Slashdot Mirror

Commercial OSes? Let see.

Like this? http://macosx.com/forums/apple-news-rumors-discussion/8494-os-9-worst-thing-ever-invented.html

Or like this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista#Criticism

Apple did add support via InputSprocket, which enabled games to use multiple buttons (among other things), but InputSprocket was generally used only by games. Right-click support wasn't available in the Finder or most other applications without the use of third-party drivers prior to Mac OS X. Mouse manufacturers usually either provided their own Mac drivers (Logitech did this), or simply offered USB Overdrive (Microsoft did this).

Here's a forum thread with somebody asking about it.

It's not that rare. Many cellphones are going this route nowadays as well as the Mac OS X dashboard widgets and Mac OS X apps. Then of course, there are the gtk javascript bindings.

Javascript is finding itself in more and more places nowadays.

If you had a 386 with 8MB you were doing pretty damn well. My first 486 only had 4MB, and my first laptop (Toshiba Libretto) came with 8MB and was eventually maxed out at 32MB.

Yes, it was a real live 386DX25. It had 8 MB of DRAM in DIP sockets.

I have not said one word about a GPU here. Not one. Quartz was always based on OpenGL

Please provide a cite. I set out trying to prove you right and could only find references to the state of quartz "before unifying the graphics system under OpenGL entirely"(ref) and the like.

Like I said, in most cases, it makes perfect sense to maximize the window you're using. It takes less time than resizing the window manually, and it makes the most effective use of your screen real estate. Aside from when you need to see more than 1 application window at a time, there's no advantage to not maximizing the window.

Yes, but some people come from the OS X side of the field. And for those poor folks, the maximize button effect varies from app-to-app. I get the feeling that the OP is one of these people.

Some like to call this "document-centric," but I just call it annoying. Whenever I want to maximize a window in OS X, I just do it manually. I really like some aspects of OS X (like Expose), but I have to say I hate the broken maximize button. Luckily everything except Finder seems to remember the window size I set for it.

It can't be cheap to redefine the endianness of standard graphics cards for the Mac compared to every other brand of computer - just kidding! Obviously the Mac user is paying for awesome build quality and professional engineering and brand reputation rather than just paying hugely more money for an identical graphics card that PC users get for half the price.

now I want a new machine and the 20" Dell is still perfect, but I can't reuse the iMac.

First off, because they are not so easy to reuse or re purpose I don't like these all-in-one computers, whether iMacs, Dell XPS One, or other all-in-one computers. To me they are a waste of resources. However you can still use the iMac. See this. It describes how you can use it with another Mac. For instance using a Firewire cable you can use it as a Firewire drive. MacOSX explains how you can use some iMacs as a second monitor. Check Can MacBook Pro laptop use IMAC monitor (easily)? as well.

Hope this helps.

Falcon

...for 'hacking' into the redflag-linux.com mysql database (which had no root passwd, btw), and defacing their site to say "Hacked by America". It's just been tit-for-tat ever since. =/

I administer an apple x server at work, and I haven't been impressed.

I'm running ubuntu on a PC, so I can't use the server admin, or workgroup manager tools. Also, apple doesn't come with a standard VNC server, instead it uses VNC with some proprietary shit built in, so I had to install vine server to get a remote desktop. Of course, vine server sucks as well, because I can't get it to start on boot, without logging into the server with either the native server admin tools, or locally with a KVM. Oh wait, the X Serve doesn't play nice with a standard KVM. I have an extra mouse and keyboard setting in my rack just for the X Serve.

Once you manage to get in the damn thing, if you have any sort of complicated setup at all, you simply CAN'T DO it using the server admin tool. I've usually had to bust into the config files just like any other Unix system. Take a look at the SQL section of the Server Admin tool, its a fucking joke. Also, even if you do start to do some things by hand, shit still doesn't work right.

See one of my bug reports here.

http://macosx.com/forums/mac-os-x-server/298314-samba-shares-hfs-extended-attributes.html

The mailing list / blog / colander stuff is also less than impressive. Why the FUCK should I have to wait 15 minutes for my changes to take affect. It this 1982 or some shit? Some changes seem to take much longer than that as well. I waited a whole day for one of my groups to show up. Why is it that the "recent changes" section of each group shows group emails, even if I turn the mailing list feature off?

Oh yeah, last but not least, the server crashes. It responds to pings, still responds to local terminal input, but anything that requires authentication is dead in the water. So that leaves mail, netbios, ssh, server admin, work group manager, etc etc all dead. I think the LDAP server is crapping out, but I haven't been able to prove it yet. I've had to hard boot the server half a dozen times in the last two weeks.

My last rant. WHAT THE FUCK IS WITH THE QUICK TIME UPDATES, AND THE REQUIRED RESTARTS. Jesus christ, it's like I'm working with windows NT.

I was a OS X developer and system administrator for 10 years. I switched to Linux a couple years ago and haven't looked back. Why? Because I grew tired of screwing with airport express to get wireless working whenever I updated OS X on my laptop. Because I found it annoying that I couldn't reliably use any network with my laptop under OS X. I also wanted to run a selection of polished applications - OS X does servers well, but on the desktop it's hit or miss, especially when it comes to user interfaces. Every single app has its own very "unique" way of interacting with the user as they don't follow Apple's Human Interface Guidelines, even Apple doesn't follow it! While I'm all for choice, I really do think that there is something to be said for standardized usability guidelines, and that's something that just never caught on in OS X like it did in Linux Desktop Environments.

Finally, I grew tired of hearing about how Apple was just about to take over everything. The story hasn't changed in the last five years. So, I switched to Linux.

if you are part of a linux community, you get help faster, friendlier and for free. and you after giving advice to others have even a good conscience of being helpful! ... but for the average "i-do-not-want-to-learn-but-it-must-just-work" user, you are perfectly right!

The Macintosh has a "community" as well. Most minority platforms do. Heck, there are even some places where Windows users can go to get advice. (Usually having to do with viruses and spyware, but still....)

Apple User Groups
http://www.macfixit.com/
http://www.macintouch.com/
http://www.macosx.com/
http://www.mac-forums.com/
http://forums.macrumors.com/forumdisplay.php?f=78

And then there are the comp.sys.mac.* newsgroups, and others.

Benefits of Quartz 2D extreme: speed, quality. Graphics render faster and look better especially during transformations (like the genie effect).

Can your hardware handle it?

Go into "About this Mac" and click "More Info"

Select the video card for more detailed information

Look for:

Core Image: Supported

Core Image-capable graphics cards include:
ATI Mobility Radeon 9700
ATI Radeon 9600 XT, 9800 XT, X800 XT
nVidia GeForce FX Go 5200
nVidia GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
nVidia GeForce 6800 Ultra DDL, 6800 GT DDL

Full details.

Hi,

I'm new to the forum and have a question about OSX application compatibility. More specifically, what I would like to know is whether or not OSX applications will install and run on a *NIX operating system like Red Hat, Debian, etc.

Since both of us have mostly Windows experience (I have some Linux experience) and also because I know that Mac OSX does have some BSD functionality, I was wondering if we might be able to buy the Nuendo for Mac software and then install it in Linux on an Intel/AMD platform.

Yeah because lines like "My PC wasn't Plug-n-Play it was Plug-n-Get Mad" don't smack at all of a marketing copy writer. Nor the smuggly delivered "I saved Christmas".

I mean it's not like OSX or Mac adds ever exhibits any problems. They JUST WORK. All the time. Constantly and consistently. Not subject to any of the complication that case computers to misbehave. And we all know that the Just Work line sure isn't marketing spin. Apple wouldn't ever use marketing spin to promote its products.

I mean there is no way something like iPhoto could destroy Christmas.

Similarly,

Mac OS X 10.1 = Darwin 5
Mac OS X 10.2 = Darwin 6
Mac OS X 10.3 = Darwin 7
Mac OS X 10.4 = Darwin 8

Currently, Mac OS X 10.3.9 gives Darwin 7.9 when you do 'uname -a'.

This thread is very helpful.

We should officially start considering those who way "charging money for a point release" trolls by now.

precisely, and that GUI is a bloody stockmarket of icons and silliness. me? i turfed that rubbish interface and put on fluxbox (under X11). now im far more productive!

http://www.macosx.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-3 2052.html

while hte OS is gernally OK, one thing Apple tends to generalise on this idea of Useability. theyd actually have a *rising* number switchers if they made theyre desktop as configurable as Linux or even WinXP. in the current state it simply scares people off.

If you should have any questions or problems with your new Macintosh, goto to

http://www.macosx.com/

to get FREE assistance from experienced Mac users. You will find warm and friendly responses to your questions.

For totally geeking out with Mac OS X, go to:

http://www.macosxhints.com/

to learn all the under-the-hood BSD/UNIX stuff you would ever want to know about Mac OS X.

Best regards,
A sincere and hard core Macintosh geek spreading the Jobsian gospel of Apple.

... these /. mac fags should go get their own site and leave real enthusiasts/nerds alone.

Okay. I'll bite. Dear Mister Troll sir...as to us having a site of our own...we do. In fact we have several from which to choose. And, pray tell, what in your tiny little troll-like mind leads you to believe that Mac users are all of a particular sexual orientation of any kind at all? Or that mac users don't qualify as nerds? And by some strange twisting path of logic that we don't in some way belong here?Newsfalsh! The mac now not only sports a command line environment, but you can set your environment to your shell of choice!

I know, I know, please don't feel the trolls. Move along. Move along...

I'm sorry, man, but that's just a load of shit. I have stopped counting the times that I've had to reboot my Jaguar workstation in the school's art lab after it failed to handle some bizarre error in Classic environment. It just gets worse with every release; you'd think that they'd want to provide something decent, considering that major apps like Quark still don't exist as OS X-native code.

I'm sorry, man, but that's just a load of shit... too. Apple has been very clear about the future of Classic - there will be very little improvement of the environment. Now, Quark is a special case (and I think you know that), but most apps work reasonably well under Classic. I used Photoshop 5.5 in Classic until 7 was released, and although it's not ideal (startup of Classic was an exercise in patience), it works. That was the typical experience I had with Classic apps.

The only time I ever have to reboot my Jag boxen is after a software update that requires reboot. (Dare I say it here?) My Macs are every bit as stable as my Linux boxen. Based on comments I've seen here and elsewhere, I doubt that that my experience with Jag is unique. It's a helluva bit more than a 'marginal gain in stability'.

I think it's horribly unfair to characterize that fact that Quark isn't native yet as somehow being Apple's fault. Quark are dragging their feet and are, in my opinion, solely responsible for the fact that they're not expected to have X native code any time soon. There was a bit of discussion about Quark over on macosx.com a little while back. The interesting thing is that "In a Macworld Online readers poll, 91 per cent of respondees said they are either considering an alternative to QuarkXPress or have already switched." The feeling I get from all of this is that the only reason that Quark hasn't switched to native is that they feel they don't have to. Their market position in DTP seems similar to Microsoft's in Desktop OS.

Have you looked at InDesign?