Slashdot Mirror


OS X 10.1 Coming Today (Sorta)

usa35.com writes "News.com has a story detailing the release of Apple's 10.1 update. They say "unveiled" today, probably meaning actually disseminated to us general public folks sometime in the coming days." This is of course the release that regular users can actually use. Supposedly this is a free upgrade. Speed improvements, UI fixes, DVD stuffs. I can't wait to test it out a little. And those new iBooks are pretty reasonably priced (I figure that they can sell them cheap by cutting corners like most of the mouse buttons ;)

613 comments

  1. Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Troll

    You're going to try it out a little? Better not say "a lot" or "I might even use it full time," or Linus will revoke your charter.

    1. Re:Wow... by bliss · · Score: 0

      "You're going to try it out a little? Better not say "a lot" or "I might even use it full time," or Linus will revoke your charter."

      There isn't much chance of that happening. Linux really has a the advantage of being theoretically in constant development for decades. OSX will be gone the minute the company loses interest

      --
      The death of one man is a tragedy; the death of a million is a statistic --Joseph Stalin
    2. Re:Wow... by rm-r · · Score: 1

      Linux really has a the advantage of being theoretically in constant development for decades.

      And MacOS X doesn't have this? In case you haven't been paying attention, X is unix underneath- about the only thing left from the NeXT computer- and can so claim that same *theoretical* decades long constant development.

      --

      J-aims
      --
      Yo, whatever happened to peas? Join T( H)GS
    3. Re:Wow... by Kinson+Ravenlock · · Score: 0

      I am going to try it out. Unix based stuff is for me!

    4. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're going to try it out a little? Better not say "a lot" or "I might even use it full time," or Linus will revoke your charter.

      Now you're being mod'd a troll, kind of proves the point doesn't it? This site is now in the pocket of LinuxCorps- and has been since the andover buyout. It's a real shame, this used to be a news site- but you can't trust news when its in the pay of a master it should report on.

    5. Re:Wow... by dark_panda · · Score: 2

      Somehow I think even Windows will be in constant development for decades, 'cause that's how long it's going to take to get the damn thing to run an app properly without crashing.

      J

    6. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a well known fact that NeXT was phasing out their OS as a product in the early 90s in favor of selling OpenStep developer libraries for other OSes.

      Development didn't restart until Apple purchased them -- the OS was not under "constant" developmment. In fact the Mach/BSD stuff was positively ancient, although recently that's being fixed.

    7. Re:Wow... by GeorgeH · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Um, when exactly wasn't /. a pro-linux site? this article from a while ago mentions that /. is up front about its biases.

      --
      Why can't I moderate something "Wrong" or at least "Grossly Misinformed"?
    8. Re:Wow... by warfare · · Score: 2, Informative

      ... X is unix underneath- about the only thing left from the NeXT computer-
      Ahem. There is a lot of NEXTSTEP hidden under the hood of MacOS X. Cocoa is the NS API. The only thing missing is Display Postscript, which was replaced by Display PDF. PDF is a bit nicer than Postscript (IMHO) I am missing the NEXTSTEP Windowmanager, which was written in Postscript.. (/usr/lib/NextStep/windowPackage.ps anyone?)

      --
      -- If windows is the solution, can we please have the problem back?
    9. Re:Wow... by DavidRavenMoon · · Score: 1
      There is still a directory in OS X named .OpenStep [ /Users/shortname/.OpenStep ]

      --
      -- if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic - Lewis Carrol
    10. Re:Wow... by dark_panda · · Score: 1

      Never crossed your mind that I might use OpenBSD, did it? Or FreeBSD? Or even BeOS, or hell, a Mac?

      Linux isn't the only non-MS OS out there, you know.

      J

  2. Is it faster? by shaka · · Score: 1

    It will be fun hear about the much talked about interface speed-ups. Someone who has seen it in action and can confirm?
    When I tried it, it was slower that X & Gnome...

    --
    :wq!
    1. Re:Is it faster? by AtaruMoroboshi · · Score: 1

      os x really depends heavily on how much ram you have, and your processor speed.

      Based on what i saw at macworld a few months ago, 10.1 is waaaay faster.

    2. Re:Is it faster? by azatoth · · Score: 1

      I'm using it for one week now, it's really an improvement. Aqua is now normaly fast.

      I'm sticked to MacOS X since I tried 10.1 (before I could'nt stand it, was too slow).

      And the DVD player works ;-) (cannot always say the same with most players under windows).

      --
      -- "Life is easier since I have excluded JonKatz stories from my homepage"
    3. Re:Is it faster? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the DVD player works ;-) (cannot always say the same with most players under windows).

      Yeah, like the quicktime player.

    4. Re:Is it faster? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I've been using OSX since its initial release. As well, my employer is in the ADC and has has given several employees, including me, copies of the 10.1 releases.

      Though I'm not running the latest release candidate (I'm at 5G48) it is MUCH faster. Apple claims 20% openGL speedup, I claim they're damned right.

      There are more features added here and there, better CDRW support, etc etc, but the big thing is that OSX just became comfortable on the lower end G3s.

      -Damacus

    5. Re:Is it faster? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      os x really depends heavily on how much ram you have, and your processor speed.

      So does any OS and gui shell.

      If you have to say things like it really depends heavily, etc.then what you are really saying is OSX.* is a pig that is going to rob of system resources noticeably when you have jobs running and the interface decides it needs them too, (probably it has the highest priority on the system of any task).

      I am not against the idea of a more robust multitasking UNIX derived OS to replace traditional MacOS, but it sure seems like SJobs has fucked this up in grand style. FreeBSD is fast as greased lightning on i386, but that's without a microkernel below it interpreting its system calls, and without a Disneyland GUI which people who do work with Apples do not need or want. I and people I know who use Macs professionally spend 99.9 % of their time interacting with applications, not the OS.

    6. Re:Is it faster? by iNik · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, the GUI (as of 10.04, and I'm told as of 10.1 as well) gets fairly low priority. Plus you can always kill the GUI if you want to and just run Darwin (aka BSD). Depends on what you're trying to get out of the system.

      --
      --Nik
    7. Re:Is it faster? by mr100percent · · Score: 2

      Much, much faster. The live window sizing follows the mouse in resizing a window with 130 icons.

      Oh, and better Quake framerates :)

    8. Re:Is it faster? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is also doing a lot more in terms of graphics services than X and GNOME...

    9. Re:Is it faster? by larkost · · Score: 3

      Actually, the GUI gets exactly as much priority as everything else in 10.0.4, the kernel priority manager was not tied into the bsd priority scheduler until later kernel. I am guessing that this general oversight has been fixed, but don't hink it has much to do with the GUI speedup. My bets are on good old fashioned optimization.

    10. Re:Is it faster? by Ziwdam · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, Darwin's console is really slow. In 1.3.1 (the basis for 10.0.1) the console was probably slower than my 6100/66 running MkLinux!

      There were numerous permission bugs in Darwin 1.3.7; I hope Apple has fixed them in 1.4.1 (the basis for 10.1). Actually, they haven't posted a binary release of Darwin 1.4.1 yet... it should be at http://www.opensource.apple.com/projects/darwin/ when they release it.

      Of course, it is supposed to be possible to update via source from CVS... but that seems to be rather difficult. Ironic.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education.-Albert Einstein
  3. Re:20 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    seconds are faster with Opera.

    Your comment violated the postercomment compression filter. Comment aborted

  4. oh my dear lord by jeffehobbs · · Score: 1, Funny

    shut up about the mouse buttons already.

    ~jeff

    1. Re:oh my dear lord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's just trying to start another flamewar, even though whenever anything Apple is discussed on here one is inevitable anyways. Why else would he specifically mention the price and mouse buttons^H?

    2. Re:oh my dear lord by The_Messenger · · Score: 0, Interesting
      CmdrTaco isn't really what you'd call "hardware savvy." He thinks that Michael Dell will hunt him down and beat him to a pulp if he replaces the Dell-branded keyboard on his Windows PC. He doesn't understand that all problems with Apple's mouse can be remedied in two simple steps: buy another mouse, and plug it in. But, CmdrTaco is something of a fucking retard (a "fucktard") -- he'd probably try to get some sort of refund from Apple for the "mouse tax."

      News to lamers: if you don't want a PC with Windows, don't buy an OEM PC. News to CmdrTaco: if you don't want a one-button mouse, don't buy an Apple.

      Fucktards.

      --

      --
      I like to watch.

    3. Re:oh my dear lord by frantzdb · · Score: 2
      I know at least one person who has specifically not gotten a mac laptop because of it's lack of mouse buttons. If you aren't going to run MacOS (or even if you are), more mouse buttons are good. (My IBM ThinkPad has three buttons. Few laptops have that.)

      --Ben

    4. Re:oh my dear lord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the right mouse button is mapped to the Control button...or you can buy a mouse with as many buttons as you want...there is nothing inherent in the mac os that prevents it...

    5. Re:oh my dear lord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do know that his statement was a joke...right?

    6. Re:oh my dear lord by tshak · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      I have the MS Intellimouse with 5 buttons and a scroll wheel. I can tell you that it makes a significant difference compared to a simple two button mouse. It's a realy issue, stop the arrogance, and fix the platform.

      --

      There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
    7. Re:oh my dear lord by kilgore_47 · · Score: 1

      I agree that 2 or more buttons are better than one, but if that factor alone kept someone from buying a mac laptop they probably wern't to set on it in the first place. The mac is different enough from other computers that once you decide to buy one a little thing like a mouse button (or lack threof) probably isn't going to stop you.

      --
      ___
      The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
    8. Re:oh my dear lord by androse · · Score: 3, Informative

      I have the MS Intellimouse with 5 buttons and a scroll wheel too. On a mac. Just install an extension [USBOverdrive.com], reboot, and voila. Plus you can configure all buttons too. This is a non-issue. Beginners like the simplicity of a zero-button mouse. 'Power users' can buy a multi-button mouse. End of the story.

    9. Re:oh my dear lord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Control-clicking is really a poor alternative to having another button, and it's more awkward on a laptop. Yes, you can work around not having a right button, but there really isn't any good reason not to include one.

    10. Re:oh my dear lord by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      No wonder you are confused by the lack of mouse buttons, when you think that plugging a mouse into a notebook is harder than into a desktop.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    11. Re:oh my dear lord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're probably right. I grudgingly purchased an iBook anyway, but the single button is truly an annoyance.

    12. Re:oh my dear lord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole point of notebook is that it is portable. I didn't buy my iBook to leave it on my desk!

      About 2/3 of the time I use it, there is no flat surface around to use a mouse on.

    13. Re:oh my dear lord by jchristopher · · Score: 2
      'Power users' can buy a multi-button mouse. End of the story.

      Let me know when I can install a multi-button mouse INSIDE the laptop, in place of the one button one, and then I'll be happy. I don't want to have to drag an external mouse everywhere, and I simply CAN'T use one in a car, bus, train, etc.

    14. Re:oh my dear lord by AssFace · · Score: 1

      that was the sole reason I never got a mac. I was warming up to the idea of getting one, but now I'm definitely never going to use them after they dicked me over with an airport card and then their ensuing return policy, or lackthereof

      --

      There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
    15. Re:oh my dear lord by CmdrTaco+on · · Score: 0, Funny

      If Apple made 3 button mice with scrollwheels, changed their name, use x86 hardware with windows and linux, fired Steve Jobs, used beige cases, THEN I would get one. But until then....

      --

      saru mo ki kara ochiru

    16. Re:oh my dear lord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And since it's a laptop the user will ALWAYS have desk space for an external mouse.

      Idiot.

    17. Re:oh my dear lord by kaimiike1970 · · Score: 1

      Look idiot, I have a little trackball (which has 2 buttons) that I use with my G3 powerbook. I can use it on any surface. It is especially good for the plane because I don't have to hunch over the tray table...

      Why are you so hung up on the mousebuttons?

      --


      Do a google search before posting.
    18. Re:oh my dear lord by hearingaid · · Score: 2
      Beginners like the simplicity of a zero-button mouse.

      An idea whose time has come!

      Instead of clicking with the button, you just think "click", your computer reads your mind, and clicks on the screen somewhere. :)

      Oh wait. Did you mean a one-button mouse? ;)

      --

      my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore

    19. Re:oh my dear lord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems you know at least one totally moronic person then. Do you also know people who didn't buy a particular computer because of the colors it came in? Fucktard.

    20. Re:oh my dear lord by MoNickels · · Score: 2

      Oh wait. Did you mean a one-button mouse?

      Maybe he did mean a zero-button mouse. The fantastic oblong optical mice that Apple delivers with with its desktop units does not have a button, per se. The whole upper carapace of the mouse is spring-hinged underneath to provide the kung-fu clicking action.

      --

      Wordnik, a dictionary project which aims to collect

    21. Re:oh my dear lord by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 2

      That's because the interface that you're using is not well designed for a one or two button mouse. A well designed interface includes the hardware. You only REQUIRE one button to operate the Mac GUI. It's not a deficiency, it's design. It's really not an issue, so stop your arrogance, and fix the platform that somehow requires more buttons than I have fingers on one hand.

    22. Re:oh my dear lord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't own a trackball because I'm not very good with them and when I'm on the train, the only place to put one is on my crotch in front of the notebook (where it isn't too convenient to access). I'll stick to control-clicking for now.

      What I don't understand is why you are so hung up on mouse buttons. I don't know a single person who thinks having one button is better, particularly now that contextual menus are used extensively in OS X. So why do you keep defending such an obviously poor design decision.

    23. Re:oh my dear lord by MrBogus · · Score: 2

      The 'official' workaround for right-click is to long-click (click-n-hold for a few seconds).

      I was a bit annoyed at the lack of a 2nd button my new-to-me G3 laptop, but the long-click is easy enough to get used to.

      What's really pissing me off is the lack of a proper keyboard -- you need to hold down Fn to get at PageUp/PageDown, which means that have to use both hands to browse the web. There's also no Forward Delete key, which frankly just sucks in this day and age.

      --

      When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    24. Re:oh my dear lord by Brian+Feldman · · Score: 1

      Considering my Logitech optical mice all work perfectly well on almost any surface, including my pants if I'm really strapped for space, I'm going to say it's pretty hard to have a situation that having a mouse is hard.

      --
      Brian Fundakowski Feldman
    25. Re:oh my dear lord by jonbrewer · · Score: 2

      I for one would like to be able to right-click on the mac trash can and empty it like I can in Windows. In fact, many of the functions that require the command (or was it option) key in MacOS would work better as right-mouse clicks.

      Of course I also wish that middle button would paste in windows like it does in *nix. Control-V gets old.

      Then again, I could probably map that somehow... my Intellimouse Explorer is the best mouse I've ever used, and has quite a few options.

      J

    26. Re:oh my dear lord by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Well, if you had a little experience with finer tools, you could probably do it, but since you're limited to "building your own PC", you can't.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    27. Re:oh my dear lord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      I think it's better. My hand gets tired faster when using multiple-button mice, because I gotta keep my fingers forked over the correct buttons, or else I will click with the wrong one.

      With Apple's "the whole dang mouse is a button" mouse, going from the keyboard to the mouse is a LOT faster. Try it for a couple weeks and you will see what I mean. You don't need to look, you don't need to feel for the edges of the buttons, you just slide your right hand over a few inches from the "jkl;" position, and you are mousing. And "Control-Clicking" is really simple, because the "Control" button is right there under your left hand, in the lower left corner of the keyboard, and so big you can it it with the side of your hand reliably. After a while, you don't even think about it.

      Right-clicking seems like a nice feature, until you spend some long hours with Apple's mouse and try to go back to the typical PC one... then you realize that the Apple mouse makes a lot of sense.

      Of course, if you are using an OS that demans three buttons (such as one where there are no keyboard shortcuts for "copy" and "paste" *cough*Linux*cough*), then the Apple mouse comes up short. However, one button allows you to do everything, very easilly, in the Mac OS.

    28. Re:oh my dear lord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful
      Hey fucktard, it's a gods be damned laptop. It has 80 or so freakin buttons on it! You gotta have your useless mits on it anyway, so remove that finger from your ass and press the command key.


      Dork.

    29. Re:oh my dear lord by tshak · · Score: 1

      Predicitable - lol. I got modded insightful by one, as obviously I'm stating my personal experience (which is perfectly valid), and then some MAC zealot mods this as flamebait. How is an opinion relating to personal experience flambait?

      --

      There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
    30. Re:oh my dear lord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'm not sure about Macintosh.. but on most browsers the spacebar can be used as an alternative to pagedown.

    31. Re:oh my dear lord by __aaahtg7394 · · Score: 2

      to empty the trash in os x, you just long-click on the trash can, and a little menu pops up: "Empty Trash."

      More of a concern with the apple laptops is the lack of page up/down Home/End buttons.

      And all the Explorer buttons are done in software. someone else posted about using them w/usboverdrive extension in macos (personally, i'd rather just use the trackpad).

      I _do_ miss the middle-click paste-selection from X11...

      Please, do use a product before you bash it.

      -josh, slowly becoming an OS X fan (Real Transparent Terminals!)

    32. Re:oh my dear lord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -1; Beating a dead horse

    33. Re:oh my dear lord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about you, but I've replaced the mouse on every single machine I've ever purchased. People who rag on apple for the mouse are just complaining for the sake of complaining.

    34. Re:oh my dear lord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problems with click & hold are that:

      - It's slow

      - It's too easy for the OS to interpret it as a click & drag if you're not careful to keep the pointer still. That's not a big deal with a mouse, but it can be error prone on a trackpad.

      - It's not available in the Finder.

      I agree regarding the keyboard, but that's the sort of thing I've come to expect from ultra-portables. You can always remap the function keys.

    35. Re:oh my dear lord by gig · · Score: 3, Informative

      Windows has three main keyboard modifier keys (Shift, Alt, Ctrl) and two mouse buttons. Macs have four main modifier keys (Shift, Option, Command, and Control) and one mouse button. It works out to the same thing, because the single, straightforward "click" on the Mac is easy to execute in concert with a keyboard modifier key. Control+click, Option+click, Shift+click, Command+click are all easy to use and explain, regardless of left/right handedness, etc.

      Mac OS X doesn't require you to use context menus. The Dock's menus can optionally be accessed with a right-click, but that is sensible shortcut for people who use a multiple-button mouse. You Control+click to see the menu, or Command+click to see the actual item that the Dock item refers to. You can also click-and-hold to get a Dock menu, and for most people this is just fine.

      If you were running X-Windows on a Dell notebook, you'd have a much more serious problem, because X-Windows expects you to have three buttons. Mac OS X doesn't expect you to have more than one.

    36. Re:oh my dear lord by gig · · Score: 2

      > There's also no Forward Delete key, which frankly
      > just sucks in this day and age.

      What has this day and age got to do with it? I'm a writer and I managed to get out of the forward delete habit without even noticing when I got my first Mac. I found it to be easier to just use one kind of delete key instead of two. This is the kind of stuff that all adds up and enables you to see past the computer and get to your work. When I want to delete something, I just do it without thinking now, there's no need to decide which delete method/key to use (and you have to, at some level, decide which one to use every time).

      If you really are hung up on forward delete, you can hold down Shift and press Delete to get a forward delete.

    37. Re:oh my dear lord by naasking · · Score: 1

      Funny moderation? It's true...

    38. Re:oh my dear lord by gig · · Score: 2

      > stop the arrogance, and fix the platform.

      Your MS Intellimouse works just fine on a Mac. You are the one who is being arrogant, assuming that you know how to make an iMac for Grandma better than Apple does. Survey after survey finds that the majority of Mac user are happy with the one button mouse. Survey after survey finds that most Windows users don't even use the second mouse button; a majority don't even know what it's for.

      As for "fix the platform", you can navigate Mac OS X entirely using a stylus, even if the stylus has no buttons at all (you "tap" for a click). That's a feature, especially with so many artists using the platform. You can also navigate entirely with the keyboard, if you want to forgo a mouse altogether. You don't need to even double-click, because there is always a menu command (File > Open) and a keyboard shortcut (Command+O) that does the same thing. Further, voice commands are built in as well. This is not a broken platform or a broken UI, in fact, I think it is just the opposite.

    39. Re:oh my dear lord by Nexum · · Score: 5, Funny

      My mouse comes with 16-buttons and four independent scroll-wheels, this allows me not only to scroll vertically, but horizontally, diagonally, and to zoom in and out. Other integrated features include a complete 128-key keyboard and surround-sound. Instead of optical technology, my mouse uses Extra-Sensory-Perception (R) to give better tracking. But it's most useful feature is the great satellite transceiver which allows me TRUE wireless operation from a distance of thousands of miles - which is great for when i'm away on business I can tell ya. It has a compartment for a miniature hashish plantation, glows neon, and hovers.

      --

      This sig has been deprecated.
    40. Re:oh my dear lord by MouseR · · Score: 2

      I know at least one person who has specifically not gotten a mac laptop because of it's lack of mouse buttons.

      That's the kind of people sho should not be using a computer anyhow. What kind of idiot would base his car buying decision on the number of buttons on the steering wheel?

      This is totally besides the point anyhow. Mac OS X supports multi-button mouse, without having to install any drivers. This is the case for my McAlley OptiMouse. Even the scrolling wheel works fine.

      Lemme ask one thing to those trigger-happy, button addicts out there... where's your other hand? Right atop 105 more buttons.

    41. Re:oh my dear lord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you reccomend over control-clicking? Spacebar-clicking?

      I hate some of the 'creative' ways the mice buttons on a laptop trackpad are placed, they give my hand cramps.

      How is it awkward to use 2 hands when using a laptop?

    42. Re:oh my dear lord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Thank God someone finally explained that. BTW Apple also suggests to its developers to make their apps act the same as the finder. IE: cntrl-click will always be a contextual menu.

      If you have a Mac with OS8-9 with Internet Explorer. If you hold down the apple button on a webpage you get a grabber icon to move the webpage. Cntrl-click is the contextual menu. This stuff works in the Classic Finder too.

    43. Re:oh my dear lord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probable because you said something, that worked since the days of Lynx, and you said it with a straight face. It was almost sarcasm.

    44. Re:oh my dear lord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell me again why it's better to accomodate your work style to a flawed design than to fix the design.

      This isn't rocket science here. I find it both funny and extremely annoying that people could be so damned defensive about such a obvious design deficiency. I'll bet if you put a poll up on the front page, something like 95% of people will tell you that they prefer multibutton mice. Why can't Apple just accept reality?

    45. Re:oh my dear lord by jasonbw · · Score: 1

      Seems to on every mac browser i've tried.

    46. Re:oh my dear lord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will only be a dead horse when Apple starts shipping multi-button mice. Until then, it's a legitimate gripe, particularly for laptop users.

    47. Re:oh my dear lord by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      "I don't know a single person who thinks having one button is better," hello! my name is Alan, i think the single button mouse + modifier keys is a FAR better solution than four buttons plus a scroll wheel like the Intellimouse Exploder I use at work. My Apple Pro Mouse doesn't creak when squeezed, and has adjustable click pressure too. I never liked multi button mice, although I have always been fairly impressed by the quality of the Kensington Turbomouse trackball, and I think that has four programmable buttons.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    48. Re:oh my dear lord by naasking · · Score: 1

      Well, I didn't even say it. But every browser that I've accidentally hit the spacebar has scrolled a page down.

    49. Re:oh my dear lord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Long clicking isn't available in all apps, only the dock and browser. Plus, I don't want to have to wait.

    50. Re:oh my dear lord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me guess, you have never purchased a laptop?

    51. Re:oh my dear lord by chuqui · · Score: 1

      > I know at least one person who has specifically not gotten a mac laptop because of it's lack of mouse buttons.

      and, like most people, have never actually spent time using a system enough to make a judgement on it.

      believe it or not, using the mac with a one button mouse isn't bad -- because it's designed for one button. Are more buttons better? maybe.

      But so many folks are so sure of the answer they never give themselves a chance to be proven wrong.....

      --
      Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome = When his IQ reaches 50, he should sell
    52. Re:oh my dear lord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This mouse button argument is quite hilarious:

      1) You can buy mice for the mac with as many buttons as you like.

      2) I've never heard a one button mouse user ask "Which button?"

      3) If you are using a mouse with one hand there are 102 or more auxillary buttons under your other!

      I don't think the button thing really matters.

    53. Re:oh my dear lord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You honestly think chording is better than multiple mouse buttons? I never thought I'd hear that one.

      Do you also think a new user will find chording easier? I don't.

    54. Re:oh my dear lord by myov · · Score: 1
      You can always plug in an external mouse (since I see many PC users do exactly that). I've been using a Logitech Optical Wheel mouse (with 2 buttons + wheel) on my Mac for a while.


      You can also get a contextual menu (right click), by holding the control key as you click (control-click), or by installing a small program called FinderPop, which forces the menu to appear after clicking for a certain amount of time. It's freeware (iirc - I run X now and can't remember)

      --
      I use Macs to up my productivity, so up yours Microsoft!
    55. Re:oh my dear lord by yomegaman · · Score: 1

      If you don't want to change your work style then don't buy a Mac. Wasn't that easy? Personally, I kind of like how my iBook has just one big button, I never have trouble finding it and my left hand is always near the keyboard anyway to grab the modifier keys. I think this is a total non-issue and can't believe how emotionally involved some people are about it.

      --
      ...wearing a skin-tight topless leather jumpsuit, with cutaway buttocks and transparent crotch panel.
    56. Re:oh my dear lord by Datafage · · Score: 1

      Whether the mouse actually WORKS is one thing, you also need to be aware that it's not very comfortable compared to the laptop's native controls in cramped quarters.

      --

      Nicotine free Amish .sig.

    57. Re:oh my dear lord by descubes · · Score: 1

      > More of a concern with the apple laptops is the lack of page up/down Home/End buttons.

      Well, I use a Mac and a PC laptop regularly. The PC has small page-up page-down keys, located in a corner. Each time I try to use them, I end up deleting something with the backspace or delete key located next to the page-up page-down.

      So I personally do prefer the Mac keyboard layout. On a laptop, both hands are on the keyboard anyways, and the left hand hits "fn", the right hand the up/down arrows, it's really natural.

      --
      -- Did you try Tao3D? http://tao3d.sourceforge.net
    58. Re:oh my dear lord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly! Any of you trolls ever use a Mac?
      The option button takes the place of the right button. Very handy for Photoshop and Illustrator. You can do things you can't do on with that right mouse button. Get a life and quit knockin'em.
      My 400mhz iMac runs circles around my friends 600mhz Dell with the same RAM.

    59. Re:oh my dear lord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you! Thank you! You speak the true, my mac brother!

    60. Re:oh my dear lord by generic-man · · Score: 1

      More of a concern with the apple laptops is the lack of page up/down Home/End buttons.

      I've been renting iBooks (the old toilet-seat iBooks, not the small new ones) on campus for over a year now. I actually like Apple's decision to map Page Up, Page Down, Home, and End to Fn-Up, Fn-Down, Fn-Left, and Fn-Right respectively. Obviously, no laptop computer can put those four keys in the same spot as they appear on a PC 101-key keyboard, so most laptops include them along the side instead. I can never get used to that, and it makes all the other keys that much narrower.

      Now, if you wanted me to vent about the Shift/Up-Arrow placement on some slim Sony VAIOs, or the lack of an "End" key on iMac-generation keyboards, that's another issue entirely. :)

      --
      For more information, click here.
    61. Re:oh my dear lord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gee, it's great that you can always find one or two alternative ways to navigate when the easy & obvious mechanism isn't available. But that doesn't excuse the fact that the easy and obvious mechanism ISN'T AVAILABLE! (at least not on a laptop anyway)

      And if multibutton mice are so bad, then why does every Mac user I know own one?

      You know, sometimes I'm embarrassed to count myself among the Mac users when there are people like you who will defend every decision Apple makes, right or wrong, with limitless zeal and vigor. If Apple announced tomorrow that all their new models would ship with 10 button mice, I'll bet you would be the first person here defending them.

    62. Re:oh my dear lord by MrBogus · · Score: 1

      Hey -- The first computer I had with a Forward Delete key was a Mac SE! (I sprung the extra $100 or whatever for the extended keyboard, which I used until 1997.).

      I don't really give a crap if you think two delete keys are too hard -- I'm used to it, and my fingers have managed to touchtype the correct key on numerous wierd PC laptops. As long as I'm using different machines, it will be a bitch. But thanks anyway for the shift delete tip.

      --

      When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    63. Re:oh my dear lord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish this "Bronze Keyboard" thing was an ultra-portable, but it actually weighs 7+ lbs, and there's copious amounts of empty space where more keys could have been placed.

    64. Re:oh my dear lord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lemme ask one thing to those trigger-happy, button addicts out there... where's your other hand?

      You don't want to know.

    65. Re:oh my dear lord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been kicked off airplanes for rubbing my pants with an optical mouse (while viewing porn).

      There are situations wherr having a mouse can make you hard.

    66. Re:oh my dear lord by tshak · · Score: 1

      Well, it looks like my plea for Mac users to "stop the arrogance" hasn't been heard. Mac users rely so much on the Apple and Command keys in combination with their mouse that it effectively creates a second and third button (but less ergonomic). Especially when using apps like Photoshop and Illustrator. There's a reason why my company orders multibutton mice with each of our G4's.

      --

      There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
    67. Re:oh my dear lord by gig · · Score: 2

      Yes, I also think "chording" is better.

      On the Mac, Shift+click, Option+click, Command+click, and Control+click are common. It is easy. There are also modified drags, such as Command+Option+drag that creates an alias of a dragged file instead of moving it. You have one hand on the keyboard and it hits a modifier key, and you put your other hand on the mouse and click or drag as usual. Your right hand is used to doing this ... that's all it has to do with the mouse is click or drag.

      It is MUCH harder to do a Shift+right-click or some other combination where you have to choose something with both hands ... that is when it starts to feel like "chording". The Windows thing where you can right-drag a file and see a context menu and choose Copy or Move is a nightmare ... try explaining that to someone ... people who have done it before often fumble through it.

      New users typically just point and click in the menus and select items in the Dock and they can get by just fine that way. There is no need to even learn a double-click on the Mac if you don't want to ... it is better to show the user to select an item and choose File > Open to get them started. Later, the double-click is easy to explain in the context of being a shortcut for "click, Open".

      This debate always comes down to geeks wanting more buttons and non-geeks living in fear of having more buttons forced on them. Two, three, four, and five-button third-party mouses are ubiquitous ... there's no need to foist the second mouse button on people who don't want it or need it. Just because some people map double-click to a middle button on a three-button mouse doesn't mean that's the best way for every user to do tasks that usually result from a double-click.

      The last button-related decision Apple made was to remove the eject button from all Macs and make F12 the eject button. Before that, they removed the power button from the desktop keyboard and combined its functionality with the power button on the display. They want less buttons, less noise, less to explain to each new user. The display is filled with virtual buttons; the keyboard is a huge bank of buttons. Web pages are filled with buttons; apps have huge button bars or lots of floating panels. We have way too many buttons as it is. A modern computer looks like a 747 cockpit to a newbie.

    68. Re:oh my dear lord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA -HA-HA!

      A miniature hash plantation? You've got to be kidding me?

    69. Re:oh my dear lord by jacrawf · · Score: 1
      to empty the trash in os x, you just long-click on the trash can, and a little menu pops up: "Empty Trash."

      Don't forget you can Ctrl+Click to do the same thing. Ctrl+Click on Macs is usually roughly equivalent of right-clicking in Windows or in X and since I always keep one hand laying on the keyboard (Who the hell can type and mouse at the same time? Better yet, who ever needs to?) at all times, I don't ever find the lack of a second mouse button while I'm using a Mac to be inconvenient.

      That's a large problem that I see here; people are stuck in their Windows and X frames of mind when thinking about the issue of mouse buttons and believe that just because having multiple mouse buttons in X or Windows is either required or highly desired, it's the same if you're using a Mac. Simply not true.

      You don't give up as much functionality as you might think. You just maybe have to learn a slightly different way to go about things.

      Or go buy a multi-button mouse. OS X will default to Ctrl+Clicking for the right mouse button, and there are good drivers available for OS 9 that do the same. The Intellimouse drivers I got with my Intellimouse Optical are a great example. I still never use the right mouse button though, despite the availability.

      I grew up in Windows and X. It's only fairly recently that I bought my first Mac (the very wonderful new iBook as a matter of fact) and I have quickly grown fond of only having to worry about a single mouse button and having my menus at the top of the screen. To each their own, but don't bitch about something you'll never use anyway.

      Macs aren't inferior just because they only have a single mouse button; nor are they superior for it. It's just a different way of doing things and it suits some more than others. Single button-oriented OSes please me. Simplicity is a virtue.

      Having Unix under the hood in OS X pleases me even more. :-)

    70. Re:oh my dear lord by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      does it really count as chording when you hold one KBD button and make a mouse click? don't think the piano metaphor works there. macs give nice pointer feedback with modifiers, so you get a little menu graphic when you modify for contextual menus etc etc

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    71. Re:oh my dear lord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problems with your brain are that: a) it's slow, b) it's too easy for it to spew forth half formed thoughts onto a public forum c) it refuses to accept that other people actually think differently than yourself - most brains maage that aged about 5 years

    72. Re:oh my dear lord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Gee, it's great that you can always find one or two alternative ways to navigate when the easy & obvious mechanism isn't available.

      The easy and obvious method is control-click, a feature which windows sadly lacks.

      When, oh when, are they going to get past their arrogance and fix their platform, instead of forcing everybody to buy two-button mice!?

  5. Affordable by The+Gardener · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The new version will be available from Mac dealers and Apple's own retail stores at no cost for existing OS X owners. Everyone else will pay $129 .

    M$ could take a lesson from Apple. "Second edition" bug fix releases sure aren't free, and full versions aren't $129.00.

    Oh yeah, Apple doesn't have a Monopoly to screw us with.

    The Gardener

    --
    --
    1. Re:Affordable by alnapp · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, Apple doesn't have a Monopoly to screw us with

      Apple DID have one and it didn't and now its a minor player.
      Whilst I don't like it, its not suprising MS do now they have.

      Does that make sense?

    2. Re:Affordable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stfu, before you give every /.er a migrane due to your bad grammar.

    3. Re:Affordable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Im sorry dude but you cant say that apple are not screwing us when they are still charging for a OS's based on a free OS's, FreeBSD.

      Also to even use this OS you have to buy a Apple computer and this suck's since it is normally more expensive then it's 86 counter part.


      Apple are still a couporation and like any entity they are out to make money, just because they dont have a monopoly doesnt mean that they do not what to screw us. There are lots of example's where they have acted like even bigger arsehole's then M$.

    4. Re:Affordable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No

    5. Re:Affordable by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      don't be an idiot, they've got 2000 coders working on OSX - full-time professionals rather than a bunch of hobbyists. Sure Apple are trying to make money, that's why they haven't canned half their workforce like HP/Compaq et al. What does OSX cost? Public Beta cost me £25, 10.0 cost another £75 (although it came with £70 worth of OS9), and this upgrade looks like it'll run me another £20. So, I end up paying £120 for OS9 + OSX 10.1. Is that really a rip-off?

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    6. Re:Affordable by Pope · · Score: 2

      When the hell did Apple ever have a monopoly?

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    7. Re:Affordable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Im sorry dude but you cant say that apple are not screwing us when they are still charging for a OS's based on a free OS's, FreeBSD.

      Then you must be really pissed at Red Hat, Caldera, SuSE, etc.

      Besides, Apple did release the part of the OS based on FreeBSD & Mach. It's called GNU/Darwin and it's freely available.

    8. Re:Affordable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When did Apple have a monopoly? Back when the Apple II came out, before the IBM PC, Apple had as effective a monopoly on the PC market as Microsoft has today on PC OSes (which is to say, there were competitors, but nobody could keep up).

      Geez, these kids.

      Myself, I think Apple lost its monopoly because hardware monopolies are impossible to keep; either your hardware is COTS, and everyone can clone you, or it isn't, and your product is too expensive to compete with COTS-based products.

    9. Re:Affordable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see you on the full versions, but all the service packs have been free... of course I don't know to what extent you can compare this to a service pack or two... 98->98SE was $5 shipping/handling/media, not free, but darn near close... And other than bug fixes, there are probably few/no new features added that weren't scheduled to be in the initial release anyways...

      "Apple had earlier said it would charge about $20 shipping for the CDs, which apparently is still the case for anyone ordering the upgrade directly from Apple." - That's worse than M$

      You paid for X just like you did for 9,8,etc. And you pay for WinXP just like you did for 2000,nt4, 98, etc... And if you want to get a boxed set w/ manuals and whatnot you have to pay for every version of you buy...

    10. Re:Affordable by Vollernurd · · Score: 0

      Windows comes with manuals?? I thought they had shares in the IDG "For Dummies..." Company?

      --
      Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules.
    11. Re:Affordable by lubricated · · Score: 1

      98 -> 98SE is more like OSX 10.0 -> OSX 10.0.4

      OSX 10.0 -> OSX 10.1 is more like
      95 -> 98

      98 was just 95 plus bug fixes and Internet Explorer.

      --
      It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
    12. Re:Affordable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Obviously you do not know what "monopoly" means. And no it's not the boardgame.


      wordnet:

      monopoly -- ((economics) a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller; "a monopoly on silver";


      Here's an easy test for you, monopolies don't just go away.


      Does that make sense?


      t.

    13. Re:Affordable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Apple are still a couporation and like any entity they are out to make money, just because they dont have a monopoly doesnt mean that they do not what to screw us.


      I'll give you a $100 if you can name five companies that don't want to screw us. (Hookers don't count.)


      t.

    14. Re:Affordable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For GUI OS? for the 11 or so years Macintosh was available before Windows was even slightly usable.

    15. Re:Affordable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and I guess amiga, tandy, and Commodore were just video games?

    16. Re:Affordable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, they took an OS, added DVD and CD-R support, a GUI, device drivers, and film editing, and you are implying that it's just a copy of FreeBSD with a GUI? NO!!

    17. Re:Affordable by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you go to any retailer/Apple store, you can get it on CD for FREE. MS never was that generous.

    18. Re:Affordable by gig · · Score: 2

      > 98->98SE was $5 shipping/handling/media

      Maybe you are in the UK, where it became a free update after the government stepped in. Windows 98 to 98SE Upgrade was US$69. Then Windows Me (US$89) was so bad that Windows Magazine recommended to their readers that they don't use it at all.

      If you are a 10.0 owner, all you have to do is walk into an Apple Store or other Mac dealer this weekend, and you can get a three disc 10.1 Upgrade set from them for free (maybe you have to give in the upgrade token from the 10.0 box or do some paperwork or whatever). Otherwise, you pay Apple $19.99 and they ship a three disc set and manual to your door by courier. You can use that three disc set to upgrade any Mac that's legally running 10.0.

      Keep in mind, also, that both Mac OS 9.x and 10.x take care of minor updates themselves. People who are bitching about the $20 shipping/handling/media fee for a 10.1 three disc set have received numerous automatic updates (10.0.1, 10.0.2, 10.0.3, 10.0.4, a few Unixy security patches, more printer drivers, Classic stuff, an Apache fix or two) over the past six months. Every week/day/whenever the user wants, a little box pops up with new stuff and asks if it can download and install. Mac users are not getting screwed on OS updates, believe me.

      Although there were things "missing" in 10.0, they are showing up late in 10.1, but they are also showing up much-improved in many cases. Mac OS 9's CD burning from the Finder has shown up late in 10.1, but now it also does DVD-R's, and it works seamlessly in the background. There are also a bunch of improvements that just come from user feedback. A really nice piece of work. I'm running it on a 2000 PowerBook G3/400 with 512MB of RAM, and it is really a pleasure to use.

  6. This is what 10.0 should have been by Ryan+Amos · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm sorry, but 10.0 was a very... incomplete release. It was sluggish, didn't have important things like DVD or CD-RW capabilities, plus it didn't always work correctly. 10.1, on the other hand, is just incredible. The speed increases are phenomenal (from 50-400%, depending on your CPU) and the added functionality and general GUI cleanup are much welcomed. 10.0 always had sort of a beta feel to it, but 10.1 feels like a sleek, finished OS. Kudos to Apple for the great job.

    1. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by Pravada · · Score: 1

      Right on. I've been using it on my G3 Powerbook for the last week or so, and it is _very_ good. Fast, stable, the ui tweaks are nice, and best of all, it can play DVD's!
      But truth be told, this is what 10.0 should have been, and Apple really screwed the pooch by rushing out what really was a beta (or RC1 at best). Lots of people were turned off by 10.0 and ain't gonna switch to 10.1 until Office, Photoshop, et al are out. When Office X comes out in November, I'll be happy.

      --
      --- On the other hand, you have five fingers.
    2. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by b0r1s · · Score: 0, Troll

      And when microsoft releases software that's slow, and buggy, and then fixes it later, everyone bitches ....

      hypocrisy and jealousy on slashdot are pathetic.

      --
      Mooniacs for iOS and Android
    3. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh huh, let's slam MS for every little bug and service pack and praise Apple for "doing a great job" when in fact it has done the exact same thing. Yet another victim of BeelzeJob's brainwashing.

    4. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I agree completely with your statements, recall that even apple said that 10.0 was more of a preview release than anything else. It was to get the software out to the masses (developers and not), so they could at least gain some experience with it. OSX was one of the primary decisions driving me to buy an iBook (Linux runs quite nicely on it too, except sound). In all, I wasn't expecting it to be sleek and spiffy the first time around. Look at windows; it's taken how many tries to get a usable product (not including the patches to every seperate OS). I'm really looking forward to messing with 10.1 as soon as I can.

    5. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well that's the difference between a typical Mac user and a typical PC user; most PC users 'settle' for Microsoft, either cause it's what everyone else uses or because it's the only thing they know or they think Macs are expensive.

      Apple's customers usually choose Macs in spite of, despite the prevailing norm of the PC users.

      So Apple users will tolerate this kind of thing (oh, they'll complain), as long as it will improve. PC users, on the other hand, bitch because Microsoft doesn't truly mean anything to them, and Microsoft grows lazy, assuming things just because they own 90% of the market.

      On the other hand Mac users are spoiled... what Windows OS comes with CD burning and DVD playback out of the box? Or even CD ripping and mp3 encoding, movie making, DVD burning software, and web server software out of the box? Windows users have to settle for Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer, on the average...

    6. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Well, I really don't know how you are able to say this.


      I mean, let's at least wait until Microsoft, one blessed day, DOES fix the slow buggy software they release.


      Then we'll find out if people bitch about it.

    7. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

      Careful what you wish for...

      I have no love of MS, but what you just said was kind of what the DOJ is fighting against... Do you really want MS bundled with a Googleplex of bundled MS only software?

    8. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by macsforever2001 · · Score: 1

      hypocrisy and jealousy on slashdot are pathetic.

      Blanket labeling of everyone on Slashdot is worse.

      M$ apologists go away!

    9. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, can you say Win98? i have a 3 year old box here - among others including a new P4 and 4 macs - the oldest, the athalon, had win98 on it, a DVD-CD and plaed DVD movies out of the box - you mac only users need to get a clue - every thing thats cross platfor - especially Linux, runs much faster on Intel hardware - i too was once a die hard Mac fan, not anymore. Jobs deliberately forces upgrades of various fashions on Mac users, whether they want them or not, the hardware, while good, is incredibly overpriced - ever see the price of a dual processor MB with on the board Ultra160(3) Scsi? i can build one, repleate with drives and two 1ghz plus chips for half of what a Dual G4 costs - you guys need to get a clue.

      Jobs told Time magazine, when asked in 1996 what he would do if he were running Apple, that he "would milk it to death" - and he is.

      Anyone who has used Gnome or KDE knows where Jobs stole most of the OS, hell, Next was much more stable and far faster then OSX.

    10. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10.0 needed to go out when it did. Don't fool yourself into thinking that even Apple believed that 10.0 was done. They may be installing it on every machine they ship, but it is NOT the default OS.

      Be glad that Apple did put out 10.0 though, because developers needed something that wasn't a Beta to develop on ;)

    11. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by Knara · · Score: 1

      No, Windows 98 does not support DVD movies right out of the box. "Windows 98 out of the box" means that a standard install of W98 has DVD support, which is not true. Now, it may certainly be true that some PC manufacturers included software with their systems that they sold which used 98 as the operating system. In that case those _systems_ run DVDs "out of the box" but not 98.

      I wouldn't call myself a PC zealot (even though I'm buying my first Mac after 20 years of PCs just this week), nor would I call myself a Mac nut either. Obviously this poster, however, is a PC zealot.

    12. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by rebug · · Score: 1

      Peacocks didn't spring out of the primordial ooze. Name one OS that was stable and fast with its first release. Windows 1.0, anyone? Taking into account all the problems with 10.0, it's still among the greatest hacks of all time.

      --

      there's more than one way to do me.
    13. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      On the other hand Mac users are spoiled... what Windows OS comes with CD burning and DVD playback out of the box? Or even CD ripping and mp3 encoding, movie making, DVD burning software, and web server software out of the box?

      Windows XP? ;)

    14. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So Apple users will tolerate this kind of thing (oh, they'll complain), as long as it will improve."

      Improve? If you mean waiting 8 yrs for a whole new OS to be released, more power to you. Apple has traditionally forced users to "upgrade" to whatever tickled BeelzeJob's fancy. This time they have to deal with backwards compatibility with a past OS...welcome to MS' world. Let the constant service packs begin (although Mac users will welcome them because every putrid fart from BeelzeJobs is manna from Heaven).

      As for burning CDs and DVD playback out of the box, yes that's nice; too bad PC users have been doing it for 3+ years already. I suppose, using MacLogic®, you could say that Apple stole CD burning and DVD playback technology after the PC industry perfected them. All that innovation, and still 3 yrs behind the curve...

    15. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by Auckerman · · Score: 1
      "what Windows OS comes with CD burning and DVD playback out of the box? Or even CD ripping and mp3 encoding, movie making, DVD burning software, and web server software out of the box?"


      Windows XP does, except for DVD player/burner (sorta, I beleive it has the codecs just no player). Funny thing is those additions came in reaction to Apple's moves, with Apple having a 6-12 month lead over MS. Infact I would say XP as it stands NOW (vs. say Win2K) is a direct reaction to OS X, but thats another story.

      --

      Burn Hollywood Burn
    16. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by singularity · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, forget about that entire "Release early, release often." bit.

      Apple made it fairly clear that the early releases of MacOS X were only a few steps beyond beta. If Apple did not make that clear enough for you, reading *any* of the Mac-releated news sites should have.

      I suppose that is one reason that MacOS 9 is still shipping on all of Apple's computers in addition to MacOS X.

      --
      - (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
    17. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by firewort · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you're going to quote, get the source right:

      Here's what Steve Jobs said in Fortune in 1996. "If I were running Apple, I would milk the Macintosh for all it's worth--and get busy on the next great thing. The PC wars are over. Done. Microsoft won a long time ago."

      This was before Jobs returned to Apple. Having returned to Apple, he's doing what every business man should do, milk product for all the money he can. Work on the next great thing? A consumer-usable Unix, ala Mac OS X.

      Sounds like he's sticking with his plan.

      --

    18. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by asv108 · · Score: 1

      On the other hand Mac users are spoiled... what Windows OS comes with CD burning and DVD playback out of the box? Or even CD ripping and mp3 encoding, movie making, DVD burning software, and web server software out of the box?

      Just about every OEM windows pc has all those features listed if the configuration includes a CD burner and DVD. Windows XP has all of those features with the exception of DVD playback but why would anyone need DVD playback when every DVD drive you buy includes a player? Plus, many of the newer DVD's include their own software player.

    19. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I do want that. I'll get more value for my money, plain and simple. And if I don't like the software, I can always switch to something else. Hell, a Linux distribution comes bundled with software for everything under the Sun, and most of us consider that a good thing.

    20. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by kilgore_47 · · Score: 1

      I agree.
      Apple couldn't meet their much-hyped january date, so they released a commercial beta instead.

      As both a customer and a stockholder, I think releasing a beta, even a buggy beta, was much better than not releasing anything at all. Like they did the previous january (OS X was demoed when many expected a release).

      --
      ___
      The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
    21. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by kirkb · · Score: 1

      WinXP comes with all of that.

      --
      Slashdot: come for the pedantry, stay for the condescension.
    22. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gee, Bill Gates has stuck to his plan. No kudos for him?

    23. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to the wonderful world of hypocrites, brought to you by slashdot.

      I agree that M$ has done many things wrong (morally, and prolly legally) But I have yet to see any justification that adding features is 'bad'

    24. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by Lars+T. · · Score: 1
      What a bold statement! ;-)

      Anyway, my Dad's PC notebook with DVD didn't come with DVD player. But for some reason there is something about one in the Windows Help Files - not that this information is in any way useful.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    25. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by Pravada · · Score: 1

      "Apple made it fairly clear that the early releases of MacOS X were only a few steps beyond beta"

      I release a product that is not ready for the market.

      I charge full price.

      I never officially say that the product is a "beta" because then I couldn't charge full price.

      Guess what, I don't really care whether or not "reading *any* of the Mac-releated news sites" should have made it clear that OS X ran like it was a debug build, Apple should have NOT released the product until it was ready. It was a cheap publicity ploy, plain and simple.

      If it were any company besides apple (think Microsoft), you would be screaming bloody murder at having to pay an obscene amount of money for something THAT DIDN'T WORK.

      --
      --- On the other hand, you have five fingers.
    26. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Not that we wouldn't have enough to do with slamming MS for every big bug.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    27. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 2

      No, I don't think this is what the DOJ is fighting against; the bundling of features is not itself bad (it can be very convenient and powerful, if a bit risky thanks to virii and poor defaults) on Microsoft's part. It's their business practices and habit of trying to use their desktop to muscle and leverage other monopolies that's bad.

      IE, using Windows and it's monopoly on the desktop to gain leverage in browsers, or using Windows and it's monopoly on the desktop to gain leverage in graphics libraries, the gaming market, or audio formats and media distribution.

      I mean, it's great if they're bundling stuff with XP in order to convince users to buy it; but because of licensing practices, I don't think users have a choice (WinMe, Win2k, or WinXP), and *have* to settle for whatever the OEM decides to distribute, right?

    28. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by cygnus · · Score: 2

      I'm sorry, but 10.0 was a very... incomplete release.

      oh, that was YOUR fault? well, OK, apology accepted.

      --
      Just raise the taxes on crack.
    29. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by DCowern · · Score: 1

      On the other hand Mac users are spoiled... what Windows OS comes with CD burning and DVD playback out of the box? Or even CD ripping and mp3 encoding, movie making, DVD burning software, and web server software out of the box? Windows users have to settle for Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer, on the average...

      Standard Disclaimer: I REALLY hate Microsoft but...

      In all fairness to Microsoft, if they were to include CD burning capabilites and DVD playback (although that may not be as hot of an issue as CD burning), the DoJ would be on them quicker than Jon Katz on a box of Krispy Kremes.

      Besides, if you were a Windows user, would you want MS trying to tell you what kinds of data you can and can't copy from your local disk to a CD in the name of copyright protection? I certainly wouldn't... but then again, that's just me.

    30. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by rayoumand · · Score: 1

      dude, The only reason that I'm stuck with MS is that ny drivers are not supported by linux; otherwise I would not be that crazy

    31. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 2

      It's a picking of nits, isn't it?
      OS 9, and soon OS X, out of the box, will come with CD burning, DVD burning, DVD playing, CD ripping, MP3 encoding, web serving, movie making, and wireless networking software. Out of the box.

      WindowsMe and Windows2000 come with... a web browser.

      Now, the OEM, sure, they can bundle all the software you want with your purchase... except that that's per OEM, isn't it? A Mac *without* a CD burner, DVD burner, DVD player, wireless networking, etc, *still* get all those features, so that when they upgrade to those products, they just have to turn on the software, maybe install it, and voila, instant usefulness. A Mac has Palm software, mp3 hardware support, 3d support, scsi support, etc, all out of the box. It's included in every copy of OS 9 and OS X(which, for now, includes OS 9).

      You could put your object the other way, too you know? Why does the DVD drive maker *have* to include DVD drive software with the player? Because the OS *doesn't* support DVD playback out of the box.

      Duh.

    32. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by cbwsdot · · Score: 1

      But I have yet to see any justification that adding features is 'bad'

      I don't see any hypocrisies... If you add features with the intent to snuff out competition, that's illegal.

    33. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 2

      You know I implied none of those things?
      Would it surprise you if I told you I own a network of 1 Mac, 2 PCs, and 1 Linux box at home?

      Jobs hasn't been with Apple for the past *8* years, if you think carefully. Remember when he came back? How big a deal it was?

      Your beef with Jobs is your own deal.

      An no... PC users have not been 'burning CDs and DVD playback' out of the box, where the box is defined as the Windows OS box. I got DVD playback software with my video card, but had to send out a special request/form for it. I got DVD software with my DVD drive, but it didn't support the hardware acceleration on my video card. I got CDR software with my CDRW drive, but the OS didn't support the software, and I had to get an 'updated' version of the software.

      I'm sure you had a much easier time of it, these past 3 years, but I hardly think the PC industry has 'perfected' CD burning and DVD playback technology, yet.

    34. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 2

      I've been saying this several times today, against many similar posts... perhaps I should double check *just* to be sure... nah...

      Isn't the DOJ's beef against MS, not bundling, but bundling *and* using their desktop OS monopoly against their competitors to gain advantage and new monopolies?

      So bundling IE is fine, but forcing OEMs through licensing clauses not to include Netscape or link to Netscape isn't fine?

      Bundling DVD software would be fine, but using it to destroy the competition isn't? Or using it to push a special MS flavor of DVD discs isn't.

      Get my drift?

    35. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

      So, what, you concede that Windows finally catches up to the Mac?

      Even though XP just got released to users, what, a day, 2 days ago?

    36. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by Ryan+Amos · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but keep in mind OS X had been in development for like 7 years (if you count all the Copland crap that got nixed.) It had been in beta years before the original release came out. Apple just released 10.0 because Jobs knew if he didn't release some kind of final product to generate interest, the whole project was in jeopardy. Still, the underlying technology offers so much flexibility, the possibilities as to what can be done are almost infinite. If you thought Linux was flexible, OS X is essentially an entirely modular OS.

      Give OS X some time to truly mature as a platform (and Apple to release that new G5 hardware platform.. if even half the rumors are true they'll blow x86-64 and itanium out of the water) and I fully expect to see a dramatic increase in the Mac userbase (as soon as Apple dispels MS' FUD.) Not that the Mac userbase will even rival that of x86, but still, an improvement is an improvement.

    37. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by vought · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but the point is that 10.1 will be shipping and in people's hands before WinXP, betas notwithstanding.

      It's great that XP has all those things...but Mac OS 9 has had it all out of the box for over six months, and after Saturday, Mac OS X.1 will have it all too.

      Try reading threads before responding.

    38. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by singularity · · Score: 1

      "I release a product that is not ready for the market.
      I charge full price.
      I never officially say that the product is a "beta" because then I couldn't charge full price."

      I believe you left out a couple of steps in that.

      1) I continue shipping a fully-working product *bundled* with the the new product.

      2) I release frequent, free updates to the product.

      I do not think it is possible to get MacOS X without also getting a version of MacOS 9 included. Other than media costs, I have also not seen a paid update to MacOS X. I have seen Mac sites complain that the updates are *too* frequent.

      sarcasm
      I am sure that Microsoft will continue shipping W98SE along with XP until they work out allof the bugs.
      /sarcasm

      --
      - (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
    39. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by jnik · · Score: 2
      I suppose that is one reason that MacOS 9 is still shipping on all of Apple's computers in addition to MacOS X

      IIRC, isn't OS 9 still required for legacy support? It basically runs OS 9 as a process/VM on X, similar to Win16 on NT? I'd consider that a very big reason to keep shipping 9.

    40. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Office X is out as of today, it seems ... It has very cool packaging, but I (obviously) haven't actually tried it yet.

    41. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by benedict · · Score: 2

      Who exactly "had to pay an obscene amount of money" for Mac OS X?

      Apple did not tell their mainstream users to purchase Mac OS X 10.0. I paid full price for it and knew exactly what I was getting.

      Anyone who purchases a $129 product that even the vendor isn't recommending and doesn't do some research first is seriously out of touch with reality.

      I'm glad Apple got the product out the door. I wanted to use it, and it was and is adequate for my purposes. It also kick-started development, which is important.

      Speed and completeness issues aside, btw, there isn't a company on earth that could adequately test a new general-purpose GUI operating system, especially one as ambitious as Mac OS X. The conditions in the field vary too widely.

      --
      Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
    42. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by TWR · · Score: 2
      The point is that the "Copland crap" doesn't count. None of that code is in OS X. Some of it is in Mac OS 8 and 9 (multi-threaded Finder comes to mind), though.

      IIRC, the first boot of NextStep on a PPC machine was sometime in early 1997 (I think it was March when the digital camera-snapped screenshots appeared). So it took about 4 years from first boot to Mac OS X 10.0, and another 6 months to get to a usable version. I figure that it'll be another 6 months before I stop booting back into Mac OS 9.

      -jon

      --

      Remember Amalek.

    43. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by mr100percent · · Score: 4, Interesting
      "
      The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armour to lead all his customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores the fact that it was he who by peddling second-hand, second-rate technology, led them all into it in the first place. "

      --Douglas Adams


      Douglas Adams on Microsoft

    44. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by quentinsf · · Score: 1

      One of the many pleasant surprises for me was that OS X also comes with a full set of development tools out of the box.

      What does Visual Studio cost these days?

    45. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > On the other hand Mac users are spoiled..
      > what Windows OS comes with CD burning and DVD
      > playback out of the box? Or even CD ripping
      > and mp3 encoding, movie making, DVD burning
      > software, and web server software out of the box?

      Windows XP.

    46. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by Dahan · · Score: 1
      XP has about half of that :)

      • CD burning - check
      • DVD playback - nope
      • CD ripping - check
      • MP3 encoding - nope
      • movie making - check
      • DVD burning - nope
      • web server - check
    47. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by Dahan · · Score: 1
      WinXP comes with all of that.

      No, it doesn't.

    48. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by chefren · · Score: 1

      what Windows OS comes with CD burning and DVD playback out of the box?

      Just THINK about the fuzz this would rise if M$ would do it. First the integrate a browser in the OS. Now they integrate a DVD player! Isn't this kind of Apple misusing their monopoly in the Mac market? I mean, who can ship DVD/CD-R software for Macs now? Really, they should all be thrown in jail for all eternity even including a GUI, which is not an integral part of the OS. And Linux? Kernel httpd? This is a crime most vile!! Repent! Repent whi...

      Hrm. Sorry about that. Got carried away.

    49. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been by mallie_mcg · · Score: 1

      In all fairness to Microsoft, if they were to include CD burning capabilites and DVD playback (although that may not be as hot of an issue as CD burning), the DoJ would be on them quicker than Jon Katz on a box of Krispy Kremes.

      I would also like to point out that Apple are a H/W company not just a S/W company. They should and need to bundle the software with their products just as Dell/Gateway/IBM et al bundle software with their products along with the OS. In the case with apple they provide these things in the OS seeing as they will be used on apple hardware.

      --


      Do the following really mean anything? SCSA MCP CCSA CCNA
      --I'm not actually after an answer!
  7. on x86 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    is there anyway to run this on intel x86 machine ?

    1. Re:on x86 by Spencerian · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not OS X per se, but its core software, Darwin, is essentially an open source BSD release. Quite a lot of work has been done on it. You can't run OS X-specific apps (things that expect the Aqua interface), but Linux and UNIX apps should port as well as they do in OS X.

      It's the power and integration of the Macintosh hardware and software that makes OS X shine. Even if Apple chose to port the Whole Thing to x86, you would need a much more fortified PC than you would normally buy off the street.

      Better than nothing, or maybe just do FreeBSD. Try www.darwinfo.org.

      --
      Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
    2. Re:on x86 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeh, i heard we need cocoa and carbon to run mac os apps. i wonder if there's any ports of this to freebsd, so we can run os x's apps.

    3. Re:on x86 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i think the missing piece is the displayPDF server...which was a displaypostcript server...OpenStep ran great on intel hardware, so OSX should be able to as well, with the exceptionj of legacy Mac apps...cocoa apps would run fine with a proper display server which apple stopped developing...supposidly under pressure from microsloth...

    4. Re:on x86 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is there anyway you could buy a brain?

  8. This is the software.... by cyborg_monkey · · Score: 1, Funny

    that controlls the remote cameras that X10.com sells, right?

  9. Legacy Appletalk by wmulvihillDxR · · Score: 3, Informative

    There is also talk of it finally fixing legacy appletalk support (not TCP/IP based). Yeah I know, move to NFS, be a real man, etc... But a lot of my co-workers are stuck in a MacOS less than 10. Makes it difficult. Not to mention that you can't communicate properly with a Linux server running netatalk. I can't wait!

    --
    Check out Althea for a stable IMAP email client for X. Now with SSL!
    1. Re:Legacy Appletalk by znu · · Score: 2

      Mac OS versions going back at least as far as 8.0 can mount AppleShare volumes over TCP/IP, and 9.0 and later can serve AppleShare over TCP/IP. So can netatalk+asun, which I run on my NetBSD box.

      --
      This space unintentionally left unblank.
    2. Re:Legacy Appletalk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no problem with FreeBSD and Netatalk

    3. Re:Legacy Appletalk by azatoth · · Score: 1

      I don't remember if it was in 10.0.4 but now if you go to finder:go:connect to a server
      you get a kind of chooser where you can see all your macs (and use them of course).

      File sharing is working also (but you have to give the IP# of the OS X server on the classic mac client).

      Hope this answers your question. For me it means it works :-)

      --
      -- "Life is easier since I have excluded JonKatz stories from my homepage"
    4. Re:Legacy Appletalk by wmulvihillDxR · · Score: 2

      Yes I know. But our main file server is very OLD. No TCP/IP there. :) Plus about half of my co-workers have OS less than 9 and thus can't share via TCP/IP (people like to dump all sorts of things on their own shared folders). Oh well.

      --
      Check out Althea for a stable IMAP email client for X. Now with SSL!
  10. Got it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've been using 5G64 since it was released to us ADC members, supposedly it's the GM. It's everything that Steve claims it to be,

  11. it must be spring in some part of the world by paulschreiber · · Score: 4, Funny

    'cause that's when Steve said we'd get DVD playback. :)

    Paul

    1. Re:it must be spring in some part of the world by Pope · · Score: 2

      If it's Autumn in Ermerica, it's Springtime in OZ!

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    2. Re:it must be spring in some part of the world by kimihia · · Score: 1

      It's spring in New Zealand. We always get everything first. :-) [Include link to first XP-including computer sold.]

    3. Re:it must be spring in some part of the world by fungai · · Score: 0

      and in fact it is over here in south africa!

  12. Get an update (maybe) by update() · · Score: 5, Informative
    Rumor has it that Apple Stores have been burning free update CD's for customers who bring in a blank CD-ROM. Sounds ridiculous, but As The Apple Turns claims they're continuing to get reports of it happening, and someone wrote to them claiming CompUSA will do something similar. (If it's off the front page when you read it, go to Monday's stories, or search for id#3317.)

    Sounds crazy, but it's Apple so nothing is ever out of the question.

    1. Re:Get an update (maybe) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was told by an Apple employee at a local CompUSA that if one HAPPENS to bring in a blank CD-R and can demonstrate they already own OS X, CompUSA will be happy to provide a demonstration on the burning capabilities of the Macs they just HAPPEN to have OS X.1 installed on.

    2. Re:Get an update (maybe) by mysticbob · · Score: 2, Insightful
      crazy? no.

      crazy like a fox.

      apple stores and comp usa both trap you in the store for 10 minutes while the cd burns, and guess what, you browse! it's perfect because instead of just bopping in grabbing a cd and leaving, you spend time in the store seeing all the other things you need. and i'll bet they've got market research to back up the idea.

      it's pure evil and ingenious -- if only i'd thought of it...

    3. Re:Get an update (maybe) by Lish · · Score: 1

      Actually, it makes sense. They don't have to prepare them in advance at their expense (it's your CDR), no shipping of CDs to coordinate, and they don't have to try to predict how many to have on hand. Figure maybe 4-6 people per hour (random guess) come in wanting one, so it doesn't take that much of the salesperson's time. Plus they can demonstrate the burning capabilities, show off new stuff they might talk you into buying, etc. etc. Smart move, I think.

      --
      "This message is composed of 100% recycled electrons."
    4. Re:Get an update (maybe) by tonywong · · Score: 1

      Actually, this is like the Apple of old. Way back before Apple even charged for system updates, you just went down to your Apple dealer with some floppies and they'd let you get any version of the System software that you wanted. That all changed with System 7...but 7.1 update was free.

  13. APSL a new version of 'free' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Free as in "speech," free as in "beer," and now free as in "$20."

    Yet another innovation from Apple.

    1. Re:APSL a new version of 'free' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's $0, dumbass.

      You only pay $20 if you, for some reason, want an Apple employee to personally mail you an installation CD.

      Everybody else can get the update for $0.

      Try getting Red Hat to mail you a 7.0 - 7.1 update CD for less than that, then come back and tell us all how it went.

    2. Re:APSL a new version of 'free' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try downloading the update from Apple, should you not be so lucky as to live near an Apple store. Can't find it? $20. For a "free" upgrade. Imagine if S&H for Columbia House was $20 per CD. I know, it doesn't count the $0.50 for manufacturing. Oh wait, this is Apple, they probably spent $5 on a $0.50 CD.

    3. Re:APSL a new version of 'free' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I could swing a dead cat and hit the mall of america, which has an Apple store, and a there's a CompUSA just 4 miles west of it. Both stores will have it this weekend, so for me the upgrade is $0.

      If you choose to live in the sticks, it ain't my problem.

    4. Re:APSL a new version of 'free' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could swing a dead cat and hit the mall of america, which has an Apple store, and a there's a CompUSA just 4 miles west of it. Both stores will have it this weekend, so for me the upgrade is $0.

      Oops, too late, they're already snowed in and closed for the winter. Better luck next Spring (July, that is).

      And you looking down upon people who don't happen to live near an Apple store? Please....

  14. Re:Speedups? by AtaruMoroboshi · · Score: 1


    have you used it?

    have you used it on an officially supported machine?

    have you used it on said machine with a reasonable (256 megs or more) amount of ram?

  15. ibooks don't come with mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ibooks don't come with mice, so they've actually cut more corners than that when it comes to ibooks, eh?

    1. Re:ibooks don't come with mice by simpl3x · · Score: 1

      it's called an intellipoint explorer... you can take off the training wheels whenever you wish, or never.

    2. Re:ibooks don't come with mice by jchristopher · · Score: 2

      I want two buttons ON the laptop, not on an external mouse. What if I'm on an airplane, or on a car or train? An external mouse only solves the problem if you're sitting at a desk.

    3. Re:ibooks don't come with mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go to your loccal CompUSA, they have these cool micro meeses. They come in optical and ball type, nice black finish. They are tiny, but still usable, feature USB, and PS/2 compatability, and are very durable (I beat the hell out of shit). MUCH better than a pad. Plus, it's really friggin easy to meta key something in X to operate mouse2, and MacOS supports similar functionality. I'ts just not that big of a deal once you get used to it. I used to have the same mindset, btw, untill I took the leap. It's been nothing but smooth sailing.

    4. Re:ibooks don't come with mice by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1
      I have an excellent TINY USB mouse that has two buttons and a wheel. It's about the size of a Zippo lighter, and the precision is high enough that it can be used on the area next to the track-pad on Wallstreet/Lombard.

      Definitely cool and no problem on planes or in hotels.

      The OEM branding on mine is Targus, and this is available in black or silver at CompUSA. Under the Linux USB support, it is identified as a KYE/Genius USB wheel mouse. It works for both OS9 and OS X without additional driver support.

      jeremiah cornelius

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    5. Re:ibooks don't come with mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Why don't you just use libstroke or something with the trackpad. Have as many virtual mouse buttons as you like.


      I don't see why people bitch about the one button. Quite frankly two buttons fucking suck too. Possibly even more, "just click both simultaneously."


      t.

  16. Macslash by joel8x · · Score: 3, Informative

    Macslash has a thread going about the release and a lot of developers with Betas are reporting some significant improvements in speed - most notibly the time to load apps in native and classic modes.

    --
    Sound waves should be free!
  17. YAHOO! by dasmegabyte · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've been using OSX for a while, and it is a real dog on any chip other than a G4. It's always been usable, but the windows don't have the snap-into-action feel that they need to satisfy an old Win2k afficianado such as myself. Furthermore, the OS was missing a lot of essential features, DVD being the most prominent, that are coming in full effect. Also exciting is the movement of a couple of important indicators to the empty space on the apple bar...my dock quickly fills up and I can't wait to lose things like the battery indicator that don't really need to be so big. Here's hoping the developers of such great dock apps as LoadInDock, Memory Manager, TempInDock (immeasurably useful, so you don't put a 140 degree lappy onto your legs while wearing shorts) and so on. It seems most of the visibility "enhancements" are just the hidden options in OS 10.4, unlockable via tweak panels...but it'll be nice to have more efficient effects like the scale available from a System Preference.

    Ahhh, 10.1...OSX is finally a real operating system. Thank you, blue fairy!

    --
    Hey freaks: now you're ju
    1. Re:YAHOO! by soulflakes · · Score: 0

      Since when did DVD playback become an 'essential' part of the computing experience???
      Someone please explain?
      Seems like a waste of a computer to me. If you are on a plane, read a book.

    2. Re:YAHOO! by ellem · · Score: 1

      book? You mean a printed .pdf?

      --
      This .sig is fake but accurate.
    3. Re:YAHOO! by dasmegabyte · · Score: 1, Troll

      Many of you who view slashdot from a Linux box may never have seen a DVD before, and can obviously live without them since Linux doesn't have any legal DVD software. Some of you may never have seen a "windowing operating system," either (they're great, you don't have to type nearly as much and sometimes you even get pictures). But you need to understand something: when you buy a $2500+ machine, which claims to be, among other things, a DVD player, you had better well be able to play DVDs on it. Now, I got mine for only $400, and I'm fairly proficient at multibooting (my windows PC runs BSD, Be, Win 98 and Windows 2000) so i'm only slightly pissed at OS-X's severe lacking in the DVD department. But many people, for whom the mac is the one machine to rule them all, are goddamn pissed at the lack of DVD support. When you insert a DVD, an icon proclaiming "DVD!" appears on your desktop to mock you. And besides: with the excellent BSD operating system underneath us, maybe Mac users can finally get a little DVD -> MPEG action without begging our linux and windows friends to rip vob files for us.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    4. Re:YAHOO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OS X 10.0 ran like a champ on my friend's G3 iBook (although he did get 256mb ram first) - I suspect the memory is much more of a limiting factor than the CPU.

    5. Re:YAHOO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you guys just boot up in 9.x? You can have all the DVD support you want.

    6. Re:YAHOO! by soulflakes · · Score: 0

      Lord lighten up!! I own a TiBook and and iMac DV SE and do not miss being able to play DVDs in OSX AT ALL!! Early adopters of OS X knew that it was lacking in DVD support. We all knew Apple would fix it and they did so please quit whining about it. If you want to watch Josie and the Pussycats in your bunk bed boot into OS 9 and shut up!

      Oh BTW...your 'Windows PC'...hmmm... didn't know Microsoft was building PCs these days

  18. No big whoop by Rogerborg · · Score: 0, Troll

    Huh, I can upgrade a crappy old Win95 install to the equivelant of WinME by downloading only 500+Mb of files straight from Microsoft, assuming that their site hasn't been virused or DOS'd or DNS hacked or just switched off by mistake. That gives me an OS that's far more stable... not, wait... that looks totally different... no, hang on, that's not it. Something is different though... Ah! It needs twice the memory and runs half as fast. So it must be better, and it didn't cost me a penny to get there, other than the three days out of my life to download each patch one at a time then reboot.

    Apple could learn a lesson from this.

    Or maybe they already did. ;)

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    1. Re:No big whoop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey guys, is it possible that if you didn't understand a comment, that's it might be funny, but you're too dumb to realize?

    2. Re:No big whoop by mr100percent · · Score: 2

      10.1 runs ov er twice as fast as 10.0

    3. Re:No big whoop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh I think waht the poster is saying is that microsoft gets it wrong, and apple have got it right.

  19. Re:Is it faster? -- iBook? by dcheest · · Score: 1

    Specifically, is it bearable on a new iBook? When I tried 10.04 on a new iBook it was like running Windows 2000 on a Pentium 133 (DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME KIDS!) If they have the windowing optimized enough to run on an iBook I may just part with $1500 this week!

  20. Yay for Slashdot by eAndroid · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Slashdot has gotten into the Apple rumor mongering! I'll start us off down the necessary path:

    What else could Steve J be revealing today? I think that aren't quite right for the but I think that we're long over do for . I can't wait!

    --

    I can't spell or type, but that doesn't mean I'm unusually stupid.
  21. Re:Apple? by Spencerian · · Score: 1

    Bite us, you coward.

    Try making that Gateway POS handle professional quality digital video and playback in your lifetime.

    --
    Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
  22. OS X 10.1? by kievit · · Score: 5, Funny

    I see a pleonasm there. Shouldn't it be OS X.1?

    1. Re:OS X 10.1? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hoped for CI/X

    2. Re:OS X 10.1? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it should be X.I...
      0101.1

    3. Re:OS X 10.1? by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      you mean OSX.I

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    4. Re:OS X 10.1? by PMAvers · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nope, it's 10.1. Try saying " OS X" to a Apple Genius at one of the stores some time. You'll love their responce. ;-)

      When I talked to one and accidently said "X", they said "It's TEN, not "X". Say it with me now, Ten..Ten...Ten... {we pretty much chanted Ten over and over until I got it right, guess they have a course in training on "50 Different Ways to Tell Customers It's 'Ten', Not 'X'".

      One of the other ones that I remember was:
      AG:"How many fingers total do you have?"
      Customer:"Uh, ten."
      AG: "There 'ya go."

      Cheers,
      Paul
      --------
      The day that Microsoft makes a product that doesn't suck will be the day they start to make vacuum cleaners.

    5. Re:OS X 10.1? by Hacksworth · · Score: 1

      I'll never say OS 10. There are several reasons for that.

      1) I've been saying OS X since I first heard of it, and it's a bad habit that won't go away.

      2) OS X sounds much cooler than OS 10.

      3) When I think of X, I think of the X Windowing System, and OS X is the closest thing Apple has right now to it (A/IX doesn't count), so naturally I pronounce the X.

    6. Re:OS X 10.1? by usa35.com · · Score: 1


      I actually thought about that one as I was posting the story to Slashdot... I couldn't think about just calling it 10.1 because they have always called it "X"...

      What's the roman numeral for this and did the Romans even have decimal places???

      So, "...X 10.1..." was the result.

      Now that I look around, there are some fun little tools out there, like Lee's Useless Roman Numeral Converter .

      How about "X.I"?

    7. Re:OS X 10.1? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have Eight (8) fingers and Two (2) thumbs.

      But I have Ten (X) toes since they are not opposable digits like the hands.

    8. Re:OS X 10.1? by muffel · · Score: 1

      So "OS X 10.1" is pronounced "OS ten ten point one"?

      --

      bla
    9. Re:OS X 10.1? by sootman · · Score: 1

      Of course not. It should be X.i.

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    10. Re:OS X 10.1? by cbwsdot · · Score: 1

      ...and OS X is the closest thing Apple has right now to it (A/IX doesn't count)

      What's "A/IX"? Is it anything like A/UX?

    11. Re:OS X 10.1? by skia · · Score: 1

      They want you to think it's "ten" instead of "x" (though saying "oh es ten ten point one" always makes me giggle, and then feel ashamed) but it's "X". Trust me. "X" for its lost heritage.

      --

      --

    12. Re:OS X 10.1? by jallen02 · · Score: 1

      Some people are so largiloquent they can't do without expatiating a subject. ;) You get a +1 Funny for the use of a word most people don't know :)

    13. Re:OS X 10.1? by vought · · Score: 1

      AIX was installed on the Apple Network Servers - think Dell PowerEdge server, but looks cooler and was released in 1995, instead of later on. The ANS 500 and 700 were the first Apple computers in several years that didn't run the Mac OS.

      The ANS machines were quite righteous servers and hella expandable (for the time) with seven forward-facing drive bays and up to two more drives internally. Wheels for rolling around. One "valet" key lock for the forward drives and one master key lock for the logic board/power in back. Redundant power supplies and an SMP-enabled logic board completed the equation. I got to use the SMP CPU daughtercards once upon a time. Slick.

      These machines shipped with IBM AIX 4.0.1 and Apple released updates through AIX 4.0.4. But if you had the right ROM DIMM, they could also run NT for PowerPC or Mac OS 7.x.

      Not many people knew that.

    14. Re:OS X 10.1? by jd10131 · · Score: 1

      Ah, but what will the next major release be?

      OS X 11?
      OS XI?
      OS 2002?
      OS XP?
      Or perhaps... OS X XP 2002 v11!

    15. Re:OS X 10.1? by antijava · · Score: 1

      Is anyone interested in buying one? I have an ANS 700 if someone is interested. RDU area only, as this beast would be a bitch to ship.

    16. Re:OS X 10.1? by astr0boy · · Score: 1

      i'm waiting for OS XXX, but that'll be awhile

      --

      -----
      so i says to mable, i says

    17. Re:OS X 10.1? by PurpleBob · · Score: 2

      The Romans had a limited sort of fractions. They were not widely used, but they did exist. The roman numeral "S" meant 1/2, and after that they could stick a symbol with one to five dots (arranged like on a die, generally) to indicate a number of twelfths. For example: X divided by III would equal III: :

      So the roman version number might be "OS X." except with the dot centered.

      --
      Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
    18. Re:OS X 10.1? by Alien+Being · · Score: 0

      X.I

    19. Re:OS X 10.1? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That makes a lot of sense, really.

      I think "Red Hat Linux" sounds stupid, therefore I'll refer to it as "Red Hot Lunix" from now on. Anyone who corrects me is obviously wrong, as they can't be nearly as big of an asshole as I am.

      Fuck you.

    20. Re:OS X 10.1? by LMariachi · · Score: 1
      Apple's official position may be that it's "OS Ten," but Apple is wrong. Every other instance I can think of of using a roman numeral after a name is ordinal, not cardinal, e.g. Henry V is not "Henry Five," it's "Henry the Fifth." It's not "OS the Tenth", so it makes more sense for it to be "OS X," like "Malcolm X."

      Come to think of it, there is one sort-of exception: The World Wars are often suffixed with roman numerals, but that's hardly official -- I see them written with arabic numerals just as often.

    21. Re:OS X 10.1? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that redundant?

    22. Re:OS X 10.1? by cbwsdot · · Score: 1

      What's RDU? I'm in the northeast US.

  23. Are office applications optimized for 10.X? by JustinLong · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I used to work for a company that had a mixed environment of Macs and PCs. The one thing we discovered was that some applications (notably Foxpro, etc.) worked far slower on the Macs. I'm not sure but I was guessing that this was an optimization issue... So is there a noticeable speed difference still between apps optimized on the PC and not for the Mac, and vice versa? In our office right now we mostly use PCs but have a couple of Macs for graphic design and audio work.

    1. Re:Are office applications optimized for 10.X? by Spencerian · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's a little early to tell, but the design of the OS should get rid of a lot of this. When apps are ported, the peculiarities of the OS get in the way. The original Mac OS code handled apps differently than more modern (though not necessarily better) OSs like Windows. Porting was HARD. Today, I've personally downloaded and installed software written specifically for Linux and UNIX and used it on Mac OS X without modification. Sure, that's not OS X native, but its native enough. For many *nix apps out there, it's a matter of throwing an interface on it to make it available in Aqua.

      My assessment is that, if the application was built for UNIX or cocoa (Mac OS X/OpenStep/Objective C design), it will sing in OS X, especially with the OS X 10.1 optimizations. I'm sure Office v.X will enjoy much of these optimizations, but it's still Microsoft who produces it (although the Mac division does its best to ignore that, it seems).

      --
      Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
    2. Re:Are office applications optimized for 10.X? by znu · · Score: 2

      Office for OS X isn't shipping until November, so there's no way to know. But there are rumors that Microsoft will post a free preview version of Word v.X today.

      --
      This space unintentionally left unblank.
    3. Re:Are office applications optimized for 10.X? by tim_maroney · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I saw a study in a magazine a few years back comparing application speeds between Windows and the Mac. It turned out that all applications they tested were virtually indistinguishable between the two platforms, megahertz for megahertz, except, that is, for Microsoft applications.

      Microsoft applications were two to three times slower on the Mac, although Adobe and other vendors' applications were just as fast.

      Of course, this is just a coincidence. It's not as if Microsoft would have any commercial interest in making the Mac platform seem inferior to Windows.

      Tim

    4. Re:Are office applications optimized for 10.X? by Foamy · · Score: 1

      The office suite (beta) works very well on 10.1

      Since it is a beta there are still many issue, but the speed is there and the interface is there (for better or worse).

    5. Re:Are office applications optimized for 10.X? by Brand+X · · Score: 2

      Rumors nothing!

      Start trying it now...
      Test Drive Word X

      --
      -- Still waiting for the Nike endorsement
    6. Re:Are office applications optimized for 10.X? by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      done!
      http://www.apple.com/macosx

    7. Re:Are office applications optimized for 10.X? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was years ago when all microsoft apps were nothing but direct and very sloppy ports. This all changed when one day the execs came together to discuss dumping mac support. A few execs decided that if microsoft dumped the mac code, then they would be interested in buying it. As a result, microsoft decided to keep it as one exec admitted "microsoft never walks away from money" and writing for the mac currently makes them a lot of money. This is why microsoft hates linux so much. They'll always make money letting the mac live but they'll never get a dime with linux around.

    8. Re:Are office applications optimized for 10.X? by tfrayner · · Score: 1
      I seem to recall that one set of comparisons tested MS Word 6 (or possibly 5, I don't remember too well) against the corresponding windows product, running under emulation on the mac. The windows product was supposedly faster in such tests.

      Ho hum.

      --
      The best newspaper in the USA: the Anderson Valley Advertiser.
  24. Re:Speedups? by znu · · Score: 2

    Nope. It's pretty damn speedy on my 400 MHz G3 and my iBook 2001. True, these machines have 512 MB and 256 MB of RAM, respectively, but RAM is so cheap these days....

    --
    This space unintentionally left unblank.
  25. Links by tomknight · · Score: 4, Informative
    Okay, here's a karma whoring link - it's the official news release from Apple. I find it a bit odd that the cnet article doesn't appear to contain a link to them...

    http://www.apple.com/macosx/newversion/

    Tom.

    --
    Oh arse
    1. Re:Links by Null_Packet · · Score: 1

      Don't worry- it's not really karma whoring if the OSX users have already ready that link a million times. The reason they didn't link to it probably has something to do with the fact that the Apple page has never given a specific release date.

    2. Re:Links by newbiescum · · Score: 1

      When has CNET ever linked outside their websites? They might link once or twice a day to a big corporation, but I can't count the number of times they list the website by name (like Slashdot.org) but fail to provide a link. Unfortunately the days of crediting original sources and linking webpages that may provide some competition are coming to an end.

      Look at all the gaming news websites for an example of some of the most egotistical webmasters who won't give proper credit. All the good ones are being run out of business because they were properly linking to others and sending their readers away.

  26. Developer Tools by Zergwyn · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Besides the obviously needed increases in speed, DVD playback finally works(even better then in OS9 in build 5G64). Also it has much improved Windows interoperability. Apple will be including an SMB client to go with Samba in 10.1.


    However, one thing that worries me is whether or not they will include Dev Tools. I bought OSX 10.0 when if first came out, and it came with the disc. The Dev Tools include important things like a compiler for making other programs from the Terminal, and fun things like a Java browser, OpenGL stuff, etc. However, they were not included with my new computer. While I already owned them, so I just loaded them myself, I hope that people won't have to pay $129 just to get some tools that should come with new machines. Thanks Apple, you based the system on BSD, but don't forget the tools we need to really write with it!

    1. Re:Developer Tools by znu · · Score: 3, Informative

      The developer tools are a free download from Apple (you have to sign up for a free developer account). I'm sure the new OS 10.1 tools will show up there soon.

      --
      This space unintentionally left unblank.
    2. Re:Developer Tools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can download the newest version from ADC (Apple Developer Connection), connect.apple.com (I think), signup (free) and you'll find it somewhere under downloads.

      This lama filter is so going to screw me...

    3. Re:Developer Tools by teridon · · Score: 1

      You can download the Developer Tools for free if you register as a developer at https://connect.apple.com/

      --
      I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing. -- Thomas Jefferson
    4. Re:Developer Tools by Phoukka · · Score: 1

      My understanding (pass along as rumor, but from the CNET article, MacSlash, etc., so it may have *some* slight credibility) is that the retailers (Apple Stores, CompUSA, whatever) will hand out CDs both of the update itself and the updated developer tools CD.

      The devtools CD is also supposed to be in the retail 10.1 box.

    5. Re:Developer Tools by TheInternet · · Score: 1

      However, one thing that worries me is whether or not they will include Dev Tools.

      From reading this page, it sounds like ordering a copy through the mail ($20) version will get you the Dev Tools, but the one in the stores will not. Depending on how you interpret the text, the $20 version may also give you a FULL 10.1 CD, rather than just an updater. That would explain all the shinanigans you have to go through to get it.

      The 6-12 week thing for delivery is annoying. Of course, you can also download the dev tools for free.

      - Scott

      --
      Scott Stevenson
      Tree House Ideas
    6. Re:Developer Tools by rootofevil · · Score: 1

      dev tools comes on a separate CD, so id highly doubt theyd send you both. i worked in Tysons Corner, and had this discussion came up with a couple customers. Dev Tools is only avaliable in retail package, or from developer.apple.com (free signup)

      --
      turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
    7. Re:Developer Tools by TheInternet · · Score: 1

      dev tools comes on a separate CD, so id highly doubt theyd send you both

      This is from the page I referenced in my original post:


      Full Upgrade Program
      The Mac OS X full upgrade package includes:
      -- Mac OS X version 10.1 CD (upgrade install)
      -- Mac OS 9.2.1 CD (upgrade install)
      -- Developer Tools CD
      -- User guide and electronic documentation

      --
      Scott Stevenson
      Tree House Ideas
  27. Waita minute... by chinton · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Shouldn't it be OS X.1???

    :^)

    1. Re:Waita minute... by flufffy · · Score: 1

      oh ess eks dot eye?

      can't wait (for example) for oh ess eks dot eye vee

  28. Re:Is it faster? -- iBook? by bliss · · Score: 0

    "Specifically, is it bearable on a new iBook? When I tried 10.04 on a new iBook it was like running Windows 2000 on a Pentium 133 (DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME KIDS!) If they have the windowing optimized enough to run on an iBook I may just part with $1500 this week!"

    Or you can get a decent PC for the exact same price and run something that dosn't match your sofa.

    --
    The death of one man is a tragedy; the death of a million is a statistic --Joseph Stalin
  29. Lay off the mouse buttons! by megaduck · · Score: 4, Troll

    Darnit Taco, please join the present. I'm currently using an Intellimouse Explorer on my Mac, and I've got five mouse buttons plus a scroll wheel. They all work quite well, thank you. If you really want a multi-button mouse for your iBook, just plug one into the USB port. You don't even have to reboot.

    I know you meant it as a joke, but statements like that smell a lot like a troll. Please try not to taunt your audience.

    --
    This .sig for rent.
    1. Re:Lay off the mouse buttons! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I have a 101-button mouse, with useful buttons like 'Enter' and 'Page Up'. It is SO COOL

    2. Re:Lay off the mouse buttons! by Xzzy · · Score: 1

      > I know you meant it as a joke.

      Apparently you didn't, because you flamed him anyways.

      Stop being a hypersensitive Mac user and learn to laugh at yourself a little bit. It's no different than the amusement most unix users treat the emacs/vi debate with.

    3. Re:Lay off the mouse buttons! by dhamsaic · · Score: 1

      Mefinks you're taking it a bit too hard dude. I just got my PowerMac G4 Dual 800 today. I have an iBook. The 1-button is usable, but more buttons make it infinitely more usable. You know that. I know that. He was making a joke. The only people that go nuts about that shit anymore are the mac zealots. I like Apple, I love OS X, but I don't give a fuck if someone jokes about it. I had all sorts of people giving me shit today for buying a $4000 Apple. So what? You're enlightened, that's what matters.

      On a different note - Intellimouse Explorer use all five buttons under OS X? Looking for a mouse that will allow me scrolling and whatnot, and I know every mouse will basically (or at least my boomslang worked under OS X on my new iBook), but the two buttons for Back Forward - how are those under OS X? I'm not interested in OS9 at all, but OS X is yum.

      --
      Every once in a while I like to masturbate a new word into my vocabulary, even if I don't know what it means.
    4. Re:Lay off the mouse buttons! by zeus_tfc · · Score: 1

      We're really sorry about that (sorta). We use the button thing to bait our resident Mac fanatic too. Nobody really cares about whether he uses a Mac or not, (Its not like we have loyalty to M$) but after a while getting called a "PC Weenie" gets a little annoying. Therefore, the button remarks.

      Although, its not like he's real consistant when he responds. He states that you only need one button, just use the apple and flower keys. This is the same guy who refuses to learn any keystroke commands because "That's what the mouse is for."
      Ugh.
      Really, I have no problems with Macs. Its just fun to poke fun at the people who are so fanatical. From now on... Linux jokes! :-)
      Zeus_tfc

      --
      "...At the end of the day"..."when everyone goes home, you're stuck with yourself." RIP Layne Staley
    5. Re:Lay off the mouse buttons! by megaduck · · Score: 1

      All five buttons always work under OS 9, because MS was nice enough to give us a system extension. The way that OS X deals with the mouse, button support is a little more spotty. As far as I can tell, it depends on the application. For example: OmniWeb uses the left and right buttons, scroll wheel, and scroll wheel button. Same with Mail. IE uses the left and right buttons and the scroll wheel. iTunes only uses the left and right buttons (No scroll wheel! Argh!). Sadly, the forward and back buttons don't seem to work in OS X yet. Of course, it could be the difference between Classic, Carbon, and Cocoa apps. I need to experiment with it more.

      --
      This .sig for rent.
    6. Re:Lay off the mouse buttons! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you enjoy lugging that huge fucking mouse around just because apple couldn't install a second microswitch for about zero added cost? For christ sakes, even adding a second mouse button would probably only change the injection moulds for two components. Command-Click this Option-Click that my ass.

    7. Re:Lay off the mouse buttons! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      even adding a second mouse button would probably only change the injection moulds for two components.

      Ah, but that would be tantamount to admitting that the one-button mouse was a mistake. I can't see Apple doing that.

    8. Re:Lay off the mouse buttons! by Herbmaster · · Score: 2

      There's a big difference between putting a $15-$40 multi-button mouse on a desktop mac to replace the crap Apple sells you (just as I would do on an PC because the standard MS intellimouse sucks too), and doing the same on an iBook (or more importantly, TiBook) where it may be *really* inconvenient at times to have to replace the trackpad & button with a whole new periferal. The latter was CT's point.

      --
      I'm not a smorgasbord.
    9. Re:Lay off the mouse buttons! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can there be a debate when vi is clearly more efficient and useful than emacs?

    10. Re:Lay off the mouse buttons! by xinu · · Score: 1

      Stop making fun of my editor!!!

    11. Re:Lay off the mouse buttons! by telbij · · Score: 1

      Well Apple's optical mouse they ship with the G4s works pretty good for me, but that's beside the point.

      The decision to stick with a one button mouse is a UI design decision. More buttons doesn't necessarily mean better. Sure for power users you really want more buttons, but I just don't see it as that big of an issue. I always have a finger close enough to the control key to get contextual menus anyway...

      Why don't people complain that the PC has one less modifier key than Macs? The Windows key is completely useless, and so Photoshop work is significantly more time-consuming on Win.

      In retrospect I don't know why I felt the need to chime in on this silly debate.

    12. Re:Lay off the mouse buttons! by pi+radians · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's easy enough to explain.

      Anything written in the Cocoa API understands the second mouse button and scoll, but anything written in the Carbon API won't.

      Thats all.

      --

      sin(6cos(r)+5A)
    13. Re:Lay off the mouse buttons! by jasonbw · · Score: 1

      We're forgeting the main reason behind crappy mice. To spur people to buy USB products.

    14. Re:Lay off the mouse buttons! by sporty · · Score: 1
      Look at it this way. If you have one mouse button, you probably keep your other hand on they keyboard :)

      Sorry Windows users ;)

      --

      -
      ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

  30. Slightly missing the point of "slowness" by A_Non_Moose · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ok the 10.0.4 boxes I ran at work and home were slow in the aqua gui, truely, but as far as I/O,
    processing, task switching, serving web/ftp...they all kicked ass to say the least.

    For all the unix'ey love fests that take place on /. most here would be pleased to know that it is not BSD/Darwin that is slow, but the Aqua gui that ppl are bitching and moaning about (with good reason, IMO).

    Lack of features, nope, not for what I used it for: Surfing, SETI, FTP, pr0n watching, vcd (mpg1, naturally), ssh, classic apps...it did it all with nary a hitch (just don't leave a DVD in the drive...kernel panic w/o fail on my box).

    So, yeah 10.1 is a drool inducer ooo-ooo, shiney *blue* objects!!! (kiki the ferret voice) and dvd, speed tweaks and some needed + native cocoa apps are well and good, but I hope the OS's speed does not suffer, gui be damned.
    (can you tell I'm a CLI type?)

    Moose.

    la la laaaaaa

    --
    Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
    1. Re:Slightly missing the point of "slowness" by melatonin · · Score: 1
      I'm sure Darwin is quite zippy, but it has bugs and it does have slowness that crops up.

      But it's not just Aqua that's slow, the frameworks & libs and lots of crap was slow in 10.0. Most annoying of all is sound. Music playing would take a hit on the CPU, making iTunes and games run too slow to be useful (iTunes would take 13% of the CPU, most of the time).

      This is on a G4/733 too :P

      And it was a bloody RAM hog. With 256 Megs of RAM, I get nothing but trashing and trashing after I launch a few (albeit not light) apps. At work I use a G3/400 with 512 MB, and it's so much smoother.

      I can't wait to install 10.1 :)

      --
      Moderators should have to take a reading comprehension test.
    2. Re:Slightly missing the point of "slowness" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      iTunes is a CPU hog no matter what I think, no amount of tweaking the Mach kernel will change this a lot.

      If you are using X11 I recommend you use fink or similar to download XMMS and use it instead. CPU load is about 1/3 that of iTunes if not less.

      There may be regular OS X Aqua MP3 players like this too, I haven't actually looked.

      For CD audio I'm not sure what the best option is.

  31. Re:Is it faster? -- iBook? by AtaruMoroboshi · · Score: 1


    the ibook ships with FAR too little ram. Pop 256 more or even a 512 into it, and you'll be golden, especially with the optomized 10.1

  32. You mean X.I, right? by mtm · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Sounds weird to me to here OS X 10.1.

    Reminds me of ATM machines and FAT testing.

  33. Sounds like Windows by wiredog · · Score: 2

    Which means you have to wait for the third release (10.2?) for it to be really useful.

    1. Re:Sounds like Windows by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

      Oh, I thought you were gonna say 'It sounds like Windows... sluggish and without the important things, like CD-RW or DVD capabilities (built in), plus it doesn't always work correctly. I know, I know, on Windows you can dl or borrow a copy of EZ-CD Creator or something... and Roxio has yet to release OS X support...

    2. Re:Sounds like Windows by kaimiike1970 · · Score: 1

      Roxio has yet to release OS X support...


      Really?

      What the hell is this?

      http://www.versiontracker.com/moreinfo.fcgi?id=1 14 27&db=mac

      Is it really that hard to do a quick search before you make an idiot of yourself?

      --


      Do a google search before posting.
    3. Re:Sounds like Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like linux.

    4. Re:Sounds like Windows by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 2

      It looks like Adobe FrameMaker for the Mac OS?

      I think you mean this:
      Here.

      It's the Roxio Toast Titanium beta/preview1 for OS X, with preview2 soon to be announced...

      And it's BETA. It's not a complete 100% solution.

      Sure, if you wanna pick nits, neither is OS X 10.0...

      The point being you can't go to the store and pick up a CD burning solution for OS X yet.

    5. Re:Sounds like Windows by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      Luckily finder-level CD burning is not in beta, it's solid, but doesn't support the hundreds of burners that Toast does.

  34. Actually, it is, dumbass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But thank you for your input all the same. No, really.

  35. Re:Is it faster? -- iBook? by narf · · Score: 2, Informative

    I have 10.1 (5G64 - RC1) running on a ice-book with 256 megs of RAM, and it's yummy. The biggest problem I have found is that the subtitles/overlays in the DVD player are offset.

  36. Yay Apple! by simetra · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I wish I could afford to buy a brand new computer every time Apple made an improvement!

    --

    "Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
  37. "Free" A Questionable Term by waldoj · · Score: 1, Troll

    I guess if you think that $20 is a fair amount to pay for shipping then, yeah, it's free.

    -Waldo

    1. Re:"Free" A Questionable Term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess if you're not mentally retarded and were capable of reading (as in, the article), you'd know that Apple is giving them to their retailers, as well as their retail stores, to give away for FREE. As in, NO CHARGE. So if you think that $0 is a fair price to pay for getting off your lazy ass and going to pick it up, then yeah, it's free.

      Fucking imbecile.

    2. Re:"Free" A Questionable Term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that's really great IF YOU LIVE NEAR ONE OF THEIR SIX STORES.

    3. Re:"Free" A Questionable Term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gee, I guess your eyes don't work either, 'cause it says IN THE FUCKING ARTICLE and I said IN THE POST YOU REPLIED TO that they're passing them out TO THEIR RETAILERS AS WELL, YOU FUCKING MORON. Like CompUSA, etc. Learn to fucking read. Jesus Christ.

    4. Re:"Free" A Questionable Term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no doubt. I'm extremely pissed that there is not a download option. I'm supprised that others are not pissed too. This is crazy. I know that everytime that they do a major update (7.0 to 8.0, and etc.) that there is a charge, but charging in between is crap. If everyone calls the stink, then there will be a change. MAKE A STINK PEOPLE!!!

  38. Re:Is it faster? -- iBook? by mchiang · · Score: 2, Informative
    I have used a beta build (5G48) on my B&W G3/400 for the last couple weeks. Mac OS X 10.1 performance is leaps above 10.0.4. Applications launch faster. The Finder is not sluggish and the scroll wheel finally works. Columns can be individually resized in column view. Classic mode (Mac OS 9 compatibility) performance is much improved.


    Performance feels on par or better than the Asus A7V/Duron/700/Mandrake 8.0/KDE that sits next to it.


    I had been holding off using Mac OS X as my everyday OS until now. 10.1 will go on my TiBook as soon as it's released.

  39. Mozilla MP Compatibility With 10.1 by Cheese+Man · · Score: 4, Informative

    For those of us who also happen to own a multi-processor machine and have been unable to run Mozilla as a native OS X app, it looks like part of the problem was with 10.0.4's MP support and will be fixed in 10.1. For more info, check out this bugzilla bug.

    Perhaps this could even mean an end to the dial-up disconnection woes, as those, too, were MP related. (For those of you blissfully unaware, MP machines with a dial-up modem connection had a tendency to randomly drop said connection.)

    All in all, very good news, especially since Apple appears to have listened to its customers and will be making the upgrade free.

    1. Re:Mozilla MP Compatibility With 10.1 by yomegaman · · Score: 1
      Perhaps this could even mean an end to the dial-up disconnection woes, as those, too, were MP related. (For those of you blissfully unaware, MP machines with a dial-up modem connection had a tendency to randomly drop said connection.)

      I only have a single-processor machine, but fortunately Earthlink provides this service as an extra value-add. :-)

      --
      ...wearing a skin-tight topless leather jumpsuit, with cutaway buttocks and transparent crotch panel.
  40. OS 10.1 MS Word v X and fun ! by SirStanley · · Score: 5, Interesting

    With 10.1 not only do I get dvd play back on a "Unix Based" os but MS is releasing a preview version of Word X. Now before you Anti-MS Dolts get your panties tied in a Knot. If you don't use Macs and haven't seen Microsoft's Mac software. You're missing out. MSIE:MAC Runs better than it does under windows. (There goes that whole its only "Faster" Cause its integrated into the OS Theory) And Microsoft Office for the Mac has consistently been the most useful Office Suite on the market. Star Office doesn't have anything on it. And Office:Mac has consistently blown the pants off of Office:windows For a long time.

    But anyways. Check out the Microsoft mac stuff at www.microsoft.com/mac/ and just drool over screen shots of Office v X

    And on a final Note. I love my TiPB I love OSX and I don't understand how I used anything other htan it for all those years.

    --
    --------========+++Dont Feed The Lab Techs+++========--------
  41. Re:OS 10.1 MS Word v X and fun ! by desideria · · Score: 1

    I've been using a beta of Office X for about a month now, and i have to admit it's great.

  42. OS X 10.1 is quite fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I installed it on a G3/500 Blue and White over the weekend (build 5G64 - the GM) and it is wildly fast. Boots the computer from button-push to full in 45 seconds. Opens applications easily 15 times faster (I did a check against 10.0.4 on another partition). Makes my old G3 *feel* like a G4. All in all, I'd have to say they have outdone themselves in this release (or spoiled us by giving us a really slow one first). I invite all Linux-heads to give it a shot - you may be surprised!

  43. DVD FYI- Older Macs by Zergwyn · · Score: 3, Informative

    I have used some of the earlier builds of OSX(though I haven't gotten the latest yet). It should be noted for build 5G64, which I have heard is the Golden Master, DVD playback will not work on Macs that use hardware DVD-decoding(ie. B&W G3 or Yikes G4/PCI with DVD piggyback card, Lombard G3/400 models and perhaps Wallstreet PB G3s with the DVD decoder PC Card). Since some of these computers are the very ones that would most benefit from an OS speed increase, potential owners should check with Apple, or they might have to be prepared to continue using OS9 a little bit longer. Newer macs that use software decoding work great.

  44. Re:Speedups? by antijava · · Score: 3, Informative

    I agree...where are the speedups? I was expecting major improvements out of 10.1.

    On my Wallstreet G3/300 with 256MB of RAM:

    - slightly faster, but not drastically so.
    - Launching IS much faster, but this is due to
    two-level namespace linkage, not due to any
    innate optimization.
    - OpenGL still is not implemented for Rage Pro.

    - Skyline/Lucent wireless cards still do not work.
    Skyline is Farallon's fault, but the Lucent *SHOULD* work, since it worked under OS 9 without
    any 3rd party drivers.
    - Still cannot eject PCMCIA cards without shutting down. Though it no longer kernel panics when you
    manually remove one.
    - PCMCIA-based hard drives still are not recognized.
    - Still won't play DVD. Apparently they don't support the hardware DVD decoder cards (this IS an officially supported machine...where's the official support?)
    - The compiler is godawful slow. I took a project
    that built in 58 seconds under OSX Server 1.2, and it takes over 5 minutes to build on OS X 10.1 (on a G4/400 with 1.5GB of RAM!)
    - On the plus side, sleep FINALLY works. It used
    to turn on the fan when I put the machine to sleep, which would promply drain my batteries dry.

    10.1 is finally USABLE, but it's still not what I wonder consider great.

  45. Re:Apple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But he is. If he was alone, Apple wouldn't be the #1 Unix retailer today..

  46. who's the Mac speed king, OSX or Linux? by BroadbandBradley · · Score: 2

    10.1 was supposed to speed things up, Linux on the Mac is reportedly pretty fast, given the upgrade to 10.1, what' the "fastest" os for a new Mac?

    1. Re:who's the Mac speed king, OSX or Linux? by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I use Debian PPC on a PowerBook G4, and it's a little slow. For everyday interactive use like email and web browsing, it is the equal of all my other systems. For anything that taxes the CPU, it's a pig. For example, compiling ethereal takes over 7 minutes. On my desktop (1.4 GHz athlon) it takes a little under 1 minute. That's not really proportionate. People claim that GCC doesn't produce efficient code on the PPC, but I don't know the technical details of that. I do know that OS X takes advantage of the AltiVec unit on the G4, while almost no Linux software (only mpeg2dec to my knowledge) does so.

    2. Re:who's the Mac speed king, OSX or Linux? by anlprb · · Score: 2, Informative

      On all RISC systems, compiling will take longer than on CISC. The binaries will also be larger. This is due to the way the architectures are defined. In broad strokes ( so as not to start a flame war ), RISC moves a lot of the complicated stuff over into a compiler that is designed to produce code that will execute more efficiently on the Reduced Instruction Set that is available. CISC relies on moving all of those complex instructions onto the actual chip, making the logic and instruction sets more complex on the chip. RISC should run faster than a similarly clocked CISC, but with a larger binary, and longer compile time. Good book on this - _A Practitioner's Guide to RISC Microprocessor Architcture_.

      --

      One Token Ring to Rule them All, One Search Engine to Find Them, One WAN to bring them in, and TCP/IP Bind them...
    3. Re:who's the Mac speed king, OSX or Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you use a compiler as a bench mark (x86 vs anything). It doesn't matter how fast it compiles the code. What matters is how good the code is and how well it performs.
      X86 and PowerPC are different processors. It might take longer to compile a code, depending on optimization.

    4. Re:who's the Mac speed king, OSX or Linux? by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the info I wasn't thinking when I compared compile times. When I get my OS X 10.1 system installed this Saturday, I intend to benchmark some things between that system and the same machine running Debian. For example, filter through a 10MB tcpdump capture, some other things like that.

  47. +5 Insightful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, the mod points flow like water in crApple stories.

  48. Yeah, just toss out that $60 mouse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    THERE's the problem. If it were a $5 POS, no big deal, but you've already paid $60 for a hobbled, less functional mouse that you're just going to trash.

    I guess if you can afford one of their desktop systems, you can afford to throw out a $60 mouse and not blink.

    1. Re:Yeah, just toss out that $60 mouse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      THERE's the problem. If it were a $5 POS, no big deal, but you've already paid $60 for a hobbled, less functional mouse that you're just going to trash.

      Apple tried shipping Macs with a $5 POS mouse, and shitheads all over sites like this howled with rage that they would dare to ship a computer with a "hockey puck" mouse.

      Besides, the "no-button" mouse is great, as long as you are using OS X. The only mac users who really need more are either picky wrist-brace wearing whiners who are going to buy a more "ergonomic" mouse anyway, and LinuxPPC geeks (and let's face it, if you can afford the overkill of buying a new G4 just to run Linux on it when a POS AMD box would do just as well, you can afford to buy a separate three-button mouse with attached scroll wheel and esspresso maker).

    2. Re:Yeah, just toss out that $60 mouse by gig · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > THERE's the problem. If it were a $5 POS,
      > no big deal, but you've already paid $60 for a
      > hobbled, less functional mouse that you're just
      > going to trash.

      You are completely incorrect.

      First, it's not hobbled ... it's an excellent pointing device for Mac OS X, which only requires one button. Mac OS X has a pervasive context-sensitive menubar at the top edge of the screen ... getting a second, limited, on-screen menu under your mouse cursor is just not that valuable. Mac users just slam the mouse cursor into the menubar and use the pull-down menus, which contain all of the options. Rather than right-click an item and choosing "Properties", you click on an item and choose File > Show Info from the pull-down menus (or press Command+I). Rather than right-clicking an image in a Web page and choosing "Save to disk", you just drag and drop the image from the Web browser window to the Finder (including Desktop) and it is saved as a file. All of the things that you may be used to doing with your second button have drag and drop or similar equivalents on Mac OS ... the user uses their one mouse and one button to move things around instead of using a second mouse button to display a text menu. Think about which is the best use of a mouse. After using a Mac, you might be pissed at Microsoft for all the broken drag and drop features in Windows (if you are a Windows user).

      Second, you don't pay $60 for the mouse when you get it with a system. You can sell an Apple Optical Mouse on eBay and get $40 for it, which is likely more than you actually paid for it with a system. Use the $40 to buy whatever mouse you like. Any USB mouse works with Mac OS X. eBay can be operated with one mouse button on a Mac, so you will make it until the auction closes. If it was just a $5 POS mouse, all you would have is a $5 POS mouse, a non-biodegradable waste of space that you'd replace with a decent mouse later anyway. A good USB optical mouse is so compatible and has no moving parts ... it will last so long and get so much use that it will be almost free.

      Honestly, it is CLASSIC for a person to get their first Mac after using Windows, complain about the one-button mouse, get out their old Windows USB mouse with two buttons, use that for a while, realize that they haven't hit the second button in three months, and go back to the Apple mouse, which you just cup in your hand and click with your palm ... very ergonomic. I did it, my wife did it, my brother did it. We all use Apple's mouse now. Try it and you'll see that there's more to it than meets the eye. Maybe you will even like it.

    3. Re:Yeah, just toss out that $60 mouse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello, have you ever used this little OS X program called the "Dock" without hitting the contextual menus? The Dock is practically useless without them.

      Further, are you telling me you don't use contextual menus on hyperlinks in your web browser? Don't browse the web much, do you?

      Have you ever tried to use MS Office without contextual menus?

      Face it, contextual menus have become an integral part of the Mac UI, particularly under OS X. It only makes sense to provide the easiest and most natural way to access them - a right mouse button.

    4. Re:Yeah, just toss out that $60 mouse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pray tell, where is the dock useless without contextual menus? Not only is there 'some other way' to get it done, but in the infrequent cases I just hold down the control key and click.

      Now scroll wheels, that's something else.

    5. Re:Yeah, just toss out that $60 mouse by warfare · · Score: 1

      Just click and hold the mouse button for a little while. The contextual menu in the Dock will pop up. Same with Internet Explorer.

      --
      -- If windows is the solution, can we please have the problem back?
    6. Re:Yeah, just toss out that $60 mouse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but...

      1. You have to wait

      2. In the Dock, if you accidentally move the poiner even a little bit while you are waiting, you'll accidentally drag the icon.

      3. That doesn't work in Finder, Office, and other places where you'll find contextual menus. Only in the Dock and browsers. So much for interface consistency, huh?

    7. Re:Yeah, just toss out that $60 mouse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, there are other ways to accomplish most of things you can do with the Dock contextual menus, but all of them require a click in the Dock, followed by a trip to the menubar, and in some cases opening a dialog or new Finder window.

      The following are some of the Dock tasks I use contextual menus for constantly:

      - Browsing the contents of a docked drive or folder in a heirarchical menu. This is a biggie. Without it, you have to open a new Finder window and browse from there.

      - Emptying the trash

      - Quitting programs

      - Turning dock hiding on and off.

      - Managing (raising & lowering) multiple windows belonging to an application from the application icon.

      Yes, I can always access these menus by control-clicking. But the point is, why should I have to use such a workaround when a simple, easy, and obvious solution exists? New users of OS X are going to have to start using contextual menus, so why not give them a simple contextual menu button? Chording is only going to be more difficult for them to learn.

    8. Re:Yeah, just toss out that $60 mouse by gig · · Score: 2

      > Hello, have you ever used this little OS X program
      > called the "Dock" without hitting the contextual
      > menus? The Dock is practically useless without
      > them.

      You can click-and-hold on a Dock item to see its menu, or you can Control+click. My left hand is on the keyboard anyway, where I am very, very used to hitting Shift, Option, Command, and Control to modify keystrokes or mouseclicks. Command+click on a Dock item and the original item is shown in the Finder. Command+click on a System Menu allows you to drag it around or out of the menubar entirely. These things are more intuitive and fun than pop-up text menus.

      > Further, are you telling me you don't use
      > contextual menus on hyperlinks in your web
      > browser? Don't browse the web much, do you?

      No, I don't use those menus very often. If you want to open hyperlink in a new browser window in IE, Netscape, or OmniWeb on Mac OS X, you hold down Command while you click the link ... very fast. If you want to download a link to disk, you Option+click on the link and it is downloaded to disk. If you want to save an image to disk, you drag it from the browser window and drop it into a folder. If you want to save a URL for later, just drag it from the titlebar of the browser window and drop it into a folder in the Finder. All of these things are very natural to me, and the direct manipulation is more enjoyable than picking from similar items in a pop-up text menu. No dialog boxes, no waiting. If I do want the context menu, it is also just a click-and-hold away, or a Control+click. So, I already have two ways to access this menu, and it is not the best way to access the features on the menu anyway, and you are saying I need another mouse button so that I have a third way to access this menu that I rarely use.

      On the Mac, the pecking order for me is pull-down menus, keyboard shortcuts and modifiers, drag and drop, floating panels, and then context menus. I don't think I ever had to go to a context menu to get something that wasn't available any other way. If you are used to a pecking order of context menus, pull-down menus, keyboard shortcuts, floating panels, drag and drop, then maybe a right mouse button is a good thing for you. I don't think this is the case with the majority of Mac users, and neither does Apple, from what I've heard. If you don't like the Apple mouse, find one that fits your hand and has the right amount of buttons and away you go.

      > Have you ever tried to use MS Office without
      > contextual menus?

      I wrote two 1000 page books in MS Word for Macintosh in 2000, and I used a one-button mouse. Everything I need is in the menus (which are always visible, and easy to quickly hit because you can't overshoot the top of the display) or in a floating panel. If it's not there, I can create a new panel or menu item if I want to, as well. I also do graphics and audio work with a one-button mouse, and the only time I miss the second button is with the pop-up toolbox in Cubase, but you can float it as well, and it also appears in a pull-down menu. It's just not worth making my fingers into a V again so that I can push two buttons on the mouse (I used Windows for quite some time, too, so I have logged my two-button mouse miles). The keyboard already has lots of buttons on it, and my left hand is always there ... I'd rather press those. On desktop keyboards, Control is right at the bottom left corner and it is easy to Control+click. On notebooks, Fn is on the left, but it's still easy to hit Control.

      Word and Excel were originally Mac-only, and you can still get around in them just fine with one mouse button. The Mac Business Unit knows that Macs have one mouse button. If you have habits that make it easier to work in Office with a second button, then use a mouse with a second button.

      > Face it, contextual menus have become an integral
      > part of the Mac UI, particularly under OS X. It only
      > makes sense to provide the easiest and most
      > natural way to access them - a right mouse button.

      That is your opinion. I use a Mac everyday all day for writing, songwriting, audio production, and heavy graphics work. I rarely use context menus, and when I do, I prefer to just hit the Control key with my left hand and click with my right hand (the whole hand on an Apple mouse) rather than click a secondary mouse button with one finger. Your right hand just becomes a big clicker when it's on the mouse ... it's transparent. Also, I find Apple's "no-button" mouse to be very easy to grasp and use without looking or adjusting ... you grab the mouse and you can't go wrong ... a little time and trouble saved each time you grab the mouse goes a long way.

      Also, it is a fine-looking, quality mouse that doesn't need a mousepad and tracks really well. It is easy to clean the top of it because there are no cracks for dust or whatever else to get into. You just wipe the top and you are done. All-in-all, I prefer it. It's fast and it's hands-on and I never, ever click the wrong button.

    9. Re:Yeah, just toss out that $60 mouse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I did it, my wife did it, my brother did it.

      Could you please invite me to your next orgy?

    10. Re:Yeah, just toss out that $60 mouse by gig · · Score: 2

      > The following are some of the Dock tasks I use
      > contextual menus for constantly:

      >- Browsing the contents of a docked drive or
      > folder in a heirarchical menu. This is a biggie.
      > Without it, you have to open a new Finder
      > window and browse from there.

      A click-and-hold gets you this, too.

      > - Emptying the trash

      I do this by going File > Empty Trash in the Finder, or using the Command+Shift+Delete key shortcut. If you click on the Trash, the Finder even comes to the foreground.

      > - Quitting programs

      Command+Q! Or Command+Tab (cycle through running applications) and then Command+Q.

      > - Turning dock hiding on and off.

      Apple Menu > Dock > Turn Hiding On/Off or Command+Option+D.

      > - Managing (raising & lowering) multiple windows
      > belonging to an application from the application
      > icon.

      Again, a click-and-hold works just as well for most people. And each app has its own Window menu as well.

      > Yes, I can always access these menus by control-
      > clicking. But the point is, why should I have to use
      > such a workaround when a simple, easy, and
      > obvious solution exists?

      Why do you think of it as a workaround? Because Windows doesn't do it that way? What mouse button do you push for a Command+click on the Dock? Is that just a workaround for the "missing" third button?

      I might seem crazy about this stuff, but it is my pet peeve when geeks push geek stuff on non-geeks. It's like taking advantage of them. It's like buying your graphic artist wife an x86 Linux box because you're a Linux kernel hacker and "Macs are toys" ... you are not doing her a favor. I have worked with lots of non-geek users, and I'm telling you: the majority of users who have right mouse buttons are not using their right mouse buttons, and the majority of people who don't have them aren't missing them. If you are going to use a two-button mouse, you are better off having to CHOOSE that mouse for yourself in order to answer a pressing need for a second button (such as a particular software app that you use, or an old habit) rather than having every user start out with two and ignore one, or hit the second one accidentally, or have to use context menus because the developer believes that you have a two-button mouse.

      If you had to ship only one car transmission by default, a geek would say "ship standard" because standard is flexible, but if your goal is to get non-drivers driving (so many more non-computer users than computers users, even today, remember) then it is better to ship automatic and let people who "know what they are doing" get a low-cost ($5-$50) standard upgrade (a two or three button mouse).

      Another aspect to this that hasn't been mentioned here is that Apple sells a lot of computers for use by kids. Think about creating one mouse that's usable by 4 year-olds and 60 year-olds and everybody in-between. Look at an Apple Pro Mouse and think about how a kid would use it ... then compare to your average Microsoft mouse. Kids often can't get a finger onto each button comfortably. Think about it a bit. Apple's mouse is the default mouse for a whole platform, not just for one brand of computers.

      > Chording is only going to be more difficult for them
      > to learn.

      "Chording" makes it sound hard, but it is quite common for a Mac user to know that Command+S is Save and Command+P is Print and Command+Q is Quit, etc. Command+click is common; Option+click is common; Shift+click is common; Control+click is common.

      I could understand this debate if Apple still used ADB mouses and people were having to give up their Windows and X-Windows -style mouses to get a Mac. If you are happy with your current mouse and you use Windows, you can get a Mac and plug that same mouse right in and it will just work. Consider finding out how people have REALLY gotten along without a second mouse button for so long, though ... you might discover new techniques that are unavailable on the less GUI-oriented platforms, such as a drag and drop where you didn't expect it, or a click-and-hold.

    11. Re:Yeah, just toss out that $60 mouse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're missing my point entirely. I concede that there is always another way to access the functionality you'll find in the contextual menus. That's true in Windows too BTW.

      My point was that contextual menus provide the fastest, easiest, and most consistent interface to a wide range of tasks. If Apple didn't think so, they wouldn't be adding contextual menus everywhere.

      I think that framing this as a geek vs. non-geek issue is a red herring. Do you really think it's going to be easier to teach a new user a whole bag of application specific tricks than how to access a contextual menu? Do you want to explain to a new user why click-and-hold works in their browser but not in Office or Finder? Do you want to see how many times they accidentally trigger a drag when they attempt to click-and-hold in the Dock? Do you want to explain which top menus & menu items apply to the object they just clicked and which ones don't IMHO, the answer to the above is no. I'd teach them to bring up contextual menus instead.

      IMHO, contextual menus is not a geek or power user feature like keyboard shortcuts, contextual menus benefit new users as much as experienced users. And Apple (as well as 3rd party developers) are giving them a larger and larger role in the UI as time goes on. So in my mind, what we're really arguing about here is whether it's easier to teach a new user to control-click or use another mouse button.

      Finally, I think this is a minor issue on shipping desktop systems. It would be nice if Apple provided a multi-button mouse as an option though. The thing that has me frustrated is that my iBook only has one button, and since it's a laptop I can't change it. Plugging in an external mouse or trackball is simply not an option some of the places I use it. And since it's unlikely that young children are going to be using a laptop, I don't see the harm. They could always map both buttons to a left click by default.

    12. Re:Yeah, just toss out that $60 mouse by Golias · · Score: 1
      Do you really think it's going to be easier to teach a new user a whole bag of application specific tricks than how to access a contextual menu?

      Ah. Here is where the cultures collide.

      What you are probably not aware of is that interface standards on the Mac are extremely global compared to Windows, Gnome, etc. "Command-W" will always close the current window without quitting the application. The "Edit" menu will always be right next to the "File" menu. When a pull-down menu has a keyboard shortcut, the menu will always remind you what it is.

      Also, as the previous poster pointed out, to replicate all the possible alternate clicks of an Apple mouse, I would need a mouse with at least 5 buttons (click, control-click, command-click, alt-click, and shift-click). I use shift-click and command-click even more often than I use contextual pop-up menus... a second mouse button is no help to me there.

      Apple's current mouse is so easy to operate that, if you really wanted to, you could use a USB extention cable, take your right shoe off, and operate the mouse with your foot. (Come to think of it, Apple could make that a selling point for people with CTS).

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    13. Re:Yeah, just toss out that $60 mouse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah. Here is where the cultures collide.
      ...and the marketspeak begins.

      What you are probably not aware of is that things have CHANGED SINCE WINDOWS 3.1. Not only are most menues very standard, so are virtually all keystrokes, the way the contextual menues work....
      Windows has been a very standard, intuitive, good UI for a long time. There's nothing in either development suite (Win, Mac,...) that FORCES the user to use the standard keys and layout, so any deviation on that is not the fault of Windows, and adherence to that is not to the credit of Apple. I know, usability studies 20 years ago, blah blah blah. Time to set your clock ahead of 1984.

      Not that reality has anything to do with what a mac user would percieve. We'll see how well the new Apple VP of Weenies cow-tows to Stevie's ego.

    14. Re:Yeah, just toss out that $60 mouse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What you are probably not aware of is that interface standards on the Mac are extremely global compared to Windows, Gnome, etc.


      Right... Like the way click-and-hold only works in some apps, a single click launches instead of a double click in some places, a triple (!!!) click is used by some apps, and shift & command click don't always do the same thing either. Like I said, a bag of tricks. Not that Windows is any better, but don't fool yourself into thinking the Mac OS GUI is perfectly consistent. It might just be that it's so familiar to you, it seems natural. Note that I haven't used OS 9 much (mostly OS X) so it's possible that consistency has declined in this release and I'm reacting to that.


      Also, as the previous poster pointed out, to replicate all the possible alternate clicks of an Apple mouse, I would need a mouse with at least 5 buttons (click, control-click, command-click, alt-click, and shift-click). I use shift-click and command-click even more often than I use contextual pop-up menus... a second mouse button is no help to me there.



      I think you've just reinforced my opinion that it would be easier to teach a new user to bring up a contextual menu than to teach them all the context dependent key-button combinations.


      One more thought for you to ponder. If you've put all this effort into making it easier to click the mouse, and in the process made an interface that depends a lot on various special kinds of clicks, have you really made the new user's experience any easier?

  49. Actually.. (one button mice) by NNKK · · Score: 1

    It's probably more expensive to manufacture single-button assemblies than two+ buttons, due to simple volume. Generaly, higher volume = lower price, this would likely prove esspecialy true in this case.

    1. Re:Actually.. (one button mice) by Spruitje · · Score: 2


      It's probably more expensive to manufacture single-button assemblies than two+ buttons, due to simple volume. Generaly, higher volume = lower price, this would likely prove esspecialy true in this case.


      Well, if you order more than 2.000.000 mice a year from logitech it will be actually a lot cheaper.
      The thing is, that almost all optical mice are made by logitech.
      Yes, even the MS optical mice are made by logitech.
      Last week I disassembled my ms optical mouse and on the print inside the mouse is the same agilent camerachip with intergrated controller as is used in every logitech mouse.
      Second, printed on the small circuitboard is "made by logitech".
      Second, all IBM, Compaq, Dell and Apple mice are made by logitech.
      Even the first Apple mouse was made by logitech.

  50. Agreed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's right Taco! Leave them alone or all 5 of your Apple using Slashdot readers will leave and never come back. Hell, you'd be giving up 50% of the total Apple marketshare.

  51. Re:OS 10.1 MS Word v X and fun ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MSIE:MAC Runs better than it does under windows.

    BFD. If you've got MacOS, then you don't need MSIE anyway, because you've got iCab.

  52. That rustling sound you hear... by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...is the sound of 10,000 Slashdot moderators opening their dictionaries to learn what the word "pleonasm" means.

    Or at least to see if there's a picture of it.

    - A.P.

    --
    "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
    1. Re:That rustling sound you hear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      It would be more accurate to say that clickity-click sound is that of 10,000 Slashdot moderators typing in "dict pleonasm." The rustling sound is that of the wind blowing through the heads of the Windows users who's OS is so lame that it doesn't even come with a dictionary.

    2. Re:That rustling sound you hear... by invdaic · · Score: 1

      From dictionary.com:

      pleonasm (pl-nzm)
      n.
      1.
      a. The use of more words than are required to express an idea; redundancy.
      b. An instance of pleonasm.

      2. A superfluous word or phrase.

      --

      "If IE is 'just a web browser' then emacs is 'just a text editor'."

    3. Re:That rustling sound you hear... by pohl · · Score: 1

      From THE DEVIL'S DICTIONARY ((C)1911 Released April 15 1993) [devils]:

      PLEONASM, n. An army of words escorting a corporal of thought.

      --

      The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...

    4. Re:That rustling sound you hear... by dangermouse · · Score: 1
      a. The use of more words than are required to express an idea; redundancy.

      I could be completely insane, but "pleonasm" would seem to be self-descriptive...

    5. Re:That rustling sound you hear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is your momma proud that you are a whore?

    6. Re:That rustling sound you hear... by Jerf · · Score: 5, Funny
      Sorry, no, Slashdot moderators are simply mod'ing the article up because it sounds intelligent.

      Then yours got modded up because it was humourous.

      Then this one will get modded up because it's suitably self-referential and spans at least 3 meta-levels.

      Plus the use of the word "meta" adds that gloss of intelligence.

    7. Re:That rustling sound you hear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is the funniest post I've read in ages. +4 clearly isn't good enough here.

    8. Re:That rustling sound you hear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SOMEBODY MOD THIS GUY UP!
      Oh, you already did. Good job.

      (Posting as AC to avoid the label of Karma Whore. Hopefully pointedly avoiding karmawhoredom will get me modded up.)

      (Yes, that was meant to be ironic. And self-referential. And, um, "meta" something.)

  53. No, YOU lay off. by Penguinoflight · · Score: 1

    Look, you can't put a notebook on your lap and use your 5 button usb mouse. NUFF SAID. What I can't understand is why they can't make a 2 button "upgrade" kit for it?

    --
    "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
    1 John 4:14
    1. Re:No, YOU lay off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The second button is mapped to the Control key, so its there anyway

    2. Re:No, YOU lay off. by nexthec · · Score: 2, Funny

      In the state of the art iApple icar...you only have 1 foot peddle. both gas and brake. to go you just push the peddle. to stop, you have to press both the horn and stomp. briliant

    3. Re:No, YOU lay off. by Genom · · Score: 2

      Look, you can't put a notebook on your lap and use your 5 button usb mouse. NUFF SAID.

      Actually, I do it all the time. Admittedly, I don't have an ibook, but my Vaio is pretty nice - and I just plug my 5(7) button mouse into the usb port, and run it on the arm of the couch - couldn't be simpler. Optical mice make this much easier - although if I was stuck with a non-optical one, I'm pretty sure I'd work out a way to use a binder or something to stabilize it.

      What I'd really like to see is more improvements in 3d chipsets for "desktop-replacement" laptops, for those of us who want to play the latest games (yes, I'm drooling over the new GeForce-equipped ones) and power-saving features for the subnotebooks. (make 'em run over 6 hours, and I'll buy one to compliment my hefty, power-hungry Vaio)

    4. Re:No, YOU lay off. by Penguinoflight · · Score: 1

      But remember, the iApple iCar outpreforms the Intel PentiCar IV. Tests show that the iCar is 60% faster with the brakes on! This is due to the Velocity CPU, which is 128 cylendirs in roads that support it.

      --
      "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
      1 John 4:14
  54. Java on OS X? by Brummund · · Score: 1

    How's the state of Java on OS X? Can it run JBoss and other big Java apps "out of the box"? Tomcat?
    And how about hotspot or other optimization techniques?

    1. Re:Java on OS X? by sjonke · · Score: 1

      10.1 uses hotspot, or so Apple has said and, as far as I know, it is true.

      --
      --- What?
    2. Re:Java on OS X? by znu · · Score: 2

      [entropy:~] znu% uname -a
      Darwin entropy 1.4 Darwin Kernel Version 1.4: Sun Sep 9 15:39:59 PDT 2001; root:xnu/xnu-201.obj~1/RELEASE_PPC Power Macintosh powerpc

      [entropy:~] znu% java -version
      java version "1.3.1"
      Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.3.1-root-010902-18:51)
      Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 1.3.1, mixed mode)


      The largest Java app I've tried is LimeWire. But improvements over 10.0.x seem to be significant.

      --
      This space unintentionally left unblank.
    3. Re:Java on OS X? by MidKnight · · Score: 3, Informative
      Here's a clipping from my OS X 10.4 box:

      $ java -version
      java version "1.3.0"
      Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.3
      Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 1.3.0, mixed mode)

      So, a reasonably up-to-date version of Java ships with the OS. I'm guessing they'll send out updates with Java's minor releases, but not the micro releases.

      The good news is, it's just BSD. So, if you want to upgrade it yourself, you can with a little work. I've yet to find a java app that doesn't run OK on it. I'm currently in the process of downloading Sun's Forte for Java IDE (shipping for Solaris), just to see if I can get that running ;)

      --Mid

    4. Re:Java on OS X? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a Java developer and 10.1 is pretty good. It's the best Java environment I've played with. That is, it's faster than on a Sparc.

      As for large Java programs running on it, Tomcat and Apache SOAP work just fine. Yippie.

    5. Re:Java on OS X? by nick-less · · Score: 1


      I've yet to find a java app that doesn't run OK on it.


      That's easy, just try a java app which uses JDesktop pane and JInternalFrame ;-)

    6. Re:Java on OS X? by rfsayre · · Score: 1

      Please post the results of your test. I've been wondering if you could run Forte on OS X. If not, I guess I'll be buying a red hat box instead of the G4 (5?) that I want.

    7. Re:Java on OS X? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I routinely run Tomcat on my MacOS X box to develop and test stuff for my 'database-driven website development' lectures (Computer Science).

      Other 'hardcore' stuff (eg. the Cocoon XML/XSL Tomcat-based add-on) runs great.

      Just to clarify matters...

    8. Re:Java on OS X? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Netbeans is free of Sun Tax. Take a look at:

      http://www.netbeans.org/articles/screenshots.htm l# macosx

    9. Re:Java on OS X? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It runs java like a charm... I'm running tomcat and a few other 100% java apps without a hitch.. (On a DP G4) I've also copied a the class files over from a "Windows Only" app, replaced the .bat script with a zsh script to start it... Now if I could only get those Damn mobile phone sims to run on VPC I'll replace Win2k with FreeBSD on my laptop (IBM Stinkpad)... argh!

    10. Re:Java on OS X? by Brummund · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the great info, guys! I'm considering a Sun Blade 100 or some incarnation of a Mac for my next workstation. The Apple boxen looks better day by day both h/w and software-wise.

    11. Re:Java on OS X? by spike666 · · Score: 1

      OSX has always had hotspot.

      from my testing, java on the mac under os X since 10.0.1 has been just as good as running java on a winnt 4 w/ hotspot.

      it seems to run faster than some other things, but thats probably my perception.

      also, java gave me immediate access to programs that i "lost" moving to 10.x from 9.x - things that i didnt want to run the whole classic environement for. for example, before the xfree86 port was available, i was running the java version of X windows... heres the java version of xwindows

  55. Re:Is it faster? -- iBook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How much memory did it have? I've got 256MB in my iBook and 10.0.4 runs fine for me. Window resizing and app loading is slow, but everything else is fast. And app loading is slow under every OS thanks to those pokey laptop hard drives, so I don't expect that to improve all that much in 10.1.

  56. If... by cirby · · Score: 1

    If someone made all of the two-button mice, maybe. But since there's approximately 10^9-1 companies that make two-button mice, the major reason they're "cheaper" is that the cheap ones are really cheap. I have one-button Mac mice that are five years old and still working quite nicely. I have two-button mice that lasted six months before something went wrong. I also have a two-button scroll mouse from Logitech that I got for $30 that's very nice.

    "Economies of scale" only works for single products, not all similar products...

    1. Re:If... by NNKK · · Score: 1

      And I have a now going on 8 year old microsoft busmouse that still works (albeit with some movement hitches sometimes)

      It's not just pure volume from a manufacturer, it's volume in the marketplace. The more people making them, the more prices drop.

  57. Re:OS 10.1 MS Word v X and fun ! by Mister+Black · · Score: 1

    iCab is a really good web browser. My favorite feature is the little happy face that tells you how standards compliant your web page is (happy face = compliant, sad face = no compliant). I use it all the time to fix my html mistakes that other browers will overlook.

    --

    You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.
  58. Re:OS 10.1 MS Word v X and fun ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    B&** s&$%! IE 5.1 beta for OSX is as unstable as rollerblading on a sailboat.

  59. X.I VGLXIV by Michael+A.+Lowry · · Score: 0

    It should really be written Mac OS X.I VGLXIV.

  60. Availability in Apple Stores? by pussycat · · Score: 1

    Are there any have hard facts about whether or not the 10.1 upgrade will be available for free in the brick & mortar Apple Stores?

    The press release states that the "free" upgrade will cost $20 for S&H direct from Apple, but I've heard rumors that the stores would let you pick it up for nothing.

  61. That is not a news release ... by x+mani+x · · Score: 2

    That is just a product page that has been up for weeks, if not months. The news about how it will be released today/friday/saturday morning is in fact, quite a recent development, and mentioned nowhere on the Apple site (except for maybe the support discussion boards :)).

  62. Official: update available for $0.00 at stores by sjonke · · Score: 2, Informative

    You can send for a CD for $19.99, or you can go to an Apple retailer and get a free update there at no cost. Also, the CDs will be in stores this Saturday. I would list the URL of the site doing live coverage of the keynote today, but they are already swamped. /.-ing them would certainly bring them down for good. If you are Mac news savvy you can easily find it.

    --
    --- What?
  63. Official: Office 10 "test drive" after noon today by sjonke · · Score: 1

    Noon pacific or Noon eastern or Noon ??? I don't know, but that's the news at Seybold from the Man himself.

    --
    --- What?
  64. Why its announced today but released later by Arcturax · · Score: 1

    My guess on why they are doing the announcement but releasing it a few days later (Friday seems to be the day most sites are quoting) is to avoid the fiasco they had back in March when some store pre-sold OS X before its launch date. This way they can show it off, then ship the CD's and give them 3 days to get to all the stores before letting them loose officially. If a few get out early before the date via the stores, at least they will still be out after the keynote preview.

    --

    --Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
  65. Saturday... by stoney27 · · Score: 1

    Well it looks like we will be able to get a copy on Saturday.
    Although I bet it will be longer for some of us who don't live close to the new store.
    I hope it lives up to all the hype.

    -S

    --

    It is said that a child learns wisdom from the parent,
    but the truly wise parent learns joy from the child
  66. Download by SilentChris · · Score: 2

    Does anyone know if the update can be downloaded for free, or can it only be obtained on CD?

    1. Re:Download by sjonke · · Score: 2, Informative

      It will not be available for download, or so reports tell us. However, it is supposed to be available for free at many Apple retailers, not just Apple Stores.

      --
      --- What?
    2. Re:Download by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is supposedly a 450MB download, and I have a DSL and wouldn't feel like downloading it. Plus, it needs ro be on a bootable CD, which means you'd also need a cd burner, and since you can't do that in 10.0.4, it would be bad for apple to make it avaliable as download, IMHO. "So, switch to 9, burn it..." nah. Just go to a store and get it.

  67. OS X supports multi-button mice by dfdietrick · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm using a USB Kensington 3 button mouse, with the wheel, on my TiPB without any special software loaded. All the buttons work fine, and support is even better in the X.1. Basically, the right button works the same as a control click, and the wheel scrolls the Finder windows and application windows. Functionality in Classic mode is dependent on software.

    Oh, and the buttons work as intended in XFree86. Rootless X works really well.

    X.1 is running great, as advertised. Even my G3 runs well. I have over 300Mb in each machine, so I'm sure that helps. My only complaint is that I need driver support for my older printers. I can use them from Classic, but that can be a pain since I'm pretty much using all OSX apps now.

    - Don

    1. Re:OS X supports multi-button mice by TheInternet · · Score: 1

      Basically, the right button works the same as a control click, and the wheel scrolls the Finder windows and application windows. Functionality in Classic mode is dependent on software.

      The right button worked universally on most USB mice even under 10.0.0. The wheel only worked in some apps.

      - Scott

      --
      Scott Stevenson
      Tree House Ideas
  68. Update AIM to 4.5.355 before installing 10.1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    10.1 breaks some important features in AIM:

    --- Really important broken features ---
    • ads (whatta bummer eh? =)

    --- Ok haha, the actually important broken feature:
    • auto-upgrade

    There are no new features since the 4.5.237 release, just fixes for 10.1.

    AIM status page
    http://dynamic.aol.com/cgi/redir?http://www.aol.co m/aim/macosx.html

    binhex download link
    http://ftp.newaol.com/aimgen/73010/InstallAIM4.5.3 55.bin

  69. buy a 256 Meg chip by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 2

    I added a 256 Mb chip to my "icebook"-- everything is much faster-- although I spend most of my time running gnu software (installed through fink, sort of an apt-get for MacOSX).
    I'm running 10.0.4.
    512 Megs would be nice, but a 512 mb chip sells for ~$235. 256 Mb chips are only ~$36.
    (Of course, if you buy memory from Apple, the prices skyrocket).

  70. OS X info by Mr.+Quick · · Score: 2, Informative

    from macslash:

    "OS X 10.1 will be available in stores this Saturday and a free upgrade for 10.0.x owners will be available in stores at no charge. As expected you can also order a CD containing the update for $19.99."

  71. Headline by iomud · · Score: 0, Redundant

    OS 10.1 perhaps OS X.I suits it better. "OS X 10.1" seems redundant.

    1. Re:Headline by sjonke · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I can only presume, given such an amazingly redundant post like that one, that your I-time score of II is now I.

      --
      --- What?
    2. Re:Headline by iomud · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Speaking of redundant, I've still got XLII karma, so be on the look out for more +II posts.

  72. Redundancy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does a 10,000 nodes Beowulf cluster contain 9,999 pleonasms?

  73. When will "neoplasm" make an appearance here? by dave-fu · · Score: 1

    Biotech posters, you've got your work cut out for you.

    --
    Easy does it!
    This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
  74. Re:Is it faster? -- iBook? by Spruitje · · Score: 3, Informative


    Specifically, is it bearable on a new iBook? When I tried 10.04 on a new iBook it was like running Windows 2000 on a Pentium 133


    Well, it wasn't that slow.. but it was slow.
    The reason is very simple.
    The finder sucked and they didn't use the graphic acceleration of the videochip.
    They rewrote the finder and turned on the grpahic acceleration of the videochip.
    Last weekend we had a local MUG meeting in which Apple showed both an iBook and a G4 with MacOS 10.1.
    The speed difference was quitte noticable.
    The speed was equal to a Pentium III 1 Ghz with windows 2000.
    So, it could be a little bit better but it was quitte acceptable.

  75. QuickTime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/
    ...
    Not yet compatible with Mac OS X.

    1. Re:QuickTime by TheInternet · · Score: 1

      http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/
      ...
      Not yet compatible with Mac OS X


      Site is either confused or simply misleading. Mac OS X 10.1 comes with the newest version of QuickTime.

      - Scott

      --
      Scott Stevenson
      Tree House Ideas
  76. Re:OS 10.1 MS Word v X and fun ! by Tumbleweed · · Score: 2

    > MSIE:MAC Runs better than it does under windows. (There goes that whole its only "Faster" Cause its integrated into the OS Theory)

    Perhaps not - is MSIE:Mac leaving some stubs running in memory all the time? If so, there's the answer. That's how Mozilla's 'turbo' mode works (only it's not so 'turbo' with v0.9.4).

  77. kind of slow, isn't he? by hawk · · Score: 4, Insightful
    > I know at least one person who has specifically not gotten a mac
    > laptop because of it's lack of mouse buttons.


    Not the fastest snail on the leaf, is he?


    I was hardly an early adopter, but I had two buttons on my mac in '92 or so (ok, hardly an early adopter of the second button. I had a 128k mac brand new . ,


    They're availalbe all over the place, and come with the software to make that second button do whatever you want . . .


    hawk, who gets a kick out of folks with the button-deprived windows mouse mocking those only slightly more deprived

    1. Re:kind of slow, isn't he? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. It's a laptop.
      2. It's a laptop.
      3. It's a laptop!

      Have you ever used a laptop where there is no place to use a mouse? Once you do, you'll understand why this matters.

    2. Re:kind of slow, isn't he? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1.Trackball!

      2.Twiddler!!

      3.You are an idiot!!

      You have zero problem solving skills.

    3. Re:kind of slow, isn't he? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And why the hell should I have to connect external devices to cope with a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place? Even using small trackball is an inconvenience on a plane or train. Don't you think it would be better if Apple laptops had two buttons, so you could just use the damn thing without resorting to control clicking or connecting trackballs?

      What is the justification for building a laptop with one button? In the minds of 99% of computer users, there isn't any.

    4. Re:kind of slow, isn't he? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And why the hell should I have to connect external devices to cope with a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place?

      BECAUSE. It's an Apple, so if you need something that wasn't provided for by Lord Jobs, there is probably something wrong with you, but if you insist on not "thinking different"(TM)(SM)(c) properly and think for yourself, then you QUIETLY VERY QUIETLY slink down to the store and buy some type of bandaid device to make your mac usable. We highly, highly recommend blaming the problem on your girlfriend (as if you had one), heh, she works with stupid PCs all day and blah blah blah, otherwise some negative of an Apple may leak out in some small way. We are watching, and you do want to live, don't you? So be a good little iUser and trot down to the store and patch your inadequate mac QUIETLY, perhaps crowing on the way out about the STANDARD USB PORTS THAT MAC INVENTED JUST LIKE EVERYTHING GOOD IN THE WORLD, BOO-YA PC SALES WEENIE that you can plug your mouse into for your "girlfriend."

  78. Re:OS 10.1 MS Word v X and fun ! by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

    Oh, be fair. Wintel users get their Office upgrades first, and it takes us a few months to catch up. By the time they catch up, they have a few refinements they've made. It's not like it's a completely different product.

    --

    There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
  79. Re:OS 10.1 MS Word v X and fun ! by nemesisj · · Score: 1

    I am also a big fan of MSIE:Mac, but it has a really nasty SSL bug that prevents me from using it for anything other than basic browsing. Basically, most sites are unable to establish an SSL connection and respond with an error like "Decryption error". So for now, whenever I need to shop or do secure loggins, I use Netscape 6.1 for OS X.

  80. Hey :) not everyone lives near a CompUSA either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For instance, the nearest one to me is over 90 miles away, and I'm in the middle of the East Coast. Hopefully the nearby college bookstore (they sell a lot of Macs) will stock this, and not care whether I am a student there :)

    But jeez, lighten up a bit.

  81. New OSX user by Bluetick · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've only been using OSX for about a month now (got my first mac then). And I love it. It's a recent Quicksilver model, so honestly, I don't know what people are talking about when they say it's slow, but I guess it probably is on less recent hardware. What I really would like it more customization for the GUI, there's really very little you can do to change the appearance. They have two sets of button colors, and you can change the magnification and size of the dock, as well as the size of icons. Gee, that's fantastic, but that's it! Also coming from X and Windows, it's hell of hard to keep track of applications (maybe just because I'm switching from a taskbar to a taskbar clone- dock). But I seem to get flustered when I have too many applications open. I really wish they'd incorporate multiple virtual desktops like in X.

    As far as features and stuff, well honestly I haven't noticed any lack of them. The OS is the pinnacle of compatibility and versatility. I can open MacOS9 in classic mode to run Microsoft Office (ya ya, Microsoft sucks, but if you haven't tried their version of Office on a Mac shut up), Internet Explorer under OSX along with whatever else I need, and I with the click of a button I'm transported to a Gnome desktop running my *nix X programs (the ones I don't need to run from a terminal). Oh yeah, and it's got a terminal. Using Fink it's a snap to install Unix software (granted not all the ports I want, but more are coming). It's funny the way it works, Microsoft products are actually much better on Macs. Or of course I could just log out of Aqua all together and run pure Darwin alone, or with X.

    I was going to install NetBSD or Linux on the computer, but now I don't think I'll need to.

    1. Re:New OSX user by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm switching from a taskbar to a taskbar clone- dock


      just chomping on your bait - the dock is a carryover from NEXTSTEP.. MS 'borrowed' the idea for W95 - and OS/2's dock thingie, which i think also postdated NeXT's dock
    2. Re:New OSX user by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just an FYI -- OS/2's dock thingy was developed after Microsoft's Chicago UI was broadly publicized. Although, it's the natural evolution of 'minimized icons' which was used in both OS/2 and Windows.

  82. Re:Speedups? by jchristopher · · Score: 2
    OpenGL still is not implemented for Rage Pro.

    LOL, join the club, it doesn't work on Windows either so you aren't missing much :)

  83. That clicking sound you hear... by dhamsaic · · Score: 2

    ...is the sound of 10,000 Slashdot moderators clicking this link because they're too lazy to go look at a real dictionary. :)

    --
    Every once in a while I like to masturbate a new word into my vocabulary, even if I don't know what it means.
  84. Re:Is it faster? -- iBook? by Starship+Trooper · · Score: 0, Troll
    Performance feels on par or better than the Asus A7V/Duron/700/Mandrake 8.0/KDE that sits next to it.

    Don't you mean the GNU/Asus A7V/Duron/700/Mandrake 8.0/KDE that sits next to it?

    --
    Loneliness is a power that we possess to give or take away forever
  85. Re:OS 10.1 MS Word v X and fun ! by hawk · · Score: 2

    > Now before you Anti-MS Dolts
    >get your panties tied in a Knot.


    >And Office:Mac has
    >consistently blown the pants off of Office:windows For a long time.


    Well, I suppose that explains it. With her pants blown off, the poor gal is tieing the knot just to get some more coverage . . .


    :)


    hawk, afraid he's giving someone an idea for another porn site . . .

  86. Intelimouse with 5 buttons by CtrlPhreak · · Score: 2

    I bet that neat intelimouse with 5 buttons didn't come with your computer, you bought it because you wanted all those features. You can do the same with a mac. Stop complaining, if you want a mouse with 6 billion buttons go out and buy one. Remember, a majority of apple customers have never used a computer before, one button is just easier to learn. Anyone that has tried to teach someone who has never used a computer before knows that they get the buttons mixed up.

    --
    WikiAfterDark.com It's a sex wiki, go now!
  87. free to registered owners, according to Macnn by call+-151 · · Score: 1
    The story at macnn.com is that 10.1 will be a free to registered owners and CDs will be available at authorized Apple dealers. It will be $20 if you have them ship you a CD. Oh boy, it should be in stores Saturday!

    macslash has some blurbs with more details too, including info about the installer.

    --
    It's psychosomatic. You need a lobotomy. I'll get a saw.
  88. Re:Speedups? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Ooh, you're running on the dull, rusty edge of technology, huh. ;>

    I haven't picked up 10.1 yet, but here's the rundown on a more 'reasonable' machine (to the non-Mac people: Wallstreets are the 'fat' black powerbook form factor, and are around 3-4 years old now.):

    Apple Macintosh Powerbook Pismo (released in 2000, the Pismos are the last Powerbooks made in the black curvy form factor with the bronze keyboards).
    G3 500Mhz
    640MB RAM
    AirPort card
    various accouterments.

    The only problem I've had with OS X is that I've gotten the occasional kernel panic when using my external VST FireWire drive, but after hunting down the problem, I'm fairly certain that that actually has to do with the way the FireWire stuff on the motherboard was duct taped on over the SCSI stuff from the previous model Powerbook (The Pismos are the first PB to have FireWire ports). However, I am unwilling to rule out that I've jarred something loose in the past year of owning this Powerbook because I am hopelessly brutal to it.

    From reading the beta test reviews of 10.1, it looks awesome. Remember that OS X is just like any other OS; it takes the developers some time to trick out the system simply because they haven't figured out all the hacks they can throw into a system yet. The Apple programmers are great, but they're no Woz. Do note that this happens in OSes like, say, Linux and *BSD as well.

    Flame on...

    --soze

  89. What doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I really want to upgrade but the following stuff doesn't work inside OS X. I could go into classic, but if I'm in Classic all day, why upgrade. I speak for many, many people.

    Adobe Photoshop
    Adobe Illustrator
    Final Cut Pro
    Adobe After Effects
    A decent Newreading client (MT-Newswatcher)

    And Hotline sucks. Of course they're going under so we'll never see a Hotline Client that's OS X worthy.

    I'm sure I'll upgrade eventually, but please get Final Cut Pro X out.

    1. Re:What doesn't work by TheInternet · · Score: 1

      but if I'm in Classic all day, why upgrade

      Depends on what you do. I spend a lot of time in Photoshop, but the presence of Apache/PHP/MySQL + BBEdit, SSH and Office all in the same package is a boon.

      Native Illustrator 10 is specifically discussed here:

      http://www.apple.com/macosx/

      I hear there's a SourceForge project called NewsFlash, which is a Cocoa newsreader.

      - Scott

      --
      Scott Stevenson
      Tree House Ideas
    2. Re:What doesn't work by gig · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > if I'm in Classic all day, why upgrade.

      Because with 10.1 its possible to run a Web browser in an entirely different memory space than you're running Photoshop. Even Classic apps benefit from OS X's memory management, too, so "Classic" itself thinks it has 1GB of RAM no matter how much you really have. You can set your Classic apps to take advantage of this.

      Right now I'm running Word X, BBEdit for Mac OS X, IE X, QuickTime Player X, a couple of betas I'm under NDA for, and no classic apps. If I start up Photoshop in Classic, then Photoshop is running in its own space (albeit along with Mac OS 9). If IE goes down, Photoshop doesn't, and vice versa. This machine itself also has only crashed once in the last six months, too, and that was with 10.0.1 or so and the repeatable bug has been fixed.

      For most people, just getting their always-running browser and email client native can make a big difference.

      Final Cut Pro is a show-stopper for you, though, because it doesn't run under Mac OS X at all. Apple announced that Final Cut Pro X will ship in the fall, though. It is almost ready. What a system that will be ... Final Cut Pro is an amazing story.

  90. The Swish-Click sound you hear.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is me highlighting pleonasm and using Services to define this word....in OSX.

    As a Mac user i always wondered if MacOSX meant someone crossed a mac with unix OS. But to my dismay it Means Mac OS 10. Then you add the rev. no. 10.0.x, 10.1.

    Yep its a pleonasm.

  91. But mine goes up to eleven by Agave · · Score: 1

    http://www.kensington.com/products/pro_mic_d1399.h tml

    I'm pretty sure your vendor didn't ship with that five button mouse. I too bought a non-Apple peripheral to have more than one button...so what? It's not as if the operating system can't use more buttons if you have them. The low-level APIs in Mac OS X actually allow you to use up to a 65,535 button mouse, so I'm not real worried here ;)

    1. Re:But mine goes up to eleven by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and the low-level sex API in Linux users allows them to have sex with an infinite number of women.

      Yet somehow, they all sit at home and masturbate.

  92. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been [OT] by cbwsdot · · Score: 1

    "consumer-usable" Unix has been around since the first stable builds of UNIX itself (not access to systems that ran it, but usability). It's very easy to use. About 15 years of marketing from our friends at Microsoft, Apple and others have told us otherwise.

  93. Zero mouse button mouse. by lonely · · Score: 1


    Being I new mac user I can tell you that the computers now longer have any mouse buttons... hows that for progress....

    :-)

  94. Just check the website by First+Person · · Score: 2

    And if you go to the Mac OS X section on Apple's site, you can see the updated info. This discusses the $19.95 upgrade and the in-store free update.

    --
    Given one hour to live, the student replied: "I'd spend it with professor FP who can make an hour seem like a lifetime."
  95. Re:Speedups? by antijava · · Score: 1

    > Ooh, you're running on the dull, rusty edge of technology, huh. ;>

    Necessary evil. Nothing newer was capable of running Mac OS X Server 1.2, and until 10.1, I was unable to migrate my code to Mac OS X, because they were lacking Objective-C++ support. As soon as Apple release a PowerBook without the crappy Rage 128 card, I'll upgrade in a heartbeat now that 10.1 is out. I was hoping for some hardware announcements today... oh well :-(

  96. Peabody Store Says Saturday by pussycat · · Score: 1

    I just got off the phone with the Apple Store in Peabody. The kid I talked to said he thought they would have 10.1 on Saturday at the earliest, and that it would be free at the store. He said it was possible that some stores were burning CDs, but, since there was an official part # for the upgrade CD, that it was unlikely that such behavior was endorsed by Apple.

    However, I didn't get the impression that he knew all there was to know. He stressed that it was not official that the update would be free in the physical stores.

  97. Forte on OS X by flagstone · · Score: 1

    FWIW, I've successfully started up (but not pounded on) Forte 2, using the standard "generic" Java startup instructions. However, one big problem - the icon bar at the top (for the Swing widgets) did not load the icons successfully. They all showed up as generic question mark icons making the palette useless. Also, it wasn't the speediest app I've ever run (but I only have a G3/266, the second slowest supported machine for Mac OS X). I haven't yet tried Forte 3, which was recently released.

    --
    These people have looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined.
    1. Re:Forte on OS X by TWR · · Score: 2
      The reasons why the icons don't show up is that Apple's Java team did a minor screw-up in the release of Java with 10.0 (there were no updates to Java in 10.0.1-10.0.4) and left those icons out of the .jars.

      The Developer Previews of Mac OS X Java (now unneeded with 10.1's release) should fix that problem.

      -jon

      --

      Remember Amalek.

  98. OS X speed by Agave · · Score: 1

    While I agree that the Finder is a real dog in 10.0, I can't say it's really impacted my work. I've been using OS X as my primary OS since March (450MHz G3, 256MB RAM) and I've been pretty happy with everything besides the Finder. Project Builder, Ant (a Java build system), OmniWeb, Mail, iTunes all run acceptably for me. I launch all my apps at login and leave them running, so i don't often deal with slow launch times. I recently upgrade to a total of 768MB of RAM and that helped a bit too.

    Of course I'm still looking forward to 10.1 :)

  99. www.dictionary.com Slashdotted!!! by Judas96' · · Score: 1

    Try www.m-w.com
    Use Mirrors, people!

  100. Keynote Summary by hysterion · · Score: 1, Redundant
    From macminute.com (in reverse chronological order):

    Keynote ends. [13:33 ET]

    Alias|Wavefron's Maya for Mac OS X shown by Andrew Pearce, Director of Maya Technology Group Alias|Wavefront... [13:29 ET]

    LightWave renderer optimized for Alivec and MP Macs... [13:25 ET]

    LightWave demoed under Mac OS X... [13:25 ET]

    Lamkin reinforces commitment for Mac OS X - pokes fun at Schiller for saying the Office for X is the poster child for Mac OS X. He commented by asking Jobs in the audience when the last time was he showed performance comparisons between a Pentium and a Macintosh using Microsoft Word... [13:24 ET]

    Bryan Lamkin from Adobe onstage with GoLive product manager to demo what is coming with GoLive for X. These are upcoming features and are not being officially announced today... [13:18 ET]

    Crowd impressed with Excel for X... [13:14 ET]

    Ken Bereskin demos Office for X... [13:13 ET]

    Schiller talks about Microsoft and shows Office for Mac OS X (available in November). A demo can be seen at Apple Stores now... [13:11 ET]

    Soghoian gets loud applause when showing a publishing scenario scripted in Mac OS X... [13:09 ET]

    AppleScript Studio offers extensive customization and ease-of-use... [13:08 ET]

    Soghoian shows AppleScript Studio... [13:06 ET]

    Crowd reaction to AppleScript running on Mac OS X is very favorable... [13:05 ET]

    Soghoian demos AppleScript with Illustrator for Mac OS X... [13:04 ET]

    AppleScript Studio is a professional-level application for AppleScript users... [13:03 ET]

    Sal Soghoian (AppleScript product manager) talks about AppleScript... [12:59 ET]

    AppleScript Studio will be available by the end of this year... [12:58 ET]

    Schiller discuss scriptability of Mac OS X using AppleScript... [12:57 ET]

    Zimmerer shows high level of color control under Mac OS X... [12:56 ET]

    John Zimmerer (ColorSync product manager for Apple) comes onstage to talk about ColorSync... [12:51 ET]

    Schiller shows ColorSync 4... [12:50 ET]

    Schiller shows movie trailer for Monsters, Inc. from Pixar... [12:47 ET]

    Crowd reaction to iDVD 2 is impressive... [12:43 ET]

    Mike Evangelist shows iDVD 2 (due in October) -- pretty much the same demo we saw at Macworld Expo New York last July... [12:38 ET]

    Schiller back onstage talking about Mac OS X as the Digital Hub... [12:37 ET]

    Mac OS 10.1 will recognize blank DVD-Rs and allow you to write to the DVD (drag and drop) right from the desktop... [12:35 ET]

    Bereskin shows DVD capabilities under Mac OS X -- plays Batman Movie (original)... [12:33 ET]

    Bereskin shows beauty/range of fonts under Mac OS X... [12:32 ET]

    Bereskin shows flexibility of keyboard shortcuts... [12:31 ET]

    System Dock may now be placed at the bottom of the screen, or to the left or right... [12:28 ET]

    Mac OS 10.1 offers new "Scale Effect" for minimizing windows... [12:26 ET]

    Bereskin's Mac crashes when trying to access Internet -- crowd laughs... [12:24 ET]

    Bereskin demos application launching speed enhancements... [12:22 ET]

    Ken Bereskin (Mac OS X product manager) introduced... [12:22 ET]

    Graphics Enhancements: PDF 1.3 with 128-bit encryption, Faster OpenGL, Automatic USB printing, LaserWriter 8 and over 200 printer definitions... [12:20 ET]

    Aqua Enhancements: Moveable Dock, System status items, File extensions, Log-in user lists, Simpler System Preferences, Long file names, Universal Access additions, Mail enhancements... [12:19 ET]

    Main focus of Mac OS 10.1 is performance: Application Launching, Aqua Menus, Windows resizing, File Copying, Boot and Login, Java, OpenGL... [12:17 ET]

    Schiller gives a history of Mac OS X -- Open Standards, Power of Unix married with the simplicity of the Mac, Ultimate Engine for the Digital Hub, Stunning Graphics, Deep Internet Integration, Seemless Mobility, Global Language Support, Gentle Migration, Enable Killer Apps ... [12:15 ET]

    Schiller to show Mac OS 10.1 in this keynote... [12:10 ET]

    Jobs introduces Phil Schiller... [12:09 ET]

    Jobs discusses Microsoft Office for X. Free download of Word for X Test Drive available at noon (PT) today... [12:08 ET]

    Upgrade for Mac OS X owners is free (US$19.99 shipping for CD). Current owners of Mac OS X can upgrade for free at local Apple dealers... [12:07 ET]

    Mac OS 10.1 will be in stores this Saturday [12:05 ET]

    Four software updates shipped for Mac OS X. First major upgrade to Mac OS X (10.1) announced today... [12:05 ET]

    Steve Jobs discusses Mac OS X in general... [12:04 ET]

    Phil Schiller will present keynote. Jobs giving a brief introduction... [12:02 ET]

    Steve Jobs comes on stage [12:00 ET]

  101. Speed on OS X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently, some Quake3-guy got 90 fps on a dual 800 ppc MacOSX and only 30 fps on Win98 on dual P3-800. Read it somewhere today at www.linuxgames.com.

    1. Re:Speed on OS X by jweatherley · · Score: 0

      Dual CPU with W98 - that's a bit pointless isn't it? No wonder the 'doze box is so much slower!

      --

      --
      Reverse outsourcing: it's the future
  102. Mac OS X restores fair use for DVDs! by TWR · · Score: 2
    I don't know if anyone else has noticed this yet, but look at http://www.apple.com/macosx/theater/dvd.html (yes, it requires QuickTime). Apple is showing a video of the opening of X-Men running on a Mac desktop. It could be faked, but it'd be a hell of a fake.

    So it looks like it is possible to capture DVD video under Mac OS X 10.1...does the MPAA know about this?

    -jon

    --

    Remember Amalek.

    1. Re:Mac OS X restores fair use for DVDs! by bnenning · · Score: 2

      That's just the movie running in Apple's DVD player app. As per the edicts of the MPAA, it does not allow you to take screenshots or recordings. Hopefully these guys will come through with a non-crippled player.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    2. Re:Mac OS X restores fair use for DVDs! by TWR · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Yes, I know it was a movie of the X-Men DVD running in the Apple DVD player app.

      But they were able to grab the DVD RUNNING FULL SCREEN and capture it to a QuickTime movie that you can download off the web and watch on any QuickTime-enabled computer. Once you get full-screen DVD to QuickTime, you can convert it to anything and distribute snippets of it, just like Apple is currently distributing a snippet of X-Men via its web site.

      I don't think this was done by pointing a video camera at a Mac screen, though I could be wrong.

      -jon

      --

      Remember Amalek.

    3. Re:Mac OS X restores fair use for DVDs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I'm sure it was not. I also know that in 5G59, at least, it is impossible - Most of Grab (screen capture program built-in) features are disabled, and those that aren't say "Sorry, the DVD player is currently running. Please quit it to capture" (or something to that effect).

    4. Re:Mac OS X restores fair use for DVDs! by bnenning · · Score: 2

      Duh, completely missed your point, I get it now. My guess is that Apple used a "special" version of the DVD player that doesn't have the capture restrictions to create that movie. It's possible that the shipping DVD player app has a secret "fair use" mode that could be enabled via assembly tweaking, but that seems unlikely since I doubt they'd want to do anything that could potentially make themselves a legal target.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    5. Re:Mac OS X restores fair use for DVDs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you watch the demo, they move the volume slider up and down but the audio of the movie doesn't change.

      i'd say the movie was doctored somehow.

    6. Re:Mac OS X restores fair use for DVDs! by Tide · · Score: 1

      No, that movie was made with Final Cut and other help. No, its not possible to capture DVDs (with Apple tools) on Mac OS X. Also to note are that Grab.app as well as CMD-Shift 3/4 will not screengrab while the DVD Player is open.

      I worked hard on those movies and appreciate the compliments, though.

      And DVD Playback does kick ass on Mac OS X v10.1

      --

      People think Microsoft is the answer. Microsoft is just the question, "No" is the answer.
    7. Re:Mac OS X restores fair use for DVDs! by TWR · · Score: 2
      Ah, well. C'est la vie.

      So, how did you capture that DVD video? Did you have to plug a standalone DVD player's video out into a Mac with a FireWire capture device?

      Not that I'm looking to do this, just want to know how it's done.

      -jon

      --

      Remember Amalek.

    8. Re:Mac OS X restores fair use for DVDs! by Dahan · · Score: 1
      As per the edicts of the MPAA, it does not allow you to take screenshots or recordings.

      Has the MPAA actually said you can't take screenshots of DVDs? 'cuz InterVideo WinDVD lets you get a digital framegrab just by hitting the "P" key.

  103. Re:OS 10.1 MS Word v X and fun ! by znu · · Score: 2

    It is a completely different product, developed by a completely different development team, based in a completely different state. It just happens to be able to read the same file format. Saying it takes the Mac version a few months to catch up doesn't really make any sense. Some features come to the Mac version first, some come to the Windows version first. New versions aren't supposed to be synchronized in any way.

    --
    This space unintentionally left unblank.
  104. Not at an Apple store by 2x4 · · Score: 0

    I just got off the phone with the Apple Store in Mall of America, MN, and they assured me that it is just a rumor, and they will not be distributing discs untill Saturday. Thats what we get for beta testing thier OS.

  105. Re:Official: Office 10 "test drive" after noon tod by kitzilla · · Score: 1

    Noon Pacific. The Apple sites are already pointing to MS, but MS doesn't have anything up yet.

    I've used OS X.x fulltime since the day it was released. 10.1 sure looks like it has been worth the minor irritations of early adoption.

    --
    This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
  106. Wow...Mod this Up (Informative) :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    £?? the Upgrade PDF, and came across this juicy bit


    Multiple Qualifying Products on a Single Invoice

    If you purchase multiple qualifying products
    on a single invoice, you can either

    (1) purchase a Single-User CD Upgrade Kit for each qualifying product, at a cost of US$19.95 each plus appropriate sales tax;*

    or

    (2)purchase fewer Single-User CD Upgrade
    Kits and request the Right to Copy for the remaining qualifying products.


    I wonder if that one was jobs'd?

  107. no buttons on new mouse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The new optical mouse has no buttons. the entire mouse is a button!
    http://www.apple.com/mouse/
    "Besides all that,there's no distinguishable mouse button. Instead, the entire Apple Pro Mouse is in effect a super-sensitive button -- the body pivots up and down to actuate the click mechanism.

  108. Please don't say PC user by slashdot2.2sucks · · Score: 1

    . . . say Microsoftie or something else. I use PC's and I don't run Windows.

    My OS came with CD ripping, mp3 encoding, web serving, P2P client, high quality image manipulation, and tons of other stuff all out of the box.

    Just please don't Lump me with Windows because I like PC hardware.

    1. Re:Please don't say PC user by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

      Quite right, so sorry.

      Most PC users are Windows users, so I generalized by calling all users PC users.

      I run Linux, Debian specifically, at home myself :)

  109. Will this be downloadable? by kerincosford · · Score: 1

    I develop on Mac OSX on a daily basis (I work for a design house as their sole nerd - Macs only at our place), and I can't wait for 10.1.

    But, in every discussion I've read about 10.1, everyobdy refers to ordering their CD, delivery times, getting it at BestBuy, Micro Anvika, or whatever.

    WTF? Are Apple going to charge us for an update the same way they charged us for a public beta? If they're not going to charge us, will be able to download it? If I can download 1.5Gigs worth of Linux RedHat off the web, why the hell can't I download OS 10.1?

    If they're really going to charge/disallow downloads, then my G4's going in the dumpster and the mp3 server is getting Linux on it for my workstation.

    1. Re:Will this be downloadable? by Wadesworld · · Score: 1

      If you're an ADC Select or Premier member, you can download the latest seed, which is presumably, the GM version.

      If you're not, you can get it for free from your local Apple dealer.

      If you want an actual CD mailed to you, it's $20.

      If you're so damn cheap that you'll throw away a $2K G4 so you don't have to spend $20, then I'll gladly pay for the shipping for you to send your G4 to me.

      I would imagine they're not posting it for download because their servers would be crushed by hundreds of thousands of people going after it.

      Wade

  110. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been [OT] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah I can just imagine my mother trying to use vi. LOL!

  111. Correct Pricing Info by piecewise · · Score: 2

    1. If you have never bought OS X, it is $129.

    2. If you own Mac OS X Retail now, it is a $19.95 upgrade (*including* manuals, developer CDs, the works).

    3. If you have an Apple Store near you (not store.apple.com ;) -- you can get it for free from them, while supplies last.

    Well worth it -- OS X is truly amazing (even for the biased- impared :-)

    --
    The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
    1. Re:Correct Pricing Info by berniecase · · Score: 1

      I guess this is another way to look at it :-) (I can't wait to get the upgrade. I REALLY want to run OS X as my primary OS, but it's just too slow in 10.0.x).

      The total cost of OS X is now $150. $130 for 10.0 plus $20 for 10.1. Well, that doesn't seem too bad, now does it? Consider that with OS X 10.0 you didn't need to already have OS 9 installed to install X over top. Have any of you people seen how much XP is going to be for a FULL install?!? It's freaking insane!

      Of course, the price goes down to $130 if you want to drive to the Apple retailer to pick up a copy of OS X.

      Yes, 10.0 was bad. So was Windows 95 (original release), but it was leaps and bounds over Win 3.x. And so is the same for OS X. Now it's just that we pay a heckuva lot less for an OS from Apple than others do from M$.

      --Bernie

  112. Heh.. What a hypocritical ideal... by Jayde+Stargunner · · Score: 1

    "On the other hand Mac users are spoiled... what Windows OS comes with CD burning and DVD playback out of the box? Or even CD ripping and mp3 encoding, movie making, DVD burning software, and web server software out of the box? Windows users have to settle for Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer, on the average..."

    Because, ya know.. When Apple does it it's just great! Wow! You can do stuff right out of the box, without having to buy a bunch of software!

    When Microsoft does it, it's: Microsoft is a monopoly power! Get rid of the preinstalled browser! Ditch the preinstalled media player! We like 3rd party, yes we do!

    Microsoft gives people what they want, then people bitch an moan about how unfair it is... Then, when it's gone, people like Mac uses will go around touting how your OS has so many more "features" than Windows.

    You know, I'm all for controls. I don't love Microsoft, but I use their software. And I don't think it should only be Mac users who get the privalege of their OS being able to have OS-included programs. It's just the stupid double-standard that makes me annoyed. If Windows had a full-featured DVD player, they'd be antitrust monopolist bastards...Apple puts it in OS X and it's a selling point--heck people even bitched that it wasn't in the first release.

    What's even worse is that all the monopoly-bashers still love OS X, because it has something to do with UNIX. Heck, if it has something to do with UNIX, it must be better than Microsoft.

    I'm sure I'll get modded down to the pits of "Troll" just for pointing this out... But I'm hoping people will actually read my post and realize the hypocritical stance that is being taken here.

    -Jayde

    --
    What's a sig?
    1. Re:Heh.. What a hypocritical ideal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hypocritical? Hardly. You forget that Apple makes both the software AND the hardware. Apple's DVD Player, to use your example, is designed to work with Mac shipped with built in DVD ROMs. iTunes built-in CD burning capability is hardly a threat to Roxio's Toast. (OS 10.1 will have Finder level CD burning capabilities, but I stand by my earlier assertion.)

      And then there's that little matter of market share. Microsoft owns 90% or more of the current desktop space. Doesn't that pose a bigger threat to 3rd party companies, be they browser, CD burning, media players, etc., than Apple's paltry 20%?

    2. Re:Heh.. What a hypocritical ideal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The somewhat obvious problem with this is that Microsoft actually *is* a monopoly, does own 90% of the OS market, and has in the past pulled bundling moves like these to leverage its market share to push competitors out of the market. In five years, people will be saying "What Netscape?" due to the success of this approach. On the other hand, iTunes and iDVD, Apple's CD- and DVD-burning software, only work on 5% of PCs sold today, and thus do hardly anything to force competitors out of the market. There's a difference here that should be obvious to anyone other than the typical Windows zealot ...

    3. Re:Heh.. What a hypocritical ideal... by Jayde+Stargunner · · Score: 1

      "Hypocritical? Hardly. You forget that Apple makes both the software AND the hardware. Apple's DVD Player, to use your example, is designed to work with Mac shipped with built in DVD ROMs. iTunes built-in CD burning capability is hardly a threat to Roxio's Toast. (OS 10.1 will have Finder level CD burning capabilities, but I stand by my earlier assertion.)"

      So, Microsoft would be justified if they made the DVD ROMs?? Your argument is that the software isn't "a threat"...well, neither are any of the things Windows ships. You can't have it both ways. :-)

      "And then there's that little matter of market share. Microsoft owns 90% or more of the current desktop space. Doesn't that pose a bigger threat to 3rd party companies, be they browser, CD burning, media players, etc., than Apple's paltry 20%?"

      90%/20%... Odd math but whatever.

      Apple has 100% control over every single Mac computer. Microsoft has 90% of every IBM/Compatible computer. What's your point? Mac developers have to develop for OS X. Apple has a monopoly on the OS that runs on PowerPC/G-whatever processors...any developer who writes Mac-based software has to compete with what Apple throws on the OS.

      Heck, I would wager than most open-source zealots would never use a Mac system for Linux...they all run IBM/Compatible boxes.

      Apple has exactly the same approach to the contents of an OS as Microsoft. But, I guess the pretty colors and clear cases can somehow make everyone forgot all the bundling they do with the OS. And, honestly... If Apple had been the one to win "the war" (which was more luck and marketing than anything, at the time) they would be just as bad as Microsoft--actually, they would be WORSE since they like to control not only the OS and the apps, but the hardware too. The ultimate monopoly.

      -Jayde

      --
      What's a sig?
    4. Re:Heh.. What a hypocritical ideal... by Jayde+Stargunner · · Score: 1

      The key problem with that argument is that Mac's AREN'T "PC's". They are Mac's. The term "PC" basically means "IBM/Compatible". The people who buy Mac's are not the same people who buy PC's.

      Apple is trying their darndest to change this, but it is true. OS X is beyond just another OS, it's a whole other platform. Generally--and besides the large companies--developers develop for one system or the other; with specific targeting based on platform. Anything they do with the OS has a direct effect on Mac developers, regardless of how much a market share Windows has.

      Apple has an OS monopoly on every Mac user in the world. They have a monoploy on every Mac hardware in the world. If you are a Mac developer, and you develop for the traditional "Mac audience" (graphic designers, movie producers, etc) you have no choice but to go through OS X.

      BTW, are you really that scared to put your name on your opinion? The amount of AC's that reply to my posts is downright sickening.

      -Jayde

      --
      What's a sig?
    5. Re:Heh.. What a hypocritical ideal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 'monopoly' argument above doesn't apply to Apple, because Apple is in no position to stifle competition, whereas Microsoft has done so, and two court verdicts have affirmed this conclusion.

      Apple is a HARDWARE company that makes software to enhance the value of their hardware. Think Nikon or Canon -- they write software to support the features of their digital cameras. If you don't like MacOS X, you can run some flavour of Linux or BSD instead. So much for 100% control, eh?

      If a professional musician wants to concentrate on his or her craft (music), they want a system that has the features they need with the minimum fuss required to get it working. Same goes for video editors, digital imaging professionals, and other creative types who don't want to have to figure out which distro works with what. This market is a large percentage of Apple's customers, so from a business standpoint it makes good sense to bundle 'creative' apps with the OS -- just like MacOS included MacWrite and MacPaint in 1984, and it didn't prevent ISV's from writing alternatives.

      Some people's stupidity is simply amazing.

    6. Re:Heh.. What a hypocritical ideal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Your argument is that the software isn't "a threat"...well, neither are any of the things Windows ships. You can't have it both ways. :-)"

      Oh, really? Tell that to Netscape, Sun, and now Real. Tell it to OS/2 and C/PM.

      "If Apple had been the one to win "the war" (which was more luck and marketing than anything, at the time) they would be just as bad as Microsoft--actually, they would be WORSE since they like to control not only the OS and the apps, but the hardware too. The ultimate monopoly."

      Apple's closed, proprietary system is not necessarily a monopoly. "Monopoly" is a legal term (and a hell of a boardgame). Microsoft is considered a monopoly because of its sleazy OEM licensing deals, and predatory business practices.

    7. Re:Heh.. What a hypocritical ideal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for putting it way better than I did. :-)

    8. Re:Heh.. What a hypocritical ideal... by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 2

      Yeah this I have to agree with you. JUST because IE is installed by default doesn't mean you have to use it. This is why the DOJ pretty much dismissed the case. The thing was how does this bundling hurt users? It doesn't. I, personally don't care what they bundle, so long as if I like something better, I can still use it. I have Windows Media Player installed, but I still am able to use Winamp(all I use for MP3 and OGG). If Microsoft disabled Winamp with Windows Media Player, then I'd be pissed. Granted Microsoft isn't the only one on the platform that grabs file extensions. Apple will grab mp3's, wav files and mpeg files if you install quicktime. Their are others that do this kind of stuff plus the I HAVE TO RUN SOME BS IN THE SYSTEM TRAY programs like Real Audio. I mean does having the Real Audio program in the system tray REALLY speed up launching Real Audio streams? I think not! And why does every graphics card and sound card have to have a tray utility? I guess these tray utilities are for the dolts who HAVE to see something to make sure it's running instead of the program just launching or something just working. I am not saying all tray utilites are bad, it's just some aren't very good or not needed. IM's, Activesync indicators, Weatherbug (or other tray utilities) work GREAT in the tray. But why do you need anything more then the little yellow speaker for controlling audio?

      Why shouldn't burning be supported by the OS? Do you have a separate utility to write to floppies or the harddisk? NOPE! It SHOULD be included in the OS and I applaud MS for including this in XP. Also, Linux does even more bundling then MS.

      --

      Gorkman

  113. Which is exactly the problem by BillyGoatThree · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    "...I had two buttons on my mac in '92...They're availalbe all over the place, and come with the software to make that second button do whatever you want . . ."

    So, for the past 9 years Company A has been making what you consider an inferior product but you are still buying and patching it to do what you want. When there are superior products out there that do it correctly out of the box.

    The joke here isn't "single button mice make macs hard to use" it is "the persistence of the single button mouse design error shows how little Apple really cares about usability".

    --
    324006
    1. Re:Which is exactly the problem by Shadow+Knight · · Score: 1

      Um, you do realize that extensive user testing has shown that multiple buttons are in fact inferior from a usability standpoint? Other studies have shown that the vast majority of Windows users don't even realize the right-click does anything until they are told. All-in-all, multiple button mice are a hideously bad usability mistake. "Hidden" interfaces are never good, all functionality should be visible to the user, so contextual menus are bad (but handy for the power user who knows what he wants). I suggest you subscribe to Apple's Human Interface list if you want to argue more about this subject.

      later,
      Shadow Knight

      --

    2. Re:Which is exactly the problem by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Er, that's not especially relevant, however.

      1) Because mice themselves are not an example of an intuitive interface. No one really ever seems to know what it is, or how to use it, until they've seen it in action. (whereupon it also is revealed as a really easy to use interface)

      2) Because contextual menus -- if implemented in a worthwhile way, with proper commands et al -- are the single best menus from a Fitt's Law viewpoint. The time to travel to the location where the mouse already is is 0, and that makes for a pretty infinitely large single pixel. (nb of course that the contextual menu at the cursor's current location may not be appropriate, but it's still a good idea)

      3) Because Jef Raskin simply decided to go with a single button by fiat. IIRC he did no user testing. He had seen how multiple mice were used on one of the only other systems to support them widely, the Alto, and hadn't liked it. He was supported in this by only a few people, but they were the only ones who cared either way. I seem to recall reading in his book, or in something online that if he had done testing over a longer period of time, the desirability of modified clicks might have come up. (on the plus side, click-drag-release behaviors were a result of this)

      4) Personally, I'd join the ranks of UI experts, not that I consider myself to be one, who advocate adding a second button. Personally, I'd probably have two additional buttons, for symmetry, so that it was useful for lefties. I'd have the software support left handed button assignments and cursors. The main button would be as large as possible, for ergonomic reasons, and the secondary buttons pretty small. For purposes of distinction, they'd be a different color and texture, and have a glyph -- perhaps an arrow cursor w/ menu, on them. If it had an optical sensor, it would be located as far forwards as possible, for maximum control. Even if a plastic periscope was needed. Perhaps I'd find a way to work in my thumb side-mounted jog wheel idea too.

      Anyway, I like the Mac, but it's important to sort the legend from the reality.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    3. Re:Which is exactly the problem by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      There are several problems with contextual menues regarding to Fitt's Law, one being how they should appear near the edges of the screen. Second being unused/unavailable items (context!).

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    4. Re:Which is exactly the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? Contextual menus don't contain unused or unavailable buttons. That's the point. If they did, it would be a modal interface, which is a big no-no.

      Also, regardless of whether you like contextual menus or not, they're used a lot in OS X and they're going to be used more and more in Mac applications.

    5. Re:Which is exactly the problem by BillyGoatThree · · Score: 2

      "Um, you do realize that extensive user testing has shown that multiple buttons are in fact inferior from a usability standpoint?"

      And medical testing has determined that peach fuzz causes cancer. Screw "testing"--what do people use and love, day in and day out? Multiple button mice. Even the people who are rabidly pro-Apple go out and buy multiple button mice to replace the "mistake" (yes, even these people use that word) that Apple has made.

      --
      324006
    6. Re:Which is exactly the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Usability? The option key on a Mac is the "right click" of a Wintel machine. Your left hand is on the keyboard where it should be.... near the command key. Despite this "design flaw",
      some how I still managed to clear $100,000
      off my $2000 inferior product. How much did you make last year, troll?

    7. Re:Which is exactly the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've got that wrong. Selecting a menu item requires finding two targets - first the menu, then the item in the menu. With contextual menus, the first step is eliminated. In other words, it's perfect according to Fitts law. Placement of the menu near edges or corners is irrelevant - the distance and time to the target is zero by definition. The time it takes to hit the second target (the menu item) is basically the same either way.

    8. Re:Which is exactly the problem by TandyMasterControl · · Score: 1

      Um, you do realize that extensive user testing has shown that multiple buttons are in fact inferior from a usability standpoint?

      So what? And one button plus a control character on the keyboard is supposed to be easier to remember and manipulate? What a crock...

      Can you conceive of a frame of mind in which Apple Computer sponsored useability studies from the 80's or early 90's aren't taken at face value as the Word Of God?

      If 2 or 3 buttons are said to be confusing to someone new to computers, well SO WHAT?
      I really can't care about that since I can barely a time in my life when I didn't know how to use a 2 or 3 button mouse.

      One could just as well say that since a newcomer to a good CLI like BASH is going to be unproductive and lost on day 1, that BASH is at useability level 0 and a bad design. But only a complete ignoramus who knew nothing about the subject or maybe David Korn who probably knows everything about the subject would dare to say that BASH renders its users "unproductive". Holy Shit! People who know only Gui shells are the ones who are mired in an inefficient timewasting environment! I wonder if they can guess how stuck they are?

      The first "pc" I owned personally was an Apple, it had a square 1 button mouse and was fine until I replaced it with a trackball. However since that time I have learned what multibutton mice are about and I would never accept going back to Apple's ideas about mice. It's simply less useable to ME. So shove your study.
      Moreover, everyone I know who uses computers, and that's alot of people, has been using personal computers now for a long time - few are newcomers. And the ones who use 2+ button mice (that's most of them) are doing just fine with their 2+ button mice. Somehow the issue never seems to come up. They don't have the excuse that they "find it all so overwhelming."

      If 2 or 3 button mice are claimed to be confusing to children under 6, again, I can't really care about that either since I see kids of that age using 2 button mice as well as 4 and 5 button (scroll mice) and they get along just fine whether they use the second button or not. Usually button 2 is a shortcut to functions that are accessable elsewhere in the software through a arm motion plus a press of button one. Since I use a computer all day, I'd like that shortcut, thank you very much, and I don't want to reduce my GUI interface to the level of a speak'n'spell just because rug rats can't muster the dexterity for using the 2nd button. Use or not as you are able.

      If 2 or 3 button mice are difficult and confusing for easily confused, arthritic senior citizens, well let them buy Macs I guess. I don't consider their interface proficiencies or incapacities as any kind of rule binding what's appropriate for able bodied adults. I don't ride around on a "Rascal" or have a chair lift installed on my stairs, although that is how a sizeable percentage of the old folks in this culture get around. Likewise, I don't know why I should restrict myself to an interface they find manageable if I want more.

      I have used Apple's "insanely great" interface quite a bit as it has evolved at glacial speed over the last 17 years and I gotta say: it's not all that. After using X environments of one sort or another then going back to a classic Mac os8.x or 9 system I am impressed with how well my X desktops fit me.

      I don't hate Macs or Mac users (I'm one on frequent occasions) and I have never liked to engage in pointless public pissing contests about Mac v. PC , but when one of the last few Mac-jihadists detonates himself in a public forum and hysterically proclaims the eternal superiority of the Mac interface... because of something as dumb as the one button mouse... I just feel sorry for him.

      The one button mouse has only slightly more ergonomic validity than the insanely awful round mouse, ca. Yosemite G3. That is to say: it has no validity at all except that Steve Jobs says it's good thing, and Mac users can like or lump it.

      --
      Johnny Quest has two Daddies.
    9. Re:Which is exactly the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does your being a crack-cocaine dealer have to do with computers?

    10. Re:Which is exactly the problem by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The 2d coward has correctly pointed out the flaw in your arguement. Fitt's Law has nothing to do with the edges of the screen per se. It is about target acquisition.

      The _reason_ that targets at the corners and edges of the screen are so notoriously easy to acquire however, is that you cannot overshoot, because the mouse will move no further than the boundary of the screen.

      For example, if you set up two monitors on a Mac, and positioned the 2d one logically above the 1st one, the Fitt's law advantage of the menubar is lost, because it has become possible to go above the menubar region.

      If a target is already acquired as a target however, there is no travel time or target acquisition time needed at all! You are already there! Tog has an article on his website, asktog.com, called "A Test to Give You Fitt's" or something like that, which can go into this further if you like.

      As for your comment regarding unused menu items in a contextual menu... First, what does this have to do with Fitt's Law? Second, a good contextual menu will only show appropriate options, with the rare exception. There really shouldn't be unusable menu items in a contextual menu.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    11. Re:Which is exactly the problem by jaoswald · · Score: 1

      Your treatment of lefties is either incomplete or confusing. "Main button would be as large as possible." Operated by the index finger? Then it has to be on both sides of the mouse. Creating two equally large buttons creates the question "which one is really the main button." "Thumb side mounted jog wheel." Two of those, right?

      As far as configuring the buttons with software, that's a real hassle, and doesn't change the hardware to be any more comfortable.

      For me, this is the key reason to favor one-button mice. Lefties and righties are perfectly equal.

      Bill Gates is a lefty, but he learned to use a mouse with his right hand, because "it isn't really that hard." Why should it be any effort at all?

    12. Re:Which is exactly the problem by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      No, the ergonomic advantage of some of the good Mac mice -- I'm thinking of the ADB II mouse and the USB Pro mouse, here -- are that several fingers are engaged in depressing the button. This reduces strain on any particular finger either in relative frequency, or in amount of exertion necessary.

      I _really_ like the ability to adjust the resistance of the USB Pro mouse in fact. That's another must-have feature.

      I'm thinking of something approximately the size and shape of the ADB II mouse, or the blue, optical Logitech Wheel mouse. Let's leave out the thumb jog for the moment -- I'm still hashing that out, and it might indeed be something that can't be tackled on a symmetrical mouse while still retaining economy. The entire forwards section of the mouse, from the bump to the tail would be the main button. No matter which hand you operated it with, there would only be a single primary. The secondary buttons would probably be small flush buttons in a position to be depressed by the fingertip of the first finger (one for the left, one for the right) if rolled slightly away from the primary button.

      I don't like the left/right button dichotomy. I prefer primary/secondary, and that's easily reinforced through size. The 2d button for the wrong hand of course, whichever that happens to be, probably winds up being a useless tertiary both in terms of functionality and ergonomics, but this isn't something I delve into a whole lot.

      Plus I'm a rightie, so in a pinch I can just send ~1/7th of the population to the camps. ;)

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    13. Re:Which is exactly the problem by Zzootnik · · Score: 1

      Sorry to Have to point this one out to you...

      There is one common application that makes full, intuitive, widespread, and almost hectically Necessary use of Multiple mouse buttons + Scroll wheels...

      FPS Titles

      I used the second mouse button quite a bit on --an unnamed spreadsheet application-- for a long time when the second button was really first starting to be noticed and implemented as a useful appendage...

      Then came Quake...

      Games are not my whole life, but I have REALLY got to make a stand and say that they are one helluva lotta fun, and I'm Damn glad they exist!

      Perhaps that's the reason why Macs have for so long not been kind to the idea of extra mice buttons--They didn't have the Games that used them, or (FLAME) couldn't get the performance necessary for lightning quick reflex time necessities...(/FLAME)

      When it comes down to it, sure- ya use what you know and are comfortable with...But you know, having an extra button and scrolling wheelly doo-dads comes in very handy when you're Fragging off some aggression!

      --
      Sig currently under construction. Mind the gap....
    14. Re:Which is exactly the problem by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Bingo! So you can't depend on items being where they have been before, you can't use "muscle memory" - and that defeats the Fitt's Law argument. If you have to search for the items, you're simply not as fast anymore.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    15. Re:Which is exactly the problem by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Like I told the other AC, with CMs you have replaced two actions of muscle memory by one of searching and one of targetting. At best your equal in speed, IMHO "normal" menues are faster - at least when of the "top of screen" type like on the Mac.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    16. Re:Which is exactly the problem by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      See my other answers.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    17. Re:Which is exactly the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Different types of items have different contextual menus. Finder icons have different contextual menus than docked apps and browser hyperlinks, just like the pulldown menus of Finder are different than other apps. But the contents of the contextual menus themselves don't change, again just like pulldown menus. So muscle memory is every bit as involved in finding items in contextual menus as it is in finding items in pulldown menus. The only difference is that in a contextual menu, there are fewer items, and they all are applicable.

      BTW, Fitt's law has nothing to do with muscle memory.

    18. Re:Which is exactly the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. You haven't replaced two actions of muscle memory with one of searching and one of targeting. Do you even know how contextual menus work?

      Consider the case of an icon in the Finder. Without contextual menus, you move the pointer to the icon, then click on the icon once to select it, move the pointer to the pulldown menu, click to reveal the menu, move the pointer to the item you want, and click a third time to make your choice. That's three clicks and three pointer movements. The first pointer movement is probably a search and the last two can take advantage of muscle memory.

      Now, with contextual menus, you move the pointer to the icon, click to reveal the contextual menu, move the pointer to the item you want, and click to make your choice. That's two clicks and two pointer movements. The first pointer movement is probably a search (just like above) and the last can take advantage of muscle memory just like above. To summarize:

      Pulldown menu approach:
      - 3 clicks
      - 1 pointer movement with potential search
      - 2 pointer movements using muscle memory

      Contextual menu approach:
      - 2 clicks
      - 1 pointer movement with potential search
      - 1 pointer movement using muscle memory

      Note there is no searching involved to find the contextual menu, it opens right where your pointer is. And because the menu opens with its origin at the current pointer location, the relative pointer movement required to hit a menu item is the same as if it were a pulldown menu that you had just clicked on in the menu bar. Muscle memory is involved in selecting a menu item either way. The only difference is that you didn't have to move your pointer first to make the menu appear.

    19. Re:Which is exactly the problem by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      On the Windows Desktop, an icon can have different CMs depending on what it represents, depending on where it is positioned on screen you start at different items in the CM. You can not tell just how much you have to move the mouse to get to "copy". And exactly because a CM only shows applicable items, it will drop non-applicable items.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    20. Re:Which is exactly the problem by Lars+T. · · Score: 1
      Consider the case of an icon in the Finder. Without contextual menus, you move the pointer to the icon, then click on the icon once to select it, move the pointer to the pulldown menu, click to reveal the menu, move the pointer to the item you want, and click a third time to make your choice. That's three clicks and three pointer movements. The first pointer movement is probably a search and the last two can take advantage of muscle memory.
      Unless you use direct manipulation or a keyboard shortcut - which is the case for almost everything I do in the Finder. Which is beside the point, but never the less.
      Now, with contextual menus, you move the pointer to the icon, click to reveal the contextual menu, move the pointer to the item you want, and click to make your choice. That's two clicks and two pointer movements. The first pointer movement is probably a search (just like above) and the last can take advantage of muscle memory just like above.
      Unless you get what I already pointed out: starting point in CM changed by proximity to the screen edges; different relative position of items in the menu because CMs are contextual.

      So you have
      for both :
      - 1 pointer movement with potential search

      Contextual menu approach:
      - 1 click
      - 1 pointer movement with potential search
      - 1 click

      Pulldown menu approach:
      - 1 click
      - 1 fluid pointer movement with one click-drag-release using muscle memory

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  114. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been [Not Quite] by Barlo_Mung_42 · · Score: 1

    The argument is that if MS bundles DVD software out of the box, most users wouldn't bother to check out 3rd party versions.

  115. Re:Is it faster? -- iBook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While the Finder was slow, OS 10.0.0-4 most certainly does use the 2D acceleration of the ATI 128 chip in the new iBook. It's the older Rage Pro notebooks that weren't accelerated.

  116. 6-12 weeks for delivery by GusherJizmac · · Score: 2, Informative

    To get the upgrade, you have to fill out a form by hand and mail it in with Proof of Purchase. Then you get to wait 6-12 weeks for them to send it to you. Plus, they give no indications as to where you can get instant upgrades, nor does CompUSA's site have any info on it. Seems pretty unacceptable to me.

    --
    http://www.naildrivin5.com/davec
  117. Relax.... by Wadesworld · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For the Windows and Linux bigots, relax. You don't have to get so tense. If you don't think OS X is worth your time, then just ignore it.

    On the otherhand, if you have a bit of an open mind, you owe it to yourself to check it out. (Make sure you're checking out 10.1 and not 10.0.x)

    It really is cool to have a mainstream commercial app like MS Word and say GIMP running rootless right next to it.

    It really is cool to program with the Cocoa dev tools. (Yes, it requires you learn Obj C, but if you're a true geek, you love trying another language)

    It really is cool to have a BSD-based system that even your grandmother could install and use.

    It really is cool that the BSD-subsystem is available for anyone to hack on (Darwin).

    It really is cool that there's a commercial company (Apple) guiding the OS and putting in all the most sophisticated plumbing (Aqua, IOKit, etc) that probably would never have gotten done or would have gotten done poorly otherwise.

    It really is cool that all the major commercial app manufacturers have already pledged their support (many have already delivered) and that many apps which have never been on the Mac before are now coming over.

    It really is cool that there's going to be a decent selection of games for this platform. Not Windows numbers by any stretch, but all the major titles and certainly more than Linux.

    In short, if you take the time to look, it really is a very cool OS. Now, maybe you don't want to spend the extra money to buy a Mac. No problem. But that doesn't make it any less of a product.

    Wade

  118. iBooks still cost a premium by mj6798 · · Score: 1
    A DVD iBook with a 12" screen costs about $1500. An Intel-based laptop gives you an equivalent or faster processor, DVD and a 14" or 15" screen for a little less than that. Or, you can get a machine like the Toshiba S203 that gives you a 13" screen and a DVD player for $999. And, with its G3 processor, it's questionable whether the iBook is even fast enough to run reasonably complex OS X applications.

    Apple machines look nice and are well made, but they still cost a premium compared to Intel laptops. The other problem is that you don't get much of a choice: if you don't like Apple's choice of peripherals (like their awful touch pad), you are out of luck.

    1. Re:iBooks still cost a premium by TheInternet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A DVD iBook with a 12" screen costs about $1500. An Intel-based laptop gives you an equivalent or faster processor, DVD and a 14" or 15" screen for a little less than that.

      And it comes with firewire, ethernet and wireless antenneas? Is the processor actually faster, or just a higher clock rating?

      Anyway, the point is moot. Apple has higher gross margins because it has an entire platform and various software products (many of which are free) to develop and market. Many grey box makers just slap a bunch of components in a box and compete to provide the lowest margins. That makes PCs more accessible financially, but it does not solve the problem of making them more accessible in terms of human interaction. It is a not an equation for evolving the concept of a personal computer. That takes product development. Forgetting that has undoubtably contributed to the huge downturn in the PC market.

      The other problem is that you don't get much of a choice: if you don't like Apple's choice of peripherals (like their awful touch pad), you are out of luck.

      How is the touch pad "awful?" And in terms of peripherals, the vast majority of wintel USB/FireWire devices work out of the box, or you can find drivers for them.

      And, with its G3 processor, it's questionable whether the iBook is even fast enough to run reasonably complex OS X applications.

      Is this based on personal experience with Mac OS X 10.1 on an iBook?

      - Scott

      --
      Scott Stevenson
      Tree House Ideas
    2. Re:iBooks still cost a premium by mj6798 · · Score: 2
      And it comes with firewire, ethernet and wireless antenneas?

      Sony VAIO FX220K PCGFX220K | $1,569.00 | VAIO FX220K P3-750Mhz 128MB/15GB/DVD/15" TFT/10-100BT/56K/W2K PCGFX220K (www.onlinemicro.com); it also has USB and FireWire.

      Is the processor actually faster, or just a higher clock rating?

      A 750MHz Pentium is probably at least as fast as a 500MHz G3.

      How is the touch pad "awful?"

      If you do actual experiments comparing its effectiveness with other pointing devices, it's slow and not very accurate: it takes people longer to get work done. The reason is simple to understand: a good pointing device needs fast long range motions and slow fine motions. A mouse, a pointing stick, and (to a lesser degree) a trackball give you that. A touchpad doesn't really.

      "it's questionable whether the iBook is even fast enough to run reasonably complex OS X applications." Is this based on personal experience with Mac OS X 10.1 on an iBook?

      It's my impression based on experimenting with a bunch of different machines at a computer store, as well as reading reviews of OS X in the Mac press. I am (still) thinking about replacing my Windows laptop with an OS X laptop. But I have no illusions about the fact that I'll be paying a premium and that I probably need to get one of the more expensive Apple laptops to do so.

    3. Re:iBooks still cost a premium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try again. The iBook competes in the ultra-portable segment, not the discount segment. All the $1200 models are big, heavy, and short on features.

      Compare the iBook to other offerings that are in the 11"x9" size range, weigh under 5 lbs, come with 12.1" XGA screens, comparable processors and graphics, and have a similar feature set. You'll find that only competitor in that class that comes close to the iBook in price is the Dell Inspiron 2100. All the others (Toshiba Portege, Thinkpad X, VAIO R505, Compaq Evo N400, etc.) are considerably more expensive than the Apple or Dell. And out of all of them, only the iBook has an internal optical drive.

    4. Re:iBooks still cost a premium by generic-man · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that the Inspiron 2100 lasts only about 2 hours of average use with a standard battery. (The figure is closer to three hours if you turn the clock speed down to 500MHz from 700MHz.) If you want to watch a DVD, I imagine that the battery life would decline fairly rapidly due to the constant spinning of the drive. Apple claims five hours of battery life for the new iBooks with average use, and I can say that I've used one (an older-style iBook, that is) with an Airport card for about 4 1/2 hours of casual use before it started whining about a low battery. Disabling Airport probably would have added that extra half-hour.

      I was actually looking at both the new iBook and the Inspiron 2100, but battery life is really the more important factor for me. YMMV.

      --
      For more information, click here.
    5. Re:iBooks still cost a premium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I chose the iBook over the Dell because of the battery life, the internal DVD (optical drives are external on the 2100), and the chance to give OS X a try.

      In practice, I've been getting about 3.5 hours under OS X with Airport on and hitting the HD frequently, or about 4 hours in OS 9 under the same conditions. The worst I've seen is 3 hours when I was building XFree86, and the best was 4.5 hours when I spent the whole time editing with Airport off, display dimmed, and the hard drive stayed spun down.

    6. Re:iBooks still cost a premium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah you're right...and who would want onboard ethernet and an iLink port anyway. You probably wouldn't use the Rage mobility either.

    7. Re:iBooks still cost a premium by TheInternet · · Score: 1

      A 750MHz Pentium is probably at least as fast as a 500MHz G3.

      Why do you say that?

      A mouse, a pointing stick, and (to a lesser degree) a trackball give you that. A touchpad doesn't really.

      So plug in a mouse. :)

      It's my impression based on experimenting with a bunch of different machines at a computer store, as well as reading reviews of OS X in the Mac press.

      10.1 is a whole different ballgame.

      - Scott

      --
      Scott Stevenson
      Tree House Ideas
    8. Re:iBooks still cost a premium by nojomofo · · Score: 1

      Sony VAIO FX220K PCGFX220K | $1,569.00 | VAIO FX220K P3-750Mhz 128MB/15GB/DVD/15" TFT/10-100BT/56K/W2K PCGFX220K (www.onlinemicro.com); it also has USB and FireWire.


      But wasn't the initial comparison between a $1000 PC and a $1500 Mac? So you add all of the stuff that the Mac has, and, Wow, you're paying the same price!

    9. Re:iBooks still cost a premium by mj6798 · · Score: 2

      For $1000, you get something that has roughly the same features as the iBook with a 13" screen. For $1500, you get something that has roughly the same features as the iBook with a 15" screen (!).

    10. Re:iBooks still cost a premium by mj6798 · · Score: 2
      "A 750MHz Pentium is probably at least as fast as a 500MHz G3."
      Why do you say that?

      That's what the SPECmark results suggest (including those in the PowerPC FAQ), and it agrees with my experience with PowerPC (which I was using for a few years).

      So plug in a mouse. :)

      On a desktop, that's fine. For a laptop, it's not a realistic choice.

  119. X.1 by telbij · · Score: 1

    Its funny that such a huge issue has been made out of how slow OS X is. Yeah, it's slow.

    The funny thing is people comparing it to Win 2000 or even Mac OS 9. How can you make an objective statement like "it's way slower"? After using OS X for a few weeks without booting into 9.1, I was shocked at how slow 9.1 can be. Sure it accomplishes tasks in a shorter amount of time, but you also have to sit and wait for those tasks to be completed.

    The fact that something takes longer on OSX is a moot point since I can work in another app without losing responsiveness. The performance trade-off for pre-emptive multi-tasking is well worth it to me.

    I'm glad there is so much feedback to Apple about how to make OS X better, and it sounds like they're listening. Certainly OS X has a long way to go before it can be considered a refined OS. For myself, however, OS X is everything I had hoped for and more (Photoshop+BBEdit+BSD=150% web design productivity). It's so perfect for me, that I no longer worry about Apple staying afloat. Ironically the OS is so good that I don't care if it attracts new customers. I am considering buying some Apple stock, however, as I can only see OS X gaining market share.

  120. Powerbook Click/Tap multibutton mouse driver by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With OS X it should be trivial to offer 2 button functionality by making the button proper do the normal mouse button action, while having the trackpad tap perform a ctrl-click..

  121. Maybe... by Wadesworld · · Score: 1

    You can probably get a off-brand for less, but a Dell, Sony, IBM or other major brand is going to be pretty close for the same features.

    But PC people always forget that Mac users don't make decisions by building a matrix of dollars versus features. They're attracted by the design and elegance of the platform, in addition to how well the hardware and software work together. They're willing to pay a bit more for that.

    But, I've never yet been able to make a PC user understand that.

    But anyways, if Windows floats your boat, then by all means, save a few hundred bucks and stick with Windows.

    Wade

    1. Re:Maybe... by mj6798 · · Score: 2
      You can probably get a off-brand for less, but a Dell, Sony, IBM or other major brand is going to be pretty close for the same features.

      Toshiba S203 $1079 (can get cheaper if you look around)
      Sony Vaio FX150 ($1599) (can get $100 cheaper at Fry's)

      But anyways, if Windows floats your boat, then by all means, save a few hundred bucks and stick with Windows.

      I don't like either Windows or MacOS. Unfortunately, the Microsoft and Apple platforms pretty much have a monopoly on digital media and banking software, so whether one likes it or not, one has to own one or the other, or just not participate in the digital world. Mind you, this is not because software on those platforms is any better (Quicken actually sucks), it's because of the DMCA and numerous intricate business relationships.

    2. Re:Maybe... by swdunlop · · Score: 1

      Actually, I picked up one of the older iBooks, and a 256M memory upgrade, for $800, all told, at my local Circuit City.. They appear to be liquidating their laptops. Their loss, my gain.. I needed something to replace the ailing Dell Latitude that my wife was using.

  122. Silly AC... by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 2, Informative
    >I don't know a single person who thinks having
    >one button is better

    How about the people who INVENTED it? Jef Raskin, originator of the Macintosh product, was often a visiting academic and consultant at PARC and joined Apple. He had done useability studies which demonstrated that NORMAL people (the target market for the "for the rest of us" Macintosh) found a ONE button mouse easier to use than the original Xerox mice (which had THREE buttons. Remember, not EVERYONE in the world has a PhD in CS. Hell, even people at PARC (plenty of PhDs there.. and plenty of human interface experts as well) and Raskin HIMSELF had mouse button errors, as he describes here.

    While I was the first PARC-savvy person at Apple, Larry Tesler was the first PARC employee to join the company. At first he was strongly opposed to the Mac's easier-to-use mouse methods, and I eventually wrote a memo that showed, point by point, that the one-button mouse could do everything that PARCs three-button mouse could do and with the same number or fewer user actions. It was faster and more efficient, and much easier to learn and remember how to use. I had observed that people (including myself) at PARC often made wrong-button errors in using the mouse, which was part of my impetus for doing better.

    Myself, I don't have Raskin's expertise, nor have I done any "useability studies". But I worked tech support and helldesk jobs when I was in college. And *I* can sure tell you the anguish of getting a call from someone who didn't understand "left-click" vs. "right-click", and trying to explain the difference.

    cya,
    john

    --
    Imagine all the people...
    1. Re:Silly AC... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      1. The usability research you speak of was conducted about 20 years ago, with people who had little computer experience, no familiarity with the WIMP paradigm, and zero clue about what a mouse was. Even the lowest common denominator user today has more familiarity with a GUI interface than that old test sample.

      2. The research was also conducted with a UI and applications that were far simpler than those of today. The easiest & most intuitive way to approach a task changes as the task grows more complex. Most of the usability research conducted by the original Mac team has been rendered obsolete by years of interface development, change in the nature & type of common computing tasks, and changes in user expectations.

      3. The primary purpose of a second mouse button is to provide contextual menus. The original Mac interface didn't have contextual menus, so any research into the usability of a second button back then is irrelevant.

      4. Over the years, contextual menus have become more and more important in the Mac OS interface. OS X relies on contextual menus for providing most of the functionality of the Dock, they're practically required in a browser and Office, and merely very useful in the Finder.

      5. Since users are going to have to use contextual menus, lets provide them with the simplest, easiest, most efficient, and most intuitive way to do it. That means adding another mouse button. There is no way you can convince me that chording (control clicking) is easier for a new user.

      6. If you read history of the original Mac project, you'll find out that Raskin opposed putting a mouse on the Mac, and in fact opposed the desktop metaphor itself. You'll also find out that Raskin greatly exaggerates his contributions to the Mac GUI. I tend to discount most of what he says.

    2. Re:Silly AC... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is all based on hearsay, but ...

      The Xerox UI *only* had contextual menus, which of course required a second mouse button. Apple did away with contextual menus and centralized all functions in the menu bar, which elminated the need for that second button.

      This was especially noticable in early Mac apps where the "context menu" would appear on the menu bar when you selected different things in the program (text, tables, graphics, would lead to different menu bar items).

      Microsoft/IBM/NeXT went with a hybrid approach that got popular enough that Mac applications eventually supported context menus. But still just one mouse button!

    3. Re:Silly AC... by gig · · Score: 2

      > OS X relies on contextual menus for providing
      > most of the functionality of the Dock

      No, that's not true. Most of the functionality of the Dock is through clicking (running apps, switching between apps, un-minimizing windows) and dragging (adding apps to the Dock, moving apps around within the Dock). Some is through Command+clicking (shows original of Docked item), and some is through Control+clicking (shows a menu off of the item, or off the Dock divider).

      The Dock makes perfect sense with a one-button mouse. It's not surprising when most of the people who can run OS X have one-button mouses.

  123. Taco: mac users ain't as reliant on the 2nd button by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Q: Why did apple ever go with one mouse-button?
      A: The one mouse button was thought up by a guy named Jeff Raskin who is largely responsible for starting the Macintosh project at Apple. He thought that mouses with more than one mouse button would be confusing for new users. This might seem like an oversight, but when you consider how uncomplex graphical interfaces were back than and the fact that virtually no computers in mass production had mice as an essential navigational tool, it really isn't.

    2. Q: How can you mac users live without the right-click contextual menu?
      A: Because we can use the regular pull down menus to bring up a menu. If you take a look at *NIX & Windows UI's, you often see that not all menu items for the program are in the pull-down menus. Often, there are some commands that you can only access through right-clicking (i.e. the contextual menu). When this is the case, you're going to need a 2nd mouse button. Contrast this with the mac paradigm, where is it a cardinal sin to have commands that are not listed in the pull-down menus.

    3. Q: Won't going up to a pull-down menu take you longer to do than right-clicking?
      A: No and yes. Unlike other platforms, macs have the pull-down menubar at the top of the screen instead of on each window, like you usually find on Windows or GNOME or KDE (yes, KDE does have a mac menubar mode, but not by default). A menubar at the top border of the screen has been proven in usability labs to be far faster to access than menubar stuck on a window, because the user can ram the mouse pointer into the top of the screen to click on the inital menu item and they can't overshoot. This illustrates a principle of Fitt's Law, which states that things on the borders are faster to access than things that aren't because they are infinitely large . To learn more about Fitt's law, go here . This being said, contextual menu (i.e. right-clicking) is faster IF you can do it anywhere to bring up the same menu anywhere on the screen, because the mouse pointer can be anywhere and the menu will appear right under it. Unfortunately, bringing up a contextual menu in windows/GNOME/KDE almost always requires that you first land the mouse on a tiny visual target. If you have to click on a tiny 15x10 pixel icon in an e-mail program to bring up a contextual menu for it, any speed advantage of right clicking is negated.

    4. Q: I hear some mac users say that they don't need a 2nd mouse button because they've go all those keyboard combinations. I don't understand.
      A: The reason that mac users use those keyboard strokes is because Apple was smart enough to have the keyboard complement the mouse instead of replacing it. Just like right-cliking is supposed to do on windows. Notice that the command key most often used on macs for the keyboard combinations is located in a spot that is in the center of the keyboard, so a user doesn't have to stretch their fingers 3 miles to hit an out of the way key. Also notice that keyboard strokes using the command key make use of the two most dextrous fingers of the human hand: the index finger and the thumb. The result is that keyboard shortcuts on a mac are easy to do, and they can be done easily with one hand. Why don't Windows users use keyboard shortcuts as often as mac users? Because microsoft was stupid and tried to have the keyboard replace the mouse instead of complmenting it. They added those underline thingies on all the menus (technically, they're called mnemonics), which are far less efficient because you have to hit two sets of keys "Alt+firstletter Alt+secondletter" to use them. This added so much visual clutter and so jammed the users mental keyboard-menu associations that most Windows users also filtered out the keyboard shortcuts (i.e. Ctrl+letter). There is even less incentive to use keyboard shortcuts on windows because the ctrl key that makes use of them is far at one end of the keyboard, which makes keyboard combinations with keys in the center of the keyboard very hard to do with one hand and impossible to easily with the two most dextrous fingers of the human hand (the thumb and index finger). One final advantage of mac keyboard shorcuts is that the command key is represented in the menu system by a symbol that take up one character's worth of menu real-estate as opposed to "Alt" or "Ctrl", which take up 3-4 characters of menu real-estate.

    5. Q:Shouldn't apple add more mouse buttons?
      A: Yes. I don't think you'll find many mac users who are against having more than one mouse button, but they are against some dumb windows/unix geek who knows nothing about macs and who refuses to learn anything about the way they are designed arrogantly assuming that the machine is unusable in some sort of way.
  124. Reviving an old practice by plastik55 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Historically (pre- System 7.1) MacOS was free (as in beer.) You yould go to any Apple reseller with a stack of floppies and copy the installation disks, while the salespeople showed off their latest gewgaws. So this really isn't a new thing for Apple.

    --

    I have a positive modifier on Troll. When I mod someone Troll their karma should go UP!

  125. What about the UK? by kerincosford · · Score: 1

    So, it seems fairly established that US Macheads will be able to walk into a Mac store/reseller and pick up a 10.1 CD on Saturday...

    What about the UK? Will I be able to go into Micro Anvika in London with my G4 invoice on Saturday and pick it up?

    Why doesnt apple.com/uk give any info about getting it in the UK? It just has a link to the US page.

    1. Re:What about the UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet that if I walk into the only Apple Centre in Glasgow on Satarday they won't have any upgrade CDs. I paid £99 for the original boxed Mac OS X and recently ~£1300 for a new DVD iBook. I can't believe it that Apple are not sending this product free of charge or even making it available for download. Looks like I will just have to download it through one of the less legal ways such as #macfilez on IRC. I don't even mind the 500 meg download with my modem!

    2. Re:What about the UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't do it.
      Go to the Apple Store instead - they're about 300 yards away, and about 3 million light years away in terms of clue. the fuckwits in Anvika wouldn't know an OS upgrade if you rammed it up their asses.

  126. Re:Is it faster? -- iBook? by mr100percent · · Score: 1

    You oughta try out 5G64, a little faster, a little less buggy.

  127. Heck, who needs another mouse? by Bastian · · Score: 1

    I like my control key. It does me wonders. Except when I'm trying to play Quake.

  128. Re:OS 10.1 MS Word v X and fun ! by HiThere · · Score: 2

    Sorry. Monopolies are dangerous. I don't really care how good the software is, I don't want it.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  129. DVD region coding in OS X by Ryu2 · · Score: 1

    How easy will it be to circumvent -- anyone know?

    --
    There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
    1. Re:DVD region coding in OS X by PMan88 · · Score: 0

      pretty much a guess about it:
      If all the languages are integrated into one OS like they say, it souldn't be that hard. Either it will just play, or you could change the location/language.

  130. Huh? by Joseppi+Blauinski · · Score: 1

    You write "OSX will be gone the minute the company loses interest" In my 31 years of being belly up to computo-techno-nerdish machines, I've observed ONLY ONE constant: Change. What this has taught me is to *NEVER* make absolute assertions. *GRIN* "It is not without reason that ... described him as a very dangerous man" *GRIMACE*

  131. Space.dock - virtual desktops on OSX by TheInternet · · Score: 2, Informative

    I really wish they'd incorporate multiple virtual desktops like in X

    I believe what you want is Space.dock.

    - Scott

    --
    Scott Stevenson
    Tree House Ideas
  132. Re:OS 10.1 MS Word v X and fun ! by TheInternet · · Score: 1

    I am also a big fan of MSIE:Mac, but it has a really nasty SSL bug that prevents me from using it for anything other than basic browsing. Basically, most sites are unable to establish an SSL connection and respond with an error like "Decryption error"

    I've never ever seen this. But the MacIE team has recently been made aware of an issue with mod_ssl.

    - Scott

    --
    Scott Stevenson
    Tree House Ideas
  133. Uhm, MAYA FOR MAC by Lonesmurf · · Score: 2

    I don't know how many graphic designers on the mac there are out there, but someone HAS to mention that MAYA (you know the extremely badass 3d system used in final fantasy, toy story, shrek, et al) was recently released for the mac for the first time just a couple days ago. This is a MAJOR advantage for the mac.. A real reason for me to switch from NT based systems. At least now I'll have a decent photoshop to work with maya on. (on my sgi, I have PS 3. blech.)

  134. Uh, not quite. by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 2

    'When Microsoft does it, it's: Microsoft is a monopoly power!'

    Not quite the same, actually. Yes, both demonstrate a monopoly hold on their respective markets, PCs and Macs, but Microsoft, in asserting their monopoly, use it to force out competitors and enter new markets.

    So bundling a browser, or heck, integrating a browser into the OS, is fine, it's dandy. Heck, I use it to download Netscape. The problem isn't the bundling, it's using their aforementioned monopoly to force out competition; like Netscape. Not only did they bundle, which I think is fine, or integrate, which is still fine, they coerced OEMs with the threat of higher licensing fees if they shipped with Netscape as the default, or if they linked to Netscape on the desktop.

    In similar veins, it's okay for XP to integrate with WMP, or offer CD burning, or whatever; it's not okay for them to use their monopoly on the desktop to coerce OEMs not to install, say, Real, or Quicktime, or Flash, as that might interfere with Microsoft's move into the media content and distribution arena.

    1. Re:Uh, not quite. by Jayde+Stargunner · · Score: 1

      I totally agree with you, to be perfectly honest. However, I see as a byproduct that people end up blashing Microsoft for the bundling in and of itself without even thinking about stopping the problem.

      If there is a resolution, I pray to God that it's not "remove Media Player and IE from Windows" That's just asinine. What are you gonna do? Bundle Netscape?

      Heh.. The only reason Netscape cares is because THEY want to use Microsoft's monopoly power to tout their own product. *L*

      -Jayde

      --
      What's a sig?
  135. don't like either MacOS or Windows by mj6798 · · Score: 2
    That makes PCs more accessible financially, but it does not solve the problem of making them more accessible in terms of human interaction.

    I actually don't particularly care for either MacOS or Windows. The reason for me for getting a commercial system like that is that, between them, the Apple and Microsoft platforms have pretty much monopolized the digital media markets and banking software. It doesn't matter how good alternative software is, it just can't get into that market. So, to watch DVDs, web broadcasts, and do on-line banking, I want a small, unobtrusive, cheap machine. The question is really whether I want to pay $100 to Gates's empire, or whether I want to pay a premium of a few hundred dollars for a MacOS machine that I can at least telnet into.

  136. MS Software on the Mac by TheInternet · · Score: 1

    The one thing we discovered was that some applications (notably Foxpro, etc.) worked far slower on the Macs. I'm not sure but I was guessing that this was an optimization issue..

    This probably had a lot to do with the fact that Microsoft apps on the Mac were direct ports of the Windows versions for long time. Performance was horrible, and Word 6 was probably the epitome of this situation.

    In 1997, Microsoft created the MacBU -- Macintosh Business Unit. It's run as a separate company. (I believe it's based in Mountain View, CA). They develop Office, IE and Outlook Express. All of these apps were written from the ground up for the Mac. They are seperate products from the Windows family (different features), but they are compatible. Office 2001 got rave reviews across the board, and many felt it was actually better than its Windows counterpart.

    I suspect (though cannot guarantee) you will not see the performance problems you describe in Office X.

    There is still Microsoft software for the Mac that is not developed by the MacBU. This includes Media Player, Outlook and Messenger. These applications are direct ports from Windows, and are generally considered, well... it can certainly be argued that there's room for improvement.

    - Scott

    --
    Scott Stevenson
    Tree House Ideas
  137. Mac OS X is the brand name by TheInternet · · Score: 2

    I believe Mac OS X is the brand name, and 10.1 is the revision. The official name is:

    Mac OS X 10.1

    My guess is the X is to clearly distinguish this Mach/BSD platform from the earlier versions of Mac OS X. If it all seems strange, remember the whole Solaris/SunOS thing.

    - Scott

    --
    Scott Stevenson
    Tree House Ideas
  138. Re:OS X 10.1? It's a Bond-ism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Don't giggle. It's meant to be much more serious than that. It's like a Super Spy.

    Instead of "Bond. James Bond", it's "OS Ten. Ten Point One"

  139. How many more times can this "subject" come up? by sjonke · · Score: 1

    The internet provides a great means for observing the progression of mental illness throughout the world regardless of race, religion and OS affiliation.

    --
    --- What?
  140. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been [Not Quite] by mr100percent · · Score: 1

    I think it's a little more complicacted than that, now if they crippled other software, used 'hooks' in the OS to allow it to burn faster unfairly, and forced OEM's to not bundle any Roxio software, then you've got a problem.

  141. I was addressing people who WANT the button,wheel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're happy with one button, GOOD FOR YOU. Happy day. You're obviously not going to trash the mouse. Duuuuh.

    If you're not, you just wasted $$$ on a bundled device that retails for $60. Ouch. I'm sure it doesn't quite cost the consumer that when they buy the whole system, but Apple has extremely healthy profit margins, so it's going to cost close to that. That really sucks when you can get a nice Logitech wheel/optical USB mouse for $25.

    I have tried one-button mice and they suck (IMHO). Even worse (for me) is the lack of the wheel. There are others who feel the same way, just as you have other one-button devotees. It only starts to gall me that they would bundle such an expensive mouse, particularly without added functionality that a lot of us have come to expect and even rely upon.

  142. Two-button mice, Mac OS X, and the meaning of life by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 2, Insightful

    X plays nice with two-button mice by default.

    Also, since peecees require a "feature" (second mouse button) that over 75% of their userbase doesn't understand how to use makes it a "design flaw" and not a "feature".

    --
    Who did what now?
  143. Y-E-S by MissMyNewton · · Score: 0
    "The Developer Tools CD which comes with with every copy of Mac OS X version 10.1 includes Project Builder, the Interface Builder and other development tools."

    http://www.apple.com/macosx/whatyoucando/projectbu ilder.html

    --

    ---

    Information wants...you to shut your pie hole.

  144. Availability of the upgrade by DragonPup · · Score: 3, Informative

    There's 2 ways to get this upgrade.

    Option 1, the so called 'instant upgrade'. Starting on September 29th, Apple resellers(including the Apple store and other retail outlets. probably CompUSA, MicroCenter, etc) will get CDs that will upgrade from Mac OS X 10.0.4 -> 10.0
    Cost: Gas to get to the store

    Option 2: The Apple Mac Up To Date program. You print out a PDF form and mail it to Apple. They mail you back the OS X 10,1 CD, as well as the Mac OS 9.2.1 CD and Developer Tools CD, I believe.
    Cost: $19.99, a 6-12 week wait(according to the PDF form)

    I think I'll swing by a CompUSA saturday, which is when they hand out the CDs(yes, saturday is the release date. Saturday is always the day retail Apple OS's go on sale it seems...)

    -Henry

    --
    "Useless organic meatbag" -HK-47
    1. Re:Availability of the upgrade by gidds · · Score: 0
      ...but only if you're in the US.

      Anyone know how we in the rest of the world, e.g. here in the UK, are supposed to get hold of it?

      --

      Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

  145. on saturday in germany by weinford · · Score: 1

    Heise says it's in the shelves here on saturday. And they say that in german, of course, so use the fish.

    --

    This sig is stolen from someone who had a much better idea than I had.
    1. Re:on saturday in germany by BladeMelbourne · · Score: 1

      Apple is the Netscape of operating systems. It simply isn't good enough.
      http://opax.swin.edu.au/137591/img/crapple.png

  146. Re:Speedups? by Kenshin · · Score: 1

    You wouldn't happen to be running one of the pre-release builds, would you?

    --

    Does it make you happy you're so strange?

  147. Re:Two-button mice, Mac OS X, and the meaning of l by shacker · · Score: 1

    A design flaw in 75% of windows users, or in windows itself?

    Sorry, couldn't resist. But it seems like the former to me. Just because people aren't curious about anything beneath the immediately obvious is not a reason to call it a windows design flaw.

  148. Clearly sir you are not using things correctly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple did usability studies many many many years ago and blah blah blah and they know everything so if you don't get exactly and precisely what you intended to do it is YOUR FAULT. The user interface is perfect, you who wish to change it are uneducated, and you must learn PATIENCE to wait for the contextual menu, it will make you a better person.

    How DARE you question Jobs!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    1. Re:Clearly sir you are not using things correctly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks, I needed that. I'll shut up already :-)

  149. Re:Space.dock - and something neat by alfredo · · Score: 1

    This looks like a lot of fun
    script menu Now a place to put my Perl scripts.

    --
    photosMy Photostream
  150. Re:OS 10.1 MS Word v X and fun ! by wsanchez · · Score: 1

    Actually, MSIE/Mac does not run better on any version of Mac OS, including Mac OS X than it does on Windows. While it is faster in 10.1 that it was in 10.0, it is at least an order of magnitude slower on Mac OS X compared to Windows and the JavaScript support is not on parity with Windows.

  151. Re:OS 10.1 MS Word v X and fun ! by gig · · Score: 2

    The nicest thing about running MS apps on a Mac is that they are just applications like any other ... they don't run extra programs in the background or change the OS or crash Netscape. You drag an app from CD to hard disk to "install" it, and if you don't want to keep it, you Trash it and that's that. I always Trash Entourage because jazzy email is less important to me than suffering from MS email viruses (the most common Mac virus is an Outlook virus and the second most common is a Word virus). No installers or uninstallers, no files littered around the hard drive. Word is one icon, Excel is one icon, etc.

    As for what's running at any one time, Mac OS X includes an app called ProcessViewer that will show you exactly what your system is doing. Word X seems to use only use process (in other words, no trickery and running when it shouldn't be or whatever). I don't know if that answers the question about stubs.

    Word seems to work just fine. I don't know about the Aqua toolbars, though. Panels are just bearable in Aqua, but toolbars look fancy enough to decorate a stagecoach. Luckily, you can turn any toolbar into a panel, and the most common features are already on panels.

    Word X also has new app and document icons, much better than the last version. (The app icon also has car keys hanging off it for the "test drive".)

    This is a version of Word I could actually like, rather than just being forced to use it by a publisher. In some ways, though, it's a bit depressing to see how little change there is between Word 5 and Word 10. Geegaws come and go, but 90% of your actions in Word are about the same in 10 as in 5. Maybe that's just from the perspective of someone who knows how to work with text ... perhaps it is much easier for new users, I don't know (templates and whatnot).

  152. why is apple charging for a patch? by BOFslime · · Score: 0

    I'm not seeing anything free here.. why is apple charging for a patch much needed to it's poorly written and feature crippled .0 version... personaly.. I thought of OS 10 as OS 0.10.. but.. I guess.. apple needs to gouge in order to make money..

    I wonder if I can configure the startup "bong" on my iMac to softly wisper "w3 0wn j00"...

    1. Re:why is apple charging for a patch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >why is apple charging for a patch

      They're not.

      (free clue: the apple stores are burning them)

  153. CD-RW Implementation in OSX by Nexum · · Score: 1

    V Slightly off topic I know but... I have always been interested in why my Mac couldn't do something that my PC took for granted (don't get me wrong, I love my Mac). On my PC, I can use a CD-RW and burn a dozen files, the next day I can insert the same CD-RW, and add a dozen more to those already burnt on there, the next day I could add some more... ad infinitum until the disc is full, or you erase some of the files. Why on Mac's (and apparently in OS X 10.1 too)) do you have to erase the entire CD before writing new stuff? I have asked Apple, and that elicited the fantastic non-response "because". So I'm hoping you knowledgeable slashdotters can help me out, because as far as I can see, there doesn't seem to be any big problem involved here, and I was kinda hoping this feature would be in 10.1.

    --

    This sig has been deprecated.
  154. Your post would mean something if... by Jayde+Stargunner · · Score: 1

    ...everything you said didn't apply to Windows as well. ;-P

    "The 'monopoly' argument above doesn't apply to Apple, because Apple is in no position to stifle competition, whereas Microsoft has done so, and two court verdicts have affirmed this conclusion."

    Apple can stifle the heck out of any software written for the Mac OS. In fact, they have a track record of doing so in the past. Apple has pushed 3rd party developers around just as much as any other company with a "platform" in order to promote their way of doing things.

    "Apple is a HARDWARE company that makes software to enhance the value of their hardware. Think Nikon or Canon -- they write software to support the features of their digital cameras. If you don't like MacOS X, you can run some flavour of Linux or BSD instead. So much for 100% control, eh?"

    Oh, right. OK. What was I thinking? Since all of Apple's software are just "enhancements", the same concepts no longer apply. Whatever. Nikon and Canon don't make Operating Systems. Trying to pawn Apple off as a hardware company is total bull. They are both a a hardware AND software company. I don't see Intel writing PentiumOS and bundling PentiumViewer, PentiumDVD, PentiumExplorer, and the almightly IntelTalk networking protocal.

    And, as for your last comment... I believe that if you don't like Windows, you can run some flavour of Linux or BSD instead. So much for total control, eh? Heck, I think most Linux users run on Microsoft's supposed monopoly platform (IBM/Compat. computers) and not Mac's, last time I checked. Also, last time I checked, it has always been significatly harder to rid a Mac of the MacOS than it is to rid an IBM/Compat. of Windows.

    "If a professional musician wants to concentrate on his or her craft (music), they want a system that has the features they need with the minimum fuss required to get it working. Same goes for video editors, digital imaging professionals, and other creative types who don't want to have to figure out which distro works with what. This market is a large percentage of Apple's customers, so from a business standpoint it makes good sense to bundle 'creative' apps with the OS -- just like MacOS included MacWrite and MacPaint in 1984, and it didn't prevent ISV's from writing alternatives."

    And yet it doesn't make sense to bundle Media Player and INternet Explorer with Windows? Because, no no, the average home user REALLY wants to download the nightly build of Mozilla and contribute to the BugZilla project. And, shurly they want to go to real.com and click through 18 pages of ads, be asked to sign up for 50 newsletters, and click "No, I'm sure I don't want RealPlayer Plus" 7 times just to play some MP3s.

    "Some people's stupidity is simply amazing."

    Indeed it is. Those who cannot realize that they hold such a huge double-standard truly amaze me.

    -Jayde

    --
    What's a sig?
  155. Ironic, isn't it? by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

    Without MS's monopoly power, you wouldn't have Netscape and the likes trying to gain prominance in the MS ecosystem... and then falling to Microsoft itself.

    Look at Id software for an example of someone who lives/thrives inside the Microsoft ecosystem but refuses to defer to the giant, by using OpenGL and releasing games on Mac OS and Linux.

    On the other hand, Netscape, for all it's posturing, does support many more platforms, OSes, and architectures than Microsoft does.

  156. Re:Two-button mice, Mac OS X, and the meaning of l by IntlHarvester · · Score: 1

    To shut down an OS/2 machine, you had to right-click on the desktop. I would consider that a design flaw because 1) only 25% of the users *could* guess it and 2) Of those, they would still have to guess correctly (I failed at this).

    I can't think of anything so egregious in Windows, except having to press Ctrl+Alt+Delete to change your password (which might have been fixed).

    On the other hand, it meant that most people who used OS/2 had a handle on right-clicking.

    --
    Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
  157. Re:Two-button mice, Mac OS X, and the meaning of l by spectecjr · · Score: 1

    I can't think of anything so egregious in Windows, except having to press Ctrl+Alt+Delete to change your password (which might have been fixed).

    ... which is actually for security reasons, because it's a hardware interrupt which means that keyloggers etc. can't get between you and the password dialog box and sniff the password.

    Makes perfect sense to me.

    Simon

    --
    Coming soon - pyrogyra
  158. Re:Taco: mac users ain't as reliant on the 2nd but by spectecjr · · Score: 2

    1. It's the year 2001 now. UIs have moved on. The mouse should as well.

    2. That's not the case in pretty much every app I've every used.

    3. You don't have to do that. You just right click anywhere on the document window. ANYWHERE. That's not a tiny X by Y window; that's HUGE.

    4. You obviously have never used a Windows system. Shortcut keys work the same way as the command key shortcuts. Mnemonics are mainly for ACCESSIBILITY/power user usage - they make the system easier to use by people with disabilities (eg. those who have difficulty using a mouse), and people who remember the keystroke combos. Usually a sequence will include both a mnemonic AND a control-key sequence. So there's actually more flexibility here than Apple provides.

    Not only that, but your "Alt / Ctrl take up too much space on the menu" comment is insane. There's NO real-estate to take up - the menu is a separate window on both the Mac and Windows, and expands to fits its contents... ON BOTH SYSTEMS!

    And no, most users remember the keyboard shortcuts and NOT the mnemonics. The mnemonics don't 'jam peoples minds' at all. Where have you been reading this claptrap?

    As for your point 5:

    5. [mac users are] against some dumb windows/unix geek who knows nothing about macs and who refuses to learn anything about the way they are designed arrogantly assuming that the machine is unusable in some sort of way.

    Well, that's the pot calling the kettle black, because that's what you just did throughout your entire post, but against Windows.

    Get a fricking clue.

    --
    Coming soon - pyrogyra
  159. what 10.0 should have been is what XP will be by Ian_Bailey · · Score: 1

    ... what Windows OS comes with CD burning and DVD playback out of the box? Or even CD ripping and mp3 encoding, movie making, DVD burning software, and web server software out of the box? ...

    Actually, these are most of the new features that will be included with Windows XP, included with their new Windows Media Player, etc.

    1. Re:what 10.0 should have been is what XP will be by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

      Yes, I know this :)

      So Windows finally catches up to the Mac in functionality?

      :p

  160. Re:Taco: mac users ain't as reliant on the 2nd but by Fear+the+Clam · · Score: 1

    The one mouse button was thought up by a guy named Jeff Raskin

    Actually, that's Jef Raskin, author of an excellent book, The Human Interface: New directions for Designing Interactive Systems [powells.com].

  161. Re:Apple? by OnsightFlash · · Score: 1

    nope, he's not alone. there are quite a few Dell/gateway/Compaq(we only do business apps) types defecting to the Apple side daily, once they discover that they don't have to hate the computing experience anymore, many find it quite liberating.

    try it sometime. most apple users have suffered throught the peecee experience and moved on.

  162. Re:w00t! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    where the fuck is swaziland? Is it near naziland?

    I think they could just ask the slashdot staff for some tips on how to aviod getting laid.

  163. 5G64... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the numerous posts stating that 5G64 (build number) is the final, it's not, 5G68 is. But 64, has most of the bugs tarnished out, and is very close and almost perfect, exep for few samll glitches that may not be that significant between 64 and 68, but are annoing and they will probably be whiped out by 68. And let's not forget that lat time, when os x (build 4K78) came out, there were numerous DIFERENT builds with the SAME number, to trow off pirates into not knowing which one is the "Good one" so if you are going to "Test drive os x before it's officially out, remember: it may not be the real thing.
    so wahit till it's out, buy it, and be assured.

  164. For the lazy... by GeekLife.com · · Score: 2

    Pleonasm - A term that is usually defined as the use of many more words and/or phrases than it would seem a person might ever need or require to merely express in a written or oral manner whatever simple idea or thought that person might be thinking.

  165. ROFL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sorry... giggles took over... Steve Jobs makes a terrible James Bond in my imagination

  166. pleonasm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    circumambages, circumbendibus, circumlocution, periphrase, periphrasis, redundancy, roundabout, tautology, verbality

  167. iBook was the cheapest option for me.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I shopped around for a laptop. I compared prices & features. I bought an iBook. First Apple I've ever owned.
    OSX was a big selling point as I want to be able to run Apache, MySQL, PHP, etc. In short I wanted a portable Web server for demonstrating my work.
    The displays great despite the size, it has Firewire, 2 USB ports, 10/100 ethernet, I can connect it to video, tv, projectors, etc. and Acqua totally rules. I have no speed complaints at all, an excellent Quake III frame rate, all my favourite GNU/Linux tools are pre-installed or easily compiled for OSX, it came with Project Builder and all manner of other fancy development tools and Objective C, despite my early scepticism, is proving to be a remarkably useful and powerful language.

  168. Nope. by cjsnell · · Score: 1

    I called the Store in Tyson's Corner this morning and talked to a tech who was very tired of people calling and asking if they could burn CDRs of the update. Here's what he told me:

    1) No, you cannot burn 10.1 on CDR at the Apple Store

    2) When I talked to him at around 11AM, he did not know of any plans to _sell_ the update in-store. He didn't rule it out completely; he just said that they had not received any of the update packages. However, I read an Apple press release later in the afternoon that indicated otherwise: updates (in limited quantities ) will be available at the stores.

    Now, I did talk with one of my co-workers and found out the the CDR rumor had some truth to it originally but it was completely unofficial. Now that so many people have been calling the Apple Stores, I don't think this will be happening at all.

    1. Re:Nope. by Hacksworth · · Score: 1

      That's a shame. I just bought some new CD-Rs too and was looking to try them out.

      On the plus side, I hear that Apple gives you a whole bunch of stuff (10.1, 9.2.1, Dev tools) when you order it from them, so $20 is starting to sound a little more reasonable.

  169. Context Clicking is to UI what OO is to Procedural by semios · · Score: 1

    Context Clicking is to the UI what OO is to Procedural Programming. With no contextual menus, you have to browse through a slew of menus which may or may not have any applicability to the object you're interested in manipulating. With context clicking you're immediately presenting with a menu pertaining directly to the object you're interested in. That's fantastic.

    I have a Titanium, which I'm very happy with except for the lack of a second mouse button. My god, there's a triple click for certain actions. How can you not have a second button, yet find triple clicking acceptable?

  170. Mr. Kettle, I'd like you to meet Mr. Pot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I might seem crazy about this stuff, but it is my pet peeve when geeks push geek stuff on non-geeks.

    Ummm, maybe someone WANTS that other button or a scroll wheel? They could be a non-geek.

    Now please resume your shoving down our throats of your ONE BUTTON IS ENOUGH FOR ANYONE WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT crap.

    And $60 is still a chunk of change to throw out just to replace with a $25 Logitech optical wheel mouse. That's a whole lotta profit and not a lot of flexibility for those few mutant geeks that love to inflict their devious wishes on the rest of society.

  171. Re:Context Clicking is to UI what OO is to Procedu by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

    I have a Titanium, and I enjoy context menus....

    Where do you 'triple click'?

  172. Apple UpToDate (Was:Re:Availability of the upgrade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Incorrect on the Up To Date program. It states you get a 10.1 upgrade CD. The only way to get a 'full version' CD is to pony up the $130 for new retail box.

  173. Cutting corners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    (I figure that they can sell them cheap by cutting corners like most of the mouse buttons ;)

    Yeah, that's a real sharp corner they cut; shaved a whole dollar off of the cost of making the iBook. What a savings! You do a lot of figuring, Rob. It's just too bad you don't ever do it with your brain.

    In case you've never used a Mac, Apple's OSes are specifically designed with a single-button mouse in mind which means you don't lose any functionality from being 'hobbled' with only one mouse button. Even if you do opt for a polybuttoned mouse, most of them (like, say, Microsoft's fairly nice Intellimouse series) come with drivers that let you do Ctrl+Click and other actions with the extra mouse buttons.

    Cut costs indeed. A very small laptop with a decently high resolution screen with built-in modem and ethernet, two USB ports, a firewire port, the option for wireless ethernet, and even does TV-out while only giving up a single mouse button (which you don't need) and the PCMCIA slot (which you'd likely only have used for a network card of some sort anyway) is cutting corners? Give me a break.

    You can bitch about it if you wanted to run Linux on the iBook, but then you'd just have people telling you to use BenH's kernels or go buy yourself a mouse and shut up. :-)

  174. Apple unveiling retail outlet in Palo Alto by Animats · · Score: 2
    Apple is opening a retail outlet in Palo Alto, Tonight, crews were working busily, and the setup looked like a movie set, with trucks, lights, and related support. It looked like Apple was preparing for some PR-type event.

    The last Mac-oriented store in the area went bust a few months back, so this is probably more of an ego trip than a profit center. Steve Jobs lives nearby.

  175. Re:Taco: mac users ain't as reliant on the 2nd but by jesser · · Score: 2

    If you have to click on a tiny 15x10 pixel icon in an e-mail program to bring up a contextual menu for it, any speed advantage of right clicking is negated.

    You're forgetting something about contextual menus: the "contextual" part.

    Say there are 20 of some object on the screen (maybe hyperlinks or textboxes), I want to tell the program which one I want to perform an action on (perhaps "copy link location" or "paste"). It takes less time to right-click on the object than it does to left-click on it and then go to the menu at the top of the window/screen. And with hyperlinks, clicking the object performs a different action than the one I wanted (following the link), so I'm stuck if I only have one mouse button.

    --
    The shareholder is always right.
  176. Re:Taco: mac users ain't as reliant on the 2nd but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CONTROL CLICK! CHRIST.

    asdfsdenrweoihj sf.;ajdfh;lasdhf wer wal;erjk
    -0- lameness filter avoidance technology -0-

  177. MacOS sucks! by BladeMelbourne · · Score: 1

    Apple is the Netscape of operating systems. It simply isn't good enough.
    http://opax.swin.edu.au/137591/img/crapple.png

  178. Apple sucks fag dick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple - undrpowered, overprced.

    'Nuff said.

  179. Re:Taco: mac users ain't as reliant on the 2nd but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I looked at my elder child trying to use a mouse. He was 2 years old at this time. It was a standard 3 buttons pc mouse. He did not get it. He always pushed the wrong button got irritated and usually gave up after a few minutes. I took an apple mouse and connected it to the pc. The difference was astounding.

    Now he is 3 1/2 and uses mac os x pretty well. His brother, which is 2 years old, is also able to use the os x machine to launch games, play them and exit.

    I use three button mouses, but the usability difference between one button and two button mouse is very real for novice users. Apple is right. They should ship only one button mouses, so developers make usable products. Power users can buy an extra mouse.

    Cheers,

    --fred

  180. Re:Two-button mice, Mac OS X, and the meaning of l by oingoboingo · · Score: 1

    On the other hand, it meant that most people who used OS/2 had a handle on right-clicking.

    having to drag things around on the desktop with the right mouse button took a lot of getting used to as well...or am i remembering the workplace shell incorrectly?

  181. Re:Taco: mac users ain't as reliant on the 2nd but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the remaining 99% of Apple users get to suffer with a crippled product because somebody doesn't want their 2 year old to be confused? Get a grip!

    If it's really that big a deal, map all 3 buttons to do the same thing.

  182. Re:Taco: mac users ain't as reliant on the 2nd but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No you don't get it. The two years old is just a real-world example. I bet that my dad would have the same kind of reaction. They key thing is that there is a real usability difference between one and three button mouses.

    Apple target a market of computer illiterates. Having applications usable with a single mouse button render the whole system more usable. Shipping one button mouses with every mac is a way to ensure that all applications will keep this level of usability.

    I use both mac and PCs, and I admit that the contextual menu is great. But as there are some PC applications that provide some functionality _only_ with the contextual menu, you end up clicking on every possible part of the screen, trying to discover is the context menu change. Not brillant.

    Cheers,

    --fred

  183. Typical mac moderators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The guy this reply is to gets modded up to +4 for getting it completely wrong, and this sits at zero.

  184. not qutie by hawk · · Score: 2
    >1) Because mice themselves are not an example of an intuitive
    > interface. No one really ever seems to know what it is, or how to use
    > it, until they've seen it in action.


    The answer: 26 minutes.
    The question: How long doe it take from cracking the shipping case on a new mac to set it up and have your secretary's first memo printing. [I believe the figure is now substantiall longer0.


    The early mac interface was intuitive; it lost a lot over times (and even more in windows).


    >3) Because Jef Raskin simply decided to go with a single button by
    > fiat. IIRC he did no user testing.


    HUH??? No. bzzzt. etc.


    Apple did extensive testing before determining that training time was significantly less for one button. istr that raskin fought for mre and lost.


    the MS mouse has two for the simple reason that apple has one. Three is a minimum for my tastes :)


    hawk, still amused that the comment was moderated insightful rather than funny . . .

    1. Re:not qutie by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 2
      Well, I'm basing what I heard about the mouse history on documents at Stanford. The page here is particularly useful, but really there's a whole bunch of them, because it's an interesting subject.


      Pang: Can you say something about your role in deciding how many buttons the mouse would have?

      Raskin: Yeah. That's my fault entirely.

      I had observed at PARC, in myself and others, that the three-button mouse was confusing. And I said, "What would be the way of making it so there would never be any question about what button to press?" If there's only one button, you can't make any mistakes. So I said, "Let's make a mouse with one button." But the first thing is, how can you do all the things? You have to use a few buttons to do everything on the PARC machine.

      So I designed the method of using a one-button mouse, and so invented a lot of methods that are still in use, like click and drag for selecting a region, and for dragging things across the screen. Now the first one, it turns out, I only learned years later-- only a few years ago-- there had been a use of dragging for selecting text in Gypsy, but I didn't know about that editor then, so I invented it independently. But the ones about collecting things, and dragging icons across, that was not at PARC.

      So I invented the one-button mouse, and the methods for how to use it, and it's really a very heady feeling to go up to almost anybody in this entire culture, and know that they're using something that I invented every day. They don't know that anybody invented it at all.



      and then there's this, by some of the designers who built the mice themselves:


      Sun: The only story I have on that is also anecdotal. Someone else told me that Chris Espinosa said that it would be easier for him to write the documentation if there was only one button, so he wouldn't have to talk about "left button" and "right button."

      Kelley: The woman who was writing the user's manual was heavily involved, and they thought that it would be easier to explain how to use it if it had one button.

      Yurchenco: I don't remember strong arguments for two buttons from anybody. I don't think there was much strong support from it at Apple at all. There may have been some software guys who wanted it because they could put more bells and whistled on, but I don't ever remember any screaming arguments there. I don't think it was a big decision in the end.... It's probably one of those osmosis decisions: the consensus is there, and people just say, "Yeah, it's going to be one button."

      Sachs: As for the one-, two-, or three-button design, we just built all kinds of different prototypes of buttons, and one button seemed easier to use. It might have gone differently if there was software to use that would have shown why you needed a second button. At Apple, the evidence that the mouse was designed first, rather than the user interface, is that only later on did the idea of option-clicking, shift-clicking, command-clicking come about. If we had known that that was required, it might have forced us to make a two-button mouse.



      So it appears that the one-button mouse was developed by Raskin, and supported by a few people, around whom a consensus naturally grew, _prior_ to the full-fledged design or testing of the UI at all, and founded on little more than Raskin's personal experiences with Alto mice. There may have been after-the-fact user testing, but no one has seemed to discuss this. As I am very interested in computing history, I would be very grateful if you could point me to someplace that contraverts this point, and which has some weight behind it. (honestly, it's interesting to me, no joke)


      As for the early Mac interface, remember, an intuitive UI is one that people can pick up immediately. An easy-to-learn UI is one that requires actual effort to learn, but very very little. Given that the Mac had to ship with really good documentation (I still have copies), audio casette tapes, posters, etc. back in '84 and still people often had a hard time 'getting it' (e.g. the disasterous Test Drive promotion) I wouldn't call it intuitive, so much as very easy to learn. There is a minor, but important difference, i.e. if a mouse was intuitive, people would know what to do with it the first time they see it, rather than learning how to use it easily by watching someone use it for all of five seconds.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
  185. Re:This is what 10.0 should have been [OT] by firewort · · Score: 2

    In the 32 years since UNIX began it's existence, the "consumer" we speak of has changed. In 1969 when UNIX began, my mother would never have had a computer. My father-in-law wouldn't attempt to use a computer to alter his digital photography work.

    In the 70's, IBM had a huge mainframe with terminals they sold to the Washinton Post to replace typesetting. The typesetters union revolted, struck, and made a general mess of the place with ink. The system failed, not due to this, but due to the fact that, by the time it was completed, millions invested, microcomputers were beginning to appear, not running UNIX, that had the power to set type. A few years later, and desktop publishing became possible. Aldus marketed Pagemaker, got bought by Adobe, and hit one out of the park.

    As much as I like UNIX, and I do, it was never meant for tomorrow's consumer, who no longer has to tolerate a steep learning curve.

    I don't have to fool with punch cards, or physically adding platters to the hard drive- I don't have to wait for my printout at the chain driven lineprinter. The consumer is an ever moving target, and the Next Big product always makes it easier for that consumer.

    --

  186. ISOs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it's so freely distributed why don't people start posting ISO's?
    I have an ftp if anyone wants to post to it.
    AIM: MWarren83

  187. Re:Taco: mac users ain't as reliant on the 2nd but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Food for thought:

    The single easiest GUI to use I've ever encountered was on a Xerox Star, when I had a summer job at Xerox in college. In that system, every action was either available as a static button if it didn't apply to a specific on-screen object, or in a contextual menu if it did apply to a specific object. There was no static menu bar, no pulldown menus, and no confusion.

    If Apple really wanted to make life easy for beginners, they would make all applications usable with a single type of click. Right now, a Mac may come with only one button, but a user is expected to learn several different ways to click with it. At a minimum there is single click, double click, click & drag, shift click, and command click. And beyond that there is control click, click & hold, and even triple click. You may have succeeded in keeping the mouse simple, but you haven't actually made anything easier, you've just moved the complexity somewhere else.

    Instead of inventing a myriad of ways to click a single mouse button, how about standardizing on 3 simple mouse actions: single click to select and/or drag, double click to activate, and right click for a contextual menu. Put any possible actions you can perform on an object (except for select, move, and activate) in the menu instead of inventing different application specific ways to click on an object to invoke the other actions.

  188. Re:Taco: mac users ain't as reliant on the 2nd but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for the answer.

    > At a minimum there is single click, double click, click & drag, shift click, and command click

    Well, double click was supposed to be select + execute the default action on the selection. This mean that it is not needed to properly execute an application [of course, this is not true anymore. double-clicking is often required, and quite difficult to learn]. Shift-click and command click are supposed to be used to extend/modify a selection, which is not needed for novices.

    Click/move is drag and drop. This one seems important to me.

    In a quest for the ultimate GUI, I would like more predictability. What I truly hate in recent trend is that buttons don't look like buttons anymore, and that you have to move the mouse all over the screen, hoping to find is something can be activated. Then you can do it again with the right-button to find any hidden contextual menu, then you can try to drag things, and drop them randomly.

    Every part of the screen that act like a button should have a certain look. Every "object" should have a certain look (an "object" beeing something that can be selected/moved/or that have a contextual menu attached). When clicking on a draggable object, all the drop sites should be lightly "hilited". You get the point.

    > single click to select and/or drag, double click to activate, and right click for a contextual menu

    The real question here is: should contextual menu be _required_ to use the app (ie: some action are _only_ present in contextual menus), or should contextual menus be _optional_ (ie: only _shortcuts_ for a select + menu operation).

    Cheers,

    --fred

  189. Re:Is it faster? -- iBook? by bliss · · Score: 0

    decent PC is a perfectly good assesment whearas with Machintoy systems I can think of only bad things.

    --
    The death of one man is a tragedy; the death of a million is a statistic --Joseph Stalin
  190. Re:Two-button mice, Mac OS X, and the meaning of l by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good reason too (that I was aware of). Too bad XP-style logins and Ctrl+Alt+Del apparently don't mix, which sorta indicates that NT's SAK is going away.

    I was referring more to the support issue because the option is in a non-obvious location. That could have been fixed easily with a "Password Control Panel" that did nothing other than tell users to press Ctrl+Alt+Delete.

    --IH

  191. Re:Taco: mac users ain't as reliant on the 2nd but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also, in Windows I can't Cut 'n' Paste using Ctrl-C and Ctrl-P when using I'm Telnetted into another (Unix) box - Ctrl-C obviously has a totally different context in this instance.

    This is very inconsistent. Now, when I'm using the (oh-so-nice) Terminal program in Mac OS X I retain all my cut-copy-paste functionalty because of the Mac's use of an extra meta key for keyboard shortcuts - the Command key. The Control key retains it's expected Unix function.

    A minor point with contextual menus too - these can be set to appear after a click-hold with a one-button mouse.

  192. Real men don't use mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    real men use the keyboard. Why use a mouse it's far slower than the keyboard

  193. Apple retail outlet opens by Animats · · Score: 2
    Large glowing creamy-white illuminated Apple logos. Haven't been in yet.


    It's on University Avenue across from Borders, if anybody cares.

  194. Re:Is it faster? -- iBook? by Smur · · Score: 1

    I'm now losing sleep. I have an old iBook - the original Tangerine "clamshell". I am awaiting the arrival of a 128MB RAM upgrade and the OS X 10.1 CD. Do I cancel the CD and live with 9.2? Naive me - I assumed all the press I was reading about OS X being faster, more stable, BSD-based, easier to code for, etc. was all true even on "older" machines. Apple web site said so - call me gullible. Has anyone out there tried running OS X on 128 MB iBook G3 300? Am I hosed? Thanks.