And I love the widescreens on the new PB's, but they're not actual widescreen aspect ratio. Widescreens are 1.78, this is 1.6. WTF?
"Widescreen" doesn't mean anything at all. My computer screen is 1.6:1. My TV screen is 1.78:1, though most of the content I watch on it is 1.85:1. When I go to the movies, the screen is usually 2.35:1. "Widescreen" can be applied with equal truthfulness to any or all of these.
And you wouldn't need the extra room for your apps if damn Apple would put back in the multiple terminals every other Unixy product in the world has. Damn Crippled Unix.
The only thing I can figure is that you're talking about virtual desktops. Either that, or you're an idiot. Maybe both.
You're getting shafted, paying for *way* more accessories than you need, but with a low powered CPU that will have you upgrading in a year, before you could even *find* a network that uses Gigabit ethernet.
My home network is 100% gigabit Ethernet. All you need to build a 100% gigabit Ethernet network is two Macs and a cable. It doesn't even have to be a crossover cable; all Macs are equipped with autosensing MDI-X ports.
That means a 3Ghz CISC still kills any G4 out there.
Except running Bibble, evidently. And BLAST. And all the other stuff that a G4 is faster at than a Pentium.
Apple is a speck on the PC world's radar.
I think you've got that backwards. The PC world is just a speck on Apple's radar. Apple is quite happy to go their own way and let the PC world go do... whatever it is that the PC world does. Every once in a while, the PC world takes a look at what Apple is doing and changes direction a bit, but that's about the limit of the interaction.
That's not an incorrect use. When an acronym is pronounced as individual letters ("pee cee"), the plural is formed with an apostrophe. So: PC's, DVD's, VCR's, ATM's.
I know one of the compositors who worked for Lucas Digital on Episode II. (This is no big thing. There were hundreds and hundreds of them.) There was no employee screener a week before the movie came out. The employee screener wasn't until after the official premiere of the picture. George was working on the movie right up until the end, even to the point where the film print that went to duplication was slightly different from the digital "print" that went to DLP distribution.
One possible solution to protect against smart dust would to create military buildings with a high internal atmospheric pressure
This is already common practice. In most office buildings, the HVAC system is employed to maintain a slight overpressure. This has the benefit of making it less likely for foreign substances, including airborne chemical and biological agents, to enter the building from the outside. That's just a side-effect, though. The designed-in purpose is much more mundane. It's to keep ordinary dust-- the dumb kind-- out, to keep the buildings clean.
You say that like it's something new. Power Macs have always come without a monitor. Which is fine, because any third-party monitor will work, and lots of people like to save money by using an old monitor, or buying a non-Apple-branded monitor for their new G4.
Of course, now that the 17" display is down to $700, that becomes less of a point.
No, it's not. I really don't know where people get this idea. I have a Mac that is, as of this morning, no longer state-of-the-art. It's got two 1 GHz G4's and a Radeon 9000 card. Is it "laggy?" No. It's faster than I am; the only time I wait on it is when I'm compiling.
I also have a 400 MHz G3 iMac, not a fast machine by anybody's reckoning. OS X is entirely useable on that machine for things like surfing and email, iCal, iChat, iTunes, iPhoto, and so on.
I think the people who still propagate the "OS X is slow" meme haven't used it in about a year.
The closed source companies will have to change or die.
Actually, it's the open-source companies that are having to change or die. The closed-source companies are humming along the same as ever.
We can argue all we want about whether open-source software is morally superior to closed-source software or whatever else, but the bottom line is that the companies that base their business model on closed-source software are surviving, while the companies that base their business model on open-source software are dying.
That's like saying "sunshine = good." It's a generality that falls apart completely under examination. Like any other large-scale event, war always has some positive consequences and some negative consequences. It is not true to say that "war = bad." It is only true to say that "war leads to both bad and good in varying proportions depending on the circumstances."
There are times when war is a better prospect than the absence of war. Now is one of those times. Because in the absence of war, the chance that Iraq is going to accumulate a large stockpile of chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons approaches certainty in a matter of months. Given Iraq's history over the past 20 years, it is clear that they will make use of their weapons as soon as the opportunity presents itself. It's just a question of who's going to take the first punch. Better that we should wage war against Iraq than to let them wage war against us on their own terms with weapons the sole purpose of which is to inflict as many civilian casualties as possible.
Finding a peaceful resolution to a problem is what distinguishes us from lower animals.
That's a crock of shit. All primate species know how to find a peaceful resolution to a problem: the cringe reflex. When the alpha male approaches, the other males cringe, demonstrating their subservience. There's nothing unique about a nonviolent end to a power struggle. There's nothing inherently honorable or laudable about it, either.
Waging war is dimwitted and selfish.
Refusing to wage war is dimwitted and selfish. Dimwitted because it demonstrates an inability to anticipate the negative consequences of one's inactions; selfish because it demonstrates a lack of will to put the safety and security of the body politic before one's own.
how about the ones where we stuffed japanese americans during wwii?
Fuck you. If you can't tell the difference between a death camp with hot and cold running Zyklon B and a full-size "Arbeit macht Frei" sign and an internment prison, maybe you need to spend a little time in one or the other.
Re:Not to be a troll here but...IN SOVIET RUSSIA
on
Superbowl XXXVII
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
Living in both Europe and now in the US (oh yeah "America" is a continent; not a country)
We were talking about a non-infringing case, whether you like it or not.
Prove it. The presumption in copyright law is that an unauthorized use does infringe, unless a court rules that it does not. How does show-sharing-- which is the distribution, without authorization, of a home recording-- qualify as non-infringing? Can you cite precedent? Or can you interpret 107 for us in such a way that you come to the this conclusion?
If I put a collar with a lock around your neck, should it be illegal for you to unlock it?
Far and away the most absurd analogy I've ever heard. Are you one of those "no intellectual property" whackos who believe that people should be free to do whatever they want with anybody's works or ideas?
Admit it - you work in the RIAA legal department, don't you?
I was under the impression that most buttons on computers were square or rectangular. Even for a Mac, which has rounded buttons, they're still not circles.
Your impression is flawed. NSButtons can be rounded, rectangular, bezeled, or (ta-da) round.
Quicktime Player, 4, 5 or even 6 are still skinned applications that are a usability problem.
How do you define "skinned?" QuickTime Player is not NIB-based, if that's what you mean, but it uses standard controls.
Now, I admit I don't use a Macintosh
Oh, okay. That explains why you seem to be wrong about everything. Suggestion: go to an Apple Store or a friend's house and actually use QuickTime Player on a Mac. Then come back and share informed criticism.
Yeah, you could go with your Sorny, or your Panaphonics, or your Magnetbox, or your Sampo. But you like to watch your TV, and I mean really watch it, you want... the Carnivale!
How can it be an NLE if it doesn't do more than one track?
To be fair, an editor with only a single track can still be an editor. I've used similar products for doing way-offlines in the field. They let you make cuts only, and spit out an EDL for later use back in house.
So technically, Kino is probably an NLE. It's just the worst one ever imagined. Picture a word processor that doesn't support the "backspace" or "delete" features, and you'll have some idea of how limiting a one-track editor would be.
9kbit video is like looking at an old, worn-out three-quarter-inch reel-to-reel tape from the 1950s.
That old 3/4" tape would, in fact, be considerably better than 9 kbit video.
Yeah, everybody makes a false start occasionally. The original QuickTime Player 4 UI was an experiment in making the program's UI resemble a physical device, with knobs and slide-out panels instead of more traditional controls. The experiment largely failed. Some of the aspects of it went into the Aqua UI design, but most were simply dropped. The current QuickTime Player UI-- now at version 6.1-- looks totally traditional: five standard round buttons with the standard cue-to-start, rewind, play/pause, fast-forward, cue-to-end icons found on every VCR/VTR, and a slider for the volume control.
I'm not slamming Safari. Actually, I've never used it.
Boy, we sure are getting some quality input today. "I've never driven a car, but I'd say that the horse is God's gift to transportation." Thanks, thanks a lot. Really appreciate the fact that you took the time to post that. Means a lot. Thanks.
Now, if I add another element to the desktop, say an iTunes window, I find that I sometimes want to shrink the browser windows some to squeeze the iTunes display into the lower left corner.
You should consider hiding iTunes (or minimizing it, but hiding works better I think) and using the dock menu. If you want to know what you're listening to, control-click on the iTunes icon. You can also control playback from the dock menu. Very handy.
Additionally, the ability to grab all of a applications windows at once and resize would be great.
Option-click the "zoom" button. All windows in the foreground application will go to their natural size. (Admittedly, sometimes this works better than other times.)
I'd say Apple considers all three equally important (as they should).
Dude, that's marketing material. What do you expect, that it's going to say, "Whether you're a Mac user who's upgrading or a Windows user who's looking at switching to the Mac this is the OS for you. If you're a UNIX user, yeah, we'd like you to buy Macs too, but we're not going to bend over backwards for it or anything. We've got bigger fish to fry right now."
Apple's actual business plan and product strategies differ somewhat from what the marketing glossies say. I know this will come as a shock to you, but there it is.
How can you even mention Final Cut Pro/Express and then claim they don't want that audience?
1. Apple has acquired Final Cut Pro, Shake, Logic, Chalice, and Rayz from other companies in order to ensure that those products, and products like them, continue to be available for the Mac. Does Apple want media users? Yes, definitely. Is Apple taking the time to write entire applications from scratch-- like Safari, from example-- to capture that market? No. They're doing it the quick-and-dirty way.
2. Final Cut Express is part of the consumer product line, and it's positioned as a part of the iLife strategy. The other iLife products-- iPhoto, iDVD, iMovie, and, yes, Safari-- were all written from scratch to capture Apple's target market: home users. Apple invested heavily in those products. Apple slimmed down Final Cut Pro to make Final Cut Express because home and "prosumer" (ugh) users wanted it, and because Apple could do it more or less for free. Again, is Apple bending over backwards to capture the media market? No. They're working on it, through acquisitions and partnerships, but it's not their biggest focus. Apple's core focus for 2003 is iLife, and getting the 20 million OS 9 users up to OS X, or at least as many of them as they can.
And this reinforces the original argument, that just because YOU haven't discovered something, doesn't make it useless.
Blah, blah. That horse is dead. Whether or not you agree with me on the technical issues, the larger issues still stand.
None of those features addresses a basic user need, which tabs has (thus far) done the best job of fulfilling.
Basic user need? No. If tabbed browsing addressed a basic user need, Netscape would have taken the Windows browser market by storm. And yet, the vast majority of users still use IE, despite the fact that it lacks tabbed browsing.
You're seeing the market through a fish-eye lens. Look at it from a more appropriate perspective and you'll see that tabbed browsing just doesn't matter. It's not good enough to woo people to using Netscape, so it's not an important feature for Safari. And here is where those 6 points in my other post start to come into play.
In addition to what mcwetboy said-- with which I agree completely-- I summed up my thoughts on "what the hell's wrong with tabs, anyway" in this post. I really tried to lay it all right out there, not in terms of why tabbed browsing a la Mozilla sucks (I've beaten that dead horse enough) but why tabbed browsing doesn't belong in Safari. Most posters here seem to be of the opinion that any feature that anybody anywhere wants should be added. That's the kind of wooly-headed liberal thinking that leads to being eaten... uh, I mean, that leads to releasing Mozilla, four years late and weighing in 17 MB in the OS X version. (The Windows version is about 10 MB, I think, and the OS 9 version is more than 20 MB. Safari, by comparison, comes in a svelte 3 MB disk image.)
People like them. I like them. The're usefull. It's kind of academic, no?
Well, actually, no. If ours were the kind of world where it didn't cost anything, financially or in terms of programmer effort, it would be a different story-- well, we'd still have the user experience problems to deal with, but given enough money and/or time we could take care of those.
But the fundamental point remains: adding tabbed browsing to Safari does not further Apple's goal, which is to get those 20 million Mac OS 9 users up to OS X by giving them some really good incentives to do so. Tabbed browsing just isn't a really good incentive, as evidenced by Netscape/Mozilla/Whatever's complete failure to take the Windows market by storm. So even if the opportunity cost issue weren't there, even if the technical issues weren't there, even if the user experience issues weren't there, tabbed browsing would still be a feature that's best left to third-party developers, like the Chimera guys.
I'm also interested in your opinions about one button mice:-).
Oh, haw haw.;-) Short answer: I use a three-button mouse with wheel. Would I ever want Apple to ship one, even as an option? No. The mouse that comes with the Mac needs to be equally useable for a 4 year old, a 40 year old, and a... um... 400 year old. You get the idea. And Apple's mouse fits that bill perfectly. As long as third-parties like Logitech and, yeah, Microsoft are shipping excellent multi-button mice with foot pedals and special chairs and damn near everything else, Apple needs to stay out of the mouse business.
Okay, you win. Chimera can do one thing that you can't do with Safari. (Of course, we could fix this by adding a multiple-select-and-open feature to the bookmarks manager; tabbed browsing is not necessary to implement this functionality.) Good for you. Now, would you mind having a quick look at the real issues to see what you can do about those?
Slashdot Mirror
And I love the widescreens on the new PB's, but they're not actual widescreen aspect ratio. Widescreens are 1.78, this is 1.6. WTF?
"Widescreen" doesn't mean anything at all. My computer screen is 1.6:1. My TV screen is 1.78:1, though most of the content I watch on it is 1.85:1. When I go to the movies, the screen is usually 2.35:1. "Widescreen" can be applied with equal truthfulness to any or all of these.
And you wouldn't need the extra room for your apps if damn Apple would put back in the multiple terminals every other Unixy product in the world has. Damn Crippled Unix.
The only thing I can figure is that you're talking about virtual desktops. Either that, or you're an idiot. Maybe both.
You're getting shafted, paying for *way* more accessories than you need, but with a low powered CPU that will have you upgrading in a year, before you could even *find* a network that uses Gigabit ethernet.
My home network is 100% gigabit Ethernet. All you need to build a 100% gigabit Ethernet network is two Macs and a cable. It doesn't even have to be a crossover cable; all Macs are equipped with autosensing MDI-X ports.
That means a 3Ghz CISC still kills any G4 out there.
Except running Bibble, evidently. And BLAST. And all the other stuff that a G4 is faster at than a Pentium.
Apple is a speck on the PC world's radar.
I think you've got that backwards. The PC world is just a speck on Apple's radar. Apple is quite happy to go their own way and let the PC world go do... whatever it is that the PC world does. Every once in a while, the PC world takes a look at what Apple is doing and changes direction a bit, but that's about the limit of the interaction.
"PC's Limited" (note incorrect use of apostrophe)
That's not an incorrect use. When an acronym is pronounced as individual letters ("pee cee"), the plural is formed with an apostrophe. So: PC's, DVD's, VCR's, ATM's.
Far be it from me to accuse you of lying, but...
I know one of the compositors who worked for Lucas Digital on Episode II. (This is no big thing. There were hundreds and hundreds of them.) There was no employee screener a week before the movie came out. The employee screener wasn't until after the official premiere of the picture. George was working on the movie right up until the end, even to the point where the film print that went to duplication was slightly different from the digital "print" that went to DLP distribution.
At best, it sounds like you were deceived.
He is one egocentric guy, naming almost all those companies after himself...
Yeah, that's pretty unprecedented.
They could have used a better picture of her. Sheesh. She's actually pretty cute, in that "I could buy your country" way.
One possible solution to protect against smart dust would to create military buildings with a high internal atmospheric pressure
This is already common practice. In most office buildings, the HVAC system is employed to maintain a slight overpressure. This has the benefit of making it less likely for foreign substances, including airborne chemical and biological agents, to enter the building from the outside. That's just a side-effect, though. The designed-in purpose is much more mundane. It's to keep ordinary dust-- the dumb kind-- out, to keep the buildings clean.
You say that like it's something new. Power Macs have always come without a monitor. Which is fine, because any third-party monitor will work, and lots of people like to save money by using an old monitor, or buying a non-Apple-branded monitor for their new G4.
Of course, now that the 17" display is down to $700, that becomes less of a point.
It still is laggy on the fastest machines.
No, it's not. I really don't know where people get this idea. I have a Mac that is, as of this morning, no longer state-of-the-art. It's got two 1 GHz G4's and a Radeon 9000 card. Is it "laggy?" No. It's faster than I am; the only time I wait on it is when I'm compiling.
I also have a 400 MHz G3 iMac, not a fast machine by anybody's reckoning. OS X is entirely useable on that machine for things like surfing and email, iCal, iChat, iTunes, iPhoto, and so on.
I think the people who still propagate the "OS X is slow" meme haven't used it in about a year.
If you wish to be understood, please use capital letters. You are not e e cummings.
The closed source companies will have to change or die.
Actually, it's the open-source companies that are having to change or die. The closed-source companies are humming along the same as ever.
We can argue all we want about whether open-source software is morally superior to closed-source software or whatever else, but the bottom line is that the companies that base their business model on closed-source software are surviving, while the companies that base their business model on open-source software are dying.
War = bad.
That's like saying "sunshine = good." It's a generality that falls apart completely under examination. Like any other large-scale event, war always has some positive consequences and some negative consequences. It is not true to say that "war = bad." It is only true to say that "war leads to both bad and good in varying proportions depending on the circumstances."
There are times when war is a better prospect than the absence of war. Now is one of those times. Because in the absence of war, the chance that Iraq is going to accumulate a large stockpile of chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons approaches certainty in a matter of months. Given Iraq's history over the past 20 years, it is clear that they will make use of their weapons as soon as the opportunity presents itself. It's just a question of who's going to take the first punch. Better that we should wage war against Iraq than to let them wage war against us on their own terms with weapons the sole purpose of which is to inflict as many civilian casualties as possible.
Finding a peaceful resolution to a problem is what distinguishes us from lower animals.
That's a crock of shit. All primate species know how to find a peaceful resolution to a problem: the cringe reflex. When the alpha male approaches, the other males cringe, demonstrating their subservience. There's nothing unique about a nonviolent end to a power struggle. There's nothing inherently honorable or laudable about it, either.
Waging war is dimwitted and selfish.
Refusing to wage war is dimwitted and selfish. Dimwitted because it demonstrates an inability to anticipate the negative consequences of one's inactions; selfish because it demonstrates a lack of will to put the safety and security of the body politic before one's own.
how about the ones where we stuffed japanese americans during wwii?
Fuck you. If you can't tell the difference between a death camp with hot and cold running Zyklon B and a full-size "Arbeit macht Frei" sign and an internment prison, maybe you need to spend a little time in one or the other.
Living in both Europe and now in the US (oh yeah "America" is a continent; not a country)
The irony of this statement is not lost upon us.
We were talking about a non-infringing case, whether you like it or not.
Prove it. The presumption in copyright law is that an unauthorized use does infringe, unless a court rules that it does not. How does show-sharing-- which is the distribution, without authorization, of a home recording-- qualify as non-infringing? Can you cite precedent? Or can you interpret 107 for us in such a way that you come to the this conclusion?
If I put a collar with a lock around your neck, should it be illegal for you to unlock it?
Far and away the most absurd analogy I've ever heard. Are you one of those "no intellectual property" whackos who believe that people should be free to do whatever they want with anybody's works or ideas?
Admit it - you work in the RIAA legal department, don't you?
I wish! I bet those guys get paid a fortune.
I was under the impression that most buttons on computers were square or rectangular. Even for a Mac, which has rounded buttons, they're still not circles.
Your impression is flawed. NSButtons can be rounded, rectangular, bezeled, or (ta-da) round.
Quicktime Player, 4, 5 or even 6 are still skinned applications that are a usability problem.
How do you define "skinned?" QuickTime Player is not NIB-based, if that's what you mean, but it uses standard controls.
Now, I admit I don't use a Macintosh
Oh, okay. That explains why you seem to be wrong about everything. Suggestion: go to an Apple Store or a friend's house and actually use QuickTime Player on a Mac. Then come back and share informed criticism.
Yeah, you could go with your Sorny, or your Panaphonics, or your Magnetbox, or your Sampo. But you like to watch your TV, and I mean really watch it, you want... the Carnivale!
You're my hero. Coupla points, though.
How can it be an NLE if it doesn't do more than one track?
To be fair, an editor with only a single track can still be an editor. I've used similar products for doing way-offlines in the field. They let you make cuts only, and spit out an EDL for later use back in house.
So technically, Kino is probably an NLE. It's just the worst one ever imagined. Picture a word processor that doesn't support the "backspace" or "delete" features, and you'll have some idea of how limiting a one-track editor would be.
9kbit video is like looking at an old, worn-out three-quarter-inch reel-to-reel tape from the 1950s.
That old 3/4" tape would, in fact, be considerably better than 9 kbit video.
*cough*whore*cough*
Yeah, everybody makes a false start occasionally. The original QuickTime Player 4 UI was an experiment in making the program's UI resemble a physical device, with knobs and slide-out panels instead of more traditional controls. The experiment largely failed. Some of the aspects of it went into the Aqua UI design, but most were simply dropped. The current QuickTime Player UI-- now at version 6.1-- looks totally traditional: five standard round buttons with the standard cue-to-start, rewind, play/pause, fast-forward, cue-to-end icons found on every VCR/VTR, and a slider for the volume control.
Sorry, but you're wrong. Dismissing things solely on the basis of the source is dumb.
Pff. Why should anybody listen to an anonymous coward?
I'm not slamming Safari. Actually, I've never used it.
Boy, we sure are getting some quality input today. "I've never driven a car, but I'd say that the horse is God's gift to transportation." Thanks, thanks a lot. Really appreciate the fact that you took the time to post that. Means a lot. Thanks.
Now, if I add another element to the desktop, say an iTunes window, I find that I sometimes want to shrink the browser windows some to squeeze the iTunes display into the lower left corner.
You should consider hiding iTunes (or minimizing it, but hiding works better I think) and using the dock menu. If you want to know what you're listening to, control-click on the iTunes icon. You can also control playback from the dock menu. Very handy.
Additionally, the ability to grab all of a applications windows at once and resize would be great.
Option-click the "zoom" button. All windows in the foreground application will go to their natural size. (Admittedly, sometimes this works better than other times.)
I'd say Apple considers all three equally important (as they should).
Dude, that's marketing material. What do you expect, that it's going to say, "Whether you're a Mac user who's upgrading or a Windows user who's looking at switching to the Mac this is the OS for you. If you're a UNIX user, yeah, we'd like you to buy Macs too, but we're not going to bend over backwards for it or anything. We've got bigger fish to fry right now."
Apple's actual business plan and product strategies differ somewhat from what the marketing glossies say. I know this will come as a shock to you, but there it is.
How can you even mention Final Cut Pro/Express and then claim they don't want that audience?
1. Apple has acquired Final Cut Pro, Shake, Logic, Chalice, and Rayz from other companies in order to ensure that those products, and products like them, continue to be available for the Mac. Does Apple want media users? Yes, definitely. Is Apple taking the time to write entire applications from scratch-- like Safari, from example-- to capture that market? No. They're doing it the quick-and-dirty way.
2. Final Cut Express is part of the consumer product line, and it's positioned as a part of the iLife strategy. The other iLife products-- iPhoto, iDVD, iMovie, and, yes, Safari-- were all written from scratch to capture Apple's target market: home users. Apple invested heavily in those products. Apple slimmed down Final Cut Pro to make Final Cut Express because home and "prosumer" (ugh) users wanted it, and because Apple could do it more or less for free. Again, is Apple bending over backwards to capture the media market? No. They're working on it, through acquisitions and partnerships, but it's not their biggest focus. Apple's core focus for 2003 is iLife, and getting the 20 million OS 9 users up to OS X, or at least as many of them as they can.
And this reinforces the original argument, that just because YOU haven't discovered something, doesn't make it useless.
Blah, blah. That horse is dead. Whether or not you agree with me on the technical issues, the larger issues still stand.
None of those features addresses a basic user need, which tabs has (thus far) done the best job of fulfilling.
Basic user need? No. If tabbed browsing addressed a basic user need, Netscape would have taken the Windows browser market by storm. And yet, the vast majority of users still use IE, despite the fact that it lacks tabbed browsing.
You're seeing the market through a fish-eye lens. Look at it from a more appropriate perspective and you'll see that tabbed browsing just doesn't matter. It's not good enough to woo people to using Netscape, so it's not an important feature for Safari. And here is where those 6 points in my other post start to come into play.
In addition to what mcwetboy said-- with which I agree completely-- I summed up my thoughts on "what the hell's wrong with tabs, anyway" in this post. I really tried to lay it all right out there, not in terms of why tabbed browsing a la Mozilla sucks (I've beaten that dead horse enough) but why tabbed browsing doesn't belong in Safari. Most posters here seem to be of the opinion that any feature that anybody anywhere wants should be added. That's the kind of wooly-headed liberal thinking that leads to being eaten... uh, I mean, that leads to releasing Mozilla, four years late and weighing in 17 MB in the OS X version. (The Windows version is about 10 MB, I think, and the OS 9 version is more than 20 MB. Safari, by comparison, comes in a svelte 3 MB disk image.)
:-).
;-) Short answer: I use a three-button mouse with wheel. Would I ever want Apple to ship one, even as an option? No. The mouse that comes with the Mac needs to be equally useable for a 4 year old, a 40 year old, and a... um... 400 year old. You get the idea. And Apple's mouse fits that bill perfectly. As long as third-parties like Logitech and, yeah, Microsoft are shipping excellent multi-button mice with foot pedals and special chairs and damn near everything else, Apple needs to stay out of the mouse business.
People like them. I like them. The're usefull. It's kind of academic, no?
Well, actually, no. If ours were the kind of world where it didn't cost anything, financially or in terms of programmer effort, it would be a different story-- well, we'd still have the user experience problems to deal with, but given enough money and/or time we could take care of those.
But the fundamental point remains: adding tabbed browsing to Safari does not further Apple's goal, which is to get those 20 million Mac OS 9 users up to OS X by giving them some really good incentives to do so. Tabbed browsing just isn't a really good incentive, as evidenced by Netscape/Mozilla/Whatever's complete failure to take the Windows market by storm. So even if the opportunity cost issue weren't there, even if the technical issues weren't there, even if the user experience issues weren't there, tabbed browsing would still be a feature that's best left to third-party developers, like the Chimera guys.
I'm also interested in your opinions about one button mice
Oh, haw haw.
Okay, you win. Chimera can do one thing that you can't do with Safari. (Of course, we could fix this by adding a multiple-select-and-open feature to the bookmarks manager; tabbed browsing is not necessary to implement this functionality.) Good for you. Now, would you mind having a quick look at the real issues to see what you can do about those?