple promoting their single-button mouse because it reduced the
number of decisions the user had to make, conveniently overlooking the fact
that designers would (and did) find all sorts of things for a mouse to do.
The result is that, with a single-button mouse, you now have to remember
which key to press to access these features.
I also remember John Dvorak griping that the Windows industry had not yet
decided what the "official" use of the second button would be. It finally
decided on displaying properties & functions, an excellent choice.
Dave Plowman (News)
William Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I also remember John Dvorak griping that the Windows industry had not yet
> decided what the "official" use of the second button would be. It finally
> decided on displaying properties & functions, an excellent choice.
The OS I use decided on a 3 button mouse over a quarter of a century ago.
We have five 'fingers' - two needed to move the mouse so three spare.
Surely it makes sense to use those?
--
*Rehab is for quitters.
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
clifto
It probably runs nicely on a 200 THz processor with 128 TB of memory.
--
Angry American flags attack Hillary Clinton!
clifto
> If they traded the idiotic single button trackpad for an industry standard 2
> button variety I'd buy one of those. Yeah, I know, there's tricks to get
> around it, but I want my second button, just like *all* the competition
> provides.
Get Linux and you can have THREE mouse buttons, all very handy.
Don Bowey
xc6dnTAm_uNX4qDa...@comcast.com, "William Sommerwerck"
<grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
I don't see that as an advantage over what they have already done.
Dave
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:xc6dnTAm_uNX4qDa...@comcast.com...
> I wonder if Apple will ever create an OS that will run Windows
> applications
> directly and transparently. I don't think it's impossible, but it would
> require a huge programming effort.
>
>
and compiled to run on a particular OS/processor combo. You can't run a
Windows app on a UNIX box "natively" any more than you can drive a boat on
an asphalt highway... on a very fundamental level it just doesn't work.
I don't know how this "parallels" software works BUT I am guessing (and I'm
pretty sure about this) that it's a virtual dos machine environment similar
to VMWare or WINE where there is an application which emulates a windows OS
computer and which is displayed on the Mac OS X computer. It may APPEAR
that you are switching between the two OS's, but in reality you are running
OS X UNIX on the processor full-time and DISPLAYING (full-screen or
otherwise) a PROGRAM which is running the Windows app (perhaps within the
familiar Windows desktop). the only other way it could be done is the way
IBM and the big boys have been doing it for decades: partition the system
(memory, cpu cores, i/o bus, etc.) so that different OS's run CONCURRENTLY
on different processor cores within the same physical machine. OS X is
simply not designed or implemented to do this. Kudos to the writers of
Parallels for their most excellent-sounding product, I will check it out.
Having jumped back into the Mac world recently with my iMac purchase, I will
say that much as I dislike Microsoft, they have a better interface for
administering some things like network connections and firewalls, but that
is only my opinion. My background is in UNIX system administration, so I am
thrilled that the OS x backend is UNIX but... the GUI tools to administer
the vast power of the OS is geared towards trendy Jim whose skills lie in
perhaps advertising or image manipulation and who has no ability or desire
to completely control his machine... he wants a warm fuzzy "automagic"
interface which eliminates any technicial ability requirements. Just about
all of the Apple documentation deals with the fuzzy simple interface and
does not address the underlying OS which is UNIX. Although I've been in the
IT field for several decades, I had one helluva time configuring my wireless
adaptor to talk to my wireless print server in ad hoc mode... it took me
literally two hours. That having been said, my techno-illiterate wife could
sit down and follow the instructions to get the machine talking via ehternet
to our DSL modem (insecure as THAT is given OS X's default setting for their
less-than-perfect firewall is "OFF" out of the box) and hence onto the
internet... Apple is bang-on meeting the needs/wants of their intended
market.
Dave S.
Dave
"James Sweet" <james...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:HA7%i.8557$ds.5059@trndny09...
>
> If they traded the idiotic single button trackpad for an industry standard
> 2 button variety I'd buy one of those. Yeah, I know, there's tricks to get
> around it, but I want my second button, just like *all* the competition
> provides.
>
Sure it looks cool (oops, answered my own question) but using the control
key to access the shortcut menus is just plain stupid and inefficient. Why
should I have to use two hands to do the same thing I could easily and
simply do with one with a Logitech mouse?
Dave
"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4f42a67...@davenoise.co.uk...
> In article <wPednU-CVYdTHaDa...@comcast.com>,
> William Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> I also remember John Dvorak griping that the Windows industry had not yet
>> decided what the "official" use of the second button would be. It finally
>> decided on displaying properties & functions, an excellent choice.
>
> The OS I use decided on a 3 button mouse over a quarter of a century ago.
> We have five 'fingers' - two needed to move the mouse so three spare.
> Surely it makes sense to use those?
Yes, remember the three-button optical mouse (with the special metal optical
pickup mouse pad) that Sun shipped with their IPC/IPX/Sparcstation machines
in what, 1987? It was a bitch to keep that pad clean enough to work
smoothly but ahhh, the third button... I also always liked their
CUT/COPY/PASTE keyboard buttons... why not add buttons to eliminate multiple
actions for functions that people perform ALL THE TIME? I'd get rid of the
"scroll lock" and "pause/break" buttons on the PC KB in favor of COPY and
PASTE.
Dave S.
Dave
"mc" <lo...@www.ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote in message
news:XOZ_i.7447$A71...@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
to run "optimally" and contains more than its' share of bugs. Oh, and the
lack of backward-compatibility, did I mention that?
William Sommerwerck
news:s8l%i.4553$Zn.459@edtnps90...
> "William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:xc6dnTAm_uNX4qDa...@comcast.com...
>> I wonder if Apple will ever create an OS that will run Windows
>> applications
>> directly and transparently. I don't think it's impossible, but it would
>> require a huge programming effort.
> You have a basic misunderstanding of how the OS works. Software is written
> and compiled to run on a particular OS/processor combo. You can't run a
> Windows app on a UNIX box "natively" any more than you can drive a boat
> on an asphalt highway... on a very fundamental level it just doesn't work.
Oh, but I do understand it. I said "directly and transparently", not
natively.
The Apple OS could, in principle, support all the Windows API calls, address
spaces, etc. Windows software would think it was running in a Windows
environment.
> I don't know how this "parallels" software works BUT I am guessing (and
I'm
> pretty sure about this) that it's a virtual dos machine environment
similar
> to VMWare or WINE where there is an application which emulates a windows
OS
> computer and which is displayed on the Mac OS X computer. It may APPEAR
> that you are switching between the two OS's, but in reality you are
running
> OS X UNIX on the processor full-time and DISPLAYING (full-screen or
> otherwise) a PROGRAM which is running the Windows app (perhaps within the
> familiar Windows desktop). the only other way it could be done is the way
> IBM and the big boys have been doing it for decades: partition the system
> (memory, cpu cores, i/o bus, etc.) so that different OS's run CONCURRENTLY
> on different processor cores within the same physical machine. OS X is
> simply not designed or implemented to do this. Kudos to the writers of
> Parallels for their most excellent-sounding product, I will check it out.
That seems plausible.
Dave
very fundamental level it just doesn't work.
>
> Oh, but I do understand it. I said "directly and transparently", not
> natively.
>
> The Apple OS could, in principle, support all the Windows API calls,
> address
> spaces, etc. Windows software would think it was running in a Windows
> environment.
>
>
be a huge huge huge cost to develop hooks for all of the MS API's and for
what? You can already run an emulator and (with a minimal performance hit)
run all the windows apps...
I think a more simple way to go about it would be to write a simple wrapper
for your windows app which scripts the launching of the app within the
emulator app when you click it with your mouse. Couple of lines and you're
done....
Dave
I wonder if the computer industry will end up like the auto industry: a few
big players. I will gladly pay for the option to purchase reasonably priced
spare parts for 20 years in exchange for giving up ultimate customizability
of my car. Any day of the week.
William Sommerwerck
>
> "William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:SfednTMesvj-f6Da...@comcast.com...
> very fundamental level it just doesn't work.
> >
> > Oh, but I do understand it. I said "directly and transparently", not
> > natively.
> >
> > The Apple OS could, in principle, support all the Windows API calls,
> > address
> > spaces, etc. Windows software would think it was running in a Windows
> > environment.
> >
> >
> Yes, it would be possible but holy shit why would you want to? There
would
> be a huge huge huge cost to develop hooks for all of the MS API's and for
> what? You can already run an emulator and (with a minimal performance
hit)
> run all the windows apps...
The reason you would want to is to allow the truly simultaneous operation of
Mac and Windows programs. Of course, anything that gave the _illusion_ of
same would be just as good, of cours.
> I think a more simple way to go about it would be to write a simple
wrapper
> for your windows app which scripts the launching of the app within the
> emulator app when you click it with your mouse. Couple of lines and
you're
> done...
Okay.
William Sommerwerck
It seems that all industries tend to devolve toward a few big players,
simply because of bad management or shakeouts during economic downturns.
There are good reasons for damning Microsoft (and Apple, for that matter),
but if it weren't for Windows, there would be no single "universal" (???)
platform for software and it would be economically more difficult for
software companies to develop niche products. The paradox (at least with
respect to operating systems) is that fewer operating systems means a wider
variety of software products.
Don Bowey
<dspea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> "William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:SfednTMesvj-f6Da...@comcast.com...
> very fundamental level it just doesn't work.
>>
>> Oh, but I do understand it. I said "directly and transparently", not
>> natively.
>>
>> The Apple OS could, in principle, support all the Windows API calls,
>> address
>> spaces, etc. Windows software would think it was running in a Windows
>> environment.
>>
>>
> Yes, it would be possible but holy shit why would you want to? There would
> be a huge huge huge cost to develop hooks for all of the MS API's and for
> what? You can already run an emulator and (with a minimal performance hit)
> run all the windows apps...
The Windows emulator was very s l o w....... even on this MacBook Pro,
which has a 2.16 GHz processor. For what I wanted, it was inadequate.
Windows via Parallels and XP is not slow.
isw
"Michael Kennedy" <mikek40...@comcast.net> wrote:
If you don't like it, you can turn it off. It annoys me every time I use
my old Pismo, because I do the "two-finger thump" and nothing happens.
Two finger motions also emulate a wheel mouse -- draw fingers down,
scroll up; draw fingers sideways, scroll sideways. Nice.
Isaac
isw
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I notice various commentators finally echoing my thoughts that the Mac is
> "superior" primarily because it's a closed system.
UNIX (BSD, actually) is a "closed system"? That will be news to a lot of
folks.
> But the Mac doesn't "leave Windows in the dust", simply because Windows
> offers a wider variety and range of software.
Windows proponents often say that, but when put to it, they are usually
unable to name any particular areas of software other than games or very
expensive, special purpose apps for offices or engineers where Macs are
deficient. That a PC has a larger availability of games is a given. In
fact, if you start with the premise that a PC is a game machine that
also does spread sheets, a lot of the architectural aspects of PCs make
a lot more sense. And those expensive special-purpose apps are of no
particular interest to the typical home user.
Can you do better? In what areas are Macs unable to perform because of
the unavailability of software? (Not "I can't run this specific Windows
app or something exactly like it", but "no Mac software to perform the
function satisfactorily exists").
Isaac
Bill Freeman
extra buttons and scroll wheels that work just fine on Apple computers.
Must have been a long while since you looked at a Mac if you think they
still all come with a one button mouse.
In article <1bl%i.4554$Zn.835@edtnps90>, Dave <dspea...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
--
Bill Freeman
James Sweet
"clifto" <cli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ggr015-...@remote.clifto.com...
> James Sweet wrote:
>> If they traded the idiotic single button trackpad for an industry
>> standard 2
>> button variety I'd buy one of those. Yeah, I know, there's tricks to get
>> around it, but I want my second button, just like *all* the competition
>> provides.
>
> Get Linux and you can have THREE mouse buttons, all very handy.
>
So if I install Linux on a Macbook I'll magically have 3 buttons on the
built in trackpad?
I have Linux on a few machines, it's useful and fun to play with, however I
fail to see how it solves the issue I gripe about in any way.
That said, there comes a point of diminishing returns with mouse buttons. I
need two buttons, I need a scroll wheel or emulation on a trackpad, I rarely
use the 3rd button on mice that have it though, and those additional side
internet buttons some mice have are just useless, I hit them on accident
when forced to use a mouse with them.
James Sweet
"Bill Freeman" <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:171120071248216374%nob...@nowhere.invalid...
> Logiteck (and others) make plenty of inexpensive mice, with plenty of
> extra buttons and scroll wheels that work just fine on Apple computers.
> Must have been a long while since you looked at a Mac if you think they
> still all come with a one button mouse.
>
>
>
You guys aren't really reading my original post are you?
I said "one button trackpad" on the Macbook laptops. Yes, I'm fully aware
there's dozens of external devices I can plug in to get additional buttons,
but I don't want to carry around additional devices with my laptop, I want
two buttons built in to the trackpad, every other laptop manufacture offers
this, so until that changes, I'll continue to buy laptops from other
manufactures, period. This gripe applies specifically to *laptops*.
James Sweet
While I don't game much anymore myself, games are arguably the biggest
pusher of PC hardware upgrades. You might be surprised by the number of home
users who use special purpose apps, as well as while there's not really any
specific genre missing on the Mac, there are certainly fewer choices within
each. Why is "I can't run this specific Windows app" not valid? Lots of
people have a liking for specific apps, not to mention they may have years
of data created with that app.
William Sommerwerck
> of the unavailability of software? (Not "I can't run this specific Windows
> app or something exactly like it", but "no Mac software to perform the
> function satisfactorily exists").
How about Ventura? Corel promised a Mac version years ago, but it never
appeared, probably because the market was too small.
Somebody once remarked "How many word processors do you really need? How
many spreadsheets?" The answer is that a large installed OS base encourages
competition and innovation.
isw
"James Sweet" <james...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Few apps have such restrictive data types that they're not exportable.
CAD programs (which I specifically exempted because of cost) would
possibly be one category.
Isaac
isw
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Can you do better? In what areas are Macs unable to perform because
> > of the unavailability of software? (Not "I can't run this specific Windows
> > app or something exactly like it", but "no Mac software to perform the
> > function satisfactorily exists").
>
> How about Ventura? Corel promised a Mac version years ago, but it never
> appeared, probably because the market was too small.
But aren't there Mac apps of equivalent functionality?
> Somebody once remarked "How many word processors do you really need? How
> many spreadsheets?" The answer is that a large installed OS base encourages
> competition and innovation.
Which certainly explains why just about every Windows box uses MS Office.
Oh, wait...
Isaac
James Sweet
Mine doesn't...
Jeff Liebermann
>avdho...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I heard lot about the Windows Vista OS, but i am not confident which
>> to go for, is Home edition good, Business version or the Ultimate
>> version.... being professional as s/w engineer as for my home purpose
>> which one will suite the most.
>Forget Vista.
>Install XP. It's MUCH better.
>Graham
Yep. I've done four Vista to XP downgrades so far, with one more
scheduled. All four resulted in a computah that was at least 2 times
faster than under Vista. However, the speed improvement was not the
main justification. It was that Vista was incompatible with older
hardware and software.
I'm dealing with one such incompatibility as I write. The customer
has 4ea Samsung i700 PDAphones running Windoze Mobile 2002. He's been
using them with Active Sync 5.x under XP without any difficulties.
However, Vista demands that you use Active Sync 6.x which does not
work with WM2002. It wants WM2003. Fortunately, I found a firmware
upgrade to WM2003 for the phones, which works. However, the resultant
data files cannot be moved either directly or indirectly (copying)
from WM2002 to WM2003. At this point, the phones have been upgraded
to what Vista demands, but nothing works. I'll eventually find a
solution, but at this point, it appears that a downgrade to XP might
be a better solution.
It was the same story with printers. The same customer has a 5 year
old HP All-in-one contrivance that was instantly obsoleted by the lack
of Vista drivers. Why should HP spend time and effort re-writing all
their old drivers for printers they no longer sell? I don't blame
them. So, the customer bought a brand new HP All-in-One printer to
use with his new Vista box. I'm sure HP is happy with this
arrangement, with a bonus that they don't have to pay Microsoft for
the Vista certification.
Other customers had problems with ancient software that works
perfectly, but where the vendor is more interesting in upgrading the
customer (i.e. soaking them for the latest Vista compatible version)
than just fixing the compatibility issues. Of course, to maintain
compatibility in the future, the customer needs to buy an expensive
service contract. Any semblance to extortion is strictly
coincidental.
It's become a sufficiently important issue that the major OEM's are
demanding that Microsoft offer a downgrade path:
<http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/f/4/5f4c83d3-833e-4f11-8cbd-699b0c164182/royaltyoemreferencesheet.pdf>
Most manufacturers have instructions on how to downgrade on their
support sites. For example:
<http://support.dell.com/support/topics/global.aspx/support/dsn/en/document?docid=3A7C20B8B68CF344E040A68F5B286605>
With some models, that only have Vista support, the downgrade is both
tricky and messy. If there are no downloadable XP drivers on the
manufacturers web pile, don't do the downgrade.
Personally, I like Vista, but I probably won't use it. I like it
because it generates considerable business for me in consulting and
upgrades. As long as there is hardware and software out there that
doesn't work, I stay in business. Incidentally, my company motto is
"If this stuff worked, you wouldn't need me".
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
clifto
> "clifto" <cli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ggr015-...@remote.clifto.com...
>> James Sweet wrote:
>>> If they traded the idiotic single button trackpad for an industry
>>> standard 2
>>> button variety I'd buy one of those. Yeah, I know, there's tricks to get
>>> around it, but I want my second button, just like *all* the competition
>>> provides.
>>
>> Get Linux and you can have THREE mouse buttons, all very handy.
>
> So if I install Linux on a Macbook I'll magically have 3 buttons on the
> built in trackpad?
Of course not. Use an external mouse to get the full benefit.
> I have Linux on a few machines, it's useful and fun to play with, however I
> fail to see how it solves the issue I gripe about in any way.
>
> That said, there comes a point of diminishing returns with mouse buttons. I
> need two buttons, I need a scroll wheel or emulation on a trackpad, I rarely
> use the 3rd button on mice that have it though, and those additional side
> internet buttons some mice have are just useless, I hit them on accident
> when forced to use a mouse with them.
There isn't a whole hour in which I use the computer and don't use all
three buttons several times. Hasn't been for a lot of years, dating as
far back as Windows 3.1 (minesweeper used the middle button to really
good advantage!).
William Sommerwerck
> In article <KZSdnZ54IeCmyKLa...@comcast.com>,
> "William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Can you do better? In what areas are Macs unable to perform because
>>> of the unavailability of software? (Not "I can't run this specific
Windows
>>> app or something exactly like it", but "no Mac software to perform the
>>> function satisfactorily exists").
>> How about Ventura? Corel promised a Mac version years ago, but it never
>> appeared, probably because the market was too small.
> But aren't there Mac apps of equivalent functionality?
I don't think so. I haven't used every long-document product on the market.
But Ventura is (or at least used to be) pretty much in a class by itself.
>> Somebody once remarked "How many word processors do you really need? How
>> many spreadsheets?" The answer is that a large installed OS base
encourages
>> competition and innovation.
> Which certainly explains why just about every Windows box uses MS Office.
> Oh, wait...
Exactly. The Mac base isn't large enough to support multiple, complex
"office-type" products.
Rich Webb
<james...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"isw" <i...@witzend.com> wrote in message
>news:isw-992626.2...@newsgroups.comcast.net...
>> In article <KZSdnZ54IeCmyKLa...@comcast.com>,
>> "William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
[snip...snip...]
>>> Somebody once remarked "How many word processors do you really need? How
>>> many spreadsheets?" The answer is that a large installed OS base
>>> encourages
>>> competition and innovation.
>>
>> Which certainly explains why just about every Windows box uses MS Office.
>>
>> Oh, wait...
>>
>
>
>Mine doesn't...
Mine doesn't either. I *had* been getting by with Office 98 but MS
accidentally (?) broke Office98 compatibility with WinXP SP2. Goodbye
MS Office, hello OpenOffice.org!
Out of curiosity I also picked up TextMaker & PlanMaker from
http://www.softmaker.com/, an inexpensive commercial alternative that
compliments OOo pretty well. Some MS Office things it handles better,
some errr... not so well. YMMV
jakdedert
I'd been using Office '97 for years...no problem. You can get
converters for later versions of Office files. That said, the *only*
reason I used Office was because everybody else does. It's really an
essential application if you do any kind of business correspondence.
Personally I preferred WordPerfect. If it would create a reasonably
complex file that would open perfectly in Office (Word), I'd probably
have kept it. However, anything with more than very simple
graphics--even simple text boxes--has to be reformatted for Word/Office.
Open Office seems like a good idea, but it's so mind-numbingly slow to
load. I tried it for about six months and finally dumped it when I got
a copy of Office 2k.
jak
Rich Webb
<jakd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
[snip...snip...]
>Personally I preferred WordPerfect. If it would create a reasonably
>complex file that would open perfectly in Office (Word), I'd probably
>have kept it. However, anything with more than very simple
>graphics--even simple text boxes--has to be reformatted for Word/Office.
I'm still WordPerfect by preference but, as you note, MS compatibility
is something you can't get away from. Fortunately, the shift in recent
years to distributing documents in PDF format instead of raw MS Word
has let me keep on WP-ing.
One thing you might try is to import your WP files into Word rather
than trying to export from WP to Word. Since WP has kept the same file
format since ver 6 (at least through ver 12 -- I don't have "X3" but
I'd bet they have kept with the same format), MS has had a lot of time
to tweak their import filter whereas WP export has to hit the moving
target of the constantly changing Word formats.
Anyhoo, for those times when I'm stuck having to open Word files, I've
had pretty good luck with TextMaker. It does not (yet) handle MS's
"OpenXML" format but I've been pretty happy with it.
clifto
> <jakd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>Personally I preferred WordPerfect. If it would create a reasonably
>>complex file that would open perfectly in Office (Word), I'd probably
>>have kept it. However, anything with more than very simple
>>graphics--even simple text boxes--has to be reformatted for Word/Office.
>
> I'm still WordPerfect by preference but, as you note, MS compatibility
> is something you can't get away from. Fortunately, the shift in recent
> years to distributing documents in PDF format instead of raw MS Word
> has let me keep on WP-ing.
I guess enough people have forgotten the folly of using Word format files
for interchange. I found that only two things can read a Word 6 file:
Word 6 and StarOffice. A lot of people were burnt when Word 7 hit and
before everyone updated.
Don Bowey
<cli...@gmail.com> wrote:
Saving Word files in the Rich Text Format enables me to open them in several
other applications when I need to, and gives much better cross-system
results between my PCs and Macs.
Eeyore
jakdedert wrote:
> That said, the *only* reason I used Office was because everybody else does.
And that is exactly the very worst reason to do so.
> It's really an essential application if you do any kind of business
> correspondence.
Complete nonsense. No-one needs a desktop publishing program (which is what Word
has become) to type a letter.
If you need Word dot.doc file compatability you could try the free AbiWord (the
only 'word processor' on my PC) , else use rtf (rich text format) files or pdfs.
PDF creators are free too.
The Wordpad (or Write) program included with Windows is good enough for most
letters. It's only real failing is the inability to introduce your own page
breaks. I expect MS did that for fear of crippling sales of Office.
Graham
Eeyore
clifto wrote:
> I guess enough people have forgotten the folly of using Word format files
> for interchange. I found that only two things can read a Word 6 file:
> Word 6 and StarOffice. A lot of people were burnt when Word 7 hit and
> before everyone updated.
Word file format incompatabilty between different version of Word is EXACTLY why
you should NEVER buy a copy of Office.
It's utter rubbish.
Graham
Eeyore
Don Bowey wrote:
> Saving Word files in the Rich Text Format enables me to open them in several
> other applications when I need to, and gives much better cross-system
> results between my PCs and Macs.
So why use Word in the first place ?
Graham
Eeyore
isw wrote:
> "William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Somebody once remarked "How many word processors do you really need? How
> > many spreadsheets?" The answer is that a large installed OS base encourages
> > competition and innovation.
>
> Which certainly explains why just about every Windows box uses MS Office.
I loathe MS Office. It's an UN-productivity tool IME.
Has the message still not got around that Open Office is free ? If you HAVE to use
a full-fat Office application, at least save yourself the indignity of paying MS
for it !
Graham
Dave Plowman (News)
clifto <cli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I guess enough people have forgotten the folly of using Word format files
> for interchange. I found that only two things can read a Word 6 file:
> Word 6 and StarOffice. A lot of people were burnt when Word 7 hit and
> before everyone updated.
I'm a freelance sound engineer and I recently got e-mailed a call sheet
for a job I was doing. The only information I really needed was the
start/finish times. The email itself was blank but contained three
attachments. A GIF with the company logo. An HTML file with the usual
legalese. And a Word document with the necessary information. Latest
version of Word. From a company working in the communications field. ;-)
--
*Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm *
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
William Sommerwerck
in message news:474135A9...@hotmail.com...
>> It's really an essential application if you do any kind of business
>> correspondence.
> Complete nonsense. No-one needs a desktop publishing program
> (which is what Word has become) to type a letter.
Yes, they do, if they want a nice-looking letter.
But...
Excuse while I roll on the floor laughing.
Microsoft might want us to _think_ Word is a DTP, but it's anything but.
It's an excellent word processor that has been tarted up with features that
give the illusion -- to the ignorant -- that it's suitable for DTP.
I cut my DTP teeth with the "original" Ventura Publisher, versions 2 and 3,
almost 20 years ago. Those "primitive" versions, which ran under GEM
(Graphics Environment Manager) utterly and totally blow away the current
versions of Word (and, I assume, WP and other word processors) for producing
long, complex documents. * And they're actually easier to use, because they
give you direct control over what you're doing, rather than automating it.
Word has major flaws that make it virtually useless for complex documents,
and even for a lot of simple ones. The worst of these is its unstable image
placement. You cannot insert an image, then expect it to either remain where
you put it, or move the way you want with the text flow. Last year I spent
several hours in a largely unsuccessful attempt to organize the graphics in
a co-worker's document. Once I got it "right", adding text or new images
caused the exisiting images to irrationally shift position, which then
required starting over.
Another problem is that, though Word can create TOCs pretty much by the user
saying "Put a TOC here", TOC formatting is unstable, and often requires
manual alterations to make the TOC look the way you want.
No one at Microsoft seems to care about these problems. And they're not
new -- I was complaining about some of them over a decade ago. For example,
there's a bug that causes Word to spontaneously switch to automatic
repagination for no obvious reason. This bug has persisted across the last
four or five versions.
It might sound paradoxical, but in making products "easy" to use, software
developers often make them harder to use -- at least if you're the sort of
person who cares about what they're doing, and is willing to make the effort
to learn. For example, in Ventura you have to manually insert an anchor for
each image. In exchange for that bit of work, you can choose how the image
will flow with the text -- and it _will_ flow correctly. Word's "automatic"
image-anchoring feature is not only much less flexible, but it's confusing
to use -- and doesn't work correctly, anyway.
> The Wordpad (or Write) program included with Windows is good enough
> for most letters. It's only real failing is the inability to introduce
your own
> page breaks. I expect MS did that for fear of crippling sales of Office.
I write for a living. Write is a near-featureless program that _might_ be
suitable for plain letters, but is pretty much useless for anything other
than very plain text. No one in their "write" mind would use Write to write
letters. It's a clunky, slow, poorly designed piece of software.
Word can produce handsome, attractive documents -- if you know how to use
it. Most people don't. They write as if the computer were a typewriter,
rather than using styles for formatting. The result is ugly, hard-to-edit
documents. (Yes, I've had to clean them up. It's appalling.) If you use Word
(or any other good word processor) the way it's supposed to be used, you
have no need or use for Write. **
I depend on Word for non-complex documents, and it doesn't let me down. I
have a 120K-word unpublished novel created with Word. I could convert it --
in a just a few minutes -- to whatever page-layout and typographic format a
publisher wanted.
There is a paradox. In general, software with a shallow learning curve (that
is, that takes a while to learn) *** is often easier to use, because the
slow learning process is the result of the program letting you do what you
want to do -- you don't have to fight the program's "automation" -- or the
fact that the designer didn't anticipate the particular way you want to do
something. A good example is Ventura's TOC and index formatting. They take a
bit of time to become familiar with, but you can achieve pretty much
anything you want. And TOC and indexing creation is bug-free and stable.
* By complex, I mean multi-chapter documents with complex tables of contents
and indexes, tables and cross-references, and flexibly-but-stably-anchored
images, with virtually any formatting the user wants. Such documents are
difficult to do in Word, but are a snap in Ventura.
** I find it amazing that people refuse to spend a few hours to learn how to
use a word processor _correctly_. Once you're proficient, the savings in
time and frustration are huge.
*** I am perennially annoyed by people complaining that a product has a
"steep" learning curve. As "learning curves" would be plotted as "amount
learned" against time, a steep curve is _exactly_ what you'd want.
William Sommerwerck
> I loathe MS Office. It's an UN-productivity tool IME.
I'm not sure what a "productivity tool" is.
Back in 1980, when I owned an Apple ][ and was discovering the wonders of
word processing, another writer said to me "The computer doesn't allow me to
get my work done faster. Rather, it lets me fall behind on more projects at
the same time." I suppose that's "productivity" -- of a sort.
In general, software doesn't make people more productive. Rather, it lets
them do things themselves that, in the past, they would have turned over to
someone else. Do secretaries still take dictation? People are expected to
create their own documents (including spreadsheets and business graphics),
rather than dictating them. This strikes me as a loss of productivity,
rather than an increase.
The reason, I suspect, that you "loathe MS Office" is that you don't have
any need for it. And if you did -- would you be willing to put out the
effort to learn it?
The one true piece of "productivity software" I've seen is instant
messaging. I find I spend less time discussing something and coming to a
decision using IM, than when using e-mail or the 'phone. (This assumes one
can touch-type.)
The real change computers have wrought is what I call "democratization".
People are now able to do things they didn't used to be able to do. For
example, I can design and create a complex, multi-chapter document -- then
deliver it to the printer, in a format suitable for creating offset
plates -- all on my own, at my desk. You couldn't do that 20 years ago.
Eeyore
William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> >> It's really an essential application if you do any kind of business
> >> correspondence.
>
> > Complete nonsense. No-one needs a desktop publishing program
> > (which is what Word has become) to type a letter.
>
> Yes, they do, if they want a nice-looking letter.
No they don't. Good presentation does not require a bloated program.
Graham
Eeyore
William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > I loathe MS Office. It's an UN-productivity tool IME.
>
> I'm not sure what a "productivity tool" is.
It's what MS claim Office is. I find it more a frustration tool than anything
else.
Graham
William Sommerwerck
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
> > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote
In this particular (and admittedly unusual) case, it's Write that's the
bloated program. It's a slow, low-performance product. And Word does many
things (such as table creation) not available from Write.
William Sommerwerck
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote
My point was that I'm not sure most software actually enhances people's
productivity. I see no reason why any other other package would be better or
worse than Office at enhancing your productivity. They simply provide a set
of tools to do certain things.
Don Bowey
<rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Because it does *everything I need to do, not just some of them. Regardless
of the incompatible .doc file versions, IMO it is still the best WP
available.
Dave
"Bill Freeman" <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:171120071248216374%nob...@nowhere.invalid...
> Must have been a long while since you looked at a Mac if you think they
> still all come with a one button mouse.
>
>
I bought an iMac last week.
It came with a one-button mouse.
I purchased a bluetooth wireless Apple mouse at the time I purchased the
iMac (the ONLY mouse apple-branded wireless mouse) at the same time.
It also has (gasp!) one button.
Why should I have to go out and buy an aftermarket product to work with my
expensive new mac? If I'm shelling out an extra 30% for an uber-cool piece
of Mac modern art, I don't want a crappy-looking yet incredibly functional
peripheral now do I?
clifto
> Why should I have to go out and buy an aftermarket product to work with my
> expensive new mac? If I'm shelling out an extra 30% for an uber-cool piece
> of Mac modern art, I don't want a crappy-looking yet incredibly functional
> peripheral now do I?
Eet ees bayter to loook goood than to work goood.
Eeyore
William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > William Sommerwerck wrote:
> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> >>> I loathe MS Office. It's an UN-productivity tool IME.
>
> > > I'm not sure what a "productivity tool" is.
>
> > It's what MS claim Office is. I find it more a frustration tool than
> > anything else.
>
> My point was that I'm not sure most software actually enhances people's
> productivity.
I rather agree with you there !
> I see no reason why any other other package would be better or
> worse than Office at enhancing your productivity. They simply provide a set
> of tools to do certain things.
There's certain things about the way Word operates that drive me truly nuts.
Graham
jakdedert
If you'd taken the trouble to actually *read* the thread before you
spouted off, you'd have seen at least 'my' objection to OpenOffice.
It's slow...glacially slow, to open. Click on a *.doc file in an email
attachment...go have a smoke...pour some coffee, add cream &
sugar...come back to the computer...drink half the cup while waiting for
the file to open.
After that, it's a snap.
Click the same file--with Word associated as the default '.doc'
application--and before you can even get out of your chair--you're
reading it. I really wanted OpenOffice to be my default application for
biz docs, but it's not there yet. When dealing with corporations, you
use what they use.
I don't 'like' M$ products in general. It's the price I have to pay for
'real world' compatibility. M$ knows it...and I know it.
jak
Dave
> Dave wrote:
>> Why should I have to go out and buy an aftermarket product to work with
>> my
>> expensive new mac? If I'm shelling out an extra 30% for an uber-cool
>> piece
>> of Mac modern art, I don't want a crappy-looking yet incredibly
>> functional
>> peripheral now do I?
>
> Eet ees bayter to loook goood than to work goood.
>
Form over function. Image is everything.
William Sommerwerck
in message news:4741B7F2...@hotmail.com...
> There's certain things about the way Word operates
> that drive me truly nuts.
When you have the time, I'd be curious to hear a few of them.