There is no evidence that it is and in fact Apple have denied that it is happening. IF anyone wants to claim that Apple are doing the opposite of what they're claiming, they'll need a lot of proof.
Can you see the difference between someone looking at your book collection, making some recommendations on other books you might enjoy, then forgetting what you own and someone looking at your book collection, making notes, then filing away. The first is what Apple is claiming to do, the second is collecting information.
and I can't get it to stop... I turned off the service
Sounds like you got it to stop ok.
In a way -- this IS using my data for 3rd parties by making me believe that there is some correlation between my tastes and overhyped crap that has flooded the national earspace.
Doesn't sound like it made you believe anything.
In fact, if you click on an artist whose music is sold by the iTMS, the MiniStore lists other music they have released and a selection of what other customers have bought. The only reason for it to suggest Will Smith is if you click on a Will Smith song in your own library, or you select a song which several Will Smith-buying customers also bought.
If you click on something by an artist the iTMS doesn't carry then it simply displays new releases and top albums/songs. Nowhere does it say you will like any of the music.
If they are going to collect my data
They're not collecting your data. That was in the article summary.
they should, as a courtesy, do something smart with it.
How would you have them do it, other than basing recommendations on what other customers also bought?
As the Original Poster, you haven't made your case very well here I must say.
Considering that your case consists of 'probably,' 'wouldn't you think,' wild guesses and assumptions with no basis in reality and which in fact stand in opposition to the established facts, surely your case is the ill-made one?
When connecting to websites I agree there is little or no privacy (for better, worse or indiferent), but that's not what we're talking about. With iTunes when I'm plyaing my music, everything is happening on my personal computer. In this case, I am entitled tp privacy. And if iTunes isn't going to respect that, I won't use it
IT does respect your privacy. No data is collected or viewed by human beings. If you want nothing to do with the MiniStore service, then you can turn it off and it will respect that setting.
xcept that it's enabled by default and doesn't tell you that it's doing it in the first place.
It does tell you what it's doing. It's recommending music based on your favourite artists/albums. To do that, tit must know what you're listening to, so it's pretty obvious that it's going to transmit some information about what is in your library. If no-one ever sees this information, however, and they don't collect it, then there's no big deal.
That might no true of continental Europe, but it's pretty easy to find them in the UK. Apple Stores, Dixons, John Lewis, Virgin, HMV and a few other places all stock them. That said, you can't necessarily listen to an iPod in al of them.
Call it my one sop to the idea of an idealized society, the notion that adults can make informed choices and not be nagged to death or run out of public spaces for making choices that others may not like or agree with."
Yes, it's terrible when you're told not to do something that endangers the health of everyone around you. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to swing a flail round my head as I jog down the High Street.
They released their first single in September of 1979 and their first album in 1980. They had been playing live before this, but I think that the release of recorded material marks them out as an 80s band. They certainly didn't have a fanbase of more than a couple of thousand (if even that) until the 80s.
:: What accounts have you studied that lead you to believe otherwise?
Try asking Christ the question yourself.
Why. Can't you say what sources lead you to believe it?
Also, the channeled source, the 'Cassiopeans', offers a different story.
The woman writing for cassiopaea.org is clueless and in way over her head. She understands virtually nothing about the subject at hand. For instance, Hebrew practice when relating genealogies does not require giving every single person or every single generation. It is perfectly valid to say that x is the father of y, when he is in fact is grandfather.
In fact, a few moments on Google shows her organisation to be a cult. I'd much rather make decisions about the historicity of something using actual historical evidence, rather than the musings of people who say 'I wish that one day the project will bring us closer to an understanding of our hidden powers that can make rocks float in mid-air.'
A small number of corruptible men, (as most men are), writing about an 'event' years after the fact doesn't compel me very much.
Let's think logically about this for a moment. He was crucified by people who had extensive experience of executing people by this method. People don't survive crucifixion. And they certainly don't survive being crucified than duped in a tomb for several days. And they most certinaly wouldn't be able to roll away a massive boulder covering the entrance. Historical sources verify this. No-one at the time disputed it. The gospel writers record it and died for it.
The issue is did he rise from the dead? If his body was still in the tomb, the authorities could ahve produced it at any point and crushed Christianity, which they desperately hated. If they didn't have the body then either he survived and escaped (pretty much impossible given the size of the boulder, the events of crucifixion and the guard placed outside), the disciples stole the body or he was actually resurrected.
So what about stealing the body? The disciples were terrified after Jesus' arrest. They all fled. They weren't expecting Jesus to really die, so when he did, they would have thought that it was all over. They certianly wouldn't have had the courage to attack a tomb guarded by Roman soldiers. Even if they had somehow managed to retrieve the body (Against impossible odds, without the soldiers noticing), they would have kown Jesus was dead and did not rise from the dead. So why would they have endured hatred, recriminations, beatings, torture and cruel execution, all the while professing a faith in the resurrection? If these were corruptible men, they would have folded at the first sign of physical danger and confessed to what was going on.
The fact that this didn't happen clearly shows that they believed he rose from the dead and were in a position to know. This story was recorded either by them, or by their companions, depending on the gospel. Regardless of which point in thie life it occurred at, the question of whether they had seen Jesus rise from the dead or not is ridiculous. It's not the kind of thing you're going to get wrong.
Consider just how incredibly easy it would have been for similar agencies to add nonsense to the pile of writings we call the Bible? Some of the gospels were written many decades after the event. It seems entirely plausible to me that writers were hired to produce false accounts with specific 'facts' and spin.
It's terribly unlikely. Given the similarities in claims by not just the gospels, but the epistles as well, the range of authorship, the early fragments we have (from around 100 AD) and the recorded beliefs and practices of early Christians by secualr sources as well, you would require an immense body of people who both support propogation of a myth an
You do realise, don't you, that there was no dispute about Christ's death on the cross? Christians, uninterested non-Christians and hostile non-Christians, powerful or otherwise, all agreed that he had died on the cross. The point of dispute was whether he had risen from the dead. But the people with the most interest in disproving it couldn't, because there was no longer a body in the tomb they had been guarding.
What accounts have you studied that lead you to believe otherwise?
Actually the original publication order is:
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe* (1950)
Prince Caspian (1951)
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (1952)
The Silver Chair (1953)
The Horse and His Boy (1954)
The Magician's Nephew (1955)
The Last Battle (1956)
Given the date of his death, I doubt he wrote anything about the movie. Regarding the books, however, a BBC article on this very subject says:
Are the Chronicles of Narnia allegorical? Lewis, a professor of English, was well placed to debate the exact meaning of allegory. He said they were not: they were "supposals". As he explained in a 1954 letter to some schoolchildren in Maryland:
You are mistaken when you think that everything in the books 'represents' something in this world. Things do that in The Pilgrim's Progress [a 1678 allegory by John Bunyan] but I'm not writing in that way. I did not say to myself 'Let us represent Jesus as He really is in our world by a Lion in Narnia': I said, 'Let us suppose that there were a land like Narnia and that the Son of God, as he became a Man in our world, became a Lion there, and then imagine what would happen.'
Quoted in Walter Hooper, C. S. Lewis: A Companion and Guide
It's not allegory, but he certainly had Jesus in mind when writing Aslan and if you read about Aslan being a lamb as well and having another name in our world, yet still claim he's not intended to be seen as a Christ-like figure, then I don't know what will convince you, sort of Lewis rising from the grave to settle the debate himself.
Actually, it is through Christ that all things are created:
for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. - Col 1:16
It's quite appropriate to have Aslan sing everything into creation.
Aslan is the son of the Emperor over the sea. There are sons of Adam and daughters of Eve to rule Narnia on his behalf. Edmond's treachery is punishable by death and Aslan proclaims that as justice that he cannot interfere in. He atones for Edmond's crime by taking the punishment on himself, suffering abject humiliation in the process. After giving his life in this way, he is resurrected and defeats the evil in the land.
If you can't see the connections there, I'm a bit confused when you claim to know your Bible well. There is plenty more imagery in the other books. Aslan appearing as a lamb, the entirety of the Last Battle, etc.
The scientific method doesn't work with a lot of things. In fact, it's not meant to. Using it for the bulk of your life is more of an abuse of science, than a faithfulness to it.
I'm a man of science myself and have thus forgotten about these books as I could never come to terms with them.
I'm a man of science myself, but that has no bearing on my taste in music, interest in history, my relationships with other people, or my faith in God. Science only has bearing on a tiny part of our lives and is wholly incapable of saying anything about the supernatural, by definition. How does being a man of science equate to you not being able to come to terms with the books? It seems to be somewhat of an illogical connection to make.
She's evil. There are more details in another Narnia story, 'The Magician's Nephew.'
Where did Aslan come back from?
He is ruler of many countries, so he was off visiting them.
What connection does the professor have to the wardrobe and Narnia?
That's detailed in 'The Magician's Nephew.'
How did Narnia come into the hands of the White Witch?
'Magician's Nephew'
Where did Aslan leave to and why?
Other countries to rule.
How did Aslan become king?
His Father is the Emperor over the sea and always has been. It's a bit like asking who put God in charge of everything. This is more apparent in the other stories.
No, it's an OSX thing. I just opened finder, clicked into a directory so the window was well and truly focused and so on, then clicked a link in Safari which was visible below the finder window. Safari came to the top and the window became active, but the link was not followed. These are both about as native OSX app as you can get. This happens all over the place. If you watch for it, I think you'll find it soon enough. Anyway, this isn't so much a poster child for consistancy as it is for someone in the UI department needing a bit of a beating.:)
On the other hand, if you bring up the print dialogue, switch to another app so Safari goes to the background, then click on print, or cancel, or whatever, the button will activate without further clicks. Same goes for the bookmark bar. It just doesn't count links on the page as buttons, which I approve of.
Having aid that, are you aware that cmd-clicking on background UI elements allows you to trigger them without switching app focus? If I cmd-click on a link in Safari, it will go and load the link in a new tab without switching focus. I would use this every once in a while to scroll a background window or click a background button when I want to keep working in the current front app.
No. Because the window that has the focus is on top, so it can never be obscured by any other window, GIMP's or otherwise. That's why window-based menus can never get in each other's way.
But the point isn't about menus being obscured - after all, you can't obscure the OS X menu bar. It was about wastage of space and if you have more than one window on screen, then each one with a menu will waste space. e.g. working in the GIMP requires you to have several windows open, IIRC, each with a menubar.
Huh. Well, I'll buy your argument if you'll tell me how you get to the top of the screen in an instant. I can't, as far as I know -- it's further to roll the mouse to the top than it is to the top of a window, barring the single exception where the window is at the top anyway (in which case it takes just as long.)
One quick finger or hand movement moves the cursor straight to the top of the screen. Thanks to the acceleration present, this takes very little time. Aiming for a particular spot on screen, however, usually means two movements - one relatively quick one to the right area, then a slower one to the precise area, occasionally because I've overshot.
I've been mousing just about since there were mice and GUIs, though, and that could be a factor.
I've been mousing since the days of the Atari STE, which is long enough to be fairly competent. Besides, if that were a factor, it would imply that you need years of experience to use the GUI you prefer effectively, making it the worst choice for new-comers to a computer, or for irregular users.
And my exact point is that this affects its value not at all. The only thing that will affect its value here is if the user, that is, me, or you, decides to take an attitude that we're unwilling to use it because it is inconsistant.
The problem with inconsistency is that programs do things you don't expect. If you spend 95% of your time working one way, but have to work a different way for the other 5%, it becomes pretty inconvenient. For instance, most of the time when I'm typing, I'm using my Mac and the cursor selects whatever line is in the middle of the text cursor. Part of my work, however, involves doing an announcement sheet for church every week in Corel Draw on Windows. For some unexplained reason, it selects whatever line is under the bottom third of the cursor. This drives me nuts because my instinct is select with the middle of the cursor and end up selecting the wrong line quite a bit of the time.
It also has a bizarre convention whereby if you drag select from somewhere on a line to the start of it, then make changes to the formatting of the line, it will also select the carriage return on the previous line and apply formatting to it. Consequently I often have to drag select to the 2nd letter of a line, then shift-left cursor select the first letter. After 14 weeks of use, I have come to loath this program because it does not follow the conventions that I'm accustomed to. Arguably, it's just plain bad design, rather than inconsistency, but I think the inconsistency is still a factor.
You missed my point entirely.
Indeed I did. I apologise. Thought you were talking about clicking a window in the foreground application. My bad.
Say you're using Finder. So a Finder window is active... Now you have to click again, on the same button, to get the result you should have already had.
That is indeed annoying. Trying that out in other apps, however, clicking a button in a background application activates the button, so the problem would seem to lie with an inconsistency with the GIMP, rather than bad OS X GUI design. One more mark against inconsistency;^)
The menu at the top uses considerable vertical space, all the time, which is unusable for all applications. You can't get a window to cover the menu bar. At least, I can't in 10.3.9.
Can't in 10.4.3 either, which I'm fairly happy about. Wouldn't want to lose sight of my menubar. It's fairly full. It's only a wee bit of vertical space, especially compared to the resolution of modern screens. Though if you're using multiple monitors, then you only need a menubar on one screen and can avoid them entirely on others, thereby saving space.
Windows may, or may not, require a menu. For some (dialogs, for instance) a YES or NO or even simply OK is all the UI they need. This can be true of much more complex applications as well; if the developer is allowed to make that choice, of course
True, but document windows all seem to have them, which irritates me greatly in Windows. Though the inconsistency in multi-document and single-document interfaces annoys me more. And the inefficient taskbar. And the way that opening multiple files belonging to one program sometimes loads the files into separate windows in one instance of the application, while launching several instances of the application in other cases. And not being able to open a bunch of files by double-clicking on a selected group. But I'm getting a bit off-subject here. I find Windows stressful. It just gets in the way so much.
If a menu is embeddded in a window, say, application A, and there is no menu at the top of the screen, then application A may be dragged to the top of the screen, thus providing menu-on-top functionality if you like it.
The fact is, there is more than one way to be usable. I have no, and I mean zero, problem, using the GIMP under OSX because the interface is 100% functional.
But it's completely inconsistent with standard Mac GUI conventions.
In fact, most of the problems the GIMP has on the Mac are a consequence of OSX, for example, clicking on a window doesn't do what it should based on the UI element clicked upon, instead, it'll activate the window, which is just plain bad UI design
It'd be pretty annoyed if clicking on a window didn't activate it. If it's a toolbar that shouldn't be activated, then it should be a toolbar, not a window.
like the constant waste of space at the top of the display for the menu.
I prefer one easy to find menu bar to multiple menu bars in multiple windows, wasting a lot more space and taking more effort to reach.
Look at quicktime. It's standard, but it's crippled. Can't save movies (unless you pay extra) can't deal withy mpeg (unless you buy the add-on), yet it's a nice, standard Mac application. Comes to this, other software, even with a non-std interface, kicks quicktime's butt because it does the things you need it to do. And this is an Apple product!
How does the presence or lack of features make a difference to the interface?
Slashdot Mirror
There is no evidence that it is and in fact Apple have denied that it is happening. IF anyone wants to claim that Apple are doing the opposite of what they're claiming, they'll need a lot of proof.
Can you see the difference between someone looking at your book collection, making some recommendations on other books you might enjoy, then forgetting what you own and someone looking at your book collection, making notes, then filing away. The first is what Apple is claiming to do, the second is collecting information.
Sounds like you got it to stop ok.
Doesn't sound like it made you believe anything.
In fact, if you click on an artist whose music is sold by the iTMS, the MiniStore lists other music they have released and a selection of what other customers have bought. The only reason for it to suggest Will Smith is if you click on a Will Smith song in your own library, or you select a song which several Will Smith-buying customers also bought.
If you click on something by an artist the iTMS doesn't carry then it simply displays new releases and top albums/songs. Nowhere does it say you will like any of the music.
They're not collecting your data. That was in the article summary.
How would you have them do it, other than basing recommendations on what other customers also bought?
Considering that your case consists of 'probably,' 'wouldn't you think,' wild guesses and assumptions with no basis in reality and which in fact stand in opposition to the established facts, surely your case is the ill-made one?
IT does respect your privacy. No data is collected or viewed by human beings. If you want nothing to do with the MiniStore service, then you can turn it off and it will respect that setting.
It does tell you what it's doing. It's recommending music based on your favourite artists/albums. To do that, tit must know what you're listening to, so it's pretty obvious that it's going to transmit some information about what is in your library. If no-one ever sees this information, however, and they don't collect it, then there's no big deal.
That might no true of continental Europe, but it's pretty easy to find them in the UK. Apple Stores, Dixons, John Lewis, Virgin, HMV and a few other places all stock them. That said, you can't necessarily listen to an iPod in al of them.
Then don't sign up for it. It's not mandatory to use it. Plenty of stores have such a feature.
Yes, it's terrible when you're told not to do something that endangers the health of everyone around you. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to swing a flail round my head as I jog down the High Street.
But he was talking about the ROKR, not the RAZR.
They released their first single in September of 1979 and their first album in 1980. They had been playing live before this, but I think that the release of recorded material marks them out as an 80s band. They certainly didn't have a fanbase of more than a couple of thousand (if even that) until the 80s.
U2 are 80s. But that's still 20-odd years old.
Why. Can't you say what sources lead you to believe it?
The woman writing for cassiopaea.org is clueless and in way over her head. She understands virtually nothing about the subject at hand. For instance, Hebrew practice when relating genealogies does not require giving every single person or every single generation. It is perfectly valid to say that x is the father of y, when he is in fact is grandfather.
In fact, a few moments on Google shows her organisation to be a cult. I'd much rather make decisions about the historicity of something using actual historical evidence, rather than the musings of people who say 'I wish that one day the project will bring us closer to an understanding of our hidden powers that can make rocks float in mid-air.'
Let's think logically about this for a moment. He was crucified by people who had extensive experience of executing people by this method. People don't survive crucifixion. And they certainly don't survive being crucified than duped in a tomb for several days. And they most certinaly wouldn't be able to roll away a massive boulder covering the entrance. Historical sources verify this. No-one at the time disputed it. The gospel writers record it and died for it.
The issue is did he rise from the dead? If his body was still in the tomb, the authorities could ahve produced it at any point and crushed Christianity, which they desperately hated. If they didn't have the body then either he survived and escaped (pretty much impossible given the size of the boulder, the events of crucifixion and the guard placed outside), the disciples stole the body or he was actually resurrected.
So what about stealing the body? The disciples were terrified after Jesus' arrest. They all fled. They weren't expecting Jesus to really die, so when he did, they would have thought that it was all over. They certianly wouldn't have had the courage to attack a tomb guarded by Roman soldiers. Even if they had somehow managed to retrieve the body (Against impossible odds, without the soldiers noticing), they would have kown Jesus was dead and did not rise from the dead. So why would they have endured hatred, recriminations, beatings, torture and cruel execution, all the while professing a faith in the resurrection? If these were corruptible men, they would have folded at the first sign of physical danger and confessed to what was going on.
The fact that this didn't happen clearly shows that they believed he rose from the dead and were in a position to know. This story was recorded either by them, or by their companions, depending on the gospel. Regardless of which point in thie life it occurred at, the question of whether they had seen Jesus rise from the dead or not is ridiculous. It's not the kind of thing you're going to get wrong.
It's terribly unlikely. Given the similarities in claims by not just the gospels, but the epistles as well, the range of authorship, the early fragments we have (from around 100 AD) and the recorded beliefs and practices of early Christians by secualr sources as well, you would require an immense body of people who both support propogation of a myth an
You do realise, don't you, that there was no dispute about Christ's death on the cross? Christians, uninterested non-Christians and hostile non-Christians, powerful or otherwise, all agreed that he had died on the cross. The point of dispute was whether he had risen from the dead. But the people with the most interest in disproving it couldn't, because there was no longer a body in the tomb they had been guarding.
What accounts have you studied that lead you to believe otherwise?
Actually the original publication order is: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe* (1950) Prince Caspian (1951) The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (1952) The Silver Chair (1953) The Horse and His Boy (1954) The Magician's Nephew (1955) The Last Battle (1956)
It's not allegory, but he certainly had Jesus in mind when writing Aslan and if you read about Aslan being a lamb as well and having another name in our world, yet still claim he's not intended to be seen as a Christ-like figure, then I don't know what will convince you, sort of Lewis rising from the grave to settle the debate himself.
Actually, it is through Christ that all things are created:
for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. - Col 1:16
It's quite appropriate to have Aslan sing everything into creation.
Aslan is the son of the Emperor over the sea. There are sons of Adam and daughters of Eve to rule Narnia on his behalf. Edmond's treachery is punishable by death and Aslan proclaims that as justice that he cannot interfere in. He atones for Edmond's crime by taking the punishment on himself, suffering abject humiliation in the process. After giving his life in this way, he is resurrected and defeats the evil in the land.
If you can't see the connections there, I'm a bit confused when you claim to know your Bible well. There is plenty more imagery in the other books. Aslan appearing as a lamb, the entirety of the Last Battle, etc.
The scientific method doesn't work with a lot of things. In fact, it's not meant to. Using it for the bulk of your life is more of an abuse of science, than a faithfulness to it.
The Magician's Nephew
The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe
The Horse And His Boy
Prince Caspian
The Dawn Treader
The Silver Chair
The Last Battle
I'm a man of science myself, but that has no bearing on my taste in music, interest in history, my relationships with other people, or my faith in God. Science only has bearing on a tiny part of our lives and is wholly incapable of saying anything about the supernatural, by definition. How does being a man of science equate to you not being able to come to terms with the books? It seems to be somewhat of an illogical connection to make.
She's evil. There are more details in another Narnia story, 'The Magician's Nephew.'
He is ruler of many countries, so he was off visiting them.
That's detailed in 'The Magician's Nephew.'
'Magician's Nephew'
Other countries to rule.
His Father is the Emperor over the sea and always has been. It's a bit like asking who put God in charge of everything. This is more apparent in the other stories.
On the other hand, if you bring up the print dialogue, switch to another app so Safari goes to the background, then click on print, or cancel, or whatever, the button will activate without further clicks. Same goes for the bookmark bar. It just doesn't count links on the page as buttons, which I approve of.
Having aid that, are you aware that cmd-clicking on background UI elements allows you to trigger them without switching app focus? If I cmd-click on a link in Safari, it will go and load the link in a new tab without switching focus. I would use this every once in a while to scroll a background window or click a background button when I want to keep working in the current front app.
But the point isn't about menus being obscured - after all, you can't obscure the OS X menu bar. It was about wastage of space and if you have more than one window on screen, then each one with a menu will waste space. e.g. working in the GIMP requires you to have several windows open, IIRC, each with a menubar.
One quick finger or hand movement moves the cursor straight to the top of the screen. Thanks to the acceleration present, this takes very little time. Aiming for a particular spot on screen, however, usually means two movements - one relatively quick one to the right area, then a slower one to the precise area, occasionally because I've overshot.
I've been mousing since the days of the Atari STE, which is long enough to be fairly competent. Besides, if that were a factor, it would imply that you need years of experience to use the GUI you prefer effectively, making it the worst choice for new-comers to a computer, or for irregular users.
The problem with inconsistency is that programs do things you don't expect. If you spend 95% of your time working one way, but have to work a different way for the other 5%, it becomes pretty inconvenient. For instance, most of the time when I'm typing, I'm using my Mac and the cursor selects whatever line is in the middle of the text cursor. Part of my work, however, involves doing an announcement sheet for church every week in Corel Draw on Windows. For some unexplained reason, it selects whatever line is under the bottom third of the cursor. This drives me nuts because my instinct is select with the middle of the cursor and end up selecting the wrong line quite a bit of the time.
It also has a bizarre convention whereby if you drag select from somewhere on a line to the start of it, then make changes to the formatting of the line, it will also select the carriage return on the previous line and apply formatting to it. Consequently I often have to drag select to the 2nd letter of a line, then shift-left cursor select the first letter. After 14 weeks of use, I have come to loath this program because it does not follow the conventions that I'm accustomed to. Arguably, it's just plain bad design, rather than inconsistency, but I think the inconsistency is still a factor.
Indeed I did. I apologise. Thought you were talking about clicking a window in the foreground application. My bad.
That is indeed annoying. Trying that out in other apps, however, clicking a button in a background application activates the button, so the problem would seem to lie with an inconsistency with the GIMP, rather than bad OS X GUI design. One more mark against inconsistency ;^)
Can't in 10.4.3 either, which I'm fairly happy about. Wouldn't want to lose sight of my menubar. It's fairly full. It's only a wee bit of vertical space, especially compared to the resolution of modern screens. Though if you're using multiple monitors, then you only need a menubar on one screen and can avoid them entirely on others, thereby saving space.
True, but document windows all seem to have them, which irritates me greatly in Windows. Though the inconsistency in multi-document and single-document interfaces annoys me more. And the inefficient taskbar. And the way that opening multiple files belonging to one program sometimes loads the files into separate windows in one instance of the application, while launching several instances of the application in other cases. And not being able to open a bunch of files by double-clicking on a selected group. But I'm getting a bit off-subject here. I find Windows stressful. It just gets in the way so much.
Only really works
But it's completely inconsistent with standard Mac GUI conventions.
It'd be pretty annoyed if clicking on a window didn't activate it. If it's a toolbar that shouldn't be activated, then it should be a toolbar, not a window.
I prefer one easy to find menu bar to multiple menu bars in multiple windows, wasting a lot more space and taking more effort to reach.
How does the presence or lack of features make a difference to the interface?