The other two did not; and this 'Any User Logs In' bug that was linked to, if you read the same post I did, has *nothing* to do with a buffer overflow. The thread *I* am reading says if you use *any* valid login, you can disable the screen saver.
While I tried, I could not repeat this supposition.
I suspect you're a victim of bad implementation more than anything else.
The shadows in OS X don't suffer from the problem of 'overall usability and visual quality degenerates'
Shadows are subtle, and you won't notice them unless you look for them, but they do make it so you can *easily* see the difference between foreground and background windows, since each window has a different depth shadow. Not only that, but shadows composite, so that when two window shadows overlap, they do get darker as you would expect.
I'm running 10.2.6 on a 933MHz Quicksilver with SuperDrive
Tried entering another users's login and password at the screensaver prompt and could not get access.
When I used Folding@Home, however, I *could* crash the screensaver, and thus forcing the user back into the desktop, but that has nothing to do with the bug you're mentioning, but with the fact that Folding@Home crashes.
Apple's response, if it was like their Software Update spoofing vulnerability, will be to post a fix within a week of hearing about the vulnerability; assuming it takes a day to fix.
Or roughly a week after it takes them to fix it.
I heard speculation that the fix for Software Update had already been written and was going to be released at a later date, so they just repackaged it and released it earlier when someone discovered how vulnerable it really was.
My PowerBook is a lovely titanium grey, my PowerMac is a similar silvery shade of Quicksilver, as are the Aluminum PowerBooks and aluminum G5. Heh, even the iSight.
Oh, you mean the eMac, iBook, iPod, and iMac?
Well, hrm, I guess the Finder is supposed to be 'pro' and not 'consumer'? I dunno, I guess the analogy has to break somewhere, and I guess it's with the consumer level hardware.
But you're telling me that in Windows you get the equiv to iMovie, iDVD, iPhoto, iTunes, iCal, and iSync free?
I mean, my copy of iMovie, iDVD, and Photoshop Elements 2.0 (it is indeed standalone) cost me $49, and I've used the combo to earn me $600 in sales (DVDs), so I figure that's a good investment.
I've no beef with Linux, but for 3 days work and a $110 software investment, earning $600 seems a good deal. And I expect that with an additional 2 days work I can make another $700 shortly. If I mass produce the DVDs and distribute them widely, it gets even better. Of course, I have the capital costs of the Mac and the camcorder, as well, but those would translate to equivalent costs on the PC side; cost of the machine and cost of the camcorder. $1499 + $799 + $110; to make $600 in this one time, and another $700 the next time, and so on and so on.
I spent $69 on AppleWorks and $89 on Photoshop Elements 1, and $69 on Photoshop Elements 2. I've spent $11 on AthenaIRC/Minerva, $129 for OS X Jaguar, and $49 for iLife.
I do think that's it. Why do you ask?
As per Mac vs Linux, if at the time I had bought my Mac in August of 2002, if there was a Linux distro and a PC for significantly less than $1499 that could burn DVDs and make movies, etc, etc, etc, I would have seriously considered it. I found nothing.
Today you can get a 1.25GHz G4 DVD making workstation for $1499; I bought a 933MHz G4, but the point is the same. Can you, today, buy a Windows PC or Linux PC to do all that? Cause I'll have to look into those Linux tools (they do, I think, run under OS X!)
So, with this $629 machine, can you effortlessly make DV movies, then DVDs from them, often in the same day?
Or linen bound photo books from your easily organized photo library?
Or seamlessly exchange information from your addressbook, AIM application, and mail application?
Or effortlessly organize your library of music, and then export it at will to CD, DVD, MP3-CD, MP3-DVD, iPod, etc?
Can you effortless back up and restore your system by copying your ~Home directory to another running machine?
How much does it cost you to do all of the above?
For me, it costs a Mac. I've been using PCs for years, since DOS, and I've never been able to do all of the above all at once and all very simply. With a Mac, it is. So that's what I'm paying for.
Yes, it cost me $1499, so I paid $870 more than you have, but I've already sold $600 worth of DVDs with 3 days of work, and expect to sell another $1,000 by the end of the year, because of iMovie, iDVD, and Photoshop Elements.
I mean, name a PC where you can get more quiet for less money? Or more PCI-X for less money? Or more RAM expansion for less money?
Are those not all 'bang for the buck' metrics?
Or do you only count watts of heat generated as 'bang'?
You can re-arrange your original question this way: Is the 30% price difference worth the lack of RAM capacity, PCI-X, extra noise, extra heat, dual 900MHz FSB, Firewire 800, BlueTooth, etc. You talk about value; value is not *only* raw HP, or you'd be buying and driving big rig trucks (500HP engines), and if you only valued HP/$, you'd be driving some really *ugly* and low *quality* cars.
Try it, all the really high HP/$ cars cheap, low quality vehicles. Producers know that if you add quality, people will buy more. It's nearly the definition of quality, in a way.
It's not so difficult; one of the proposals I've seen is to use GAS as the hydrogen source, since gasoline is a hydrogen rich hydrocarbon chain.
Of course ultimately you want a hybrid fuel cell electric vehicle; battery and electric motor for regenerative braking and to maintain optimal efficiency during operation, fuel cell for optimum extraction of energy from fuel source and to provide energy to the motor, and gasoline for it's high storage density; yes, yes, gas *is* a limited resource, but until technology finds a better solution, this combination will help maximize our existing stock; we could possibly use biodesiel, corn-ethanol, and other similar fuels in this system.
Apple isn't acting in a manner unfitting of a reasonable corporation. Perhaps it's ulterior motive of not allowing cloning is rubbing you the wrong way, but enforcement of contractual liability is not a bad thing.
It means parts for your aged Apple iBook are reasonably cheap, for one thing, as long as you're under AppleCare.
And as long as you're being technical, I'll be even more technical.
Future sales matter as much as past sales, because you can obviously change your mind.
It is only the money you spend right now, and the products you purchase right now, that matter. Everything else is posturing.
You can say you'll drop Apple and say you'll get a dual Opteron, but in the end if your purposes are served better by the Mac, and if you happen to be mistaken (which happens all the time to everyone), then you *should* get a Mac; pride and conviction to an error in judgement is silly, even though lots of people believe in it.
If Apple is right, and enforcing contracts is right, and the Mac platform is better for you than Linux, BSD, or Windows, then there's no reason you should get a dual Opteron just because you said you would in the heat of the moment *now*. Keep your options open, man.
I own a Mac, and I do buy into the quality argument; I'm also a QA person (I hate to use the term engineer in the software industry), so I believe I have a worthwhile perspective on quality.
The components in a Mac may be the same stuff other PCs are made of, and therefore the quality isn't in those components: but it is in their integration that quality is visible, and in their use.
Let me explain, from my quality background:
A high quality software product is not one with zero bugs or defects. Zero bugs or defects is a low *error* product.
A high quality software product is one that the user enjoys using, or in situations where pleasure isn't a good indicator, the user can do their task effectively, efficiently, and with a minimum of hassle, problems, mistakes, and errors.
So to rephrase those in terms of a Mac, a piece of hardware:
A Mac is not high quality because it has no errors or defects.
A Mac is high quality because the user gets pleasure from it's use, or alternatively they can do the tasks they want, with a Mac, with a minimum of hassle, problems, errors, and setbacks.
So to bring it closer to home, I use a Mac, and I see it as high quality, and I agree with the BMW statement on multiple levels:
Small niche Affluent niche Image conscious niche Quality conscious niche
I enjoy using my Mac. Already one of my metrics for quality is satisfied.
My PowerBook *feels* good to hold. My PowerMac *sounds* good, because it is so quiet. The case on the PowerMac is a pleasure to open, because it is so simple. I like opening it to just look at everything and how well laid out it is, because I like machines and technology. I put together PCs for 8 years, and after owning a PowerMac for 8 months, I wonder *why* no PC case is designed like this.
Hard drives are mounted on the floor on trays, instead of a freestanding cage in the middle of the case. This cuts down on vibration by directing it into the floor, and minimizes cable clutter because all the IDE connectors are at the edge of the motherboard, parallel to the connector on the hard drive. This also increases airflow because the cables and drives run left to right, instead of front to back on every PC case I've seen; so by design the drives are positioned to reduce vibration and increase circulation.
The case is covered in a thick swathe of plastic, and there's a plastic motherboard tray (probably all acrylic), both of which reduce vibration noise a lot. This *also* doubles as an aesthetic device, making the PowerMac more attractive than most PC cases, as well as providing handles to make the PowerMac easier to handle than most PC cases.
The main cooling fan is 120mm, for low RPM and high cooling efficiency.
So as a technofetishist, I enjoy the design of my PowerMac and PowerBook. Elegant and efficient. Pleasure. All metrics for quality, in my book.
So then there's the other bit, about getting the job done; the Mac platform is the most efficient and effective platform right now for me to do what I want to do. Having access to a terminal suits me perfectly fine, because I can work from it. It beats Windows in some areas, and matches Linux. Then there's the applications, which beats Linux in most areas, and Windows in just about all areas. This is purely subjective because people have different needs.
I don't play games.
I make DVD-Rs using iMovie and iDVD, and I haven't seen anything on the Linux or Windows side that matches this combo in ease of use, elegance, and simplicity. 1 day to make a 1 hour iMovie, and 1 day to design the accompanying DVD, and that's because I'm a picky perfectionist bugger. If I wanted to slap something together, it would be 2 hour for the movie (the time it takes to import, plus minor titling and transitions), and 1 hour for the DVD (using stock layouts). These are professionaly looking layouts too, things I am *happy* to use, overjoyed, because when I use them, the people I will be giving thes
They make software I enjoy using, to let me do things I need to do.
For the same reason I buy Adobe products, like Photoshop Elements.
I don't know if I necessarily support the product, but if I use past performance as an indicator for future expectations, then I *expect* Apple software to 'get it right' and I expect Apple to 'act reasonably' and cater to my needs.
And if they stop catering to my needs, or acting reasonably, or get it wrong, then of course I'll leave.
For one thing, they didn't develop IE into a fully independent, standalone, tested, and trusted container *before* integrating it into Explorer, Outlook, Outlook Express, Media Player, and exposing it so that others could integrate it, ala winamp. From a development standpoint, they had 5 versions to battle-test IE, and it wasn't hardened sufficiently.
Once it's a solid, dependable, reliable object, then integrate it and offer it via APIs to be integrated by third parties, and then freeze it. They've announced IE 6 will not be stand alone, which means it is NO longer a independent module, which is bad from a development standpoint, because testing and verification of independent loosely coupled objects is much more robust than simultaneously testing of two tightly coupled objects (Windows and IE).
They also didn't do their homework with regards to scripting; ActiveX, ECMA, Javascript, etc, despite 5 versions of IE.
Apple, on the other hand, has had AppleScript since Mac OS 7, so there exists the hope that they have hardened and secured it. So far so good, but we'll see as WebCore gets integrated into OS X.
WebCore does pass the test as a independent object; it's a Framework that sits in/System/Frameworks (well, it will), but before they put it there, it's lived a whole lifetime as KHTML, in Konqeror, and several versions of beta Safari; I am hoping when it gets transplanted into a system framework, it will be rock solid.
Ah, okay, I haven't touched a Windows OS other than W2k and WNT for the past several years, and those didn't quite have the IE integration that WXP has, among others, so I didn't know.
I do expect Apple to integrate; rather, I expect Apple to *leverage* the existence of WebCore into other products, like Mail perhaps, or as Omniweb has, or in Sherlock, Help, Preview, and perhaps even the Finder, for preview.
We shall see if Apple can do a better job than Microsoft; let's hope they can learn from some of Microsoft's design decisions.
Right now the only browser that comes installed on a Mac is IE.
And people are intentionally and willingly going out of their way to download Safari, Mozilla, Camino, Omniweb, Opera, and even Netscape.
So Microsoft is stopping because they can't compete, despite having the bundled web browser on the Mac platform... People aren't using the browser that comes installed, and instead have to go out and download Safari from Apple.
Do you want to? It promises to screw up your entire OS if you try and fail.
The difference is that Apple has two components: WebCore and Safari, with Safari relying on WebCore.
Deleting Safari doesn't impact the OS itself, since the browser isn't *integrated*. The HTML rendering engine is just another API and framework, like OpenGL, Quartz, Quicktime, etc.
On the Windows side, you've got MSHTML.dll, but I don't think you can successfully delete IExplorer without serious consequences.
So delete Safari, and everything is fine Delete IExplorer and I think lots of things break; like Software Update
I do agree that the end effect is that one proprietary standards compliant browser has been replaced by another (but this one also has an Open Source html engine). It also reduces diversity.
However, I don't believe the message is 'don't bother to compete with Apple', it's the message 'don't bother to compete with Microsoft, or we'll pull support/development resources'.
The reason I/we use Safari isn't because it's bundled and isn't because we're loyal. We are a crowd that use (and love) Camino, Omniweb, iCab, and Safari, not because we're loyal, but because each of those web browsers does something better than the others. Before Safari, I used Mozilla; not IE. Even without Safari, Mac users had already been looking for replacements, such as Mozilla, Camino/Chimera, Omniweb, iCab, and Opera.
However, a message this does send to developers (big or small) is that if you want the Mac market, you have to develop the best product; we are a known proven market willing to pay for software and good product; Macs are, after all, more expensive than PCs, arguably justified on grounds of aesthetics and ease of use. If Microsoft made IE faster, more capable, and easier to use than Safari, we would switch in a heartbeat; it's not loyalty, but *quality*.
Yes, it's arrogant to say 'we', but I do think I understand the mindset of many Mac users (not all).
Slashdot Mirror
I tried it with three screensavers.
Only Folding@Home crashes.
The other two did not; and this 'Any User Logs In' bug that was linked to, if you read the same post I did, has *nothing* to do with a buffer overflow. The thread *I* am reading says if you use *any* valid login, you can disable the screen saver.
While I tried, I could not repeat this supposition.
I suspect you're a victim of bad implementation more than anything else.
The shadows in OS X don't suffer from the problem of 'overall usability and visual quality degenerates'
Shadows are subtle, and you won't notice them unless you look for them, but they do make it so you can *easily* see the difference between foreground and background windows, since each window has a different depth shadow. Not only that, but shadows composite, so that when two window shadows overlap, they do get darker as you would expect.
It doesn't seem to work for me.
You sure it's real? Have you verified it?
I'm running 10.2.6 on a 933MHz Quicksilver with SuperDrive
Tried entering another users's login and password at the screensaver prompt and could not get access.
When I used Folding@Home, however, I *could* crash the screensaver, and thus forcing the user back into the desktop, but that has nothing to do with the bug you're mentioning, but with the fact that Folding@Home crashes.
Apple's response, if it was like their Software Update spoofing vulnerability, will be to post a fix within a week of hearing about the vulnerability; assuming it takes a day to fix.
Or roughly a week after it takes them to fix it.
I heard speculation that the fix for Software Update had already been written and was going to be released at a later date, so they just repackaged it and released it earlier when someone discovered how vulnerable it really was.
My PowerBook is a lovely titanium grey, my PowerMac is a similar silvery shade of Quicksilver, as are the Aluminum PowerBooks and aluminum G5. Heh, even the iSight.
Oh, you mean the eMac, iBook, iPod, and iMac?
Well, hrm, I guess the Finder is supposed to be 'pro' and not 'consumer'? I dunno, I guess the analogy has to break somewhere, and I guess it's with the consumer level hardware.
In case you didn't realize it, the Finder is supposed to be the computer, in a user-centric model.
:)
So the physical device the Finder emulates... is your computer
Redefine? Didn't they define it in the first place, with their original Apple I?
But he said INTERFACE
A theme is just like applying makeup to an ugly mug.
If the interface is bad, no amount of skinning is going to change the interface.
But you're telling me that in Windows you get the equiv to iMovie, iDVD, iPhoto, iTunes, iCal, and iSync free?
I mean, my copy of iMovie, iDVD, and Photoshop Elements 2.0 (it is indeed standalone) cost me $49, and I've used the combo to earn me $600 in sales (DVDs), so I figure that's a good investment.
I've no beef with Linux, but for 3 days work and a $110 software investment, earning $600 seems a good deal. And I expect that with an additional 2 days work I can make another $700 shortly. If I mass produce the DVDs and distribute them widely, it gets even better. Of course, I have the capital costs of the Mac and the camcorder, as well, but those would translate to equivalent costs on the PC side; cost of the machine and cost of the camcorder. $1499 + $799 + $110; to make $600 in this one time, and another $700 the next time, and so on and so on.
I spent $69 on AppleWorks and $89 on Photoshop Elements 1, and $69 on Photoshop Elements 2. I've spent $11 on AthenaIRC/Minerva, $129 for OS X Jaguar, and $49 for iLife.
I do think that's it. Why do you ask?
As per Mac vs Linux, if at the time I had bought my Mac in August of 2002, if there was a Linux distro and a PC for significantly less than $1499 that could burn DVDs and make movies, etc, etc, etc, I would have seriously considered it. I found nothing.
Today you can get a 1.25GHz G4 DVD making workstation for $1499; I bought a 933MHz G4, but the point is the same. Can you, today, buy a Windows PC or Linux PC to do all that? Cause I'll have to look into those Linux tools (they do, I think, run under OS X!)
So, with this $629 machine, can you effortlessly make DV movies, then DVDs from them, often in the same day?
Or linen bound photo books from your easily organized photo library?
Or seamlessly exchange information from your addressbook, AIM application, and mail application?
Or effortlessly organize your library of music, and then export it at will to CD, DVD, MP3-CD, MP3-DVD, iPod, etc?
Can you effortless back up and restore your system by copying your ~Home directory to another running machine?
How much does it cost you to do all of the above?
For me, it costs a Mac. I've been using PCs for years, since DOS, and I've never been able to do all of the above all at once and all very simply. With a Mac, it is. So that's what I'm paying for.
Yes, it cost me $1499, so I paid $870 more than you have, but I've already sold $600 worth of DVDs with 3 days of work, and expect to sell another $1,000 by the end of the year, because of iMovie, iDVD, and Photoshop Elements.
If nothing else, the capability of feeding the processor at DDR400 alone will make a current G5 faster than any G4 in the market.
Um, 8GB of RAM?
PCI-X expansion?
Quiet?
I mean, name a PC where you can get more quiet for less money?
Or more PCI-X for less money?
Or more RAM expansion for less money?
Are those not all 'bang for the buck' metrics?
Or do you only count watts of heat generated as 'bang'?
You can re-arrange your original question this way:
Is the 30% price difference worth the lack of RAM capacity, PCI-X, extra noise, extra heat, dual 900MHz FSB, Firewire 800, BlueTooth, etc. You talk about value; value is not *only* raw HP, or you'd be buying and driving big rig trucks (500HP engines), and if you only valued HP/$, you'd be driving some really *ugly* and low *quality* cars.
Try it, all the really high HP/$ cars cheap, low quality vehicles. Producers know that if you add quality, people will buy more. It's nearly the definition of quality, in a way.
It's not so difficult; one of the proposals I've seen is to use GAS as the hydrogen source, since gasoline is a hydrogen rich hydrocarbon chain.
Of course ultimately you want a hybrid fuel cell electric vehicle; battery and electric motor for regenerative braking and to maintain optimal efficiency during operation, fuel cell for optimum extraction of energy from fuel source and to provide energy to the motor, and gasoline for it's high storage density; yes, yes, gas *is* a limited resource, but until technology finds a better solution, this combination will help maximize our existing stock; we could possibly use biodesiel, corn-ethanol, and other similar fuels in this system.
It really is your loss :)
Apple isn't acting in a manner unfitting of a reasonable corporation. Perhaps it's ulterior motive of not allowing cloning is rubbing you the wrong way, but enforcement of contractual liability is not a bad thing.
It means parts for your aged Apple iBook are reasonably cheap, for one thing, as long as you're under AppleCare.
And as long as you're being technical, I'll be even more technical.
Future sales matter as much as past sales, because you can obviously change your mind.
It is only the money you spend right now, and the products you purchase right now, that matter. Everything else is posturing.
You can say you'll drop Apple and say you'll get a dual Opteron, but in the end if your purposes are served better by the Mac, and if you happen to be mistaken (which happens all the time to everyone), then you *should* get a Mac; pride and conviction to an error in judgement is silly, even though lots of people believe in it.
If Apple is right, and enforcing contracts is right, and the Mac platform is better for you than Linux, BSD, or Windows, then there's no reason you should get a dual Opteron just because you said you would in the heat of the moment *now*. Keep your options open, man.
I own a Mac, and I do buy into the quality argument; I'm also a QA person (I hate to use the term engineer in the software industry), so I believe I have a worthwhile perspective on quality.
The components in a Mac may be the same stuff other PCs are made of, and therefore the quality isn't in those components: but it is in their integration that quality is visible, and in their use.
Let me explain, from my quality background:
A high quality software product is not one with zero bugs or defects. Zero bugs or defects is a low *error* product.
A high quality software product is one that the user enjoys using, or in situations where pleasure isn't a good indicator, the user can do their task effectively, efficiently, and with a minimum of hassle, problems, mistakes, and errors.
So to rephrase those in terms of a Mac, a piece of hardware:
A Mac is not high quality because it has no errors or defects.
A Mac is high quality because the user gets pleasure from it's use, or alternatively they can do the tasks they want, with a Mac, with a minimum of hassle, problems, errors, and setbacks.
So to bring it closer to home, I use a Mac, and I see it as high quality, and I agree with the BMW statement on multiple levels:
Small niche
Affluent niche
Image conscious niche
Quality conscious niche
I enjoy using my Mac. Already one of my metrics for quality is satisfied.
My PowerBook *feels* good to hold. My PowerMac *sounds* good, because it is so quiet. The case on the PowerMac is a pleasure to open, because it is so simple. I like opening it to just look at everything and how well laid out it is, because I like machines and technology. I put together PCs for 8 years, and after owning a PowerMac for 8 months, I wonder *why* no PC case is designed like this.
Hard drives are mounted on the floor on trays, instead of a freestanding cage in the middle of the case. This cuts down on vibration by directing it into the floor, and minimizes cable clutter because all the IDE connectors are at the edge of the motherboard, parallel to the connector on the hard drive. This also increases airflow because the cables and drives run left to right, instead of front to back on every PC case I've seen; so by design the drives are positioned to reduce vibration and increase circulation.
The case is covered in a thick swathe of plastic, and there's a plastic motherboard tray (probably all acrylic), both of which reduce vibration noise a lot. This *also* doubles as an aesthetic device, making the PowerMac more attractive than most PC cases, as well as providing handles to make the PowerMac easier to handle than most PC cases.
The main cooling fan is 120mm, for low RPM and high cooling efficiency.
So as a technofetishist, I enjoy the design of my PowerMac and PowerBook. Elegant and efficient. Pleasure. All metrics for quality, in my book.
So then there's the other bit, about getting the job done; the Mac platform is the most efficient and effective platform right now for me to do what I want to do. Having access to a terminal suits me perfectly fine, because I can work from it. It beats Windows in some areas, and matches Linux. Then there's the applications, which beats Linux in most areas, and Windows in just about all areas. This is purely subjective because people have different needs.
I don't play games.
I make DVD-Rs using iMovie and iDVD, and I haven't seen anything on the Linux or Windows side that matches this combo in ease of use, elegance, and simplicity. 1 day to make a 1 hour iMovie, and 1 day to design the accompanying DVD, and that's because I'm a picky perfectionist bugger. If I wanted to slap something together, it would be 2 hour for the movie (the time it takes to import, plus minor titling and transitions), and 1 hour for the DVD (using stock layouts). These are professionaly looking layouts too, things I am *happy* to use, overjoyed, because when I use them, the people I will be giving thes
They make software I enjoy using, to let me do things I need to do.
For the same reason I buy Adobe products, like Photoshop Elements.
I don't know if I necessarily support the product, but if I use past performance as an indicator for future expectations, then I *expect* Apple software to 'get it right' and I expect Apple to 'act reasonably' and cater to my needs.
And if they stop catering to my needs, or acting reasonably, or get it wrong, then of course I'll leave.
But maybe I'm not the most zealous of Mac users.
there is a price guarantee. If you like, give the Apple Store a call and talk to a real person.
You mean what did Microsoft do wrong?
/System/Frameworks (well, it will), but before they put it there, it's lived a whole lifetime as KHTML, in Konqeror, and several versions of beta Safari; I am hoping when it gets transplanted into a system framework, it will be rock solid.
For one thing, they didn't develop IE into a fully independent, standalone, tested, and trusted container *before* integrating it into Explorer, Outlook, Outlook Express, Media Player, and exposing it so that others could integrate it, ala winamp. From a development standpoint, they had 5 versions to battle-test IE, and it wasn't hardened sufficiently.
Once it's a solid, dependable, reliable object, then integrate it and offer it via APIs to be integrated by third parties, and then freeze it. They've announced IE 6 will not be stand alone, which means it is NO longer a independent module, which is bad from a development standpoint, because testing and verification of independent loosely coupled objects is much more robust than simultaneously testing of two tightly coupled objects (Windows and IE).
They also didn't do their homework with regards to scripting; ActiveX, ECMA, Javascript, etc, despite 5 versions of IE.
Apple, on the other hand, has had AppleScript since Mac OS 7, so there exists the hope that they have hardened and secured it. So far so good, but we'll see as WebCore gets integrated into OS X.
WebCore does pass the test as a independent object; it's a Framework that sits in
Ah, okay, I haven't touched a Windows OS other than W2k and WNT for the past several years, and those didn't quite have the IE integration that WXP has, among others, so I didn't know.
I do expect Apple to integrate; rather, I expect Apple to *leverage* the existence of WebCore into other products, like Mail perhaps, or as Omniweb has, or in Sherlock, Help, Preview, and perhaps even the Finder, for preview.
We shall see if Apple can do a better job than Microsoft; let's hope they can learn from some of Microsoft's design decisions.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Right now the only browser that comes installed on a Mac is IE.
And people are intentionally and willingly going out of their way to download Safari, Mozilla, Camino, Omniweb, Opera, and even Netscape.
So Microsoft is stopping because they can't compete, despite having the bundled web browser on the Mac platform... People aren't using the browser that comes installed, and instead have to go out and download Safari from Apple.
Do you want to? It promises to screw up your entire OS if you try and fail.
The difference is that Apple has two components:
WebCore and Safari, with Safari relying on WebCore.
Deleting Safari doesn't impact the OS itself, since the browser isn't *integrated*. The HTML rendering engine is just another API and framework, like OpenGL, Quartz, Quicktime, etc.
On the Windows side, you've got MSHTML.dll, but I don't think you can successfully delete IExplorer without serious consequences.
So delete Safari, and everything is fine
Delete IExplorer and I think lots of things break; like Software Update
Wow, I can't believe you said that.
I do agree that the end effect is that one proprietary standards compliant browser has been replaced by another (but this one also has an Open Source html engine). It also reduces diversity.
However, I don't believe the message is 'don't bother to compete with Apple', it's the message 'don't bother to compete with Microsoft, or we'll pull support/development resources'.
The reason I/we use Safari isn't because it's bundled and isn't because we're loyal. We are a crowd that use (and love) Camino, Omniweb, iCab, and Safari, not because we're loyal, but because each of those web browsers does something better than the others. Before Safari, I used Mozilla; not IE. Even without Safari, Mac users had already been looking for replacements, such as Mozilla, Camino/Chimera, Omniweb, iCab, and Opera.
However, a message this does send to developers (big or small) is that if you want the Mac market, you have to develop the best product; we are a known proven market willing to pay for software and good product; Macs are, after all, more expensive than PCs, arguably justified on grounds of aesthetics and ease of use. If Microsoft made IE faster, more capable, and easier to use than Safari, we would switch in a heartbeat; it's not loyalty, but *quality*.
Yes, it's arrogant to say 'we', but I do think I understand the mindset of many Mac users (not all).
It sounds like you're confusing the protocol (AIM, ICQ) with the client (AIM, ICQ, etc)
:)
I use Fire, which supports AIM, ICQ, Y!IM, etc, and I have logging. I mostly use AIM, and logging with that.
As for offline messages... I never know if they recieve it, AIM or ICQ, so I always have to resend anyway.
So I might as well just send them an email
LOL, because Ogg, AAC, and mov are all TLAs; so part of it is laziness.
So... you mean we can have an Ogg aac? That would be interesting.
I already know about Quicktime Vorbis...