I wish there could be the MacOS X for IBM PC clones.
The NT has many problems in management, and with Windows platform, it's pretty time-consuming to upgrade/reinstall OS. Because it causes you install all S/W again.
Linux? I like it, but it also requires more time to setup than Windows/Mac.
Wrong. Apple didn't copy the XEROX GUI, as people know today. XEROX's one is not a GUI for the OS. It's for object oriented programming environment, called the SmallTalk. To be object oriented, it has graphical representation. And.. the look and the behaviour are quite different from those of Apple's GUI. What Apple stole is the idea, how easy graphical representation make user friendly environment. They converted the idea to the GUI for the OS. If you want to blame them, it would be more accurate to blame the NeXT, which built object oriented programming in mind, and had the interface builder and the application builder. ( Well.... but they are also different from that of the Xerox Alto. )
Well.. probably the Open Sources community reflects quicker response to bugs, but it can lost its direction. Look at the The XFree86 X server and its window managers or desktop managers. The behaviour or the response of the UI is not as good as that of Mac OS or Windows. But there is no Window Managers. etc to solve the problem. And there are lots of people to make different patches, different version. Well, diversity in nature is good, and probably it would be good in computer industry. But don't you think that there should be some agreement among people, at least? How about the Mozilla? When could it be released? I changed my browser to the IE5.01. At least the IE 5.01 doesn't reload html files when I resize the windows. With mozilla, it's possible. But the whole mozilla is not ready yet. I think all things has its own strength and weakness. We should maintain balanced view on them.
Well, At the homepage of Apple Computer Inc., they claim that the AppleShare IP 6.3 provides a good web server. Is there any result of comparison including the AppleShareIP?
Well.. slower image file load than Communicator?
on
Mozilla M12 Released
·
· Score: 1
I found an intresting thing.
Although text loading (HTML) is a lot faster than the Netscape Communicator 4.7, but image loading is slower. So.. the finishing of loading by Mozilla M12 is almost similar to that of NC 4.7.
And.. why "tab" doesn't work for move onto next "text area" when I wrote with Mozilla?
I'm impressed with the M12! It's fast! Not only the screen drawing, but also the GUI itself! For the text drawing, it's really fast. But.. For images, I can't figure out which is faster, IE or Mozilla. ( Mozilla seems to be faster. ) What I don't like about the M12, is it's UI-look. I once saw a screen-shot of the Communicator 5.0. I think 5.0 is better. According to the www.netscape.com screen design, it seems to me that the design of Mozilla becomes the release version of Mozilla. (Hmm.. 5.0? ) Well.. anyway.. if there are skins available for the Mozilla, my next browser will be the Mozilla!
Well, I agree with you in many ways. I think the Netscape Communicator needs to be more stable. ( But at least crash of the Netscape browser usually doesn't cause the crash of the explorer of Windows, unlike the IE. )
According to the standard... First, XML.. even the IE doesn't seem to handle well. I opened a 3MB CIM-related XML document file with the IE. But it made my computer freezed. Second, language supporting. the default Korean encoding/decoding of the IE is ISO22-something. It's not a standard. ( Unlike the ISO implies. ) The euc-kr of the Netscape is standard. Windows itself use it in bad way. You can't open files with Korean even with english version of Windows. ( If it is written in KS5601 ( korean standard ) or in EUC-KR ( unicode ), it can be read. ) It means that your directories and other resources can't be guaranteed to be opened by other machines. ( But the Linux can open them! )
If you make something work with Netscape, it is okay for you to feel safe. But with the IE.. NO.
Although the Netscape is behind the IE, I don't think the new Gecko based one is late. At least we could get smaller browser. Look! Even the MS caught up with the Apple! Why can't the Netscape catch up with the MS?
Uhh.. There is no metioning that Mr. Jobs said that no one person deserves the credit for something. The article only said that there were many people involved in a products made by the Apple, Inc., and make all feel proud of every Apple products.
Well.. I think we lost a culture ( Apple's eastereggs are more intresting than any other companies eastereggs. ), but... we may get smaller binary files.:)
Hmm... I don't think so. I think the Netscape UI is more intuitive and more beautiful. And it is stable, although it can't be said, "more stable". At least crashing of the Netscape browser usually doesn't cause the explorer crash. I like the Netscape's strict standard-keeping attitude. The table is also good on the Netscape browser. Tables created by IE can't guarantee that it can be displayed properly with other browsers.
A few minutes ago there was no 4.7 version for Windows. But there are Base/Complete/Professional versions there. I am not sure if they are fully uploaded. Even the file names for the Complete version doesn't have *.exe.
It's rare case that Macintosh version comes out earlier than Windows versions.
Is the Netscape working harder on Macs than on Windows?
Good luck, Netscape and Apple!!!! I think new iMac II is cool!! Apple seems to return to cosumer market finally. ( I hope it would be a lot cheaper in my country. )
Why don't you mention QT 3? You don't need to use QT 4. QT 4 is still buggy on Windows. And what make the QT 4 not playable on Linux system is due to the Sorenson Video codec. The codec is not opened.
Well, the codec is quite excellent, so Apple may think it is useful not to open it. If you use cinepak codec, you can play QT movies on Linux machines.
But it doesn't mean that it is successful in the market.
Except for the Linux, other OSes than the Windows are not successful enough to survive. Whether you admit it or not, there are two strong OSes for personal computers. ( tech. + user base ) Yes. One is the Windows and the other is Mac OS. But, as you know, the Windows is too strong.
Can a new OS have its own market which are enough large for getting users' and developers' attention?
Are Amiga famous as Mac, OS/2 in countries other than the U.S.?
It would be hard to make the new Amiga recognizable in the world market.
The PowerPC processor is not so great RISC cheap. It's a CISC-fied RISC chip. To be a RISC chip, it has too much OP codes.
And.. I think the PowerPC is not that faster than the P-III. Although I like Apple's products, I don't see any reason to choose the PowerMac over Pentium PCs. Current Pentium machines are fast enough, and cheaper, and easy to be upgraded. I know some shortcomings of Windows and PC H/W, but there is some replacement. The Linux!
The PowerPC chip is just a subset of Power architecture. Even IBM use the Power3 for their highest level machines. ( Well.. Yes.. they use the PowerPC for up-to middle level machines. )
Anyway, PowerPC is not in the league of MIPS/Ultra SuperSparc, Power3, StrongArm, Alpha.
I love the Linux. I know that the Windows/Mac is somewhat unstable. But the Linux can also crash.
The point is that there is no standard environment for the Linux. Gnome, KDE, GTK, xform, QT, Athena, etc.. There are too many things. Well, for hobbyst it doesn't matter. But for writing codes and make money by doing it, ( I don't think programmers can live without "eating", etc. - live to eat, or eat to live.;) ) To make money, one developer should make certain that compiling for these machines assures that the compiled program can be run on other machines. With Linux, sometimes it is not.
MacOS X is meaningless for us, probably. But what makes it different is that it is for commerce. BeOS, too. And other Unix clones too.
Whether it is pre-installed or not doesn't matter a lot. The Unix variant is diffcult for users to manage. Why people should consider in the situation that the Windows/Mac work just good for them?
I'm not Linux-hater. I like Linux. I use Linux a lot more than the Windows. ( But to do some official things, I should use the Windows. ) But I also know that it is not for "make money".
Maybe things change. Although the Linux itself is free, but there are many distributors who make money by repackaging it. And.. the apps for the Linux can be sold for money. ( Why not? ) If so, there can be some companies who want to make a standard.
As someone said, it is question whether the Linux evolves as a better Unix or become another OS based on Unix. ( like BeOS? )
> Apple is only one company with an occasional > good idea and consistent good design execution
Absolutely agree. But they lacks the skill of "how to maintain the situation." They have had good technologies which could be standard. But they are not so powerful in marketting. It's their biggest problem, I think.
> Apple is only one company with an occasional > good idea and consistent good design execution
Totally agree. But they lacks the skill of "how to maintain the situation." They have had good technologies which could be standard. But they are not so powerful in marketting. It's their biggest problem, I think.
Well, if there is good technology, it's ok to use it. ( If you pay the price. ) So, there is nothing wrong with the fact that Apple uses the USB, IDE, etc. If people insist, "this company steals this from others.", it is very childish. ( But the Microsoft style is very bad. They make people think that they made the GUI, and "we are first." imporession with many things. ( Although it is actually done by Apple, IBM, etc. )
By the way, the USB is borrowed its idea from the ADB. ( Apple Desktop Bus ) Compare the spec. It has wider bandwidth, speed. But it's a serial bus similar to the ADB.
How about SCSI? Shouldn't PC makers use the SCSI? It's not invented by Apple, but it is known to people thanks to Apple. ( People don't know SUN, generally. )
PCI? It's not only for PC technology, although it was made by the Intel, and others. Shoudn't Apple use it?
It's too childish subject.
I think iMac like IBM clones are good for us. I hope it would be less troublesome just like Apple hardware. To be similar like the Apple hardware, it should be SCSI bootable, and the CD-ROM device drivers should be in the ROM! ( for SCSI CD-ROM drivers and EIDE ones. ) When you need to reinstall the Windows ( due to really serious trouble ), sometimes you may not have the CD-ROM device driver installed booting disk. Your old DOS diskette may not work. ( Yes. it's magnetic. ) What will you do?
I think iMac-like PC with Linux, with Mac like easy of maintenance is perfect match. Because it will be inexpensive, joyfull to use, and gives less headache to solve some awkward problems.
I insist the iMac should be $500, and the Linux for iMac should be as recent as that for PCs!
I'm seriosly looking at the iMac for Linux. ( iMac-like PCs could be better for me! )
Slashdot Mirror
I wish there could be the MacOS X for IBM PC clones.
The NT has many problems in management, and with Windows platform, it's pretty time-consuming to upgrade/reinstall OS. Because it causes you install all S/W again.
Linux? I like it, but it also requires more time to setup than Windows/Mac.
Wrong. Apple didn't copy the XEROX GUI, as people know today. XEROX's one is not a GUI for the OS. It's for object oriented programming environment, called the SmallTalk. To be object oriented, it has graphical representation. And.. the look and the behaviour are quite different from those of Apple's GUI. What Apple stole is the idea, how easy graphical representation make user friendly environment. They converted the idea to the GUI for the OS. If you want to blame them, it would be more accurate to blame the NeXT, which built object oriented programming in mind, and had the interface builder and the application builder. ( Well.... but they are also different from that of the Xerox Alto. )
Well.. probably the Open Sources community reflects quicker response to bugs, but it can lost its direction. Look at the The XFree86 X server and its window managers or desktop managers. The behaviour or the response of the UI is not as good as that of Mac OS or Windows. But there is no Window Managers. etc to solve the problem. And there are lots of people to make different patches, different version. Well, diversity in nature is good, and probably it would be good in computer industry. But don't you think that there should be some agreement among people, at least? How about the Mozilla? When could it be released? I changed my browser to the IE5.01. At least the IE 5.01 doesn't reload html files when I resize the windows. With mozilla, it's possible. But the whole mozilla is not ready yet. I think all things has its own strength and weakness. We should maintain balanced view on them.
Well..
My recent machine is OK with the Y2K bug.
I installed the Y2K patch for the Windows.
But a 486 machine my father use is a DOS based
one.
It rolled back 1980!
Well.. Not all computers ( IBM compatibles ) has its time origin as 1900. Some BIOS starts from 1980!
And.. An application program that my father should use has reports its time "1980" although the developers said that it fixed the bug!
Hmm..
Anyway, I'm not sure that S/W on my recent machine is also Y2K bug free.
Although it is solved on the OS/System level, it should also be solved on the application S/W level.
Well, At the homepage of Apple Computer Inc., they claim that the AppleShare IP 6.3 provides a good web server. Is there any result of comparison including the AppleShareIP?
I found an intresting thing.
Although text loading (HTML) is a lot faster
than the Netscape Communicator 4.7, but image
loading is slower. So.. the finishing of loading by Mozilla M12 is almost similar to that of NC 4.7.
And.. why "tab" doesn't work for move onto next "text area" when I wrote with Mozilla?
I'm impressed with the M12! It's fast! Not only the screen drawing, but also the GUI itself! For the text drawing, it's really fast. But.. For images, I can't figure out which is faster, IE or Mozilla. ( Mozilla seems to be faster. ) What I don't like about the M12, is it's UI-look. I once saw a screen-shot of the Communicator 5.0. I think 5.0 is better. According to the www.netscape.com screen design, it seems to me that the design of Mozilla becomes the release version of Mozilla. (Hmm.. 5.0? ) Well.. anyway.. if there are skins available for the Mozilla, my next browser will be the Mozilla!
Hmm..
Well, I agree with you in many ways.
I think the Netscape Communicator needs
to be more stable. ( But at least crash
of the Netscape browser usually doesn't
cause the crash of the explorer of Windows,
unlike the IE. )
According to the standard...
First, XML.. even the IE doesn't seem
to handle well. I opened a 3MB CIM-related
XML document file with the IE. But it made
my computer freezed.
Second, language supporting.
the default Korean encoding/decoding of the IE
is ISO22-something. It's not a standard.
( Unlike the ISO implies. )
The euc-kr of the Netscape is standard.
Windows itself use it in bad way.
You can't open files with Korean even with
english version of Windows.
( If it is written in KS5601 ( korean standard )
or in EUC-KR ( unicode ), it can be read. )
It means that your directories and other
resources can't be guaranteed to be opened by
other machines. ( But the Linux can open them! )
If you make something work with Netscape, it is okay for you to feel safe. But with the IE.. NO.
Although the Netscape is behind the IE, I don't think the new Gecko based one is late.
At least we could get smaller browser.
Look! Even the MS caught up with the Apple!
Why can't the Netscape catch up with the MS?
Uhh.. There is no metioning that Mr. Jobs said that no one person deserves the credit for something. The article only said that there were many people involved in a products made by the Apple, Inc., and make all feel proud of every Apple products.
:)
Well.. I think we lost a culture ( Apple's eastereggs are more intresting than any other companies eastereggs. ), but... we may get smaller binary files.
OK. I've been watched the Mozilla.
But when will we get the Netscape Communicator 5.0?
Isn't it ready yet?
Hmm... I don't think so. I think the Netscape UI is more intuitive and more beautiful. And it is stable, although it can't be said, "more stable". At least crashing of the Netscape browser usually doesn't cause the explorer crash. I like the Netscape's strict standard-keeping attitude. The table is also good on the Netscape browser. Tables created by IE can't guarantee that it can be displayed properly with other browsers.
Wow!!
A few minutes ago there was no 4.7 version for Windows. But there are Base/Complete/Professional
versions there. I am not sure if they are fully uploaded. Even the file names for the Complete version doesn't have *.exe.
Wow!!!
It's rare case that Macintosh version comes out
earlier than Windows versions.
Is the Netscape working harder on Macs than on Windows?
Good luck, Netscape and Apple!!!!
I think new iMac II is cool!! Apple seems to return to cosumer market finally. ( I hope it would be a lot cheaper in my country. )
Hmm... The article seems to be.. yellow journalism.
Sony camcoders have DV ports which are the firewire ports.
Firewire on PC aren't popular because the firewire
devices/controllers are expensive. But there are devices for professional video folks.
Firewire can't be as popular as the USB. Because the Firewire is for professionals.
It's too early to say that Firewire is dying.
Why don't you mention QT 3? You don't need
to use QT 4.
QT 4 is still buggy on Windows.
And what make the QT 4 not playable on Linux
system is due to the Sorenson Video codec.
The codec is not opened.
Well, the codec is quite excellent, so Apple may
think it is useful not to open it.
If you use cinepak codec, you can play QT movies
on Linux machines.
Hmm.. Well, BeOS is good, Amiga OS is good.
But it doesn't mean that it is successful
in the market.
Except for the Linux, other OSes than the Windows
are not successful enough to survive.
Whether you admit it or not, there are two strong
OSes for personal computers. ( tech. + user base )
Yes. One is the Windows and the other is Mac OS.
But, as you know, the Windows is too strong.
Can a new OS have its own market which are enough
large for getting users' and developers' attention?
Are Amiga famous as Mac, OS/2 in countries other
than the U.S.?
It would be hard to make the new Amiga recognizable in the world market.
Let's see what will happen.
The PowerPC processor is not so great RISC
cheap. It's a CISC-fied RISC chip.
To be a RISC chip, it has too much OP codes.
And.. I think the PowerPC is not that
faster than the P-III. Although I like Apple's
products, I don't see any reason to choose
the PowerMac over Pentium PCs.
Current Pentium machines are fast enough, and
cheaper, and easy to be upgraded.
I know some shortcomings of Windows and PC H/W,
but there is some replacement. The Linux!
The PowerPC chip is just a subset of Power architecture. Even IBM use the Power3 for their
highest level machines. ( Well.. Yes.. they
use the PowerPC for up-to middle level machines. )
Anyway, PowerPC is not in the league of MIPS/Ultra
SuperSparc, Power3, StrongArm, Alpha.
It look like the DINO sold in Korea, made by
the DAEWOO.
My personal opinion about the DINO is that
it's cool. But it would be difficult to be
upgraded.
I like the NEC's one more. The finishing of
the case would be great. ( decision by looking at
the NEC notebooks- super slim notebooks. )
I love the Linux. I know that the Windows/Mac is
;) )
somewhat unstable. But the Linux can also crash.
The point is that there is no standard environment
for the Linux. Gnome, KDE, GTK, xform, QT, Athena, etc.. There are too many things.
Well, for hobbyst it doesn't matter.
But for writing codes and make money by doing it,
( I don't think programmers can live without "eating", etc. - live to eat, or eat to live.
To make money, one developer should make certain that compiling for these machines assures that the
compiled program can be run on other machines.
With Linux, sometimes it is not.
MacOS X is meaningless for us, probably. But what makes it different is that it is for commerce.
BeOS, too. And other Unix clones too.
Whether it is pre-installed or not doesn't matter a lot. The Unix variant is diffcult for users to manage. Why people should consider in the situation that the Windows/Mac work just good for them?
I'm not Linux-hater. I like Linux. I use Linux a lot more than the Windows. ( But to do some official things, I should use the Windows. )
But I also know that it is not for "make money".
Maybe things change. Although the Linux itself is free, but there are many distributors who make money by repackaging it. And.. the apps for the Linux can be sold for money. ( Why not? )
If so, there can be some companies who want to make a standard.
As someone said, it is question whether the Linux evolves as a better Unix or become another OS based on Unix. ( like BeOS? )
> Apple is only one company with an occasional
> good idea and consistent good design execution
Absolutely agree.
But they lacks the skill of "how to maintain the
situation."
They have had good technologies which could be
standard. But they are not so powerful in marketting. It's their biggest problem, I think.
> Apple is only one company with an occasional
> good idea and consistent good design execution
Totally agree.
But they lacks the skill of "how to maintain the
situation."
They have had good technologies which could be
standard. But they are not so powerful in marketting. It's their biggest problem, I think.
Well, if there is good technology, it's ok to use it. ( If you pay the price. )
So, there is nothing wrong with the fact
that Apple uses the USB, IDE, etc.
If people insist, "this company steals this from
others.", it is very childish.
( But the Microsoft style is very bad. They make people think that they made the GUI, and "we are first." imporession with many things. ( Although it is actually done by Apple, IBM, etc. )
By the way, the USB is borrowed its idea from the ADB. ( Apple Desktop Bus ) Compare the spec.
It has wider bandwidth, speed. But it's a serial bus similar to the ADB.
How about SCSI? Shouldn't PC makers use the SCSI?
It's not invented by Apple, but it is known to people thanks to Apple. ( People don't know SUN, generally. )
PCI? It's not only for PC technology, although it was made by the Intel, and others. Shoudn't Apple use it?
It's too childish subject.
I think iMac like IBM clones are good for us.
I hope it would be less troublesome just like Apple hardware. To be similar like the Apple hardware, it should be SCSI bootable, and the CD-ROM device drivers should be in the ROM!
( for SCSI CD-ROM drivers and EIDE ones. )
When you need to reinstall the Windows ( due to
really serious trouble ), sometimes you may not have the CD-ROM device driver installed booting disk. Your old DOS diskette may not work. ( Yes.
it's magnetic. ) What will you do?
I think iMac-like PC with Linux, with Mac like easy of maintenance is perfect match.
Because it will be inexpensive, joyfull to use, and gives less headache to solve some awkward problems.
I insist the iMac should be $500, and the Linux for iMac should be as recent as that for PCs!
I'm seriosly looking at the iMac for Linux.
( iMac-like PCs could be better for me! )
As far as I remember, the name of the Lisa was changed to the Macintosh XL.
PC people followed the wrong articles of 2~3 years ago. And the mood they made speed up destroying
Mac platform.
But, unlike them, the Mac person who wrote the
article is fair about the Linux.
It's more pleasant than being a Mac person 2~3
years ago.
I'm a Linux/Windows/Mac person.
I agree with the article.
Well, the Newton is dead, and the Newton doesn't
have color display.
What is the OpenGL for?
I think it has no meaning.