Slashdot Mirror
In Which OS Do You Feel More Productive?
HTMLChecker asks: "I found an article in which the author talks about how she is more productive using Mac OS X.
What about the people of Slashdot? Where do you feel more productive, in Linux? Windows? DOS? Mac OS X? Also, what is the best way to rate productivity in an OS?"
By the sheer number of FPS titles available native to the platform.
Inversely, of course.
M
trustedworlds.net - gaming, security, and the gunk that lives in between
To those of us that have either been on the platform for a while (or since the beginning), or have already switched from another platform to OS X, this article will not provide much that we do not already know. However, for those not familiar with OS X, it is a pretty good read. I have used many platforms in parallel for years from the early days of the PC revolution (Apple ][, Macintosh, TRS-80, Commodore, Amiga, Atari, Compaq, Windows) to the later workstations (Sun, SGI, NeXT) and have my likes and dislikes for all of them. Having said that however, my preference has fallen on OS X. It is sooo easy to use, is truly plug and play, is more stable, more secure, has most of the GUI and CLI integration a geek could want as well as a pretty good selection of software that makes things either 1) more enjoyable and/or 2) more productive.
For a long while, I had multiple systems on or under my desk, peaking at one time with an SGI Octane, PowerMac 9600, Windows NT, and a Linux box to perform my scientific work, serve a website, do graphics work and general productivity. All of that functionality now exists beautifully in one OS X machine freeing up considerable desktop space. Also, thank goodness for flat panel displays! I serve a couple of websites up on my workstation as well as use it for computational calculations, a front for distributed computing, writing papers, doing graphics for figures and illustrations, preparing presentations etc...etc...etc...
No other platform offers this degree of ease of use combined with flexibility and functionality.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
As a programmer, I am much more productive in Linux because I can tie almost everything I do in Gnome (or KDE) to a key command. I don't use the mouse very much (or at all) while programming in gvim or Eclipse, and it really slows me down when I need to, say, launch a terminal or a browser.
As a scientist, where I do most of my work in MS Office, I am much more productive in Windows. I basically have to use MS Office because I need to interoperate with my peers and coworkers. Furthermore, Excel (every scientists best friend), is still far and away the best spreadsheet application and to me is Window's so called "killer app". MS Office for the Mac is still wildly unstable, and although it's an option, it's not a very good one.
As a hobbiest or a general user, I'm more productive in Mac OS X, which sort of bridges both worlds. Because Macintosh enforces a pretty strict interface guideline, all the general purpose apps are easier to use on the first go. This is not really critical for stuff I use every day (as a programmer or a scientist) but is really useful when I'm trying out a new chess app or whatever.
If I had only one choice, I would use Mac OS X. At work I have both a Linux computer and a Windows computer on my desk (it's a pretty big desk). At home I use my iBook. I don't have to make that choice.
My productivity shoots up as soon as I see a Bash prompt.
that does not allow me to read slashdot all day.
I can open an average of 14 infected mails every minute, click on the atatchments and have them procreating in seconds, without having to save them, make them executable, then fiddle about trying to get them to run under Wine. Match that on any other OS.
In dealing with servers and enterprise applications, I feel more productive with Unix and LAMP.
However, when it comes to office applications or presentations, at this point I still feel more comfortable with Windows - though Open Office is coming along quite nicely.
"Your admirers in the street
Got to hoot and stamp their feet
in the heat from your physique" -King Crimson
I'm actually more productive in Windows, since in Linux I tend to fiddle with things and have fun :)
In windows and DOS, I play games too much. In Linux, I futz around compiling things over and over and getting my configuration files just right. In Mac OS X I just stare slack-jawed at the purty eye candy.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
No, really, Slashdot doesn't have enough rabid platform advocacy and name-calling. By all means let's put this on the front page and drum up some more.
Serious research is one thing, trolling for a flamewar is another.
-- the_Librarian
Hmm...I don't think I could possibly guess what the preferred OS of Slashdot is. (I would assume the preferred OS of most would be the one they are most productive with) It's not a particular OS has a majority presence here or anything.
PalmOS 5. On my Treo 650 smartphone. The total integration, mobility, and preconfig'd apps for specific tasks - along with the dearth of options when things go wrong, except trying again, make it the perfect tool. It's practically invisible, while I'm communicating with people around the world, who don't need to have any equipment more special than a regular phone, or maybe any kind of email or web browser.
--
make install -not war
Personally it is not so much the operating system as the window manager. I use fluxbox becase I like being able to scoll between virtual desktops with my mouse scroll wheel. The advantage of Linux is that you have tons of window managers to choose from, as opposed to Windoze of OSX where you are limited to the one provided.
Because it has Visual Studio, which is the best IDE out there (in my opinion, of course).
When I boot to linux I spend too much time tweaking.
When I use my ibook I spend too much time exploring
When I use 2000 I am at work and just program
I have achieved more accomplishments on a Nintendo then anywhere else. Including real life.
Because anything that can keep me that angry for that long makes me produce more heat, noise, piles of hair upon my desk, and sheer nervous energy while wondering if it will work properly.
My little site.
I use Windows at work, but I feel like my brain spends most of its time processing how to move around in the user interface, which things to press, what to click where and which button to use. When I'm using Mac OS X, my brain works in a more task oriented way. Instead of opening this program and right-clicking on that thing, I'm editing a video, or I'm working on a graphic. It's somehow less intrusive and allows me to focus on whatever I'm trying to do instead of focusing on how to do it.
There is something to be said for the command line. I don't have a window manager on my Debian box and I always seem to get done what needs to be done. With Windows, I find myself up until 2am browsing the Internet for random shit. All because its available. I guess that makes me an Internet junkie.. I really should fix that. Anyway.. CLIs make me most productive 'cause of the lack of distraction.
What is your penile percentile?
I jsut got a MacMini awhile ago, great computer. Installed the bsd tools and developer crap, and half a billion other things. Right now linux is much more productive for my programming, but once I learn xcode on OSX im guessing that will change.
Where do you feel more productive?
:)
Behind a firewall that blocks port 80
The funny thing about comparing operating systems is that frequent users of each OS are blind to the failings of their own, and are driven insane by the failings of others. For example, I find scrolling in even the latest OSX to be painful, but I love it on Windows. People get driven nuts by explorer pausing when it tries to find things that aren't there, but I don't notice it and instead go batty when Finder wastes time panning to the right in column view.
On Windows, I have a small set of utilities (notably strokeit, trip* and remote desktop) that I rely on heavily, and while other platforms have their equivalents, I just don't find them anywhere near as good (remote desktop, in particular).
Now don't get me too wrong - I would rather use default OSX over default Windows, but give me a customised Windows, and I'll take it over any other OS. It's the same reason I use an IE shell (iRider) over FireFox - one may be the technically 'better' solution, but the other just does exactly what I need it to, and lets me do it faster.
I guess my point is the obvious - people are most productive in whatever they're used to, and whatever suits them.
...especially since I need solid video editing (FCP 4) and I also need X, gcc (for embedded systems design work) and security. I bought my first OS X laptop about a year ago and since then I have gotten rid of everything Windows that I owned. My Mac, honestly, has been the most reliable and usable computer I've ever owned. I don't get involved in the whole DEFEND YOUR OS nonsense, my motto is USE WHAT WORKS FOR YOU, and for me, thats Mac OS X.
Abuse my rationalization of rhetoric as either metaphor or monotomy.
A sense of accomplishment is *usually* tied in with accomplishment (especially among us engineers)... but it's possible that if an OS gives you "busy work" so to speak, that you will "feel more productive" using it than another that actually boasts higher productivity. I would *think* this would be more likely to affect the unices, but the abysmal bonus tasks I have to perform in Windows makes me personally feel most productive in Linux, followed by Solaris, followed by Windows. Only one of these OSes has made me dink around for hours because something deep inside broke utterly. I think we all know which one that is. The closest Linux has come is this mysterious thing where it wouldn't fsck the disk while complaining about it, but that was actually my bad. Solaris misbehaves at work routinely, but it's not their happy-joy-love install, so it's probably not representative of the "real" Solaris.
More then just GUI wise. Although there were a number of significant improvements in Panther over Jaguar. Expose and network browsing to name a couple. But OS X is one of the few OSes I've used where I've felt where the command line was just as functional as the GUI. Windows often feels lacking in that respect, not to mention some of the clunkiness found in the DOS/Windows command line over *nix variants.
Although the biggest thing for me on a mac is still a one-button mouse. While most functionality is on the left button, if you plug in a two+ button mouse into a mac you'll find that the right mouse button behaves more or less like how you would expect it to, and not having it makes you feel like you're missing something, even though you can control-click still. Seeing how many mac users hook up PC mice to their Macs now I don't see why Apple can't just start shipping Macs with two-button mice.
First it would depend on what a person does. I'd imagine someone working in prepress would be rather unproductive in Linux, given the lack of tools, but the same would not be true of a PERL developer.
However, generally, people are the most productive in the environment they are the most comfortable in. They know it, understand it, and thus can use it effectively. So Linux people will be the most productive in Linux, Mac people in OS-X, and so on. I'm also willing to bet that any of those people, properly retrained and acclimated to a new OS, would be basically equally productive, provided the new OS provided the same quality of tools.
For most jobs, a computer is just a tool that gets things done. When you get down to it, the OS holy-wars don't matter since most of what is talked about doesn't affect normal user productivity in a noticable way.
It's different than saying what OS is the best technical solution for a given problem. For example UNIX/Linux have a better text-mode remote access soltuion. An SSH terminal is nearly as good as being at the console. Not so with Windows, you need a graphical remote desktop session, there's a lot you can't do command line. Thus if text mode access is technicly better for a soltuion (perhaps bandwidth is extremely limited), then clearly a UNIX base is a better idea, for that factor at least.
But trying to ask which OS is generally more productive is just flamebait. All the zealots are going to say their OS is the fastest/easiest/most powerful and will probably have irrelivant personal anecdotes about how they can't deal with other OSes. In reality they are all different ways of doing thigns, with good points and bad points, and it's mostly just learning one and becomming proficient with it.
Riding a bike isn't a natural activity. You don't just sit down and do it. None the less, once learned and practised, it's literally second nature. Likewise no OS is so intuitive that all people can use it isntantly as though they'd been doing it their whole life, in part because what is intuitive vaires by person. However once you are used to the methods, you can get quite productive with all the majors.
Seriously. I got more done in five uninterrupted hours of staring at white letters on a black screen (especially now with vi's color syntax highlighting and dangling } identifiers; where was this stuff when I was hacking code on VT220s?) than I ever possibly could in *any* GUI. With a GUI you've got Outlook's siren call (when forced to use Windows) or the Mac Mail.app icon and it's little red "you've got XX pieces of new mail!" appendage, the effortless ability to click over to a web browser "just for a few seconds," etc. ARGH.
;)
Grab three O'Reilly books, fire up the console, and get codin'! I did cheat a little bit, keeping a virtual console open that I used for:
- `man strncasecmp`
- telnet localhost 1390 (was working on, and debugging, a network app)
- ssh @ for the occasional pine session
- lynx http://www.google.com/ (for digging for sample code when I got stuck)
Just finished a "estimated time: 1 week" piece of a project this morning. Five hours. Console mode.
*That's* productive.
geek. lawyer.
I would define productivity as the ability to get your work done quickly with the least effort. For any given individual, this will be whatever system they are already familiar with. If that's Windows, Mac, or Linux for you, then that's what it is.
In absolute terms, I think the best productivity would be whatever OS or environment where the tools are forgotten about and your attention is solely focused on the task you are trying to accomplish. I think this might also be tempered by how long it takes to become an expert on the system (and how much effort is required to maintain that status).
Probably command line Unix type environments used by experts who really know the system are the have the highest level of productivity (most useful results for the least efforts). However, it takes a long time and lots of effort to become extremely proficient on the Unix command line.
Plus, comparing them like that is only valuable if you have no experience with computers or else want to maximize your efficiency in the long term at the cost of learning a new system.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
1)No www etc to eat away time.
2)I quite often need to write and test out code in a test-bed like environment for later inclusion into some other, typically embedded, software. The most productive way I've found to do this is Borland C with MSDOS. I can edit/compile/test small code bodies faster using MSDOS and Borland C than a cute GUI interface with mouse clicking etc. Bummer though when a bad bointer crashes the whole box. Still, a reboot only takes approx 20 sec. I can do almost the same thing under *nix, but it isn't quite as snappy. *nix does same me from nasty ptrs and give better core dumps etc though.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Who cares what OS you use?
It seems to me that most users choose their applications first and then find an OS that supports them, not the other way around.
Defecation occurs.
I started on 360s and have run the gammut since then. I've worked extensively on LINUX, Solaris, DOS, Windows (all), MacOS since 1985, and many, many more. I can say without hesitation that MacOS X has been the most productive non-programming environment for me.
Development environments vary and, of course, it is impractical to do Windows development on anything other than Windows. But, for development where you really do have a choice, like with Java, you can see a strong gravitation towards MacOS X. In fact, a couple of JavaONEs ago there was such an observation in the daily rag put out by the conference: WHERE DID ALL THESE POWERBOOKS COME FROM?!
Apple did what many said could not be done: making a UNIX that could be used by mere mortals. They put a GUI on UNIX that even covers all the nasty sys admin stuff. And, it isn't just functional, it is beautiful. When you spend 12 hours a day on something, having it be beautiful goes from optional to manditory. JMHO.
-- Scott
I mean, she makes the argument that OSX is a more productive environment because it has better icons.
Karma: Non-existant. Due mostly to the fact that you smell funny and nobody likes you.
XP. Probably the only person here who feels the that way so I feel like I should vote. It does what I want it to do more often then anything else. I do use several flavors on Linux on several other machines at home. I gave on Apple many years ago when they just got to small to matter (to me).
http://www.busyweather.com/
I can't believe you actually recommend XP for web and mail - what a way to increase the number of zombies and spam-bots on TEH INTARWEB than to set people up with an insecure operating system, an insecure web browser, and an insecure mail client. Smooth move, ex-lax.
For web access, e-mail, and writing documents, a linux live CD is the way to go, with documents and preferences are stored on a USB flash drive. It's hard for a rootkit to 0wn a system when all executables are stored on read-only media.
My kids' computer runs windows (for the games), and that's why their computer is blocked by MAC address at the router.
-paul
Pistol caliber is like religion: everyone has their favourite, and theirs is the only right choice.
I think that Mac and Windows are both good enough now that the most important thing is which one you are used to. I use Mac at home and Windows at work. I am much faster at Office for Windows, because I use it all day and am used to the keyboard shortcuts in Windows. I can surf the internet faster [I almsot typed "more efficiently", but didn't think that made sense] at home because I am familiar with the Safari shortcuts and have a mouse with extra buttons that I configured for forward, backward and open in new window.
:) ]
Neither machine crashes very often. Neither has required maintenance voodoo. Each has certain OS features that I prefere over the other. [I hate window-in-window style of Windows applications. I prefer Windows Taskbar to the Dock.] The work machine has some weird remote access settings that IT occassionally tweaks when they modify our network.
I don't use Linux. [I know, what am I doing on Slashdot?
I have the same problem, it is called ADD. You should take a test online to see if you should go see a doctor.
There is no shame involved. It is just another chemical imbalance... like diabetes.
Cheers,
Adolfo
Even though I enjoy working on Linux (CLI) more, I find I'm more productive on Mac OS X since I spend less of my time coding 5 minute useless programs (more effort to create XCode projects than makefiles) or playing Nethack...
-:sigma.SB
WARN
THERE IS ANOTHER SYSTEM
You're not stuck with one desktop if you're using Windows XP. Go
here to download the Virtual Desktop for Windows XP which allows your to manage four desktops.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/po
OSX is what I am most proficient with. When I want to do something where the GUI is not powerful enough like downloading a file and move it from one place to another on a regular basis as well as other things you can have cron do for you on a regular basis, you have BASH, Applescript and anything Linux can run. When I want to edit a video for my family, I use iLife '05 or Final Cut Pro. When I need to type a document, I can do it with Word. It has all the best things of UNIX wrapped with a purty GUI. What more can I ask for?
Gorkman
If the end-user wants to simply read websites, check mail, and write a document or two, a Celeron with Windows XP is the ideal choice.
I would prefer a Mac-mini. Seriously, for such a limited set of tasks, why is Windows XP ideal? Linux could handle such tasks easily as well.
1)No popups from background windows poping up in the front, like in firefox or safari. If there is a popup in a different tab's page, it will not popup in front if im not focused on that page.
2) Faster bootup time.
3) when I shut down my computer, I can just click shut down and go away. In windows sometimes there would be a popup waiting for me to click. So I can't leave unless I the blue windows screen.
4) Expose..enough said
5) I have been using this for more than a month now and my Mini only got stuck once. Once! take that windows!
6) No need to install anti-virus software (yet)
7) No worries about the registry hell!
8) I donno why but all the programs (not just apples) works the way they are suppose to work! This is a very strange feeling. In windows world, I never expected programs to run the way they are suppose to.
9) this is just a small thing I noticed, but in real player ( sorry I have to use it), suppose I'm watching a video and shut it down in the middle. The next time i start that video I will see a mark where I left off the last time. This is a small thing but, if you are regular video watch like I, this is very very helpful.
I can keep going and going and going, but seriously, I can't imagine why I did not switched sooner . I'm planning on getting imac pretty soon (and give my mac mini to my dad or something)
"There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people."--Howard Zinn
Pssssst.... they matter now. :)
-- There is no sig line, only Zuul.
The statement about bash is quite true. I have gotten used to it and prefer it over ksh, csh, etc. But I would say that regardless of what platform, as long as I have bash, it makes things a lot easier. I never liked Windows's version of history or its scripting language. So whether if I'm using OS X, or Windows (where I install cygwin) I use bash and it makes me more productive.
Irregardless of underlying platform.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
First off, the main problem she cites with GNU/Linux is her constant urge to upgrade, and how upgrading in the particular distribution she chose breaks things. By the time we reach the OS X-fawning section of the article, her urge to constantly upgrade seems to have completely vanished. If she's ok with sitting still on a single version of her desktop manager, the problems she mentioned with KDE simply vanish.
Second, the majority of the issues she complains about with Windows are settings. That means, if you don't like the way it's set up, you can just change it. Since many people obviously don't share her (somewhat bizarre) preferences, this can only be a good thing.
Lastly, I think I'll simply mention the fact that she refers to GUI design choices (which happen to align with her own ideas) as "logical." What a joke.
It so happens that the very features she's so gleeful about annoy me to no end. I wouldn't give up GNU/Linux running XFCE 4 for anything, but I certainly wouldn't spew a load of crap onto the internet about how "logical" the design choices in XFCE are, because that is, in itself, illogical.
It is the best of both worlds, Windows does not come with a Bash shell but nothing stops me from ssh'ing from $2500 Windows gaming machine to a $45 Linux jump box.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
Really. I daily swap in and out between Solaris, WinXP, Linux and OS/2.
By far, OS/2 stays out of the way the most so I can focus on how to do the job within a particular application or task.
OS/2 is equally comfortable and useable either by pure command-line or pure GUI. Currently all the *NIX really suck if you wanted to go pure GUI.
(Go ahead, try one week without ever opening up a command-line prompt in *NIX and see how far you get).
WinXP, on the other hand, is a bitch when I go command-line, for whatever reason. Mostly because most of the tools, and Billy, don't expect the user to go there. Or something.
If I had to jump ship, I'd go OS X.
Sorry, but it's true. For most single-user tasks performed serially, cooperative multitasking is good enough. Mac OS X is still slow and ungainly in comparison (this is especially true for the Finder). Of course, for web and application development, OS X definitely blows everything else away.
I am far more productive under MacOS X than Windows XP. I also run Linux on my X86 box, but am not quite as productive since I spend a lot more time doing sysadmin and such than I do on the Mac.
:-)
One of the most telling factors is that I find myself trying to use my Exposé gestures on my X86 platform...
Yes...especially if your target audience is kids with iPods.
No reason to lie.
This is just such a ridiculously written article. The few legitimate examples provided in the article are found in the section discussing OSX. Some points of contention:
Personally, I find the Start Menu to be completely useless. And for the record, I didn't like the Apple Menu, so beloved to OS 9 users either.
What the fuck does that mean? I love the Start Menu. Especially the part where it has my most frequently used programs - that thing is a godsave. It seems like the author just isn't used to windows and so is bashing everything on sight.
The tree view causes more useless motion and mouse clicks than anything else in the whole interface.
Actually, the tree view is something that is intuitive, since our filesystem is organized in a hierarchical form. What the hell else do you want? If you don't want the tree view and prefer double-clicking your way through every single folder in your path, you can do that too.
Seeing Desktop and My Documents at the top of the hierarchy, above My Computer, still sends my brain into tailspins. My Documents and My Computer at the same level...huh????
Actually, no it doesn't send my brain into a tailspin you retard. Having My Documents there is easy for non-computer folks so that they can have easy access. And for the record, the actual My Documents is found on C:/Documents and Settings/UserName/My Documents so it's not a random magical folder at the top of the chain - it makes complete sense to have a quick-access shortcut.
Why do I need this moronic , multi screen wizard just to find a file????? Why does it ask me what type of document I'm searching for? More unnecessary decisions to make.
What the fuck does that mean? I want it to ask for what type of document in case I want to search only for movies or something. It is absolutely useful - if you want a general search, you can do that too!
On the Mac, the icons are so crisp and clear and realistic, that most actually convey meaning to me. The ones that don't immediately convey meaning are easy for me to remember due to their shear impressiveness.
Wow what a scientific analysis you made. Crisp, clear, and realistic. Well I for one have no problem confusing the Recycle Bin with My Computer or My Documents. Only a retarded idiot who is trying desperately to say windows sucks no matter what would point this out. Remembering Windows icons is very easy, and I am completely accustomed to it. I wonder if the author of this article has ever used windows for prolonged periods of time.
ONTO THE BONUSES OF OS X. But before I begin showing more examples of why the author is a moron, let me tell you that I do absolutely admire the OS X interface, and think it is very slick and intuitive. I am not a MAC HATER or anything like that. I am only trying to reduce the blind hate of Windows that seems to be abundant in this article.
It is powered by pure drag and drop. When I drag stuff off of the Finder Sidebar, it goes away. On Windows, a useless link is left I my desktop that I've got to get rid of.
Some people see the dragging off to create a new shortcut as a feature in windows. I would find it annoying on OS X if that deleted it, simply because I am not used to it. This doesn't mean either OS is bad, each has its own way of doing it - just because one is different doesn't make it bad.
I just enter my search string and away it goes..no questions, no wizards, no dialogs, no thinking. And back it comes with everything that qualifies, regardless of document type. I can't wait to see what Spotlight adds to what is already powerful and simple.
Again, you can do blind searches in windows too, without regards to file type.
The absence of a Windows-style tree view bothers me not a bit. I don't even think about using it on my Mac. I know my directory structure and I've bookmarked all of the important places in the Finder sidebar. No need to ever waste time navigating up and down the tr
I hate my mac. I set the thing up, power it on and it just works. I don't need to install all kinds of software, upgrade drivers and put on millions of security updates? I mean, without those, what's the point?
Here is just one example. I use wireless to connect to the internet. Usually, I have "connection sharing" enabled so that the ethernet serves DHCP to a slave computer. Now and then I don't have access to wireless, so I have to reconfigure the ethernet *and* the wireless.
How? With XP (classic mode):
Start
settings
network-and-dialup-connections
wireless connection
properties
advanced
unclick "allow other network users to connect through this computer's internet connection"
OK
Close
(wait a long time)
local area network
internet protocol (TCP/IP)
properties
obtain IP address automatically
obtain DNS server addresses
OK
OK
(wait a long time) I've done that a hundred times. If only I could type it into a script.
But I can't. Although somebody probably post some arcane way to do it in this particular instance, that won't enable me to write scripts to walk through the myriad of other gui mazes that Windows throws at me.
Linux, Unix, OS/X any day. Windows with Cygwin, if I must.
I am an avid fan of linux and work on several boxes all with linux on them. Personally, I am more productive on linux than anything else but I am constantly bothered by my co-workers who use windows machines. I spend little time with the mac users vs. the 8 hours a week solving problems with people unable to print, wireless not working, installing software, virus checking, etc on windows (even XP). This would not be a big deal if I were the system admin and not a grad student but that is another complaint.
My basic observation is the majority of people know less about hardware and operating systems than they think. Macs are easier to get basic work done and encounter fewer problems. They have their downsides that have kept me from switching as well as the problems with supported software and they tend to cost more but if I were being paid by the hour this would be a big expense on our research group.
I have secretly hidden some mispelled words in this post. Can you find them?
I rate how productive I feel on an OS based on how much effort it takes to do simple tasks and to jack around with the filesystem - everything else is more a question of applications. (Yeah yeah, I know that the culture provides different experiences with the apps, too, but I have enough of a problem with keyboard dysentery withou having to talk about that, too.)
I regularly work with OS X, Windows, KDE, and WindowMaker, and here is what I think of the first three. (For the sake of disclosure, I was definite Mac hater three years ago, I have had vague feelings of annoyance with Windows going back at least 7 years, and I have never been a fan of Gnome or KDE - I use WindowMaker on my home PC.)
On Windows, it takes a lot of effort to do simple things. Even bringing up an extra Explorer window seems to take a lot of time, because I can't seem to find a good keyboard command or menu item for it. (If there are, Windows fails at making them easy to find.) Navigating the filesystem takes time, because there doesn't seem to be a way to make the places I go most accessible from anywhere. "My Computer" seems to be in a different place (sometimes the Start menu, sometimes the desktop) on every @#$@% computer in the office. Functionality is hidden in random places, and menu items seem to never be hidden under the most appropriate menu. I can't drag and drop things I think I should logically be able to drag and drop, and the alt-tab twitcher completely fails to allow me to switch between applications quickly and seamlessly. Worst of all, it pops up dialogs for things that I don't think should require dialog pop-ups - I hate it when I eject my USB key (which takes too many clicks) and go back to some task (which takes too many clicks) and am just starting to re-orient my attention when Windows throws it all away by throwing up a dialog that tells me my USB key has been unmounted and requires a click to close. The overall effect makes me feel like Windows is hell-bent on wasting my time a second or two at a time and slowly destroying my ability to concentrate.
KDE and GNOME aren't much better. In fact, they're worse - they feel a lot like Windows, only even more disorganized, less consistent, and less logically arranged. The file managers are all half-implemented, and drag-and-drop is barely given a nod. It doesn't help that I find myself constantly dropping to the command line to do simple things that should have an easy GUI equivalent - kill and ps, for example.
OS X isn't perfect, but it's shangri-la compared to the rest. I love that document-oriented apps give you an icon in the window's title bar that acts as a proxy for the file that is open in that window, meaning I can send a document I'm working on to someone else via e-mail without having to waste my time hunting for it in the filesystem. There are keyboard commands for EVERYTHING, and it is easy to find them, I love that. The shelf is a thing of beauty - I think that it is a bit half-implemented, but it's far and away better than anything that any other popular GUI can provide. Expose took some getting used to, but now I can say that it rocks my butt off, and I miss it when I am using other OSes. (I used to use Codetek VirtualDesktop. I still run it, but I rarely use it unless I decide that I need to grab a clean sandbox real quick.) The Dock isn't without its problems either (its handling of placing files in the Dock is just completely broken), but it crams a lot of useful information into a small space, and takes a lot less staring and thinking to figure out what you want to know from it than a taskbar. It doesn't tell you about individual windows, and I have grown to like that - when I work, my mental state tree goes application first, window second, and OS X follows this mental flow. Besides, the window I want is usually on the top of the display after I click on an app's icon, because it is usually the window in that app that I was using the most recently. By contrast, the Windows Taskbar feels like it is jumping the gun. And when I want a window instead of an app, I use Expose, and it's easier and faster than having to deal with the taskbar, which gets real cluttered real fast.
What can I say? I've been using UNIX since before there was a Windows and I've always been a DOS command line user too. Microsoft's insistence that everything now be done through the GUI usually ends up pissing me off. I still end up doing most stuff through the command prompt in Linux, too.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Of course if the application only runs on one OS, and that OS has other problems that make it less than reliable or that demand time over and above the absolute minimum to get the system functional in the first place and back up application data ongoing, then that's another thing altogether.
My favourite application over the past 20+ years is one called filePro (16+) which started off as Profile on Radio Shack micros, notably the Model II (8" floppies and a Z80 with 64K RAM)
Over the intervening years I and my customers have migrated applications written with this system as well as data entered into them from TRS-dos to Xenix on RS model 16, to Xenix on Altos to Unix on Altos to Unix on x86 PC, to Linux on i686 and not had to re-enter anything or (with the exception of a couple of records in one customer's database that got missed in a record expansion) lost any records (or even worse, had to re-input them). One customer has records dating back to 1983 and still has access to them from his multi-location business now served by a Linux box - same data, same screen layouts, same back-end processing.
The point is that the application is fast, useful, keyboard oriented, easy to use and modify, works on everything from old hardware to the latest (including DEC Vax) and even runs on Windows of various flavors if you are truly perverse ;)
But the really great thing about it is that IT DOESN'T USE A GUI - it is text based.
I recall another (accounting) application many of my customers have used for years - that shortly after Windows 3.1 came out added a GUI version - and has pretty much dropped all pretext of being backwards compatible with the older text "shortcuts". It used to be that you could sit with a pile of receipts and bang them into the program without even looking at the screen - never taking your hands off the keyboard.
Now you have to take a hand away from the keyboard, grab the mouse and navigate to a button to store each and every transaction - getting only 10% or less productivity.
Now that DOS compatibility is pretty much gone from Window they can't even run the old code (not supported though it is); except - - hey - - is dosemu still around on Linux????
Been there, done that, paid for the T-shirt
and didn't get it
Productivity for me means how quickly I can do a job and just focus on work-related stuff.
.rc file to make something look like the computers on star trek ;)
For me it's OS X.
I've played with Windows long enough and I suffered from needing to customize it just right and always ending up with a machine that just wasn't stable or fun to use.
I migrated to Linux when I found most of what I needed on it. Linux was a blackhole for time, because it was always neat if you could get it to do stuff that Windows could do (e.g. play DVDs print connect to windows share, etc).
Finally I got a Powerbook a few years back. I have all the fun stuff linux provided me, Gimp, a terminal, etc plus a good selection of apps, and things like Office which let me work with other people who use office. I like it and I've always been able to work between apps pretty easily as a programmer and web developer.
A lot of this is due to a nice clean CONSISTANT interface, and a lot is also due to it not crashing or me wanting to spend hours because I can edit an
-d
http://davedash.com/
If you want to benefit from it without learning it, you can use a number of GUIs. Scientific Workplace on win32 (commercial, but good to push on those using Word) or LyX (F/OSS) for nearly any platform or many others. Even abiword can write LaTeX!
It isn't difficult to learn & becomes much more powerful when you eventually ditch the GUI & either use a quality TeX-focused editor like KILE (KDE), TeXnicCenter (win32), TeXShop (OS X) (all F/OSS) or your favorite multi-purpose editor. I prefer vim with LaTeX-Suite.
The best way to learn is to look at other code. Either get some from peers, from the net, or make some in either the GUIs or the friendlier editors. Then just write.
If you need a reference, you can usually learn to google for how to do something (or post to comp.text.tex). I maintain a list of www links. You might find something useful, but I can't suggest the best starting point from that list. The best introductory book I've used is Guide to LaTeX. The other books in LaTeX Companions are also excellent for reference, particularly The LaTeX Companion.
About 10 years ago I worked in a carefuly homogenous environment (both home and office Windows machines had the same versions of the same software and all the same Ctrl-Alt keyboard shortcuts defined in ProgMan or the Start Menu), which I'm sure was more productive most of the time. But when I sat down in front of a Quadra or a Vax terminal, it was like I was moving in slow motion... like running in emulation.
Lately, if I spend a lot of time using just one of system, I do find myself speeding up to take advantage of it. Maybe I'm doing some incremental compilation of often-used routines?
Anyway, I guess you could say that I've ported myself from running in Win-only machine code, to running in cross-platform Perl. Whether that's an improvement or not is left up to the reader... but I'm happy this way.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
I'm not "Docu-centric", I'm Project-centric. I do my folders per project. So I have C:\dev\proj... Why? What's the diff between "My Documents\Dev" and "C:\Dev"? Easy! sometimes I use the command line or some old school piece like WS_FTP. If I save a doc to My Docs\dev and go to FTP it up, where is it? C:\Documents and Settings\MyUserName\My Documents\dev. Oh yeah.. I can type THAT! Do I LOOK like a UNIX usr?
In MacOS, you can choose three general places where you save files, set in the Control Panel, General... App Folder, Last folder used, Docs folder...
In Windows... I DON'T KNOW! I've seen files try to be saved into the temp directory of the Temporary Internet Files with a hash of numbers because I just download something and that's the "current folder". That's useful... If I want to save it in C:\x\y\... i have to navigate my way up the tree. I could just do the dropdown to desktop, but sometimes that takes seconds to fill in. The Mac knows the path to where it is and immediatley loads up the dropdown for easy navigation in the tree.
This is a 2.6Ghz with 512MB of RAM. Why am I waiting? You know those right arrowheads on teh menus that pop open a submenu? Why do they take 3 seconds to load? It takes 6 seconds to get to a sub of a sub. Macs are super fast for that. THAT is why they feel "organic". I have a shortcut to a folder on my Quick Launch... it takes 4 seconds to open the folder after staring at a blank window frame. Why!?
Picture this. You open a folder with an image, x.jpg, open it, then save as x2.jpg. Now you want to drag drop it to FTP. Where is it? It's in the folder, which is sorted by date descending, It should be at the top. It's not, is it? It's at the bottom, so you have to F5, or double-flip the Date Modified tab to get the sort order correct. Does Microsoft actually USE this stuff? Macs pop the file where it belongs. THAT is "humane".
A productive OS for me is one where I can use all the tools I want to use for my work, and have access to everything I need. Since my work consists of delivering support for multiple platforms and such, my main desktop is a PowerBook running MacOS X 10.3.8. I can run all the basic tools I need, run Virtual PC for a lot of the Windows/Linux stuff, and I can connect remotely via RDP, ARD, VNC, or SSH to machines running other OS combos I have in my lab.
So I'm a MacOS X person by choice and preference. But, with a little tweaking I can feel comfortable and productive on whatever OS I need to sit down with. For me, I think a more valid statement is "I use MacOS X because it lets me use less of my brain on the computer, and more on the task at hand". But if I'd been using Windows as my primary OS for my whole career, I'd probably feel the opposite way about Macs.
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
As things stand it's nearly impossible to have two instances of XCode running in parallel. You simply get lost in a dozen windows, because OS X doesn't offer anything to logically group them. No tabs, no MDI, no nothing. You can't even hide one set of project windows all at once. You have to either hide ALL XCode windows, or go through them and hide every god damn window manually.
This is fucked up, IMO. I'm literally 10 times more productive in VS.NET, and that's what I do - I write code. There's no competition to VS.NET right now as far as coding productivity is concerned.
I have used Windows, Solaris/CDE, Linux (many distros and UIs), and OSX. As a coder/sys admin I feel most comfortable with linux, Gentoo and KDE in particular. The reason for this is the ease of system administration and setup for the software I need while maintaining the ability to tweak it entirely to my likely. No Gentoo was not productive for the first few days. As an added bonus, there is a ton of free software available that just doesn't work as well on OSX or Windows, which can also raise my productivity (Umbrello, Kate, KDevelop, Gimp). It runs best (if it all) in Linux, and getting something equivelant (and native) on Windows or OSX is likely to cost a fair amount.
I recently got a new PowerBook through work, and while I love it, there are limitations when compared to linux. Previous users stated that setting up OSX as a server is a breeze. Sure, this is true if you're only using a basic server, but if you need an advanced configuration, OSX can be a true nightmare. The tools are available under the hood, but it is NOT designed to be tinkered with. My reasoning for choosing OSX for work was the gaurantee for driver compatibility and full support (it was either put linux on a Dell laptop or get the PowerBook). I figured I would take a slight productivity dip, and I did. Everyone has a different routine, and to maximize productivity an interface must be highly configurable. Of course, the average user is not savy enough to deal with such a high level of configuration. OSX is a compromise. It is the best all around, but Linux has greater potential when configured for specific tasks.
I guess Windows is great if you measure productivity in Frames Per Second.
To sum up my perspective:
Linux productivity sucks in most "out of the box" configurations, but has the highest potential.
Windows is just "OK." It gets you by and lets you play games. It is also good for office apps as OpenOffice.org really isn't that great IMO (sorry - I have to question it's design), which makes MS Office the best office software by default. KOffice and the Gnome based apps have a chance at changing this in the long run.
OSX is highly productive out of the box, but has little capacity for getting that maximum tweaking. It is also VERY different than Windows. Most Windows users will feel more productive in a generic linux install than OSX. It is also a big advantage to be able to run MS Office on OSX (at least until it crashes).
As some users before, I've used a Commodore C128, then CP/M, DOS 3.xx after it became available, Geos, Windows 3.1 onwards, Mac OS 7, Linux since 0.99 using various window managers, such as twm, fvwm, KDE since 1.x up until 3.0 and lately OS X 10.1 until 10.3. And this mainly for programming, web development, scientific writing (LaTeX), web surfing, recently much of Office documents (unfortunately), and for entertainment.
As a desktop platform I must admit that OS X beats the rest hands down. And the reasons are stability and integration.
- Not having to fiddle with XF86Config when plugging in a new external monitor helps.
- Not having to recompile the kernel from source once you get an obscure USB or Firewire drive helps.
- Not having to mess with the network configuration scripts as soon as you visit another lab helps.
- Having a unified user interface helps (you save lots of time using the keyboard if you know that Command-Q quits every program, that Command-S saves files, that Command-N opens a new document, etc.).
- Having Emacs bindings in forms like the one for posting on Slashdot helps.
- Being able to watch a DVD without much fuss helps.
- Being albe to sort my music and my photos easily helps.
- Being able to run the system without crashes (BSD underbelly) helps.
- Being able to use the shell and all UNIX tools helps.
- Being able to open my laptop and to continue working within 2s helps. Especially if you spend lots of time in airports.
I'm not saying that none of this could be done under Linux. For almost every one of those items there's a tool that would allow me to do this. But this means that I have to go and configure it. It means that I have to spend my time on fixing it. For sure, Linux could do it. But it would mean that someone would have to produce a system that really works. Not just 90%, not just for most of the cases, not just something that nerds and geeks like me can use.Switching from Linux (after 10 years of use) to OS X was a matter of 2 days of inconvenience. When my Mac broke and I had to switch back to my old system temporarily, it took me almost a week getting used to all the disincongruous interface tweaks again. And it's the first OS I'm not swearing at.
In particular, if you want a Unix capable laptop, you'd probably spend over 3 weeks tinkering with Linux until the system works properly (and it might not for recent hardware unless you hack it yourself - software modems, suspend to disk, wireless access, switching to external display, good power management). In a commercial environment that isn't worth it. Think your salary for three weeks vs. the price of the computer. And that's why in computer science you now see so many mac laptops when you go to conferences ...
Right now its probably right the best marriage of the two worlds and it helps that Apples iLife suite make using my music, digital photos and movies enjoyable to use (although an elegant its missing a Tivo PVR solution). The other factor I enjoy about Mac OS X is its ease of software installations, simple security updates and very little maintenance. I don't have to struggle to find drivers for my hardware and I can plug and play without wrestle the operating system to cajole it to work. Apple's elegant aesthetics and well thought out operating system (but not perfect) pretty much was the deal closer for me.
P.S.
Little things like the pervasive spell checker where I don't have to use another application to check spelling of my Slashdot posts are some of the niceties that help me be more productive. Also not having to dual boot Windows/Linux also helps when both applications from different worlds can coexist on one operating system.
For Mac OS X fans out there. I stumbled across this gem of a plug in the other day. GMAP plug in for Addressbook.app to invoke Google Maps and automatically get directions from your home. The script can be modified to work with Firefox (which it originally did). Very Cool!
its what i feel comfortable with, and kde's kioslaves make life great if your doing webdev over ftp or whatever.
I use it for my online media business, http://www.WhiteRoseSociety.org/
I record shows, process audio, edit HTML, and even serve files from this eMac here and two older iMacs.
I not only have all of the Mac software available, but almost all Linux/BSD/Gnu programs can be compiled and run under MacOS X, and I do a lot of that. Plus some C development.
Dog is my co-pilot.
I'm most focused in the emacs environment. The most productive people I know (lines of code per year) are emacs or vi users. (Not the GUI kind, like vim or xemacs; the shell kind.)
When I used to use DOS and program Clipper. No internet, boring co-workers... The only distraction was when the coffy got ready.
Simply put it isn't the best UNIX, the best Windows or even the best MacOS but it is ALL of them at anytime and all the time.
I can do anything from run an Windows AD to run nessus in Gtk. It is as close to perfect as it gets. And my wife and 5 year old son can use it and never notice all the "tweak" stuff it can do.
And, look I know this isn't a popular sentiment but it's really pretty.
This
Or graphic artists, or musicians (Hello, low latency audio bus), or video editors, or web developers, or college supercluster admins.
The image is a dream, the beauty is real. Can you see the difference?
If I'm doing audio recording or editing, I'm much more comfortable in Windows. This despite persistent assertions that Macs are superior for A/V production, or that Linux audio has arrived.
If I'm editing text in a text editor, I'm far more productive in a 100x37 linux framebuffer console running Vim and Screen, than any other environment. I realize I can have 100x37 xterms, or even RXVT's on windows, but it's not the same.
But if I'm working with Eclipse, I prefer it to be running on my X desktop, but I'll settle for Windows.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
I think it is easy to say my productivity is worst in windows. Simply factoring in maintaince time, viruses, spyware, crashing, rebooting, formatting and reinstalling, etc. Now I'm sure some of you have no problems with windows and it works great blah blah blah, good for you, to each their own. Overall my best workspace is something with virtual desktops. I've used such a setup across more linux distros than I care to count and on my OpenBSD workstation that I presently type from as well as my FreeBSD laptop and work system. I use enlightment and that is simply because it was the first wm I used that was configurable such that I had 0 complaints with it. Now I can't say anything about OS X as I own no macs (something I hope to correct with a mini.) *bsd seems to give me the least amount of hassle and post-setup I can just use the computer instead of maintaining it. On the server side of the world it depends. Debian is by far the best to maintain due to apt-get and takes the least amount of time. For peace of mind on the shell server I run it is OpenBSD (stack overflow protection, heap corruption protection, etc. READ: even if an exploit exists worst case it should only be able to crash a program not let anyone gain access.)
:(){
As a programmer, I am much more productive in Linux because I can tie almost everything I do in Gnome (or KDE) to a key command. I don't use the mouse very much (or at all) while programming in gvim or Eclipse, and it really slows me down when I need to, say, launch a terminal or a browser.
Try Quicksilver
It will let you lots of cool things with hot keys...
To quote the Quicksilver site: "In the end, Quicksilver has one very important effect. , The effort associated with frequent tasks fades into the background and you are able to act without thinking. After an adaptation period, Quicksilver becomes an extension of yourself; the process fades away leaving only the results"
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
"Stealing Mac's cool features" will require a hell of a lot more than a replacement for X. Virtually every application available for linux will need to be rewritten and its interface redesigned from the bottom-up. The Mac OS is not worth using because it happens to look pretty--this is a ridiculous reason for using an operating system. It's worth using because it's possible to get important things done faster, and that's possible only through a platform-wide consistency and an adherence to a well thought-out, standardized set of APIs and user interface guidelines.
I've just been called a moron by an anonymous coward. If I were to call someone a moron I would at least have the self-respect to sign my name to it.
Yes, technically viruses for Mac OS X exist, but I have never actually encountered one, and I have never met anyone else who has actually encountered one. I'm a Mac professional and I have come across hundreds of other Mac users in recent years. No viruses.
The practical, real-world reality is that there are absolutely no viruses that affect Mac users. None. Zilch. Nada. You can talk all you want about the existence of experimental proof-of-concept viruses on Macs, but in the real world there are none, and Mac users have, in all these years, never needed to worry about them.
Oh, yeah. I use Windows XP, Mac OS X and Linux every day of my life. I'm technically competent on all three. You have to be in order to consider yourself educated and well-rounded. So I'm expressing an informed opinion here.
* qwerty- wonders why Home and End aren't yet implemented
pretty useful keys, for me at least
The Home key works for me; everytime I press it, I look around and I'm at home.
I haven't had the guts to try the End key yet.
I don't get it.
zcat trace.gz | grep miss | awk '{print $3}' | sort -n | uniq -c
Try doing that in Windows without cygwin
How do you rate productivity on a particular platform ?
Simple: does the platform support BBEdit ?
BBEdit still doesn't suck. I write code on both the Mac and XP. I often mount a Windows share on my Mac so that I can edit the Windows code in BBEdit.
-S
I like mine big and indestructable.
Let's see if they sneak up on you and get big while you're ignoring them.
:)
:)
I too thought that Apple was just niche market, nothing but. Graphics, publishing, edu. That was it. And really, before OS X, I pretty much considered they sucked.
Of course, now they make a product that fits my niche, that of a network guy with an open source leaning.
It's really the best of both worlds. It's the shiny interface that I'd buy for someone like my father or brother and it's got that raw powerful system behind it that I can open up into even in their version of Terminal.
This is half rhetorical and half serious, but please don't take it as a personal criticism, but "How many niches will they have to fit in before they become big enough?"
BTW, might want to get rid of that immediate link to the DVD copy crack on your site, http://brainglass.com/downloads.htm Them there RIAA, MPAA and SPA folks are monitoring this site, ya know.
-- There is no sig line, only Zuul.
I vote too... for XP
I use suse on another partition, started with slackware in 1996. I've managed redhat, freebsd and openbsd servers for years. XP at times becomes boring, and I switch back to suse, and fool around with cross-compiling toolchains for embedded arm projects.
I play games like Giants, monkey island, and counterstrike. Two of those cant be run reasonably on linux even with winex. I'm also a sucker for predictable UI... like windows has since win95, despite their poor performance/price/feature/flexibility/security records. I can tab between windows faster, copy/paste faster, use alt-tab alt-space, alt-f4, F5, etc heavily and I have yet to find a good responsive WM that does all that, I dont care about KDE/GNOME. By default theyre too heavy, and I'm lazy to remap keys and the likes. Yes I do use nvidia drivers for my geforce4ti 4400, still not QUITE as responsive as XP in the GUI, sorry to say. Also visit flash websites, read PDF and msword and excel files, listen to real and quicktime. I try out/install apps frequently, and making manual links, and command line configuration slows things down for trivial stuff that you'd just want up and running. I also share files between other machines via CIFS, manual mounts are a pain.
I used to be all for slackware, until configuring a responsive and predictable GUI overwhelmed me, nothing works well in default (not talking about slackware, but the packages in general, installed manually). So I'm busy looking at Xandros, Lycoris, Linspire etc, while OSX has impressed me. I've come to the conclusion that X in itself, while being extremely flexible, is inefficient and suffers from being entirely in the userspace and treated as such. Also come to the conclusion that the window manager scene is still not settled.. the war between kde and gnome is simply a pissing contest and going the way of mozilla.. and not yet firefox, where people have realized the public's needs, and made a product for usability.
I'm not a linux basher. At work I've been trying hard to pile reasons to move everyone and everything to linux, thats 70+ machines. The biggest reason why we cant is binary compatibility of critical apps, a much smaller reason is the GUI should act exactly like win95-XP, retraining everyone is much more painful for us than deploying mini macs and osx even.
I'm not complaining. I'm explaining why XP still manages to keep people productive until the BSOD, yeah every 6 months to a year you have to reinstall windows, much more frequently if you have spyware. But the reinstall takes less time than configuring x and the wm, mapping keys, setting screen sizes, linking all apps to the wm, and retraining the user. Quite unfortunately, in real life, samba fvwm95 and openoffice's success are absolutely critical for Linux's eventual success on the desktop.
And ported games help too
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
/etc/hosts is only used very early in the boot process on Mac OS X. So you can't actually use it to block addresses. You have to use netinfo instead
/etc/hosts. Now the hosts file is examined first. You can change that to suit your preferences in any version of OS X.
Actually, you can set the lookup order. In 10.1, the default was something like netinfo, dns, then
I'm a lawyer. Most of the work I do on a computer is in word processing. Win XP is perfect for me, as long as I'm behind a decent firewall with good virus protection (we use Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition). I use Outlook for my email - and I'm not stupid enough to open attachments. I am experimenting with Firefox for browsing now - I like tabs, very much, and I am using Thunderbird at home. It's pretty decent, and I'll probably use it at the office too.
But (and perhaps this is a little off-topic as I'm talking about apps here) what I really use most of the time is good old WordPerfect 6.1 for Windows. It's simple to use, and because it's 10 years old, it runs like lightning on any modern computer. It's perfect. WP 7-9 were more or less too buggy to use. WP 10+ (it's up to v12 today) work well, but some of the older computers we use at my office (Celeron 600's) won't run anything that's bloated with any efficiency whatsoever. They run WP6.1 just fine. The only thing that WP6.1 doesn't support that would be nice to have is long filenames, but since it's the devil we know, nobody complains about it - and the speed at which WP6.1 runs makes the loss of long filenames an acceptable cost. Also, since we've been using the same word processor for 10 years now, every document we prepared over the last ten years opens looking exactly the same as it did when it was drafted.
As long as the OS doesn't crash, and for me XP doesn't crash, it's the apps that count. If you have a stable OS, and the old apps work, stick with them. You won't have to learn new tricks. Ever. True productivity means learning something that does the job, and never, ever, having to "upgrade" to a new app with new "features" that you won't use at the cost of you and your less computer-literate coworkers having to take time away from actual work to learn to use from scratch.
144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
Tell a chick that you spend all day sitting in front of a computer and she'll want to Lewinsky you right there.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
They didn't get too small until the Mini came out a couple months ago.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
On the single button issue - my question to you is, what other laptops have done three (or even two) buttons well with X-Windows? I greatly (and by greatly mean will expound at length) prefer the single button with chording that OS X uses on laptops. it just makes more sense to me, feels pretty natural, and eliminates a lot of chances for keyboard designers to put buttons in the wrong spot. I cannot think of a better mechanism for a UNIX laptop to incorperate multiple-button mice than to allow for chording.
q /os/os_x/opt/" this page, which I think you may like - one intersting aspect is a command to turn on focus-follows-mouse for Terminal windows only:
On resizing, X is nice - but you can have that method back if you really need it. I'm actually not quite sure what you need to resize a window for often that is not generally taken care of by the zoom button... but if you really need to be able to hit a key and resize a window you can use a program like Keyboard Maestro. Myself I used X-Windows for a long tme before and don't really miss that aspect of X-Windows as I generally settle windows and then they live at a size they are at pretty much the whole time.
On both Windows and OS X you can achieve focus-follows-mouse, which I used to use all the time on X-Windows myself. The problem is that there are some aspects of the windowing system that do not play well with focus-follows-mouse, at least on Windows - I figured out how to turn that on but quickly decided it just did not behave in a friendly way, and reluctantly had to abandon it.
Interestingly when doing a little research for focus-follows-mouse on OS X I found a href="http://acs.pha.jhu.edu/general/computing/fa
defaults write com.apple.Terminal FocusFollowsMouse -string YES
Basically what I would say is that you need to spend more time researching utilities that help you gain shortcuts and quick workflow you feel you have lost - just about everything is there. Personally I do not use a lot of them because for many things I do the Mac workflow as it is does it for me, even though I used to be a very heavy consumer of all sorts of interesting customized window managers.
You can of course always resort back to X11 for terminal (or other windows), but keep digging and I think you'll find a lot of cool tricks with what is there already.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I finally had the chance to work with MacOS, so I know from personal usage: :)) to XP
:o)
1. Linux (now 95% of usage time)
2. Windows from 2.11 (really
3. MacOS X 10.3.2
and while I'm a Linux junkie I must confess: setting up the Mac was done in a glimps, using the UI and all programs that come with it was "without thinking", and productivity on the first day on this host was about 40% I think. On Linux, I would still be installing applications.
After all I think MacOS X is the best, because you have a lot of time to work and don't have to tweek the OS a lot, Linux comes second because you HAVE to tweek it a lot, but after that it finally works, and Windows comes at the third place because it's - like the good old Doom Operating System aka MS-DOS - mostly installed to play Doom 3 with proper surround sound. Nothing to work with, though, especially after seeing Mac OS X in action.
Yep, call me an Apple Enthusiast. I have learned programming on an Apple ][e...
I've been around the block a few times. In my experience, anyone who says "windows is better" and then qualifies it with "for me" either a) attempted to install Linux and failed miserably, or b) never seriously used another operating system (or even used another one for more than 5 minutes). Most windows users couldn't handle Linux if their life depended on it, and have never set their hands on a modern Mac. They do this all the while attempting to trivialize the differences between a UNIX workstation (OS X included) and Windows by saying idiotic things like "they're converging" or "the reason there are no virii for Mac/Linux is because no one uses them".
Give it up people. Let go of your petty prejudices and actually give another OS a real try. Try it to it's fullest potential (like the author of TFA did) and then start talking about which OS is better than another OS.
Just a couple of points:
/usr/local (if you don't mind wiping it on occasion) or in /tmp. If you're not up to that, choose a distro with better dep resolution (if you still want bare bones, go to gentoo or Debian, otherwise try Mandrake or Suse) and use the Contrib.
1) Windows hasn't always had a predictable UI (and IMHO still hasn't). Case in point: drag n drop a file between 2 folders on the same disk: it moves the file, do the same between 2 disks: it copys the file, do the same to the desktop: it links the file. This is unpredictable in the extreem.
2) X bashing is so last century, and today is not much short of trolling. X has never been slow, and when you use the proper video driver, and a (reasonably) modern machine (Athlon XP 1600 here) Gnome and KDE aren't eather. Personnally I've always found KDE more responsive than XP on the same config (Gnome has some lag, it's true)
3) You're 'nothing works' shows me that you probably haven't used slack since the version inflation, and in anycase it isn't the distro for you. I'm currently running Slack 10.1 and DLG 2.8.2 on my machine, and Mandrake 10.1 on my gfs, and, surprise: everything works!
4) Try real, quicktime, wmv, shockwave, flash: all work (yes, on my Slack!, without tweeking!)
5) Trying out apps (from source) is done either in
6) smb shares work out the box with modern DEs (XFce 4.2 found my Windows network at work all by itself, no problems , nothing)
7) Free software is about scratching your own itch, for some people it's KDE, for some Gnome, XFce or Screen, there is no war, each borrows from the other, tries to get an improved user experiance, and both improve. XFree in itself should show you why this is a good thing.
Oh, and 8) Win95 doesn't act exactly like XP, you're moving the goalposts there, and 9) A WinXP BSOD is either bad drivers or massive spyware infestation, that one doesn't work anymore either.
HTH
David
Ask 8 slackers a question, get 10 awnsers (a citation, but I can't remember from who)
> I'm also a sucker for predictable UI...
I find that using a homogenous GTK+ desktop (gnome minus nautilus desktop (to boost speed) and plus goffice (faster than OO.o, plus uses native widgets)) the UI is far more predictiable that Windows. What do WMP, MS antiSpyware, MS Office, Windows Explorer, and Notepad have in common? Not the same widget set for sure. They all use different widgets.
How about:
c) They're not arrogant enough to assume that their choice should be embraced by everyone else.
Also:
I'm confused - are you using this as proof that Linux is better than Windows, or worse? Common sense suggests the latter, but your tone suggests the former.
In my experience, it comes down to one thing: what you're used to.
That gives you about 90% of your productivity, if you're talking about the OS (as opposed to whether you keep getting distracted or read slashdot all the time, etc).
I've heard people tell me many times that Windows or Mac OS or Linux is much better at doing job XYZ, but on investigation it's just slightly different, and basically 'what they're used to'.
Case in point for me: I've used Windows on and off for long enough that I use Alt-Tab habitually. I can't live without fast keyboard based task switching, that lets me flick through all the main windows with a simple keypress. Everytime I use a system that doesn't have it, I feel restricted and constrained. The OS X dock annoys me with its Alt-Tab analog, because it almost copies Windows, but gets important things wrong (like the order of windows is based on the order in the dock, not the Z-order, etc).
However, ask most Windows users what Alt-Tab does, and they won't be able to tell you. When I use it on a non-developers' machine, the user is like "Woah! What was that? What did you do?" So it's clearly not a widely used feature. However, it really bugs me when it's not there.
Most other things are like this - I hated the Mac OS network chooser, because I was used to a different model, but Mac users were fine with it.
It's the way it goes - it's what you're used to. I don't personally believe that the Mac or Windows or Linux desktops have much to separate them.
By the way, this goes double for casual users. I upgraded my Dad's PC from Windows 98 to Windows 2000, and for many tasks, he was lost, because the buttons/menus had moved/changed. Imagine how he would cope if I changed it to OS X or a Linux desktop. It has nothing to do with the superiority or otherwise of Windows - it has to do with what he's used to.
Personally, I have multiple computers with multiple OS's that I multitask between. That's when I'm most productive. Each OS has it's own strengths and weaknesses. Use them for what they are each good at.
I won't use an OS unless at least 15% of the rest of the computer using population is using it.
Tell me where I should go today...
I drank what? -- Socrates
Having used Windows, Linux and OS X (in that order chronologically), I have found that:
I also prefer the Javadocs to MSDN documentation. Javadoc puts all the information for a class on one page which I thought made understanding a class very easy and limited how much you have to navigate to find the things you're looking for.
I got several people in my office using it and even those that were totally dependent on a GUI editor admitted that it was a better IDE. The auto-completion was just as helpful and *a lot* less intrusive than VS.
Lastly, IntelliJ can be extended to implement features that people want. A favorite in my office was VI emulation in the editor.
Anyway, I'm not in anyway associated with IntelliJ, but I'd recommend checking it out. It was pricey but not as expensive as Borlands stuff, and they give a free month to evaluate it. I found it worthwhile. Runs on linux and macs too.
WWJD? JWRTFM.
I actually wasn't referring to its usability. I was referring to the fact that Windows users by and large are unwilling to try. They claim Linux isn't ready for the desktop because "it doesn't do X like Windows does". Well of course not, that's because it's not Windows. They're afraid to try something different for the simple fact that it's different and they feel intimidated by that.
I've been using OS X for a year, Linux for 5 years, and I used various incarnations of Windows for 6 years before that. On a large screen I'm most productive on either Linux or OS X. On a small screen I absolutely need Exposé. And Windows, well XP is not bad as long as I only install putty and use it as a way to open many shells on a real OS. Even then it's difficult to get any real work done when I'm forced to use Windows. I agree with the author in that I spend more time fighting with Windows to get it to do what I need it to do.
> KDE and GNOME aren't much better.
> It doesn't help that I find myself constantly dropping to the command line to do simple things
> that should have an easy GUI equivalent - kill and ps, for example.
In KDE:
kill:
1) press CTRL+ALT+ESC, pointer turns into skull, click on a window to kill its process
2) press CTRL+ESC, a graphical ps appears. click on processes to select them and click the kill button to kill them.
ps:
1) CTRL-ESC
--
-JC