the Focus-follows-mouse behavior is quite possibly the most annoying thing I've ever had the displeasure to use (when I ran Blackbox for the first time). How anyone could find that useful is totally beyond me. I'm sure as hell glad I DON'T have to use an OS that works that way.
But not the G* PPC processors, sadly. Have you taken a look at Motorola's processor roadmap before? All PowerPC processors that Motorola has manufactured are prefixed with a G. The first 601 was called the G1. The G2 was the 603 and 604. The G3 is merely the code name for the 750, 740, 745, and 755 processors. The G4 is what the 74xx processors are called.
I'm sorry but that is the biggest MYTH. Gee, I guess that must be why those iMacs and iBooks have decreased little in price despite the fact that newer models have been continually introduced since then.
Sorry, but that's the truth. It's your choice whether or not you want to accept it. Sure you can whine and complain about the lack of expansion, but you'll still be wrong.
OSX takes a step backward by getting rid of the resource fork. Excuse me? Where did you hear this? OS X uses the HFS+ file system, which has been around since Mac OS 8.1, and has ALWAYS supported resource forks. Mac OS X doesn't "get rid" of anything. Files can be created with resource forks, they can have file and creator types, and everything else. More than a third of the 150,000+ files on my hard drive have some information stored in their resource fork.
Re:Can we think of a good reason for this?
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 1
Sure, but it only takes a fast sprinter to catch you before you can get away on it. Can we say Segway-jacking?
You've apparently never done any programming before. Have you heard of a little something called APIs? Not only will these sound apps either be written for Carbon (which is an OS X-compatible evolution of the traditional Mac toolbox) or Cocoa (which used to be OpenStep) but they'll probably be using the OS X CoreAudio API as well! Unless you can make all of those frameworks available for Linux or whatever OS you're using, you're 100% out of luck; the whole freaking app would have to be completely rewritten. So many people on slashdot have such a simplistic understanding of software development.
No, that would never work. Mac-on-Linux is NOT AM EMULATOR. You can't run Mac-on-Linux unless you're running Linux on a PowerPC machine in the first place!
You apparently either didn't read the article or are incapable of understanding it.
If you HAVE a simple folder heirarchy on your hard drive, then all you have to do is make an alias of the folder and put it in your Apple Menu Items folder. Because guess what--those heirarchical menus exist due to the EXISTANCE of a folder heirarchy. The menus DO mirror the contents of the Apple Menu Items folder! What more are you asking for? It seems to me like you either have never really used the Mac OS or you're just looking for things to find wrong with it.
Don't forget that the thought of commercial airliners crashing into buildings like the Pentagon and WTC was almost never expected. What they probably WERE planned for, however, was a plane dropping a bomb on Washington.
Your points are valid and I totally agree with you. The political system we have today works fairly well, but it's going to take just as long, if not longer, to fight against the years of voter apathy (and I'm not talking about presidential elections here) as it did for the effects of that apathy to come into play.
After all, it's not as if the DMCA should come as a surprise when corporations start paying more attention to politics than most citizens.
The Digital Millenium Copyright Act is one of the most screwed up acts to be passed in a very long time. Holy crap is the United States' messed up.
Re:they are already there. Re:Security for Mac Use
on
Cracking OSX
·
· Score: 2
Under NO circumstances would OS X be vulnerable to OS 9 security exploits. It doesn't matter if the classic environment is running, because OS X uses its own BSD-derived networking stack! Classic is merely a hardware abstraction layer! All its networking goes through OS X!
Also, don't forget that these retinal scanners won't be looking for EXACT pictures; people could never, ever look at the scanner exactly the same way. These scanners would only be looking at patterns in one's retina, not at a picture of the retinal itself. Thus, it is safe for the retinal scanner to assume that pictures identical in every single way to the original retinal print are invalid.
Hey, I've noticed that I can do more within a shorter period of time with those iMac mice. There's no reason people have to be able to rest their entire hand on a mouse to be able to use it efficiently. Furthermore, the iMac mouse is actually MORE ergonomic than conventional mice because users lift their wrists above their hands when using it, thereby avoiding stress on the nerves in the wrist.
"When it comes to supporting Mac OS X's Aqua interface, a 233-MHz iMac will 'work well' with advanced Aqua features such as the Dock's 'genie effect' as well as transparent, draggable windows. Of course, the G4 will be a bit better, Bereskin said, but he predicted that users probably won't notice much of a difference." http://macweek.zdnet.com/2000/01/09/osxing.html
That would have to be the stupidest thing that AOL could EVER do. People could then build AOL clients that showed no advertisements at all and that allowed users to do all KINDS of stuff they weren't officially allowed to do before!
Slashdot Mirror
You forgot Flansburgh and Linnell.
It's generally not a real "dealbreaker"--it's mostly just an excuse for people not to buy a Mac when they can't think of anything else to say.
the Focus-follows-mouse behavior is quite possibly the most annoying thing I've ever had the displeasure to use (when I ran Blackbox for the first time). How anyone could find that useful is totally beyond me. I'm sure as hell glad I DON'T have to use an OS that works that way.
It's seriously not blue at all. Do you suffer from some form of color blindness or is it simply your uncalibrated PC monitor?
It's a pity you "don't care for OS X"; if you had actually tried using it, you probably would have found the "Ignore trackpad while typing" option.
But not the G* PPC processors, sadly.
Have you taken a look at Motorola's processor roadmap before? All PowerPC processors that Motorola has manufactured are prefixed with a G. The first 601 was called the G1. The G2 was the 603 and 604. The G3 is merely the code name for the 750, 740, 745, and 755 processors. The G4 is what the 74xx processors are called.
I'm sorry but that is the biggest MYTH.
Gee, I guess that must be why those iMacs and iBooks have decreased little in price despite the fact that newer models have been continually introduced since then.
Sorry, but that's the truth. It's your choice whether or not you want to accept it. Sure you can whine and complain about the lack of expansion, but you'll still be wrong.
OSX takes a step backward by getting rid of the resource fork.
Excuse me? Where did you hear this? OS X uses the HFS+ file system, which has been around since Mac OS 8.1, and has ALWAYS supported resource forks. Mac OS X doesn't "get rid" of anything. Files can be created with resource forks, they can have file and creator types, and everything else. More than a third of the 150,000+ files on my hard drive have some information stored in their resource fork.
Sure, but it only takes a fast sprinter to catch you before you can get away on it. Can we say Segway-jacking?
Um, how would you expect to access menus if the menubar was HIDDEN?
You've apparently never done any programming before. Have you heard of a little something called APIs? Not only will these sound apps either be written for Carbon (which is an OS X-compatible evolution of the traditional Mac toolbox) or Cocoa (which used to be OpenStep) but they'll probably be using the OS X CoreAudio API as well! Unless you can make all of those frameworks available for Linux or whatever OS you're using, you're 100% out of luck; the whole freaking app would have to be completely rewritten. So many people on slashdot have such a simplistic understanding of software development.
No, that would never work. Mac-on-Linux is NOT AM EMULATOR. You can't run Mac-on-Linux unless you're running Linux on a PowerPC machine in the first place!
You apparently either didn't read the article or are incapable of understanding it.
If you HAVE a simple folder heirarchy on your hard drive, then all you have to do is make an alias of the folder and put it in your Apple Menu Items folder. Because guess what--those heirarchical menus exist due to the EXISTANCE of a folder heirarchy. The menus DO mirror the contents of the Apple Menu Items folder! What more are you asking for? It seems to me like you either have never really used the Mac OS or you're just looking for things to find wrong with it.
Don't forget that the thought of commercial airliners crashing into buildings like the Pentagon and WTC was almost never expected. What they probably WERE planned for, however, was a plane dropping a bomb on Washington.
Your points are valid and I totally agree with you. The political system we have today works fairly well, but it's going to take just as long, if not longer, to fight against the years of voter apathy (and I'm not talking about presidential elections here) as it did for the effects of that apathy to come into play.
After all, it's not as if the DMCA should come as a surprise when corporations start paying more attention to politics than most citizens.
The Digital Millenium Copyright Act is one of the most screwed up acts to be passed in a very long time. Holy crap is the United States' messed up.
Under NO circumstances would OS X be vulnerable to OS 9 security exploits. It doesn't matter if the classic environment is running, because OS X uses its own BSD-derived networking stack! Classic is merely a hardware abstraction layer! All its networking goes through OS X!
Also, don't forget that these retinal scanners won't be looking for EXACT pictures; people could never, ever look at the scanner exactly the same way. These scanners would only be looking at patterns in one's retina, not at a picture of the retinal itself. Thus, it is safe for the retinal scanner to assume that pictures identical in every single way to the original retinal print are invalid.
Hey, I've noticed that I can do more within a shorter period of time with those iMac mice. There's no reason people have to be able to rest their entire hand on a mouse to be able to use it efficiently. Furthermore, the iMac mouse is actually MORE ergonomic than conventional mice because users lift their wrists above their hands when using it, thereby avoiding stress on the nerves in the wrist.
"When it comes to supporting Mac OS X's Aqua interface, a 233-MHz iMac will 'work well' with advanced Aqua features such as the Dock's 'genie effect' as well as transparent, draggable windows. Of course, the G4 will be a bit better, Bereskin said, but he predicted that users probably won't notice much of a difference." http://macweek.zdnet.com/2000/01/09/osxing.html
That would have to be the stupidest thing that AOL could EVER do. People could then build AOL clients that showed no advertisements at all and that allowed users to do all KINDS of stuff they weren't officially allowed to do before!