Unfortunately that seems to be a missing option; the Finder windows give you a choice between Icon/Text/Icon+Text, but the Dock does not.
On the other hand, all the minimized windows are 'live' renderings of the respective web pages, so can convey much more information than 'Netscape-http://...'
The submenus *do* display the full title bar, at least.
The point I was trying to make was that organizations *aren't* bound to the Microsoft desktop if they didn't want to be, and they could still use Microsoft Office if they still wanted.
You can scale down the 80%, but the value is supposed to convey the fact that people who just need a computer, email, web, and Office can get by just fine on a Mac.
Hmmm, you already have a pretty insightful response, so here's my addendum.
You could have 15 Netscape windows open. They take no space on the dock except for 1 Netscape App icon.
Minimize all 15 Windows (there is that option in the 'Netscape' menu) and you have 1 Netscape App icon and 15 Netscape window icons, each a tiny 'live' representation. Supposedly running Quicktime windows keep running even when 'minimized' too
The dock has a separator to divide applications and documents. So it has everything the Windows start bar has, and more. The foreground window cannot be lost in the Dock because it doesn't show up in the Dock unless it's minimized. The application can never be lost because it's always in the same place in the Dock.
Well then, a challenge!
80% of the computing world could *switch* to Mac OS X then, run Office v 10, maintain compatibility with each other and the 10% that didn't switch, give Microsoft the well earned money for such an excellent product *and* break Microsoft's desktop monopoly!
If you want your shiny blue widgets... you can have XP.
I'm a little more scared of Microsoft,.NET, Hailstorm, Windows Media Player, DirectX, and the XBox, all under the same roof...
What evils lurk in the Microsoft Future?
Aqua is *the* OS X experience. It's more than just widgets; more than just a semitranslucent title bar, or glassy buttons, and drop shadows.
It's about an uncluttered 'Start bar' (called the Dock). Each App gets a single entry in the Dock, with access to the multiple open windows available through a single 'Window' menu; or if you right click on the app in the Dock, you get a list of the available windows.
It's about a the Apple Menu and a single menu, instead of a menu per Window. This has carried over from the previous OS 9; the foreground App, with User focus, controls the single available menu bar. There doesn't exist a menu for each window (which not only takes up screen real estate, it provides for too many available targets when all you use is a single target) but only a single global menu bar.
It's about minimizing screen clutter and noise. Instead of borders around each window you get a drop shadow; you delineate forground from background apps because the foreground App casts a shadow behind it. The background apps also have transparent title bars. You don't get every open Window listed in the Dock-the OS X Start bar. You don't get a menu bar attached to every window. You don't get a empty grey parent window containing all the child windows of Word or Photoshop.
It's not perfect, certainly, and it is, after all, the vision of a single person, a single company, quite unlike Linux and the Open Source/Free Software community.
There are little things, but mostly it's coherent. Most of the OS widgets are grayed out and monochromatic except when they are in focus or require attention; good visual cues. If you mistype your password when logging in, the login window shakes itself to both clear itself and to let you know you've failed to log in.
It's really, really, nice. Too bad most people are too cheap, or cannot otherwise afford, to play with Macs.
There *are* alternatives to all the Microsoft products; Apache to IIS, Perl to VBScript, Java, Corba, and Javascript to ActiveX, WP Office to Office, OS X to Windows XP, Linux to Windows 2000 Professional, etc.
Just because Microsoft is a pain doesn't mean you're *stuck* with Microsoft. The market gives you plenty of close or reasonable substitutes.
For desktop OSes? Besides Linux, there's also the Mac platform.
And with the Mac platform, you can keep using Office without the worry or threat of Microsoft dominance on the desktop OS influencing media distribution or gaming, though you may have to consider Apple's Quicktime...
I know, I know, some people don't *want* to switch desktops...
I'm sorry, I guess the Mac doesn't suit your needs; it suits mine, and, if a bit tasteless, was presenting the option that it may suit the needs of others, even though it not be championing the cause of 'freedom' as loudly as Linux, or GNU, per se.
I *do* run OS X, and I run it on a 400MHz G4. So far it has suited me fine, and the new release, 10.1, and new OS X applications, will be even better.
Yeah, yeah, Apple is as much a business and corporate entity as Microsoft, and as such cannot be trusted any more than Microsoft...
Yet if you evaluate the Mac platform, here's what it offers:
Good (not great) compatibility with the Windows universe, without succumbing to Microsoft
Great UI, Install, and useability
Great hardware, if a bit expensive for said hardware
Good (not great) with the GNU universe. It's BSD, first and foremost, so some allowances have to be made
About the only market it isn't able to compete strongly in is games, which Linux has issues with, if for different reasons. Macs + OS X can work with the server space, desktop workstations, development, scientific computing, graphics, office work, and web work.
Caveat, though, is that there is still a very strong reliance on the Classic environment, hopefully to go away very soon as more apps are developed and ported into the Carbon and Cocoa environments.
Still, all the Linux people can probably drop right into a Mac and OS X fairly easily:)
Without MS's monopoly power, you wouldn't have Netscape and the likes trying to gain prominance in the MS ecosystem... and then falling to Microsoft itself.
Look at Id software for an example of someone who lives/thrives inside the Microsoft ecosystem but refuses to defer to the giant, by using OpenGL and releasing games on Mac OS and Linux.
On the other hand, Netscape, for all it's posturing, does support many more platforms, OSes, and architectures than Microsoft does.
'When Microsoft does it, it's: Microsoft is a monopoly power!'
Not quite the same, actually. Yes, both demonstrate a monopoly hold on their respective markets, PCs and Macs, but Microsoft, in asserting their monopoly, use it to force out competitors and enter new markets.
So bundling a browser, or heck, integrating a browser into the OS, is fine, it's dandy. Heck, I use it to download Netscape. The problem isn't the bundling, it's using their aforementioned monopoly to force out competition; like Netscape. Not only did they bundle, which I think is fine, or integrate, which is still fine, they coerced OEMs with the threat of higher licensing fees if they shipped with Netscape as the default, or if they linked to Netscape on the desktop.
In similar veins, it's okay for XP to integrate with WMP, or offer CD burning, or whatever; it's not okay for them to use their monopoly on the desktop to coerce OEMs not to install, say, Real, or Quicktime, or Flash, as that might interfere with Microsoft's move into the media content and distribution arena.
I've been saying this several times today, against many similar posts... perhaps I should double check *just* to be sure... nah...
Isn't the DOJ's beef against MS, not bundling, but bundling *and* using their desktop OS monopoly against their competitors to gain advantage and new monopolies?
So bundling IE is fine, but forcing OEMs through licensing clauses not to include Netscape or link to Netscape isn't fine?
Bundling DVD software would be fine, but using it to destroy the competition isn't? Or using it to push a special MS flavor of DVD discs isn't.
You know I implied none of those things?
Would it surprise you if I told you I own a network of 1 Mac, 2 PCs, and 1 Linux box at home?
Jobs hasn't been with Apple for the past *8* years, if you think carefully. Remember when he came back? How big a deal it was?
Your beef with Jobs is your own deal.
An no... PC users have not been 'burning CDs and DVD playback' out of the box, where the box is defined as the Windows OS box. I got DVD playback software with my video card, but had to send out a special request/form for it. I got DVD software with my DVD drive, but it didn't support the hardware acceleration on my video card. I got CDR software with my CDRW drive, but the OS didn't support the software, and I had to get an 'updated' version of the software.
I'm sure you had a much easier time of it, these past 3 years, but I hardly think the PC industry has 'perfected' CD burning and DVD playback technology, yet.
It's a picking of nits, isn't it?
OS 9, and soon OS X, out of the box, will come with CD burning, DVD burning, DVD playing, CD ripping, MP3 encoding, web serving, movie making, and wireless networking software. Out of the box.
WindowsMe and Windows2000 come with... a web browser.
Now, the OEM, sure, they can bundle all the software you want with your purchase... except that that's per OEM, isn't it? A Mac *without* a CD burner, DVD burner, DVD player, wireless networking, etc, *still* get all those features, so that when they upgrade to those products, they just have to turn on the software, maybe install it, and voila, instant usefulness. A Mac has Palm software, mp3 hardware support, 3d support, scsi support, etc, all out of the box. It's included in every copy of OS 9 and OS X(which, for now, includes OS 9).
You could put your object the other way, too you know? Why does the DVD drive maker *have* to include DVD drive software with the player? Because the OS *doesn't* support DVD playback out of the box.
Slashdot Mirror
That's certainly a fair reason to not use Macs :)
I hope, for both our sakes, that no one company rules the world and that competition makes for a stronger market and future.
Unfortunately that seems to be a missing option; the Finder windows give you a choice between Icon/Text/Icon+Text, but the Dock does not.
On the other hand, all the minimized windows are 'live' renderings of the respective web pages, so can convey much more information than 'Netscape-http://...'
The submenus *do* display the full title bar, at least.
Of course it was a joke.
The point I was trying to make was that organizations *aren't* bound to the Microsoft desktop if they didn't want to be, and they could still use Microsoft Office if they still wanted.
You can scale down the 80%, but the value is supposed to convey the fact that people who just need a computer, email, web, and Office can get by just fine on a Mac.
Does it count that I'm using OS X on my laptop?
Somehow I doubt that that there are more Linux people than Windows users :)
I use Linux myself, on my web server.
Hmmm, you already have a pretty insightful response, so here's my addendum.
You could have 15 Netscape windows open. They take no space on the dock except for 1 Netscape App icon.
Minimize all 15 Windows (there is that option in the 'Netscape' menu) and you have 1 Netscape App icon and 15 Netscape window icons, each a tiny 'live' representation. Supposedly running Quicktime windows keep running even when 'minimized' too
The dock has a separator to divide applications and documents. So it has everything the Windows start bar has, and more. The foreground window cannot be lost in the Dock because it doesn't show up in the Dock unless it's minimized. The application can never be lost because it's always in the same place in the Dock.
anja has it mostly.
You can 'ctrl click'
You can 'click' and hold it for half a second
You can use a two button mouse and right click
So do I; but most people argue about the application of the word, but cannot argue so easily with a description of the product and it's goals :)
Well then, a challenge!
80% of the computing world could *switch* to Mac OS X then, run Office v 10, maintain compatibility with each other and the 10% that didn't switch, give Microsoft the well earned money for such an excellent product *and* break Microsoft's desktop monopoly!
If you want your shiny blue widgets... you can have XP.
.NET, Hailstorm, Windows Media Player, DirectX, and the XBox, all under the same roof...
I'm a little more scared of Microsoft,
What evils lurk in the Microsoft Future?
Aqua is *the* OS X experience. It's more than just widgets; more than just a semitranslucent title bar, or glassy buttons, and drop shadows.
It's about an uncluttered 'Start bar' (called the Dock). Each App gets a single entry in the Dock, with access to the multiple open windows available through a single 'Window' menu; or if you right click on the app in the Dock, you get a list of the available windows.
It's about a the Apple Menu and a single menu, instead of a menu per Window. This has carried over from the previous OS 9; the foreground App, with User focus, controls the single available menu bar. There doesn't exist a menu for each window (which not only takes up screen real estate, it provides for too many available targets when all you use is a single target) but only a single global menu bar.
It's about minimizing screen clutter and noise. Instead of borders around each window you get a drop shadow; you delineate forground from background apps because the foreground App casts a shadow behind it. The background apps also have transparent title bars. You don't get every open Window listed in the Dock-the OS X Start bar. You don't get a menu bar attached to every window. You don't get a empty grey parent window containing all the child windows of Word or Photoshop.
It's not perfect, certainly, and it is, after all, the vision of a single person, a single company, quite unlike Linux and the Open Source/Free Software community.
There are little things, but mostly it's coherent. Most of the OS widgets are grayed out and monochromatic except when they are in focus or require attention; good visual cues. If you mistype your password when logging in, the login window shakes itself to both clear itself and to let you know you've failed to log in.
It's really, really, nice. Too bad most people are too cheap, or cannot otherwise afford, to play with Macs.
Man, is there even enough consumer support for people *to* boycott apple?
I mean, I own a Mac, but I was wondering how many other people do...
How about Macs and Office for the Mac?
There *are* alternatives to all the Microsoft products; Apache to IIS, Perl to VBScript, Java, Corba, and Javascript to ActiveX, WP Office to Office, OS X to Windows XP, Linux to Windows 2000 Professional, etc.
Just because Microsoft is a pain doesn't mean you're *stuck* with Microsoft. The market gives you plenty of close or reasonable substitutes.
For desktop OSes? Besides Linux, there's also the Mac platform.
And with the Mac platform, you can keep using Office without the worry or threat of Microsoft dominance on the desktop OS influencing media distribution or gaming, though you may have to consider Apple's Quicktime...
I know, I know, some people don't *want* to switch desktops...
Then there's other Office products too...
How so?
I'm sorry, I guess the Mac doesn't suit your needs; it suits mine, and, if a bit tasteless, was presenting the option that it may suit the needs of others, even though it not be championing the cause of 'freedom' as loudly as Linux, or GNU, per se.
I *do* run OS X, and I run it on a 400MHz G4. So far it has suited me fine, and the new release, 10.1, and new OS X applications, will be even better.
Yeah, yeah, Apple is as much a business and corporate entity as Microsoft, and as such cannot be trusted any more than Microsoft...
:)
Yet if you evaluate the Mac platform, here's what it offers:
Good (not great) compatibility with the Windows universe, without succumbing to Microsoft
Great UI, Install, and useability
Great hardware, if a bit expensive for said hardware
Good (not great) with the GNU universe. It's BSD, first and foremost, so some allowances have to be made
About the only market it isn't able to compete strongly in is games, which Linux has issues with, if for different reasons. Macs + OS X can work with the server space, desktop workstations, development, scientific computing, graphics, office work, and web work.
Caveat, though, is that there is still a very strong reliance on the Classic environment, hopefully to go away very soon as more apps are developed and ported into the Carbon and Cocoa environments.
Still, all the Linux people can probably drop right into a Mac and OS X fairly easily
I have a Titanium, and I enjoy context menus....
Where do you 'triple click'?
Yes, I know this :)
So Windows finally catches up to the Mac in functionality?
:p
Without MS's monopoly power, you wouldn't have Netscape and the likes trying to gain prominance in the MS ecosystem... and then falling to Microsoft itself.
Look at Id software for an example of someone who lives/thrives inside the Microsoft ecosystem but refuses to defer to the giant, by using OpenGL and releasing games on Mac OS and Linux.
On the other hand, Netscape, for all it's posturing, does support many more platforms, OSes, and architectures than Microsoft does.
'When Microsoft does it, it's: Microsoft is a monopoly power!'
Not quite the same, actually. Yes, both demonstrate a monopoly hold on their respective markets, PCs and Macs, but Microsoft, in asserting their monopoly, use it to force out competitors and enter new markets.
So bundling a browser, or heck, integrating a browser into the OS, is fine, it's dandy. Heck, I use it to download Netscape. The problem isn't the bundling, it's using their aforementioned monopoly to force out competition; like Netscape. Not only did they bundle, which I think is fine, or integrate, which is still fine, they coerced OEMs with the threat of higher licensing fees if they shipped with Netscape as the default, or if they linked to Netscape on the desktop.
In similar veins, it's okay for XP to integrate with WMP, or offer CD burning, or whatever; it's not okay for them to use their monopoly on the desktop to coerce OEMs not to install, say, Real, or Quicktime, or Flash, as that might interfere with Microsoft's move into the media content and distribution arena.
Quite right, so sorry.
:)
Most PC users are Windows users, so I generalized by calling all users PC users.
I run Linux, Debian specifically, at home myself
So, what, you concede that Windows finally catches up to the Mac?
Even though XP just got released to users, what, a day, 2 days ago?
I've been saying this several times today, against many similar posts... perhaps I should double check *just* to be sure... nah...
Isn't the DOJ's beef against MS, not bundling, but bundling *and* using their desktop OS monopoly against their competitors to gain advantage and new monopolies?
So bundling IE is fine, but forcing OEMs through licensing clauses not to include Netscape or link to Netscape isn't fine?
Bundling DVD software would be fine, but using it to destroy the competition isn't? Or using it to push a special MS flavor of DVD discs isn't.
Get my drift?
You know I implied none of those things?
Would it surprise you if I told you I own a network of 1 Mac, 2 PCs, and 1 Linux box at home?
Jobs hasn't been with Apple for the past *8* years, if you think carefully. Remember when he came back? How big a deal it was?
Your beef with Jobs is your own deal.
An no... PC users have not been 'burning CDs and DVD playback' out of the box, where the box is defined as the Windows OS box. I got DVD playback software with my video card, but had to send out a special request/form for it. I got DVD software with my DVD drive, but it didn't support the hardware acceleration on my video card. I got CDR software with my CDRW drive, but the OS didn't support the software, and I had to get an 'updated' version of the software.
I'm sure you had a much easier time of it, these past 3 years, but I hardly think the PC industry has 'perfected' CD burning and DVD playback technology, yet.
It's a picking of nits, isn't it?
OS 9, and soon OS X, out of the box, will come with CD burning, DVD burning, DVD playing, CD ripping, MP3 encoding, web serving, movie making, and wireless networking software. Out of the box.
WindowsMe and Windows2000 come with... a web browser.
Now, the OEM, sure, they can bundle all the software you want with your purchase... except that that's per OEM, isn't it? A Mac *without* a CD burner, DVD burner, DVD player, wireless networking, etc, *still* get all those features, so that when they upgrade to those products, they just have to turn on the software, maybe install it, and voila, instant usefulness. A Mac has Palm software, mp3 hardware support, 3d support, scsi support, etc, all out of the box. It's included in every copy of OS 9 and OS X(which, for now, includes OS 9).
You could put your object the other way, too you know? Why does the DVD drive maker *have* to include DVD drive software with the player? Because the OS *doesn't* support DVD playback out of the box.
Duh.
It looks like Adobe FrameMaker for the Mac OS?
I think you mean this:
Here.
It's the Roxio Toast Titanium beta/preview1 for OS X, with preview2 soon to be announced...
And it's BETA. It's not a complete 100% solution.
Sure, if you wanna pick nits, neither is OS X 10.0...
The point being you can't go to the store and pick up a CD burning solution for OS X yet.