I'm not being prudish here. Have your sex. Just don't ignore the ways in which the objectification of women in video games, magazines, etc. contributes to anorexia and depression, not to mention the vanity and consumerism that have taken over the capitalist world.
I think you'll find the never-ending barrage of "Read about $CELEBRITY's amazing new diet", "Look just like $CELEBRITY", "How $CELEBRITY has her pre-baby body back", etc, etc in/female-oriented media/ has a hell of a lot more to do with it than any "objectification of women" in the general (and even male-oriented) media.
Every now and then I pick up one of these magazines while I'm waiting in a checkout line - it really is quite amazing (and depressing) how every issue, targeting every age group, has relentless pressure to get skinnier and hence be more attractive.
Women are vastly more fussy than men when it comes to deeming people "attractive" (or, in the Australian vernacular, "rootable"). Presumably they think men are the same, producing the never-ending pressure to live up to some unattainable benchmark of feminine beauty.
At least, that's the only way I've ever been able to make sense of how women behave when it comes to what they look like...
For those who dont know: MS crippled Borland by offering their *TOP* 40 engineers *DOUBLE* their salaries to work at MS. Borland products which were once the industry standard began a rapid descent, and have been garbage ever since, with MS's Visual suite taking their place.
Is this not a textbook example of the free market in action ?
Re:Still a single point of failure
on
Basics of RAID
·
· Score: 1
With RAID, you still have a single point of failure. Instead of it being your hard drive, it is now your RAID controller.
That's why you use software RAID for scenarios where you can't afford to keep a spare controller on the shelf, a decent warranty, or simply want the greater flexibility and reliability.
Thanks for the reply, it's hardly a surprise that pushing back a window is rarely performed amongst the userbase of both Windows and Mac/OS, since this action is impossible.
You miss my point - it's not an action that the type of user Windows and OS X are catering to has been found to want to do. Microsoft and Apple don't just slap things together and hope for the best, they both perform _extensive_ levels of UI and usability testing to see what people want to do and how they use the software.
I fail to see why a way to push back (or lower) a window would be confusing, as it is the symmetric of clicking on a window frame to raise it.
Because lowering a window under another window that completely obscures it could (and probably would) give the impression that the window had been (destructively, without warning) closed. To non-power users, who have difficulty even handling concepts like running more than one thing at once, this is a problem.
Without the ability to lower a window, one usually has to leave two or more windows one wishes to swap between often in such a way that neither completely overlaps the other(s).
No, you just alt+tab, expose or [insert some other way here] between them.
How do you cope with multiple full-screen applications ?
1. I rarely use them (and when I do it's usually a game or a movie)
2. I have two monitors;)
3. Alt+tab, taskbar, expose, alt+`, etc.
on Linux/X11 it can be very simple and fast without any expose trick, just cycle through the *windows* on the current virtual screen via a shortcut that raises/lowers them.
Alt+Tab handles this scenario (moving between a couple of windows) quite well. If you can keep track of a stack order well enough to flick between >2 windows by push/popping them, you can do the same thing with alt+[shift]+tab. It's clumsier on OS X because its model is an application stack, with each application having a windows stack, thus making moving between arbitrary windows inefficient, but still somewhat doable.
You're well into the realsm of advanced window management by now, however, and thus not relevant to 99% of users.
Alt-tab has a linear list and lists all the applications, not just the ones on the current virtual screen.
Firstly, the alt+tab list is not a static list, it's a most-frequently-used stack. The penultimate window you were looking at is always just a single alt+tab away, so moving between a pair of windows with alt+tab is no different that moving between a pair of windows with a push. Similarly, once you move to >2 windows both methods remain equally as efficient, because you need to keep track of the stack order in your head (and once you get past switching between ~4-5 windows it's almost certainly going to be faster on average to grab the mouse and use the Taskbar or Expose).
Secondly, Windows (without third party tools) doesn't have virtual desktops, so your entire criticism is basically incorrect. If you have the knowledge to install an extension for virtual desktops (which, again, are well and truly into power-user territory) you have the knowledge to install some extension that lets you push and pop windows.
On Linux I typically have many dozens of windows open (multiple terminals on many machines, editors, multiple browsers, mail, vmware or VNC sessions, etc). With virtual screens and the ability to raise and lower windows there is no problem. The same feat is hard on Windows and Mac/OS.
I don't have any problems multitasking between (current taskbar list):
15x putty
2x VMWare GSX consoles (~4 VMs in each, tabbed - one to my local machine, one to a remote server).
Have you ever been in a public demonstration? The actual treatment of your rights - ignoring them - is enough to wake up practically anyone.
The trouble is that the mood of crowds is unpredictable, can change *very* quickly, and cannot be reasoned with. Added to that people in packs tend not to act with the same restraint they would individually. When a crowd turns nasty, the people they're targeting are usually vastly outnumbered and have no chance of defending themselves "fairly".
This thing is a nightmare from hell for people who actually care about exercising freedom [...]
A mob of lunatics rampaging through the streets burning cars, smashing in windows and robbing houses - or even one just throwing rocks, firecrackers or bottles at a line of police isn't "exercising freedom".
The thing is, Microsoft has no clear guidelines for where top-level menu items go (or rather, if they do, they don't even follow them themselves), [...]
I think you'll find they do - at least for menu items that are common across all applications.
"Let's see... is this text-layout setting changed under File-Preferences? No? How about Edit-Options? Huh. File-Format-Preferences... Options-Settings.. Start-Control Panel-Printers? Ah, fuck..."
Where as anybody who spends a lot of time using a Mac not only knows where every commonly used menu item is, but they probably have the keyboard shortcut memorized.
Nice little goalpost-shift there from specialised function (text formatting) to "commonly used menu item" (presumably things like File->Save or Edit->Copy). Well done.
I know where every "commonly used menu item" in Windows (and MacOS, for that matter) is supposed to be - along with their shortcuts. As do most other experienced users I know.
So you don't hear about a lot of Mac-first users clamoring for multi-button mice.
Really ? One of the most commonly bought aftermarket accessories for Macs is multibutton mice. IME, it's quite rare to sit down at a Mac - outside of a managed environment (ie: on someone's personal machine) - that has the original single-button mouse (and getting less likely every day, now that Macs support cheaper USB mice).
That cry mostly comes from Windows and Unix switchers.
They're used to context menus that are *useful* as opposed to token gestures. You'd expect them to complain the loudest. They're the ones who complain the most about OS X's sluggish GUI, as well -/because they're used to something better/.
Who, among power-users, has any reason to give a crap what mouse Apple throws in the box with their computer? You won't use it anyway!
Which should tell you a lot, because ergonomically, aesthetically and mechanically, Apple's mice are usually top-notch (I have several fifteen year old examples that still function flawlessly, not to mention the one on my Mac Plus) - so why do you consider it a foregone conclusion they won't be used ?
Anyway, people "give a crap" because:
* Apple market themselves as a one-stop whole-package solutions provider, yet they don't offer a BTO option for one of the most commonly purchased aftermarket acessories.
* Apple market their machines' aesthetic appearance, yet don't provide an option for one of the most common aftermarket accessories to maintain those aesthetics.
* Apple sell a premium product, with a matching pricetag. A BTO option for such a popular and commonly requested feature should be a given
* It's difficult - if not impossible - to change the pointing device that gets shipped with a laptop. Apple sell a lot of a laptops. Apple sell a lot of laptops to "power users".
I have never - and would never - suggest Apple change their default mouse from a single button device. I think it's an excellent idea for novice users. What annoys me - and people like me - are the issues above. All we want is a BTO option for a mouse that matches our Macs (a Jobsian decree that context menus are useful would be nice as well, simply so the Mac zealots stop arguing about it and developers start using them).
well that and the insane amounts they have to spend on workers salaries and benefits when compared to the rest of the world.
You mean compared to countries like Germany and France ? (Well known everywhere as bastions of conservative capitalism and mercifully free of the unionised workplace).
Personally I find expose an expensive, slow and showy way to push a window behind other windows, [...]
That's hardly surprising, since it wasn't designed to accelerate such an action
[...] something X11 has been able to do since days one (with twm even), but neither Windows or OS/X seem to be able to pull off.
Their UI researchers have problem determined it's a rarely performed action amongst their userbase (it's certainly something I can't remember ever wanting to do). Ie: adding a potentially *extremely* confusing UI action is not worth it to make a tiny minority of users happy.
Yes, and that causes a great deal of confusion for new computer users when using windows. Just because you can, it does not mean you should.
So why should *my* computing experience be crippled because of that ?
Context menus which offer different options which are not easily accessible through other means is counterintuitive.
I agree. Which is why the Windows UI guidelines specify that context menus should only be used as a shortcut to functionality exposed elsewhere and _not_ as the only way to perform certain tasks.
Macs last a lot longer than PCs and are useful a lot longer
Oh, bullshit. Macs are _kept_ longer than PCs on average, true - but this is because they cost more, not because they "last longer" or "are useful for longer". An older PC runs Windows NT4, 2000 or XP a hell of a lot better than an old Mac runs OS X.
And I'm glad to see Apple showing the haters to be wrong-- when given a chance to know about them, people will buy Macintoshes.
The problem with Macs has always been that you don't get as much computer for your $ (this is typically made up for with software bundles and/or "cool" enclosures (eg: Mac Mini) and the BTO "options" are basically worthless (eg: you can't buy a Mac with a fast CPU but a relatively small hard disk/less RAM/slower video card/etc).
Works FINE - just a aftermarket option. Command-Click, Jus' like Winders.
The problem is not so much the mechanics (although Ctrl+click is not as nice as a button), it's the context menus in OS X add so little functionality, compared to Windows.
Context menus in Windows are a useful feature, in OS X they're little more than a novelty.
Because many times you will want to drag a page for a long time while reading or looking though some stuff.
Scroll wheels ? Touch pads that emulate scroll wheels ? Learning to control your mouse ?
After a while you can't be expected to hold your precision with the pointer exactly to the small area in which the drag works.
I can't say I've ever had a problem. A quick experiment would suggest that "small area" is on the order of 6x - 7x the width of the scrollbar, on either side. On my 19" screen @ 1280x1024, that "small area" is about 3" wide.
So suddenly while you are reading something, the text jumps up to it's original position.
Yes, as I said, some of us find this a useful feature for bouncing back and forth between different sections of a document.
Then you have to remove your attention from the material and focus on bringing the scrollbar under control. Totally annoying!
You hardly need to change your focus, just move your mouse slightly back in the direction it came from. Or are you one of these people who can't change the volume on their car radio without looking at it ?
Because you have to keep the mouse pointer in close proximity of the scrollbar for scrolling to work correctly you have to be very carefull about not making too erratic mouse movements.
Firstly, if you consider ~6x the width of the scrollbar *on each side* to be "close proximity", I find it amazing you can use a GUI at all.
Secondly, the worst case scenario - when your mouse has wandered to far to either side - simply means you need to move it back towards the scroll bar.
So it slows down the work yet again because you have to focus your attention on scrolling and not on the content you are looking at.
Right. You're slamming the scroll thumb from the start of the document to the end, but somehow managing to read it on the way past ? At least try and keep your examples _somewhat_ rational.
So let me get this straight. Until Mac OS X got Expose, it wasn't ready for the desktop?
Certainly, until OS X got Expose its window management and task-switching UIs were atrocious - down around Windows 3.1/Windows 95 levels of usability.
Whether or not that made it "not ready for the desktop" is a matter of opinion. Personally I'd be more inclined to raise its awful performance as the main crippling factor.
It has a great interface and file/folder management system (finder), is stable, and seems to be easy to administrate (given that the sysadmins seem to do little work:D).
Crikey, if you think Finder is stable and "great", I'd hate to see what you call "bad":).
MS is a convicted monopoly- Google might be able to claim that since MS is a monopoly, their non-complete is over reaching and thus un-enforcable- every other software development work is in direct compedition with them. It just might work.
Except for the tiny problem that Microsoft were only ruled a monopoly in a very specific market segment.
So, unless Google are hiring this person to work on "desktop operating systems for intel-compatible CPUs", your theory couldn't even get off the ground.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you'll find the never-ending barrage of "Read about $CELEBRITY's amazing new diet", "Look just like $CELEBRITY", "How $CELEBRITY has her pre-baby body back", etc, etc in /female-oriented media/ has a hell of a lot more to do with it than any "objectification of women" in the general (and even male-oriented) media.
Every now and then I pick up one of these magazines while I'm waiting in a checkout line - it really is quite amazing (and depressing) how every issue, targeting every age group, has relentless pressure to get skinnier and hence be more attractive.
Women are vastly more fussy than men when it comes to deeming people "attractive" (or, in the Australian vernacular, "rootable"). Presumably they think men are the same, producing the never-ending pressure to live up to some unattainable benchmark of feminine beauty.
At least, that's the only way I've ever been able to make sense of how women behave when it comes to what they look like...
Is this not a textbook example of the free market in action ?
That's why you use software RAID for scenarios where you can't afford to keep a spare controller on the shelf, a decent warranty, or simply want the greater flexibility and reliability.
Why not a 1.2TB RAID5 ? I'm guessing you're only setting it up for home or small office use, so it's not like you need the -10 for performance.
IDE drives have had sector remapping for _at least_ 10 years now.
You miss my point - it's not an action that the type of user Windows and OS X are catering to has been found to want to do. Microsoft and Apple don't just slap things together and hope for the best, they both perform _extensive_ levels of UI and usability testing to see what people want to do and how they use the software.
I fail to see why a way to push back (or lower) a window would be confusing, as it is the symmetric of clicking on a window frame to raise it.
Because lowering a window under another window that completely obscures it could (and probably would) give the impression that the window had been (destructively, without warning) closed. To non-power users, who have difficulty even handling concepts like running more than one thing at once, this is a problem.
Without the ability to lower a window, one usually has to leave two or more windows one wishes to swap between often in such a way that neither completely overlaps the other(s).
No, you just alt+tab, expose or [insert some other way here] between them.
How do you cope with multiple full-screen applications ?
1. I rarely use them (and when I do it's usually a game or a movie)
2. I have two monitors ;)
3. Alt+tab, taskbar, expose, alt+`, etc.
on Linux/X11 it can be very simple and fast without any expose trick, just cycle through the *windows* on the current virtual screen via a shortcut that raises/lowers them.
Alt+Tab handles this scenario (moving between a couple of windows) quite well. If you can keep track of a stack order well enough to flick between >2 windows by push/popping them, you can do the same thing with alt+[shift]+tab. It's clumsier on OS X because its model is an application stack, with each application having a windows stack, thus making moving between arbitrary windows inefficient, but still somewhat doable.
You're well into the realsm of advanced window management by now, however, and thus not relevant to 99% of users.
Alt-tab has a linear list and lists all the applications, not just the ones on the current virtual screen.
Firstly, the alt+tab list is not a static list, it's a most-frequently-used stack. The penultimate window you were looking at is always just a single alt+tab away, so moving between a pair of windows with alt+tab is no different that moving between a pair of windows with a push. Similarly, once you move to >2 windows both methods remain equally as efficient, because you need to keep track of the stack order in your head (and once you get past switching between ~4-5 windows it's almost certainly going to be faster on average to grab the mouse and use the Taskbar or Expose).
Secondly, Windows (without third party tools) doesn't have virtual desktops, so your entire criticism is basically incorrect. If you have the knowledge to install an extension for virtual desktops (which, again, are well and truly into power-user territory) you have the knowledge to install some extension that lets you push and pop windows.
On Linux I typically have many dozens of windows open (multiple terminals on many machines, editors, multiple browsers, mail, vmware or VNC sessions, etc). With virtual screens and the ability to raise and lower windows there is no problem. The same feat is hard on Windows and Mac/OS.
I don't have any problems multitasking between (current taskbar list):
15x putty
2x VMWare GSX consoles (~4 VMs in each, tabbed - one to my local machine, one to a remote server).
6x Notepad
3x Excel
2x Word
2x Powerpoint
5x Firefox (~12 tabs in each)
Thunderbird + 6 open emails
2x IE
4x Explorer
6x Remote Desktop
Now, admittedly I'm sitting here in f
And OSS is free as in must buy a computer to use it - what's your point ?
The trouble is that the mood of crowds is unpredictable, can change *very* quickly, and cannot be reasoned with. Added to that people in packs tend not to act with the same restraint they would individually. When a crowd turns nasty, the people they're targeting are usually vastly outnumbered and have no chance of defending themselves "fairly".
This thing is a nightmare from hell for people who actually care about exercising freedom [...]
A mob of lunatics rampaging through the streets burning cars, smashing in windows and robbing houses - or even one just throwing rocks, firecrackers or bottles at a line of police isn't "exercising freedom".
You think that "bloodthirsty dictator" was operating alone ?
I think you'll find they do - at least for menu items that are common across all applications.
"Let's see... is this text-layout setting changed under File-Preferences? No? How about Edit-Options? Huh. File-Format-Preferences... Options-Settings.. Start-Control Panel-Printers? Ah, fuck..."
Where as anybody who spends a lot of time using a Mac not only knows where every commonly used menu item is, but they probably have the keyboard shortcut memorized.
Nice little goalpost-shift there from specialised function (text formatting) to "commonly used menu item" (presumably things like File->Save or Edit->Copy). Well done.
I know where every "commonly used menu item" in Windows (and MacOS, for that matter) is supposed to be - along with their shortcuts. As do most other experienced users I know.
So you don't hear about a lot of Mac-first users clamoring for multi-button mice.
Really ? One of the most commonly bought aftermarket accessories for Macs is multibutton mice. IME, it's quite rare to sit down at a Mac - outside of a managed environment (ie: on someone's personal machine) - that has the original single-button mouse (and getting less likely every day, now that Macs support cheaper USB mice).
That cry mostly comes from Windows and Unix switchers.
They're used to context menus that are *useful* as opposed to token gestures. You'd expect them to complain the loudest. They're the ones who complain the most about OS X's sluggish GUI, as well - /because they're used to something better/.
Who, among power-users, has any reason to give a crap what mouse Apple throws in the box with their computer? You won't use it anyway!
Which should tell you a lot, because ergonomically, aesthetically and mechanically, Apple's mice are usually top-notch (I have several fifteen year old examples that still function flawlessly, not to mention the one on my Mac Plus) - so why do you consider it a foregone conclusion they won't be used ?
Anyway, people "give a crap" because:
* Apple market themselves as a one-stop whole-package solutions provider, yet they don't offer a BTO option for one of the most commonly purchased aftermarket acessories.
* Apple market their machines' aesthetic appearance, yet don't provide an option for one of the most common aftermarket accessories to maintain those aesthetics.
* Apple sell a premium product, with a matching pricetag. A BTO option for such a popular and commonly requested feature should be a given
* It's difficult - if not impossible - to change the pointing device that gets shipped with a laptop. Apple sell a lot of a laptops. Apple sell a lot of laptops to "power users".
I have never - and would never - suggest Apple change their default mouse from a single button device. I think it's an excellent idea for novice users. What annoys me - and people like me - are the issues above. All we want is a BTO option for a mouse that matches our Macs (a Jobsian decree that context menus are useful would be nice as well, simply so the Mac zealots stop arguing about it and developers start using them).
Indeed. We should just rake the rioting crowd with heavy machinegun fire instead.
You mean compared to countries like Germany and France ? (Well known everywhere as bastions of conservative capitalism and mercifully free of the unionised workplace).
That's hardly surprising, since it wasn't designed to accelerate such an action
[...] something X11 has been able to do since days one (with twm even), but neither Windows or OS/X seem to be able to pull off.
Their UI researchers have problem determined it's a rarely performed action amongst their userbase (it's certainly something I can't remember ever wanting to do). Ie: adding a potentially *extremely* confusing UI action is not worth it to make a tiny minority of users happy.
It should be a faster way to access functionality exposed elsewhere. This is how the Windows UI guidelines specify context menus should be used.
I hate it when I can't access something from anywhere except a context menu, it's obnoxious as hell.
This is not a common problem.
So why should *my* computing experience be crippled because of that ?
Context menus which offer different options which are not easily accessible through other means is counterintuitive.
I agree. Which is why the Windows UI guidelines specify that context menus should only be used as a shortcut to functionality exposed elsewhere and _not_ as the only way to perform certain tasks.
Why do you believe this to be so ?
Oh, bullshit. Macs are _kept_ longer than PCs on average, true - but this is because they cost more, not because they "last longer" or "are useful for longer". An older PC runs Windows NT4, 2000 or XP a hell of a lot better than an old Mac runs OS X.
And I'm glad to see Apple showing the haters to be wrong-- when given a chance to know about them, people will buy Macintoshes.
The problem with Macs has always been that you don't get as much computer for your $ (this is typically made up for with software bundles and/or "cool" enclosures (eg: Mac Mini) and the BTO "options" are basically worthless (eg: you can't buy a Mac with a fast CPU but a relatively small hard disk/less RAM/slower video card/etc).
The problem is not so much the mechanics (although Ctrl+click is not as nice as a button), it's the context menus in OS X add so little functionality, compared to Windows.
Context menus in Windows are a useful feature, in OS X they're little more than a novelty.
Whoa. Clearly patience is a virtue you have in spades.
Scroll wheels ? Touch pads that emulate scroll wheels ? Learning to control your mouse ?
After a while you can't be expected to hold your precision with the pointer exactly to the small area in which the drag works.
I can't say I've ever had a problem. A quick experiment would suggest that "small area" is on the order of 6x - 7x the width of the scrollbar, on either side. On my 19" screen @ 1280x1024, that "small area" is about 3" wide.
So suddenly while you are reading something, the text jumps up to it's original position.
Yes, as I said, some of us find this a useful feature for bouncing back and forth between different sections of a document.
Then you have to remove your attention from the material and focus on bringing the scrollbar under control. Totally annoying!
You hardly need to change your focus, just move your mouse slightly back in the direction it came from. Or are you one of these people who can't change the volume on their car radio without looking at it ?
Because you have to keep the mouse pointer in close proximity of the scrollbar for scrolling to work correctly you have to be very carefull about not making too erratic mouse movements.
Firstly, if you consider ~6x the width of the scrollbar *on each side* to be "close proximity", I find it amazing you can use a GUI at all.
Secondly, the worst case scenario - when your mouse has wandered to far to either side - simply means you need to move it back towards the scroll bar.
So it slows down the work yet again because you have to focus your attention on scrolling and not on the content you are looking at.
Right. You're slamming the scroll thumb from the start of the document to the end, but somehow managing to read it on the way past ? At least try and keep your examples _somewhat_ rational.
I use it for quickly flicking back and forth between locations in documents. I know many people who do likewise.
The standard way of canceling a mouse drag action is to right click. That should be enought.
That's not what it's there for.
And no other OS has this. That should give you some hint that it is a bad idea.
Quite possibly one of the most idiotic lines of reasoning I've ever seen.
Certainly, until OS X got Expose its window management and task-switching UIs were atrocious - down around Windows 3.1/Windows 95 levels of usability.
Whether or not that made it "not ready for the desktop" is a matter of opinion. Personally I'd be more inclined to raise its awful performance as the main crippling factor.
Crikey, if you think Finder is stable and "great", I'd hate to see what you call "bad" :).
Except for the tiny problem that Microsoft were only ruled a monopoly in a very specific market segment.
So, unless Google are hiring this person to work on "desktop operating systems for intel-compatible CPUs", your theory couldn't even get off the ground.
s/Windows/MacOS/
s/Windows/Linux/
Applies equally.