Personally I use it mainly fullscreen with WindowMaker as WM -- it's quite puzzling for people that see me using WM on my ibook, thinking I'm under linux
Given that it's WindowMaker, I'm surprised they don't just think you're running a really old version of OS X.:-)
(For anyone who doesn't get the joke, just take the next step....:-))
Considering the fact that Apple is working on its own MS Office replacement
They are? Where was this mentioned? (Note: any place mentioning this that uses the word "Pages", with a capital "P", or the string "iWork" needs to indicate why they think Pages is intended as a full replacement for all uses of Microsoft Word, including the more "high-end" ones.)
What the original poster probably meant was "the XFree86 project was a popular project to implement the X11 protocol on UNIX-compatible OSes running on x86 machines", with "x86 machines" probably mainly referring to 80386 at the time.
Why should they use a different microkernal for it? It's not like they have a huge monolithic kernal they need to try to stuff into a tiny device.
Define "microkernel" and "monolithic". NT isn't a microkernel in the sense of, say, QNX, with most OS services provided by server processes - network stacks, file systems, the VM system, drivers for network devices and mass storage devices and, in NT 4.0 and later, drivers for graphics devices are in loadable kernel-mode code. That's not particularly different from modern UN*Xes.
But as to the underlying question of the NT kernel: Folks, it ain't all that bad. In just about every test anyone ever throws at it, the NT kernel bitch slaps the competition.
Compare e.g.:
...
COMPARISON BETWEEN QNX RTOS V6.1, VXWORKS AE 1.1 AND WINDOWS CE.NET PDF DOCUMENT
So are you asserting here that Windows CE.NET uses the NT kernel?
So was the Q1 2000 to Q1 2001 decline the outlier, or were the three years of increase the outliers (based on something other than personal opinion, of course)?
How much do you think Dell has grown over the same period?
Apple sold 1,377,000 computers in Q1-2000. They just announced their Q1-2005 numbers. They sold 1,046,000 computers in that quater. That is a decline in absolute numbers by 24% over 5 years.
So the fact that sales declined over the period Q1 2000 to Q1 2005 doesn't mean that sales declined over every year - and doesn't mean that sales will necessarily continue to decline, and thus doesn't mean that sales will necessarily decline over the period Q1 2000 to Q1 200{6,7,...}.
Of course, the fact that first quarter sales increased year-to-year in 3 out of the 5 years in question doesn't mean they're guaranteed to increase in the future, either.
OOo is not consistent with the OSX menu scheme? You must remind yourself of one fact: OpenOffice is not an OSX suite, it is not written or published by Apple in any way. If they want to be a true multi-platform office solution, then it is lunacy to adopt a Mac-specific UI.
A certain multi-platform Web browser and a certain multi-platform mail reader have UIs that are at least somewhat more Mac OS X-like on OS X than OOo's UI is, so it's not as if multi-platform apps can't look at all like native apps. Firefox/Thunderbird are, admittedly, not as native in look and feel as other apps, but I have the impression that's considered by the developers as a deficiency that should eventually be fixed.
OSX runs on top of Apples own BSD based fork, which was designed to be stable in both server and desktop enviroments. It is not laden with 20 text editors
Yeah, only 4 of them (if you don't count TextEdit), unless I've missed one - vi, GNU EMACS, pico, and ed.
5 e-mail applications
Yeah, just Berkmail.
and loads of daemons most users will never need.
Yes, OS X has a smaller load of such daemons (I suspect most users aren't going to use distccd or the CORBA Object Request Broker Daemon orbd, for example).
Open Office is intended to make a cross-platform open format for documents. If you only support your primary market, you've just made it into a single-platform PC product again. So the project has failed its goal.
So where was the announcement that they'd stopped supporting the UNIX+X11 platform? In order to "only support [their] primary market", they'd have to drop support for UNIX+X11 or for Windows, whichever is their "primary market", in order to "only support [their] primary market"; as UNIX+X11 isn't PC-only, presumably you're not talking about them dropping Windows support.
I don't know whether all the issues you mention are described there, though - I didn't see anything that addressed the number of toolbar buttons, but it does give other recommendations for toolbars, so if by "a row of 20 NSButtons" you mean "something just using a row of NSButtons rather than using NSToolbar", doing the latter might give you toolbar behavior suggested in the Human Interface Guidelines that you wouldn't get with a row of NSButtons.
Place only the most commonly-used application functions on your toolbars. Don't just add buttons for every menu item.
The KDE User Interface Guidelines doesn't say anything about keeping the number of toolbar items down in its section on toolbars - in fact, it gives a list of items that should be in the toolbar if you have them in menus, so it might recommend increasing the number of toolbar items. (I think NSToolbar might give you a toolbar that can be customized, so you can have a set of buttons that the user could add to the toolbar if they wanted to, without having them in the default toolbar; the user can also remove items from a customizable toolbar.)
The only reasons for having an Aqua version is (1) easier to use for people used to OS X interfaces, and (2) better integration with other OS X applications. (1) isn't an issue if you already know OOo, which presumably you do.
(1) might still be an issue if you already know a particular non-Aqua application. I know Ethereal rather well (:-)), but it's still a bit of a pain to have the menu bar in the wrong place - I sometimes catch myself moving to the top of the screen to, for example, start a capture.
And if (2) is important to you, well, sorry, but you have to make a choice between being integrated with a particular OS environment and getting platform independence.
Well, maybe. Sometimes Thunderbird manages, for example, to recognize non-standard URL schemas that are registered by applications, even though it runs on multiple platforms - or did you mean something by "platform independence" than "runs on multiple platforms with the GUI-independent code common"?
I wish Thunderbird would also let selected text be processed by applications that have registered as services, and a lot would like it to integrate with Address Book; I think those are both at least being considered.
Simply Opens AppleWorks and Word Files
In fact, here's how easy it is to open an AppleWorks or Word document in Pages: find the document you'd like to open and drag it onto the icon for Pages in the dock or on your hard drive. If you already have Pages running, you could also simply pull down the File menu and choose Open. The dialog lists AppleWorks, Word, Text Edit and documents saved in Rich Text Format (RTF), making it, once again, easy to select and open them. And, by the way, those Word and RTF documents could be PC documents. Pages doesn't care.
How will they look when you open them? Just like they did in your other word processor. Wherever possible, Pages preserves virtually all of the formatting they had. What's more, if you assigned styles in a Microsoft Word document, Pages will import them right along with the text. Now that's compatibility.
Or, if you'd rather have an MP3 player in a cookie/biscuit tin, try one of these, although they're a bit expensive at USD 499 (but you can also use it as a general-purpose computer if you want).
Microsoft Works is only for Windows. We are discussing Macs.
Yes, I know. However, we are also discussing various office suites, and Works is one suite to which iWork is analogous - it's probably more analogous to AppleWorks, and Microsoft Works, than it is to Office, i.e. it's probably not intended for the people who need all the features of Office.
And the fact that it's only for Windows is actually significant here - it means that, unlike an Apple suite of equivalent power to Office, which would be a competitor to Office and would run the risk of having Microsoft abandoning Office for Mac development and therefore of requiring Apple to race to keep up with Microsoft in the Office feature war, an Apple suite in the same market niche as Works doesn't have have a Microsoft competitor on the Mac, so it's not as if it'd drive Microsoft out of that market, given that they're not in that market in the first place.
While Pages may not affect businesses so much, it may affect regular consumer sales as most people don't need as powerful of a word processing program as Word is....let alone one as expensive as it.
They also offer Works Suite 2005, with Word 2002 from Office XP instead of the Works word processor, and some additional programs, but without any other Office programs, for USD 99.95.
Perhaps they don't see the Mac market as one for which it'd be worth their while to offer a low-end office suite (especially given that Apple had AppleWorks and is now doing iWork).
Amazing that OSX is based on open sourced software which was meant to be shared, yet has a commercial license preventing it from being shared.
Parts of OS X are based on open-sourced software, and either those parts are made available or, at least, the open-sourced components are made available for sharing.
Other parts aren't based on open-sourced software, and those parts aren't made available for sharing.
The same fucktards denouncing the vote counting in Florida were calling Saddam's election a fair democracy (only Saddam was on the ballot, and your vote was public record). These same idiots denounce the liberation of an entire country as unilateral aggression (over 40 countries is unilateral?), and in the same breath scream for a "people's revolution" to put a communist dictatorship in power.
Could you please cite a figure for the number of people denouncing the vote counting in Florida who
were;
weren't;
calling Saddam's election a fair democracy? (Citing individual examples of people in the first category isn't sufficient to prove your point; I strongly suspect they were in the minority of people complaining about the vote counting in Florida.)
Could you do the same for the number of people denouncing the "liberation" of an entire country as unilateral aggression who
are;
aren't;
screaming for a "people's revolution" to put a communist dictatorship in power? (The same note about individual anecdotes vs. real data applies.)
Sweet, now explain to me how the United States government is propping up this "monopoly" of MIcrosoft's by simply buying their software again? That's the original poster's argument
No, it's not. Read the original poster's message again; the claim it made isn't that the US is propping up MS's monopoly by buying MS software, it's that the US is propping up MS's monopoly by not acting strongly enough against MS's monopolistic practices:
The rational[sic] for this position is the simple fact that although Microsoft has been found guilty of being a monopolistic barrier to free-trade in the software industry it was given tacit state sanction to operate as such when the courts and the DOJ failed to press for meaningful controls on their business practices.
However, not to defend Mr. Gates (and surely to piss off a lot of the OSS community), but there is some small degree of validity to his statement, though he used the wrong word.
Many people who completely reject the idea of intellectual property (not all) aren't really communists as Mr. Gates would propose, but in fact, radical left-wing anarchists. They despise authority in any form that it comes in; that is why such things as IP and copyrights are hated so much. The idea of God introduces a supreme authority, so they hate him even more.
But it's OK when a government somewhere in the world decides to force open source on everyone.
So what government has done that? (Hint: a government deciding to use open source for their business doesn't constitute "forc[ing] open source on everyone", unless you're using the "they're using my tax dollars so they're forcing it on me" argument, which also applies if they're buying closed-source software, as they're then forcing closed-source software on taxpayers who don't want it.)
Slashdot Mirror
Given that it's WindowMaker, I'm surprised they don't just think you're running a really old version of OS X. :-)
(For anyone who doesn't get the joke, just take the next step.... :-))
No, whoever packaged ximian-connector for Fink spelled Microsoft as M$. Apple just cut-and-pasted the output from the fink command.
They are? Where was this mentioned? (Note: any place mentioning this that uses the word "Pages", with a capital "P", or the string "iWork" needs to indicate why they think Pages is intended as a full replacement for all uses of Microsoft Word, including the more "high-end" ones.)
What the original poster probably meant was "the XFree86 project was a popular project to implement the X11 protocol on UNIX-compatible OSes running on x86 machines", with "x86 machines" probably mainly referring to 80386 at the time.
Well, having read Microsoft Windows CE 3.0 Kernel Services: Multiprocessing and Thread Handling, and various other articles on Microsoft's Web site, yes, that's the assertion I'd make - they draw a distinction between NT and CE in several of them. (Try a Google search for '"windows ce" kernel "windows nt" site:microsoft.com'" to see various articles they have.
Define "microkernel" and "monolithic". NT isn't a microkernel in the sense of, say, QNX, with most OS services provided by server processes - network stacks, file systems, the VM system, drivers for network devices and mass storage devices and, in NT 4.0 and later, drivers for graphics devices are in loadable kernel-mode code. That's not particularly different from modern UN*Xes.
So are you asserting here that Windows CE .NET uses the NT kernel?
So was the Q1 2000 to Q1 2001 decline the outlier, or were the three years of increase the outliers (based on something other than personal opinion, of course)?
Dell predicted a 40% increase in Q4 2000 (equivalent to Q1 2001 for Apple) from the quarter a year ago.
They predicted a 50% increase in Q4 2001.
They announced a 25% increase in Q4 2002.
They didn't give an immediately obvious number for an overall increase in shipments in Q4 2003 - it's probably somewhere between the 20% in "the Americas" (presumably meaning "Western Hemisphere") and 30% in EMEA and Asia-Pacific ("Eastern Hemisphere").
Their Q4 2004 numbers aren't out yet, at least not in the form of a press release.
Apple sold 1,377,000 systems in Q1-2000.
Apple sold 659,000 systems in Q1 2001, a quarter-to-quarter decline of 52% over a year.
Apple sold 746,000 systems in Q1 2002, a quarter-to-quarter increase of 13% over a year.
Apple sold 743,000 systems in Q1 2003, a quarter-to-quarter decrease of .4%.
Apple sold 829,000 systems in Q1 2004, a quarter-to-quarter increase of 12% over a year.
Apple sold 1,046,000 systems in Q1 2005, a quarter-to-quarter increase of 26% over a year.
So the fact that sales declined over the period Q1 2000 to Q1 2005 doesn't mean that sales declined over every year - and doesn't mean that sales will necessarily continue to decline, and thus doesn't mean that sales will necessarily decline over the period Q1 2000 to Q1 200{6,7,...}.
Of course, the fact that first quarter sales increased year-to-year in 3 out of the 5 years in question doesn't mean they're guaranteed to increase in the future, either.
A certain multi-platform Web browser and a certain multi-platform mail reader have UIs that are at least somewhat more Mac OS X-like on OS X than OOo's UI is, so it's not as if multi-platform apps can't look at all like native apps. Firefox/Thunderbird are, admittedly, not as native in look and feel as other apps, but I have the impression that's considered by the developers as a deficiency that should eventually be fixed.
Yeah, only 4 of them (if you don't count TextEdit), unless I've missed one - vi, GNU EMACS, pico, and ed.
Yeah, just Berkmail.
Yes, OS X has a smaller load of such daemons (I suspect most users aren't going to use distccd or the CORBA Object Request Broker Daemon orbd, for example).
So where was the announcement that they'd stopped supporting the UNIX+X11 platform? In order to "only support [their] primary market", they'd have to drop support for UNIX+X11 or for Windows, whichever is their "primary market", in order to "only support [their] primary market"; as UNIX+X11 isn't PC-only, presumably you're not talking about them dropping Windows support.
The Apple Human Interface Guidelines, to be precise.
I don't know whether all the issues you mention are described there, though - I didn't see anything that addressed the number of toolbar buttons, but it does give other recommendations for toolbars, so if by "a row of 20 NSButtons" you mean "something just using a row of NSButtons rather than using NSToolbar", doing the latter might give you toolbar behavior suggested in the Human Interface Guidelines that you wouldn't get with a row of NSButtons.
Now, the GNOME Human Interface Guidelines 2.0 does recommend not having too much in your toolbar in the section on toolbars:
The KDE User Interface Guidelines doesn't say anything about keeping the number of toolbar items down in its section on toolbars - in fact, it gives a list of items that should be in the toolbar if you have them in menus, so it might recommend increasing the number of toolbar items. (I think NSToolbar might give you a toolbar that can be customized, so you can have a set of buttons that the user could add to the toolbar if they wanted to, without having them in the default toolbar; the user can also remove items from a customizable toolbar.)
To add one more online HIG to the collection, the Windows Official Guidelines for User Interface Developers and Designers doesn't recommend, in its section on toolbars, that you keep the toolbar from being too cluttered, and its examples do have a number of buttons; it does recommend that you let the user configure it, at least.
(1) might still be an issue if you already know a particular non-Aqua application. I know Ethereal rather well (:-)), but it's still a bit of a pain to have the menu bar in the wrong place - I sometimes catch myself moving to the top of the screen to, for example, start a capture.
Well, maybe. Sometimes Thunderbird manages, for example, to recognize non-standard URL schemas that are registered by applications, even though it runs on multiple platforms - or did you mean something by "platform independence" than "runs on multiple platforms with the GUI-independent code common"?
I wish Thunderbird would also let selected text be processed by applications that have registered as services, and a lot would like it to integrate with Address Book; I think those are both at least being considered.
Yes - the Compatibility page for Pages says
and the Compatibility page for Keynote 2 has a table showing that it can read and write PowerPoint presentations.
Nothing about Excel spreadsheets, but given that iWork doesn't have a spreadsheet....
Or, if you'd rather have an MP3 player in a cookie/biscuit tin, try one of these, although they're a bit expensive at USD 499 (but you can also use it as a general-purpose computer if you want).
That's a BSDism, going back to at least 4.4-Lite.
Yes, I know. However, we are also discussing various office suites, and Works is one suite to which iWork is analogous - it's probably more analogous to AppleWorks, and Microsoft Works, than it is to Office, i.e. it's probably not intended for the people who need all the features of Office.
And the fact that it's only for Windows is actually significant here - it means that, unlike an Apple suite of equivalent power to Office, which would be a competitor to Office and would run the risk of having Microsoft abandoning Office for Mac development and therefore of requiring Apple to race to keep up with Microsoft in the Office feature war, an Apple suite in the same market niche as Works doesn't have have a Microsoft competitor on the Mac, so it's not as if it'd drive Microsoft out of that market, given that they're not in that market in the first place.
"Poof" is already assigned to the Dock as the sound of an app being removed from the Dock, so it's unavailable for other purposes.
Microsoft knows that, which is why they sell Microsoft Works 8 for USD 49.95.
They also offer Works Suite 2005, with Word 2002 from Office XP instead of the Works word processor, and some additional programs, but without any other Office programs, for USD 99.95.
Perhaps they don't see the Mac market as one for which it'd be worth their while to offer a low-end office suite (especially given that Apple had AppleWorks and is now doing iWork).
The fact that they are specifically warned not to do so nonwithstanding?
Parts of OS X are based on open-sourced software, and either those parts are made available or, at least, the open-sourced components are made available for sharing.
Other parts aren't based on open-sourced software, and those parts aren't made available for sharing.
Could you please cite a figure for the number of people denouncing the vote counting in Florida who
- were;
- weren't;
calling Saddam's election a fair democracy? (Citing individual examples of people in the first category isn't sufficient to prove your point; I strongly suspect they were in the minority of people complaining about the vote counting in Florida.)Could you do the same for the number of people denouncing the "liberation" of an entire country as unilateral aggression who
- are;
- aren't;
screaming for a "people's revolution" to put a communist dictatorship in power? (The same note about individual anecdotes vs. real data applies.)No, it's not. Read the original poster's message again; the claim it made isn't that the US is propping up MS's monopoly by buying MS software, it's that the US is propping up MS's monopoly by not acting strongly enough against MS's monopolistic practices:
So the right word was "atheist"?
So what government has done that? (Hint: a government deciding to use open source for their business doesn't constitute "forc[ing] open source on everyone", unless you're using the "they're using my tax dollars so they're forcing it on me" argument, which also applies if they're buying closed-source software, as they're then forcing closed-source software on taxpayers who don't want it.)