Except we're talking about Macs here, and a Mac isn't 'prebuilt' so much as custome built, when you consider the case, the OS, the mobo, the drivers, the firmware, etc.
Sure, you really can't tailor it, like you can a Dell or Compaq, and most of the components are standard, like the drives, the memory, and the CPU; you *are* paying for good quality, since the components are chosen for their ability and performance. IE, low power, low heat, ruggedness, noise, size, etc.
You make a very valid point when talking about the mainstream PCs, since they really don't add value in their products.
Still, Chattanooga has a point, it's easier to trust a Dell than it is to trust a random main street PC boutique, if you don't have the skills to build your own system.
I didn't know this was in OS X! Cool:)
I can now access the menus, the Dock, the toolbars, and a 'utility palette', whatever that is, from the keyboard. Thank you!
I dunno, I'm just barely finishing up my system, I'm hoping it's not a problem.
I have a 22W rated 800MHz Celeron in there.
The newer Tualatin Celerons are on a 0.13 process with copper interconnect technology and may actually use less power than my Celeron.
I have a Alpha pal153U, a 10mm heatsink with a 15mm fan and a copper heat spreader. I have all this stuffed into an old Mac LCII case, approx 43mm x 32cm by 45cm or so.
Which is exactly why you are welcome to make your own machine:)
I haven't noticed the loss of an eject button, given that I have an eject key on the keyboard, nor the right mouse button, since just extending the length of a single click also acts as a right click. That's how I've adapted.
I do wish the Mac were *more* keyboardable. Tabbing among the dialog hotspots, for example, would be nice. Being able to pull the menu down without mousing would be nice, too. Those are enhancement requests, and hopefully Apple will see fit to make their OS even better:)
I stuffed it inside an old, old, $10 Mac LCII case. Yeah, you know, those 1.4", smaller than 1U case. I haven't finished it, yet, as I have to hack at the case for the power supply to fit; the power supply is like 50mm and the free space inside is only 43mm. I have to carve up some plastic.
I'm seriously considering stuffing an old iMac mobo into one of those as my next project, and then pop in a fast 800MHz G4...
Feeding? You make it sound as if the manufacturers are parasites.
DIY cannot make an iMac or a Cube. DIY cannot make PowerBooks or iBooks.
Rather, you can take the point of view the DIY *do* make these machines, but they happen to work at Apple.
Also, I dunno if you own a Mac or not, Macs are more than just the hardware. There's the OS and the addon software that makes it far from standard. We (me) feed Apple in order for Apple to continue producing the iPods, the iMovies and iTunes, the FCP, and the OS X for us.
You have to remember that Bored in Chattanooga wants less functionality, pay less for a machine, keep his hands warm, and keep his books from falling over.
He really does want the firewire, USB, tv out, compact size, built in audio, built in networking, everything the iMac offers, and the iMac does, as you mention, come with a GeForce2 and LCD screen. Except he doesn't want to pay for it and he tacitly acknowledges that look matters. Isn't that ironic? Saying that he values cute PCs, the iMac isn't cute enough?
Can't the BSDs legally adopt BSD code, in this case Darwin HFS+ support, into their OSes and therefore read/write to the iPod without any further FS hacking?
Unlike Linux?
Anyone running BSD on a PC with firewire and owning an iPod able to attest to this?
Isn't this sort of weird? It's good weird, but weird.
Apple probably pays 3 or 4 people good money to do this, but they want to reverse engineer it and do it again, re-invent the wheel.
While it's arguably a waste, it also provides robustness through diversity. If they figure out something Apple hasn't, Apple can quickly adopt it. When Apple does something they cannot, it shows that their understanding and implementation is flawed.
What would be good is if these people could get hired by, say, Creative, to create an iPod killer.
That windowing systems and HCI are distinct. Windowing systems is a component of HCI, but so is command line interfaces, voice interfaces, and graphical interfaces.
Windowing systems is one metaphor applied to graphical interfaces. HCI includes the concepts of learnability, consistent behavior, teachability, and useability.
I'm defining learnability as the capacity for the system to teach the user, and teachability is the capacity for the system to adapt to the user.
Windowing systems doesn't necessarily have anything to do with any of those four points unless the designer and developer choses to address those points. Themes and skins count as teachable, adaptable systems, but do not necessarily mean the system is useable, powerful, or capable.
We had the resources to make 3. What if Nazi Germany beat us, and made one first?
I think what would have happened is that we would have immediately nuked Berlin or some other such German country, instead of Japan.
I don't think we would have lost. I think that if Germany developed the bomb first, it would have pushed us even harder; not only is it possible, our scientists would have thought, here's how to make it better. Faster. Cheaper.
We would have responded in like.
One small capacity nuke could not take out the US. Germany probably would have targeted something in Russia, a much bigger threat, and much less likely to have a nuke to retaliate with.
Of course, this begs the question, what was the Russian nuclear capability of the time?
I imagine the cold war would have taken a much different turn, as stockpiling of nukes would be much less desireable. Would we have turned to genetic and biological weapons instead?
Especially since it doesn't sound like you use it.
It's nearly all there. BSD.
Not only can I compile and run BSD and Linux apps (with the obligatory recompile), but I can boot into single user mode, command line, and UI less.
Aqua is just a UI. If you really want to play with the OS without the UI, download Darwin for x86. It's BSD. Honest. Truly. Apple didn't close the source. It's still there on Apple's site, still available for download.
As to your other question: "I guess the real question that would answer this is: "What percentage of Apple Applications can Yellow Dog run without installing the Apple OS?"
Yellow Dog cannot run any Apple applications. It cannot run DVD player or Photoshop or Fire or Office.
What do you mean to ask? "What percentage of source that I can compile on Yellow Dog can I compile on OS X?" I suspect the answer is much closer to 100% than it is to 50%, given that we're talking about source.
Otherwise your question is akin to asking, "What percentage of Windows applications can Red Hat run without installing the Windows OS?"
Red Hat doesn't run Windows applications. It runs Linux applications.
Anyway, the resource fork hasn't gone away, it's been transmuted into the concept of a Bundle. Mozilla.app is really a structured directory; in Finder view it's an executable, but it really is a folder, with resources, executables, localization data, metadata, etc.
Your other criticism of Applescript is pretty hollow too. Applescript is akin to a systemwide API to allow programs to be scripted. Each program has a dictionary (if the developers of the program think to make one) of hooks, exported exposed functionality, that Applescript can use to manipulate the program.
It's similar to a shell script but different, since with OS X we also have shell scripts; it allows application automation, in a manner similar to how CLI programs have command line options, except because it's a system wide API, there are certain universal set of assumptions that programs follow by implementing Applescript support.
I don't want there to be hard words between us. You threw the first punch by 'accusing' me of arrogance, ignorance, and a lack of understanding. All three accusations may be true, but I doubt it.
I never claimed Linux is based on Apple or Microsoft products. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but the KDE and FVWM95 UI and window manager both are *clearly* copying the Windows UI and interface. I was not addressing the underlying code base (Minix, VMX, BSD, or Mac OS 9) as all of them are quite distinct.
You are talking about stability and underlying core OS. I am not. This alone should flag a warning that misunderstanding is imminent, since we aren't talking about the same thing.
I never said that the UI was ripped or otherwise. Xerox did not create a HCI or a set of useability guidelines. Apple did. Apple does. They have one for OS 9 and they have one for OS X. Microsoft has one too. Linux, however, doesn't (though the GNOME usability project has just been brought to my attention. Except that they have adopted NeXT's paradigm, so it's still more accurate to say that they are using NeXT and Apple's work)
Anyway, I'm sorta embarrassed to ask, but why does your writing style seem so... unpolished? You cannot spell precious (precisouse) and you aren't even talking about the same topic I am (human usability, human computer interface, user interface guidelines), instead talking about stability and window managers and OS kernels and cores, and finally, aesthetics.
I'm hoping you're seriously considering taking some speech and presentation classes, as well as writing, communication, and philosophy classes, otherwise I suspect you're wasting your money in college.
You totally ignored my point. That Linux copies Windows. Instead you attack the Mac OS UI.
I've only used a Mac for 11 months now, and a PC for 7 years before that. I've played with Linux for a few years in college, and am running a server right now.
Sure, the Mac HCI isn't *perfect*. So improve it, that's a good idea. I'm just saying following the Mac HCI is a better start than no HCI or the Windows HCI.
I have to agree that blindly following anyone is a seriously poor idea, but the problem is that Linux UI people seem to be blindly following Windows, or no one at all.
It's still a serious question. Has no one ever considered that, when developing a UI, that you should try to beat the king of the hill, not match king of the hill?
Where Windows is king of the hill in mass, and Mac is king of the hill in skill or something.
For nearly 24 years now Apple has been in business. Maybe 25. For 19 years Apple has been making UIs. For something like 17 or 16 of those years, Microsoft has been copying Apple; if not copying per feature, copying per functionality. More or less, Apple unleashed UIs and mice, with the Lisa, in 1983.
Why the heck do Linux developers copy Windows? A copy of a copy? Why not *pick* to copy Apple's HCI and adopt it for the Linux desktop? It's been finalized for *years*. It's not new. It's older than Linux itself, I think. Especially now that Apple has more or less relegated OS 9 to standby status, many people are mourning the loss of their great OS.
At this rate, Windows will copy OS X, and then Linux will copy Windows...
At least *learn* everything Apple has so daringly decided to throw away with OS 9, and then start adopting OS Xisms, and shortcircuit Windows *altogether*.
Of course, the problem is that most people don't have access to a Mac and don't know what it's like to use a Mac and don't understand the Mac gestalt, otherwise they'd be using Macs already...
Slashdot Mirror
What non-standard components are you talking about?
Everything in the iMac except the screen, the OS, and the motherboard, is a conventional, PC useable component.
Ah. You mean like a NeXT cube.
Or rather, the old black borg case milled out of magnesium.
Except we're talking about Macs here, and a Mac isn't 'prebuilt' so much as custome built, when you consider the case, the OS, the mobo, the drivers, the firmware, etc.
Sure, you really can't tailor it, like you can a Dell or Compaq, and most of the components are standard, like the drives, the memory, and the CPU; you *are* paying for good quality, since the components are chosen for their ability and performance. IE, low power, low heat, ruggedness, noise, size, etc.
You make a very valid point when talking about the mainstream PCs, since they really don't add value in their products.
Still, Chattanooga has a point, it's easier to trust a Dell than it is to trust a random main street PC boutique, if you don't have the skills to build your own system.
Um, sure, I guess :)
From the outside it's just... a Mac LC II.
So far the power supply is still a tad to big... I'll put up some pics on my Mac homepage tomorrow or something.
OMG! Thanks man!
:)
I didn't know this was in OS X! Cool
I can now access the menus, the Dock, the toolbars, and a 'utility palette', whatever that is, from the keyboard. Thank you!
Well, yeah, I saw that. Sorta inspired me.
Except that a Mac Classic has more volume than a Mac II LC (compare 13.2"x9.7"x11.2" vs 2.9"x12.2"x15.3"
I dunno, I'm just barely finishing up my system, I'm hoping it's not a problem.
I have a 22W rated 800MHz Celeron in there.
The newer Tualatin Celerons are on a 0.13 process with copper interconnect technology and may actually use less power than my Celeron.
I have a Alpha pal153U, a 10mm heatsink with a 15mm fan and a copper heat spreader. I have all this stuffed into an old Mac LCII case, approx 43mm x 32cm by 45cm or so.
Which is exactly why you are welcome to make your own machine :)
:)
I haven't noticed the loss of an eject button, given that I have an eject key on the keyboard, nor the right mouse button, since just extending the length of a single click also acts as a right click. That's how I've adapted.
I do wish the Mac were *more* keyboardable. Tabbing among the dialog hotspots, for example, would be nice. Being able to pull the menu down without mousing would be nice, too. Those are enhancement requests, and hopefully Apple will see fit to make their OS even better
It's running W2k right now.
I stuffed it inside an old, old, $10 Mac LCII case. Yeah, you know, those 1.4", smaller than 1U case. I haven't finished it, yet, as I have to hack at the case for the power supply to fit; the power supply is like 50mm and the free space inside is only 43mm. I have to carve up some plastic.
I'm seriously considering stuffing an old iMac mobo into one of those as my next project, and then pop in a fast 800MHz G4...
Feeding? You make it sound as if the manufacturers are parasites.
DIY cannot make an iMac or a Cube. DIY cannot make PowerBooks or iBooks.
Rather, you can take the point of view the DIY *do* make these machines, but they happen to work at Apple.
Also, I dunno if you own a Mac or not, Macs are more than just the hardware. There's the OS and the addon software that makes it far from standard. We (me) feed Apple in order for Apple to continue producing the iPods, the iMovies and iTunes, the FCP, and the OS X for us.
You have to remember that Bored in Chattanooga wants less functionality, pay less for a machine, keep his hands warm, and keep his books from falling over.
He really does want the firewire, USB, tv out, compact size, built in audio, built in networking, everything the iMac offers, and the iMac does, as you mention, come with a GeForce2 and LCD screen. Except he doesn't want to pay for it and he tacitly acknowledges that look matters. Isn't that ironic? Saying that he values cute PCs, the iMac isn't cute enough?
Does this mean that because Darwin is under APSL, that other BSDs cannot wholehog import the appropriate HFS+ code?
Can't the BSDs legally adopt BSD code, in this case Darwin HFS+ support, into their OSes and therefore read/write to the iPod without any further FS hacking?
Unlike Linux?
Anyone running BSD on a PC with firewire and owning an iPod able to attest to this?
Isn't this sort of weird? It's good weird, but weird.
Apple probably pays 3 or 4 people good money to do this, but they want to reverse engineer it and do it again, re-invent the wheel.
While it's arguably a waste, it also provides robustness through diversity. If they figure out something Apple hasn't, Apple can quickly adopt it. When Apple does something they cannot, it shows that their understanding and implementation is flawed.
What would be good is if these people could get hired by, say, Creative, to create an iPod killer.
That and how many USB2 PCs are there right now? I really don't know if the installed base is significant (yet).
I dunno, I think my niche is bigger than your niche :P
Because every new iMac has a shell, ssh, and a command line. Thus every mom with an iMac has this.
Does every mom with win95 have putty?
That windowing systems and HCI are distinct. Windowing systems is a component of HCI, but so is command line interfaces, voice interfaces, and graphical interfaces.
Windowing systems is one metaphor applied to graphical interfaces. HCI includes the concepts of learnability, consistent behavior, teachability, and useability.
I'm defining learnability as the capacity for the system to teach the user, and teachability is the capacity for the system to adapt to the user.
Windowing systems doesn't necessarily have anything to do with any of those four points unless the designer and developer choses to address those points. Themes and skins count as teachable, adaptable systems, but do not necessarily mean the system is useable, powerful, or capable.
Get a Mac.
:)
DisplayPDF, Aqua window manager, a Dock, Finder (with three view modes), Mail.app, and all for a low price of $1,799!
You even get a DVD-R and LCD screen out of it
People keep asking that.
We had the resources to make 3. What if Nazi Germany beat us, and made one first?
I think what would have happened is that we would have immediately nuked Berlin or some other such German country, instead of Japan.
I don't think we would have lost. I think that if Germany developed the bomb first, it would have pushed us even harder; not only is it possible, our scientists would have thought, here's how to make it better. Faster. Cheaper.
We would have responded in like.
One small capacity nuke could not take out the US. Germany probably would have targeted something in Russia, a much bigger threat, and much less likely to have a nuke to retaliate with.
Of course, this begs the question, what was the Russian nuclear capability of the time?
I imagine the cold war would have taken a much different turn, as stockpiling of nukes would be much less desireable. Would we have turned to genetic and biological weapons instead?
Especially since it doesn't sound like you use it.
It's nearly all there. BSD.
Not only can I compile and run BSD and Linux apps (with the obligatory recompile), but I can boot into single user mode, command line, and UI less.
Aqua is just a UI. If you really want to play with the OS without the UI, download Darwin for x86. It's BSD. Honest. Truly. Apple didn't close the source. It's still there on Apple's site, still available for download.
As to your other question: "I guess the real question that would answer this is: "What percentage of Apple Applications can Yellow Dog run without installing the Apple OS?"
Yellow Dog cannot run any Apple applications. It cannot run DVD player or Photoshop or Fire or Office.
What do you mean to ask? "What percentage of source that I can compile on Yellow Dog can I compile on OS X?" I suspect the answer is much closer to 100% than it is to 50%, given that we're talking about source.
Otherwise your question is akin to asking, "What percentage of Windows applications can Red Hat run without installing the Windows OS?"
Red Hat doesn't run Windows applications. It runs Linux applications.
Anyway, the resource fork hasn't gone away, it's been transmuted into the concept of a Bundle. Mozilla.app is really a structured directory; in Finder view it's an executable, but it really is a folder, with resources, executables, localization data, metadata, etc.
Your other criticism of Applescript is pretty hollow too. Applescript is akin to a systemwide API to allow programs to be scripted. Each program has a dictionary (if the developers of the program think to make one) of hooks, exported exposed functionality, that Applescript can use to manipulate the program.
It's similar to a shell script but different, since with OS X we also have shell scripts; it allows application automation, in a manner similar to how CLI programs have command line options, except because it's a system wide API, there are certain universal set of assumptions that programs follow by implementing Applescript support.
I don't want there to be hard words between us. You threw the first punch by 'accusing' me of arrogance, ignorance, and a lack of understanding. All three accusations may be true, but I doubt it.
I never claimed Linux is based on Apple or Microsoft products. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but the KDE and FVWM95 UI and window manager both are *clearly* copying the Windows UI and interface. I was not addressing the underlying code base (Minix, VMX, BSD, or Mac OS 9) as all of them are quite distinct.
You are talking about stability and underlying core OS. I am not. This alone should flag a warning that misunderstanding is imminent, since we aren't talking about the same thing.
I never said that the UI was ripped or otherwise. Xerox did not create a HCI or a set of useability guidelines. Apple did. Apple does. They have one for OS 9 and they have one for OS X. Microsoft has one too. Linux, however, doesn't (though the GNOME usability project has just been brought to my attention. Except that they have adopted NeXT's paradigm, so it's still more accurate to say that they are using NeXT and Apple's work)
Anyway, I'm sorta embarrassed to ask, but why does your writing style seem so... unpolished? You cannot spell precious (precisouse) and you aren't even talking about the same topic I am (human usability, human computer interface, user interface guidelines), instead talking about stability and window managers and OS kernels and cores, and finally, aesthetics.
I'm hoping you're seriously considering taking some speech and presentation classes, as well as writing, communication, and philosophy classes, otherwise I suspect you're wasting your money in college.
in check. Please.
Yeah, I was overdramatic.
You totally ignored my point. That Linux copies Windows. Instead you attack the Mac OS UI.
I've only used a Mac for 11 months now, and a PC for 7 years before that. I've played with Linux for a few years in college, and am running a server right now.
Sure, the Mac HCI isn't *perfect*. So improve it, that's a good idea. I'm just saying following the Mac HCI is a better start than no HCI or the Windows HCI.
I have to agree that blindly following anyone is a seriously poor idea, but the problem is that Linux UI people seem to be blindly following Windows, or no one at all.
*grin*
Oh well.
It's still a serious question. Has no one ever considered that, when developing a UI, that you should try to beat the king of the hill, not match king of the hill?
Where Windows is king of the hill in mass, and Mac is king of the hill in skill or something.
For nearly 24 years now Apple has been in business. Maybe 25. For 19 years Apple has been making UIs. For something like 17 or 16 of those years, Microsoft has been copying Apple; if not copying per feature, copying per functionality. More or less, Apple unleashed UIs and mice, with the Lisa, in 1983.
Why the heck do Linux developers copy Windows? A copy of a copy? Why not *pick* to copy Apple's HCI and adopt it for the Linux desktop? It's been finalized for *years*. It's not new. It's older than Linux itself, I think. Especially now that Apple has more or less relegated OS 9 to standby status, many people are mourning the loss of their great OS.
At this rate, Windows will copy OS X, and then Linux will copy Windows...
At least *learn* everything Apple has so daringly decided to throw away with OS 9, and then start adopting OS Xisms, and shortcircuit Windows *altogether*.
Of course, the problem is that most people don't have access to a Mac and don't know what it's like to use a Mac and don't understand the Mac gestalt, otherwise they'd be using Macs already...