From the title bar (more pronounced pinstripes), that OS X screenshot is from v10.2.x (Jaguar) which was released in August 2002.
ATS (Apple Type Services) has been revised repeatedly in the years since. Font rendering certainly was something of a dog's breakfast in earlier OS X versions, and is no doubt not perfect today. But if you're going to make comparisons with the latest GNOME/FreeType/Whatever, it would be more valid to refer to the latest version of OS X.
I think the point that GP was trying to make was that some Logitech Cordless combos have the Mac sticker on the box.
This in and of itself is unimportant (as you noted).
But it happens that these models with the Mac sticker on the outside also have dual-marked keys. My Logitech Cordless Desktop Bluetooth MX keyboard has a Start/Option key, and an Alt/Command key.
For unix-space apps, OS X has an almost standard heirarchy.
bins in/bin. system bins in/sbin non-distro apps (at least that's what I use it for) in/usr/local/ (=/opt/ if you like) config, etc. in/etc
(the only glaringly odd one from a Unix perspective is that/home/ has become/Users/)
Having thought about that little list, OS X isn't that inconsistent when compared to the several different layouts common across other Unixes.
As for the Nextish heirarchy, it's pretty clean really. Nice scoping:/Applications (apps for all users) ~/Applications (apps for this user only)/Library (system-wide resources, settings, data) ~/Library (as above, but for this user)/System (the system. break stuff in here and don't expect it to work right after)
That's due to a bug in Firefox. Bugzilla will tell you. Fixed in the trunk IIRC, but not in the Aviary branch that FF1.0's based on. FF1.1 will be fine.
Of course, Slashdot's HTML does suck, but that particular problem isn't related.
The dupes and the editing? No-one's got a gun to their head forcing you to read/. or pay for subscription.
Sadly, I can't see it being much different even if we stay outside the EU.
Not with Labour doing all it can to tear down the centuries of 'gentlemen's agreements' which have kept our rather weak parliamentary system functioning at some sort of acceptable level.
We're heading more and more towards a presidential Executive, without the proper Legislature checks & balances. The simple fact that the Executive gets to decide the Legislature's timetable makes a mockery of the whole process.
Without the EU, there'd be no Poland to stop our executive getting exactly what it wanted.
Not being a Nationalist doesn't immediately mean I'm pro-Europe. I simply distrust politicians - the whole damn lot of them, national or supranational. Apparently the only way of curtailing their desires is to stick several dozen of them from many nations in a room and get them to argue eachother down. Eventually, whatever crazy scheme's got neutered to the point of being useless.
Of course, that leads to inefficiency and waste. But it's the best I can see at the moment, given the absolute waste of space our 'mother-of-all-Parliaments' has become.
Re:Offline games require online reporting = BOGUS
on
Steam Users Steamed
·
· Score: 1
I agree completely.
I really don't have a particularly strong aversion to Steam as a concept. Without it, I probably wouldn't have bothered with HL2 at all. I usually can't be bothered to search out warez, cracks, etc. At the very most, I might check gamecopyworld.com to seek out a nocd.
I also can't usually be bothered to order a game online and wait for it to arrive. Or visit a real shop and pay out for a game.
However, Steam let me buy the game purely as an impulse buy, and be playing it 90 minutes later. And I enjoyed the game a lot -- money well spent, imho.
I've yet to be inconvenienced by Steam or my connection being unavailable when I've wanted to play HL2. But if I ever should be, the way Steam handles off-lineness looks set to annoy me. Steam should either authorise a game and have done with it, or it should allow an extended period between online authorisation being performed -- like 3 months or so.
The other concern I have with Steam is that updates are pushed automatically and cannot be rejected by the user. Now, with online games this has obvious benefits -- notably, updates which close gameplay exploits and cheats. However, the release of HL2 showed that things needed to be fixed for the game to work correctly on some machines. Unfortunately, these updates made things worse for others. It'd be great if updates were in two categories: Gameplay/Anti-Cheat (automatically applied) and Performance/System, which could be optional.
I think that with just a little more sensitivity to how players think, and a little allowance for the vagarities of networking & servers, Valve could make Steam much less controversial.
Hehe. I do exactly the same thing. For some reason, I can never get decent hits on MS's support or MSDN site search functions.
I've not had a chance to play with the new MSN search much, but I love the quick and intuitive search modifiers that can be used in Google queries... "site:" being one of my favourites.
Unlike most other search engines, Google's way of querying really clicks with me. It's the sort of thing I'd want to have as a neural lattice woven into my brain, with results projected directly onto the periphery of my left retina.:)
First of all, the modeling in OS X would be sorely stunted due to the limitations of the UNIX backend.
Care to back that up with any technical information?
(tip: before you do, please watch the 2004 WWDC Graphics State of the Union address here.)
Apple really took a step backwards when they made OS X because they tried to abandon the original interfaces and paradigms that so many of us loved from the original MacOS days.
Again, specific examples please. The only one that really springs to mind is that the Finder is no longer 100% spatial by default, and even that's changeable.
Besides, 'interfaces and paradigms' have nothing to do with the machine's graphical and rendering abilities. OS X is much more powerful in this regard than preceeding versions. QuickDraw is certainly superceded (albeit not entirely replaced at present) by what OS X provides at present.
Windows just has better rendering and gaming capabilities, and it really shows with this.
OpenGL, Quartz 2D Extreme, etc. are extremely capable APIs. If you disagree about OpenGL, you'd better take that up with the guys at id Software.
The gaming abilities of Windows machines are certainly taken advantage of much more than on the Mac. However that doesn't mean that those abilities are not present on OS X.
Secondly, I can see some practicality in it. For example, if you can read the slanted boxes, you can take advantage of some additional space on the desktop with some creative maneuvering of the windows. Whether it's worth it or not is another story, but at least it's a cool knick knack to play with for a while.
Indeed, it's a good toy to play with for a few minutes or hours. But it can't compete with something that's as genuinely useful (at least to myself and many other Mac users) as Expose.
Finally, anybody that uses "paradigm" really shouldn't be posting on a "news for nerds" site. It's... it's just unnatural:)
Now that I can agree with. Although my distaste for the word has nothing to do with the word itself, rather how it's abused. Used in the right context and to convey actual meaning rather than to dress up an otherwise vacuous comment, it's a bearable term.
This is indeed a shame. And doubly-so, as there certianly is (or at least was) the understanding at the BBC to really communicate technology issues.
In the 1980s, the BBC's shows on programming and computer science (produced in association with the Open University) were partly responsible for a whole generation of British I.T. workers and enthusiasts. The public effectively had free access to undergraduate level (or higher) course materials, right on their TV... albeit at some unholy time in the morning.
Sadly, there seems to be little technical reporting these days. It's not like they're short for time on the feature-devoid BBC News 24. I blame the producers and the commissioners.
Hehe... still, worth trying it in a vending machine!
I was in France (pre-Euro), and gasping for a drink. Didn't have the right change on me in Francs, but it turned out the vending machine would take a £1 coin thinking it was 10F. Bloody expensive drink, but worth it at the time:)
I thought ha'pennies were small? They were certainly very thin. But I only really remember the late-70's/early-80's 1/2 pence pieces... they'd probably shrunk 'em by then.
That'd be OK... as long as they made the 5p and 10p's bigger (or non-circular).
I'm not visually impaired myself, but just out of sheer laziness (not bothering to look at what I've got in my pocket), I find UK coins really easy to distinguish by touch alone.
Of course, if you've got a gazillion-and-one bits of shrapnel[1] in your pocket, that's still not much use!
The hexagonal(? I don't have one on me!) 50p and 20p's, and the £1 (thick, heavy) £2 (big, thick & heavy) coins stick out like a sore thumb. Anything circular and thin (1p, 2p) or stupidly small (5p) get left amongst the pocket fluff.
That's one thing that puts me off Euro coins. They're all round, albeit with notches in the edge (4 in the 50cent, lots on the 10cent IIRC). Still, I'd miss the old 20p and 50p's. But I do like the appearance of the 1 and 2 euro coins. Similar to the £2 coin, which is really pretty... when you've got one of those, it really feels like you're holding something that's got some value. They were the UK's first bi-metallic coins, and have one of my favourite phrases on their edge -- "Standing On The Shoulders of Giants" -- proud, but with humility.
Some eagle-eyed cashier is a local newsagent rejected a 20 pence piece I tried to pay with, and I had no idea why.
Turned out it was a Gibraltan coin. Basically identical to regular 20p. However, there's an image of (who I presume to be) the enthroned Queen, staff in hand, on the reverse. The text around the picture reads "Our Lady Europa - Gibraltar".
A really, really beautiful coin. Glad it got turned down so I could keep it I suppose!
It's geeky, but sometimes the artistry in currency design is pretty amazing. Some of the British banknotes are really fantastic. I'm not particularly opposed to the Euro, but it's a shame that the banknotes are a unified design (bridges & windows... the modernity of which increases as the value of the note increases). On the other hand, some of the national designs on the reverse of the coins are interesting.
Kinda weird to think how long these things stay in circulation... I've got a penny piece from 1978 in my pocket.
I think you're over-estimating the animosity between MS and Apple, if indeed there's much at all.
Of course, they compete with eachother, but what you describe doesn't sound like my interpretation of Apple and MS's behaviour.
The Macintosh Business Unit at Microsoft have a very close relationship with Apple. They're not just some MS developers who've been told to bash out some Mac knock-offs of Windows software. They're all long-time Mac developers who want to make the best Mac software they can. The spin-off of the MacBU to a separate division meant that they could work on making Mac software, not Windows ports. As this article explains, before the creation of the MacBU, the Win & Mac versions of Office shared 80% of the same technology. The result? Shoddy, un-Maclike software which no-one liked and few bought. The MacBU now works every bit as closely with Apple's technologies as it does with MS's.
Office:Mac (both v.X and 2004) are very nice programs. They're not perfect, but they bring a very usable, feature-rich, Mac-specific Office suite to the platform.
Apple would not benefit one single bit from making the MacBU's software unprofitable for Microsoft. iWork is not a replacement for Office. Keynote's a very nice alternative to PowerPoint, sure. But one app does not an Office-suite make. Pages is clearly not in the same space as Word. If you need Word, you won't buy/use Pages. If you don't need Word or can't afford Office, Pages is a sensible choice. If Pages is aimed at those who don't need or won't buy Office, it's hardly a competitor, is it?
Just as Pages is not a drop-in replacement for those who need Word, any rumoured spreadsheet app will not be a drop-in replacement for those who need Excel.
Apple aren't in the business of making 'temporary, difficult alternatives'. They're about fulfilling user's needs (with the caveat that, like all corps., they don't always get that right!).
And whenever you migrate to a new computer, Setup Assistant automates migration of all your personal files, settings, applications and folders -- a feature already found in Windows XP.
This isn't new in Tiger. 10.3's Setup Assistant has been doing this for quite a while now, too. And by the looks of things (probably owing to OS X's Unix-style directory layout and use of single XML files for config settings) works very well indeed.
In general, some features that rely heavily on fancy graphics tricks may not run well on older machines.
I've run every version of OS X from 10.0.3 up to 10.3.7 on an old G3/500MHz iMac + 8MB ATI Rage 128. I have every bit of the functionality that owners of faster Macs enjoy. The eyecandy is scaled back on my system so things still work great. It's not "may not run well". More a case of "if the hardware can't draw it well, the system won't try and draw it". So, whilst Dashboard will fade, wibble and dissolve on a quick Mac, on mine it'll probably just 'appear'.
OS X may be dripping with eyecandy, but they do put in quite a bit of consideration when it comes to scaling appropriately to the hardware's ability.
If it does well here in the UK, British Sky Broadcasting will be more likely to co-finance a second season as they have with the first.
Sky's flagship entertainment channel, Sky One, has had something of an identity crisis recently. It fell into a slump of showing pretty much just The Simpsons (which don't get me wrong, is great), various incarnations of "Britain's Worst...", "UK's Craziest...", and other God-awful tripe.
With so much competition out there, and public service channels like BBC Three bringing out some quality original shows, Sky have had to put some investment into programming. World exclusives such as BSG (which as I mention, they co-financed) have helped the channel distinguish itself.
It's a nice change that the fate of a show isn't entirely dependent on the fickle schedulers at US networks.
I've been catching it whenever I can. I haven't got around to sticking a almightily-huge hard disk in my Sky+ PVR yet, so I've not had the space to just stick it on series-link.
But the ones I've seen have been pretty enjoyable, although the acting of the Gaius character leaves a bit to be desired.
Overall, the production values reminded me of _Space: Above And Beyond_, which I thought was excellent. It's not all "happy-clappy, all we need is a tetryon beam to save the day" like Star Trek, which is a relief. Pretty gritty, but not exactly hard Sci-Fi either.
The story is good. Lots of intrigue, threats and disasters. Can be edge-of-the-seat at times.
Plus, it always gives me an overwhelming urge to play Homeworld 2 afterwards. There's some parallels between the series and the game.
Good fun. I'd say your (jsebrech) overview is spot on.
I've mentioned this before, so apologies to anyone who's had their eye on my previous posts...
I use OS X (10.3.[whatever is is now]) on a 3 year old iMac G3 500MHz. It's not going to win any benchmarks, but some of the design choices in OS X help alleviate things on underpowered hardware.
Key recommendation: Put as much RAM in as you can. Here's why...
OS X (like its predecessors) allows a distinction between the application and the application's windows. Opening a program will usually also open a window (e.g. Mail will open up a window with the usual mailboxes, messages, preview). But close the window and Mail stays open -- the only indication of which is a small triangle under Mail's dock icon.
The benefit of this is with enough RAM, you only launch your apps once. I don't know about others, but one of the ways I can tell a slow PC from a fast one (other than launching Half Life 2) is how quick programs open and become usable. And that's an important metric for Windows, because finishing a task almost always means quitting the application too. Sure, there's minimizing and system tray icons, but that's a halfway-house solution that doesn't scale well (taskbars are only so wide!).
With OS X's approach, your commonly-used apps are always available after loading them just the once. If I've finished reading mail, I close the Mail window, but the app stays open. If click the mail icon again, the app doesn't need to reload, and all its caches, etc. are still intact. It just needs to draw me a window and I'm right back to where I want to be.
The OS X dock has got its critics, and there's certainly changes I'd make to it if I had the chance. But it is very suited to the Mac's document-centric approach. It's an application launcher, running task, and notification area all in the one chunk of screen real-estate. The icon I use to launch an app is also the one I use to activate the app if I've closed/minimized a window. That same icon's also a status area (see Mail's 'unread message count' dock icon 'badge'). And I can control an app from that icon too (iTunes's playback control options in the dock icon's context menu, options to quit or hide the app, etc).
So my Mac's technologically ancient by modern PC standards. Yet it refuses to stop being usable. If I ask it to do some serious work (video compression, whatever), then sure, the lack of power shows. But even then it stays pretty responsive if I start using something else.
I also saw a very significant speed increase from 10.1 to 10.2 on the same hardware. 10.3 brought a noticeable improvement over 10.2. Whilst the opportunities for optimisation are probably getting smaller, I can be pretty sure that Tiger (10.4) will bring some improvements -- in workflow, if not raw speed -- and will scale well to my machine's capability.
(but it'll be much nicer on the Mac Mini I've ordered!)
... and for completeness' sake, you can also right-click (yes, right click) or control+click a drive's icon and choose Eject from the contextual menu.
You might manage to thoroughly bork the system, and can't get into the OS to eject the disk. In that case, power on the Mac and hold the (left) mouse button down immediately after the startup chime. Keep the button held, and the disk will eject.
There's a couple of other ways... boot into single-user mode and use the 'eject' console command. Or drop into OpenFirmware and type 'eject' there. There's many many ways to skin this particular cat.
The famous Model M! I completely understand not wanting that Windows key. I'd still go without too, but the temptation of Bluetooth was too great:)
Anyway, it certainly looks like it's possible. Get a $4 PS/2-to-USB adapter, then install the GPL tool, DoubleCommand (SourceForge Project], Homepage) There's a stack of options there for altering key behaviour.
Heh. I quite like the idea of a tiny Mac Mini with a nice clunky retro keyboard.:)
Good question, well put. Obviously, I can only answer for myself... but here goes.
I'm a network admin/programmer (when called upon). My work is a Windows shop, although I can wield some Linuxy l33tness when given the chance.
I originally got an iMac G3/500 for the family. It's been a great little machine. But it's just not got the power for hard-core web browsing (Safari gets a bit sluggish after 4 or 5 tabs!). Generally, although it works admirably and reliably, I'm after some more power.
But my switch to the Mac has finally let me do all those things that computers have been promising for decades. I've lost count of the number of times I'd tried out some whiz-bang PIM software or somesuch. Usually, I'd tire of inputting data, or simply find a PC's software and hardware just to unwieldy to use for that sort of 'personal' organisation.
As OS X matured, and I added a couple of extras (bluetooth USB dongle, iPod, Airport Express)... things have finally clicked.
Address Book, Mail and iSync work excellently. The Mac pulled my contacts from my phone, and I was sorted. None of the pain of inputting shedloads of information. That's all well and good, but I still wasn't sure how useful it'd be. It could quite easily have turned into the same old thing where I quickly found it inconvenient to use the computer for this stuff.
However, here's what I call the 'invisible hand' trick. Firstly, the hardware & OS meant the Mac was a solid as a rock. It hasn't once thrown me a curveball in 3 years. Then, it's silent. So it's never powered off, and always available. Important for a living-room computer. I don't have to think about the fact that I'm using a computer when I want to get to my info.
It's just there -- unobtrusive and reliable. It'll make sure I always have all my info everywhere. Before I've even got my key in the front door, the Mac's interrogating my phone for calendar events, new/modified contact info etc. And I didn't have to do anything. I can note someone's email address on my phone, and just know that when I get home, Address Book and Mail will know it without me raising a finger. When I dock my iPod to charge, it'll load itself up with my contacts' info and full calendar too. Alarms I've set on my phone or in iCal are replicated across all three. The iPod will beep me about an upcoming day event or appointment. Even the stuff my basic phone can't hold -- addresses, notes, whatever -- I can call up anywhere at the scroll of a wheel (and all without needing an internet connection).
Likewise, iTunes and iPhoto are great media managers. I've coupled iPhoto with the free 'myPhoto' php software and OS X's Apache webserver. Now, my photo library's available anywhere with an internet connection. And again, I do absolutely no work to make this happen. If it's in the library, it's on the web.
Plus, the Mac is a gateway & firewall for my LAN. DHCP server. File server. SSH provider. VPN tunneller. It mixes flexibility with sheer ease of use. It also has some truly best-in-class software. Adium is a simply beautiful IM client. Omnigraffle is one of those programs I didn't even know I wanted until I tried it. Money's a fantastic home finance application. Keynote's stunning.
For me, I can't find anything else that gives the combination of excellent design, raw Unix goodness, ease of use, some truly unique applications, breadth of capability and reliability. Windows (paradoxically) doesn't have the software I want... not to mention being about as exciting to use as a ring-binder. Linux is great. I've enjoyed learning more on Linux systems that I have since my old 8-bit computers. But whilst I love the tinkering, the learning and the feedback the Linux provides, sometimes the effort/reward ratio slips. OS X gives me the right balance. The geeky 'aint that cool'ness, mixed with some genuine usefulness, and topped with the down-to-earth day-to-day software I need.
Ah, thanks for that. I had an inkling I might've been wrong!
Incidentally, for those questioning the position of the power button, the reason it's on the back of the Mac Mini (as well as tucked away on the side of the eMacs, and the rear (IIRC) of the sunflower iMacs) is that Apple see no reason to shut down a desktop Mac entirely. For the most part, they're right. Sleeping the system's much more convenient. Just use the menu, or let it sleep after an idle time-out. Wake by hitting a key.
The Apple keyboards have different notation on the modifier keys, but no more than a modern Windows keyboard.
When I connect my Apple Pro USB keyboard to my PC, the Command key maps to the Windows key, Option maps to Alt, and (unsurprisingly) Control is Control.
Likewise, my Logitech Cordless Desktop MX which I bought for my PC has both PC and Mac labels on the keys. Win-logo & Command 'splat'. 'Alt' & the Option 'train-tracks'.
I'm planning on ordering a 1.5GHz Mac Mini (+ bluetooth/802.11g, Superdrive, 512MB) on pay-day. I reckon I'll get a USB KVM switch and hook the Cordless Desktop's base unit to the switch. I'll be able to stay wireless, and be able to toggle between to two systems with a couple of keypresses.
I don't think there's been a Power button on Apple keyboards since they used the ADC bus (laptops still use ADC internally, hence the power button). However, these key combo's do the job:
Slashdot Mirror
From the title bar (more pronounced pinstripes), that OS X screenshot is from v10.2.x (Jaguar) which was released in August 2002.
ATS (Apple Type Services) has been revised repeatedly in the years since. Font rendering certainly was something of a dog's breakfast in earlier OS X versions, and is no doubt not perfect today. But if you're going to make comparisons with the latest GNOME/FreeType/Whatever, it would be more valid to refer to the latest version of OS X.
I think the point that GP was trying to make was that some Logitech Cordless combos have the Mac sticker on the box.
This in and of itself is unimportant (as you noted).
But it happens that these models with the Mac sticker on the outside also have dual-marked keys. My Logitech Cordless Desktop Bluetooth MX keyboard has a Start/Option key, and an Alt/Command key.
For unix-space apps, OS X has an almost standard heirarchy.
/bin. /sbin /usr/local/ (=/opt/ if you like) /etc
/home/ has become /Users/)
/Applications (apps for all users) /Library (system-wide resources, settings, data) /System (the system. break stuff in here and don't expect it to work right after)
bins in
system bins in
non-distro apps (at least that's what I use it for) in
config, etc. in
(the only glaringly odd one from a Unix perspective is that
Having thought about that little list, OS X isn't that inconsistent when compared to the several different layouts common across other Unixes.
As for the Nextish heirarchy, it's pretty clean really. Nice scoping:
~/Applications (apps for this user only)
~/Library (as above, but for this user)
Basically it, isn't it?
That's due to a bug in Firefox. Bugzilla will tell you. Fixed in the trunk IIRC, but not in the Aviary branch that FF1.0's based on. FF1.1 will be fine.
/. or pay for subscription.
Of course, Slashdot's HTML does suck, but that particular problem isn't related.
The dupes and the editing? No-one's got a gun to their head forcing you to read
Sadly, I can't see it being much different even if we stay outside the EU.
Not with Labour doing all it can to tear down the centuries of 'gentlemen's agreements' which have kept our rather weak parliamentary system functioning at some sort of acceptable level.
We're heading more and more towards a presidential Executive, without the proper Legislature checks & balances. The simple fact that the Executive gets to decide the Legislature's timetable makes a mockery of the whole process.
Without the EU, there'd be no Poland to stop our executive getting exactly what it wanted.
Not being a Nationalist doesn't immediately mean I'm pro-Europe. I simply distrust politicians - the whole damn lot of them, national or supranational. Apparently the only way of curtailing their desires is to stick several dozen of them from many nations in a room and get them to argue eachother down. Eventually, whatever crazy scheme's got neutered to the point of being useless.
Of course, that leads to inefficiency and waste. But it's the best I can see at the moment, given the absolute waste of space our 'mother-of-all-Parliaments' has become.
I agree completely.
I really don't have a particularly strong aversion to Steam as a concept. Without it, I probably wouldn't have bothered with HL2 at all. I usually can't be bothered to search out warez, cracks, etc. At the very most, I might check gamecopyworld.com to seek out a nocd.
I also can't usually be bothered to order a game online and wait for it to arrive. Or visit a real shop and pay out for a game.
However, Steam let me buy the game purely as an impulse buy, and be playing it 90 minutes later. And I enjoyed the game a lot -- money well spent, imho.
I've yet to be inconvenienced by Steam or my connection being unavailable when I've wanted to play HL2. But if I ever should be, the way Steam handles off-lineness looks set to annoy me. Steam should either authorise a game and have done with it, or it should allow an extended period between online authorisation being performed -- like 3 months or so.
The other concern I have with Steam is that updates are pushed automatically and cannot be rejected by the user. Now, with online games this has obvious benefits -- notably, updates which close gameplay exploits and cheats. However, the release of HL2 showed that things needed to be fixed for the game to work correctly on some machines. Unfortunately, these updates made things worse for others. It'd be great if updates were in two categories: Gameplay/Anti-Cheat (automatically applied) and Performance/System, which could be optional.
I think that with just a little more sensitivity to how players think, and a little allowance for the vagarities of networking & servers, Valve could make Steam much less controversial.
Hehe. I do exactly the same thing. For some reason, I can never get decent hits on MS's support or MSDN site search functions.
:)
I've not had a chance to play with the new MSN search much, but I love the quick and intuitive search modifiers that can be used in Google queries... "site:" being one of my favourites.
Unlike most other search engines, Google's way of querying really clicks with me. It's the sort of thing I'd want to have as a neural lattice woven into my brain, with results projected directly onto the periphery of my left retina.
First of all, the modeling in OS X would be sorely stunted due to the limitations of the UNIX backend.
:)
Care to back that up with any technical information?
(tip: before you do, please watch the 2004 WWDC Graphics State of the Union address here.)
Apple really took a step backwards when they made OS X because they tried to abandon the original interfaces and paradigms that so many of us loved from the original MacOS days.
Again, specific examples please. The only one that really springs to mind is that the Finder is no longer 100% spatial by default, and even that's changeable.
Besides, 'interfaces and paradigms' have nothing to do with the machine's graphical and rendering abilities. OS X is much more powerful in this regard than preceeding versions. QuickDraw is certainly superceded (albeit not entirely replaced at present) by what OS X provides at present.
Windows just has better rendering and gaming capabilities, and it really shows with this.
OpenGL, Quartz 2D Extreme, etc. are extremely capable APIs. If you disagree about OpenGL, you'd better take that up with the guys at id Software.
The gaming abilities of Windows machines are certainly taken advantage of much more than on the Mac. However that doesn't mean that those abilities are not present on OS X.
Secondly, I can see some practicality in it. For example, if you can read the slanted boxes, you can take advantage of some additional space on the desktop with some creative maneuvering of the windows. Whether it's worth it or not is another story, but at least it's a cool knick knack to play with for a while.
Indeed, it's a good toy to play with for a few minutes or hours. But it can't compete with something that's as genuinely useful (at least to myself and many other Mac users) as Expose.
Finally, anybody that uses "paradigm" really shouldn't be posting on a "news for nerds" site. It's... it's just unnatural
Now that I can agree with. Although my distaste for the word has nothing to do with the word itself, rather how it's abused. Used in the right context and to convey actual meaning rather than to dress up an otherwise vacuous comment, it's a bearable term.
This is indeed a shame. And doubly-so, as there certianly is (or at least was) the understanding at the BBC to really communicate technology issues.
In the 1980s, the BBC's shows on programming and computer science (produced in association with the Open University) were partly responsible for a whole generation of British I.T. workers and enthusiasts. The public effectively had free access to undergraduate level (or higher) course materials, right on their TV... albeit at some unholy time in the morning.
Sadly, there seems to be little technical reporting these days. It's not like they're short for time on the feature-devoid BBC News 24. I blame the producers and the commissioners.
Hehe... still, worth trying it in a vending machine!
:)
I was in France (pre-Euro), and gasping for a drink. Didn't have the right change on me in Francs, but it turned out the vending machine would take a £1 coin thinking it was 10F. Bloody expensive drink, but worth it at the time
I thought ha'pennies were small? They were certainly very thin. But I only really remember the late-70's/early-80's 1/2 pence pieces... they'd probably shrunk 'em by then.
But why- at least- don't they shrink them down?
That'd be OK... as long as they made the 5p and 10p's bigger (or non-circular).
I'm not visually impaired myself, but just out of sheer laziness (not bothering to look at what I've got in my pocket), I find UK coins really easy to distinguish by touch alone.
Of course, if you've got a gazillion-and-one bits of shrapnel[1] in your pocket, that's still not much use!
The hexagonal(? I don't have one on me!) 50p and 20p's, and the £1 (thick, heavy) £2 (big, thick & heavy) coins stick out like a sore thumb. Anything circular and thin (1p, 2p) or stupidly small (5p) get left amongst the pocket fluff.
That's one thing that puts me off Euro coins. They're all round, albeit with notches in the edge (4 in the 50cent, lots on the 10cent IIRC). Still, I'd miss the old 20p and 50p's. But I do like the appearance of the 1 and 2 euro coins. Similar to the £2 coin, which is really pretty... when you've got one of those, it really feels like you're holding something that's got some value. They were the UK's first bi-metallic coins, and have one of my favourite phrases on their edge -- "Standing On The Shoulders of Giants" -- proud, but with humility.
There's site of UK coin images here.
[1] 'shrapnel' = slang for low-denomination loose change.
Some eagle-eyed cashier is a local newsagent rejected a 20 pence piece I tried to pay with, and I had no idea why.
Turned out it was a Gibraltan coin. Basically identical to regular 20p. However, there's an image of (who I presume to be) the enthroned Queen, staff in hand, on the reverse. The text around the picture reads "Our Lady Europa - Gibraltar".
A really, really beautiful coin. Glad it got turned down so I could keep it I suppose!
It's geeky, but sometimes the artistry in currency design is pretty amazing. Some of the British banknotes are really fantastic. I'm not particularly opposed to the Euro, but it's a shame that the banknotes are a unified design (bridges & windows... the modernity of which increases as the value of the note increases). On the other hand, some of the national designs on the reverse of the coins are interesting.
Kinda weird to think how long these things stay in circulation... I've got a penny piece from 1978 in my pocket.
Apple's UK store had a glitch earlier today with wildly inflated BTO component prices.
:)
Just checked the price for what I intend to order on Friday (payday!)
1.42GHz Mini
512MB RAM
Superdrive
Bluetooth + Airport
Was £603 including VAT. Now £589 including VAT. Free shipping on both.
So I'm happy, at least
I think you're over-estimating the animosity between MS and Apple, if indeed there's much at all.
Of course, they compete with eachother, but what you describe doesn't sound like my interpretation of Apple and MS's behaviour.
The Macintosh Business Unit at Microsoft have a very close relationship with Apple. They're not just some MS developers who've been told to bash out some Mac knock-offs of Windows software. They're all long-time Mac developers who want to make the best Mac software they can. The spin-off of the MacBU to a separate division meant that they could work on making Mac software, not Windows ports. As this article explains, before the creation of the MacBU, the Win & Mac versions of Office shared 80% of the same technology. The result? Shoddy, un-Maclike software which no-one liked and few bought. The MacBU now works every bit as closely with Apple's technologies as it does with MS's.
Office:Mac (both v.X and 2004) are very nice programs. They're not perfect, but they bring a very usable, feature-rich, Mac-specific Office suite to the platform.
Apple would not benefit one single bit from making the MacBU's software unprofitable for Microsoft. iWork is not a replacement for Office. Keynote's a very nice alternative to PowerPoint, sure. But one app does not an Office-suite make. Pages is clearly not in the same space as Word. If you need Word, you won't buy/use Pages. If you don't need Word or can't afford Office, Pages is a sensible choice. If Pages is aimed at those who don't need or won't buy Office, it's hardly a competitor, is it?
Just as Pages is not a drop-in replacement for those who need Word, any rumoured spreadsheet app will not be a drop-in replacement for those who need Excel.
Apple aren't in the business of making 'temporary, difficult alternatives'. They're about fulfilling user's needs (with the caveat that, like all corps., they don't always get that right!).
I already installed it...
:-)
ON YOUR MOM!!!11oneone!!11
Err.... wait, that actually made no sense. Sorry!
...but not a perfect one either.
A couple of glaring mistakes:
And whenever you migrate to a new computer, Setup Assistant automates migration of all your personal files, settings, applications and folders -- a feature already found in Windows XP.
This isn't new in Tiger. 10.3's Setup Assistant has been doing this for quite a while now, too. And by the looks of things (probably owing to OS X's Unix-style directory layout and use of single XML files for config settings) works very well indeed.
In general, some features that rely heavily on fancy graphics tricks may not run well on older machines.
I've run every version of OS X from 10.0.3 up to 10.3.7 on an old G3/500MHz iMac + 8MB ATI Rage 128. I have every bit of the functionality that owners of faster Macs enjoy. The eyecandy is scaled back on my system so things still work great. It's not "may not run well". More a case of "if the hardware can't draw it well, the system won't try and draw it". So, whilst Dashboard will fade, wibble and dissolve on a quick Mac, on mine it'll probably just 'appear'.
OS X may be dripping with eyecandy, but they do put in quite a bit of consideration when it comes to scaling appropriately to the hardware's ability.
If it does well here in the UK, British Sky Broadcasting will be more likely to co-finance a second season as they have with the first.
Sky's flagship entertainment channel, Sky One, has had something of an identity crisis recently. It fell into a slump of showing pretty much just The Simpsons (which don't get me wrong, is great), various incarnations of "Britain's Worst...", "UK's Craziest...", and other God-awful tripe.
With so much competition out there, and public service channels like BBC Three bringing out some quality original shows, Sky have had to put some investment into programming. World exclusives such as BSG (which as I mention, they co-financed) have helped the channel distinguish itself.
It's a nice change that the fate of a show isn't entirely dependent on the fickle schedulers at US networks.
I've been catching it whenever I can. I haven't got around to sticking a almightily-huge hard disk in my Sky+ PVR yet, so I've not had the space to just stick it on series-link.
But the ones I've seen have been pretty enjoyable, although the acting of the Gaius character leaves a bit to be desired.
Overall, the production values reminded me of _Space: Above And Beyond_, which I thought was excellent. It's not all "happy-clappy, all we need is a tetryon beam to save the day" like Star Trek, which is a relief. Pretty gritty, but not exactly hard Sci-Fi either.
The story is good. Lots of intrigue, threats and disasters. Can be edge-of-the-seat at times.
Plus, it always gives me an overwhelming urge to play Homeworld 2 afterwards. There's some parallels between the series and the game.
Good fun. I'd say your (jsebrech) overview is spot on.
I've mentioned this before, so apologies to anyone who's had their eye on my previous posts...
I use OS X (10.3.[whatever is is now]) on a 3 year old iMac G3 500MHz. It's not going to win any benchmarks, but some of the design choices in OS X help alleviate things on underpowered hardware.
Key recommendation: Put as much RAM in as you can. Here's why...
OS X (like its predecessors) allows a distinction between the application and the application's windows. Opening a program will usually also open a window (e.g. Mail will open up a window with the usual mailboxes, messages, preview). But close the window and Mail stays open -- the only indication of which is a small triangle under Mail's dock icon.
The benefit of this is with enough RAM, you only launch your apps once. I don't know about others, but one of the ways I can tell a slow PC from a fast one (other than launching Half Life 2) is how quick programs open and become usable. And that's an important metric for Windows, because finishing a task almost always means quitting the application too. Sure, there's minimizing and system tray icons, but that's a halfway-house solution that doesn't scale well (taskbars are only so wide!).
With OS X's approach, your commonly-used apps are always available after loading them just the once. If I've finished reading mail, I close the Mail window, but the app stays open. If click the mail icon again, the app doesn't need to reload, and all its caches, etc. are still intact. It just needs to draw me a window and I'm right back to where I want to be.
The OS X dock has got its critics, and there's certainly changes I'd make to it if I had the chance. But it is very suited to the Mac's document-centric approach. It's an application launcher, running task, and notification area all in the one chunk of screen real-estate. The icon I use to launch an app is also the one I use to activate the app if I've closed/minimized a window. That same icon's also a status area (see Mail's 'unread message count' dock icon 'badge'). And I can control an app from that icon too (iTunes's playback control options in the dock icon's context menu, options to quit or hide the app, etc).
So my Mac's technologically ancient by modern PC standards. Yet it refuses to stop being usable. If I ask it to do some serious work (video compression, whatever), then sure, the lack of power shows. But even then it stays pretty responsive if I start using something else.
I also saw a very significant speed increase from 10.1 to 10.2 on the same hardware. 10.3 brought a noticeable improvement over 10.2. Whilst the opportunities for optimisation are probably getting smaller, I can be pretty sure that Tiger (10.4) will bring some improvements -- in workflow, if not raw speed -- and will scale well to my machine's capability.
(but it'll be much nicer on the Mac Mini I've ordered!)
... and for completeness' sake, you can also right-click (yes, right click) or control+click a drive's icon and choose Eject from the contextual menu.
You might manage to thoroughly bork the system, and can't get into the OS to eject the disk. In that case, power on the Mac and hold the (left) mouse button down immediately after the startup chime. Keep the button held, and the disk will eject.
There's a couple of other ways... boot into single-user mode and use the 'eject' console command. Or drop into OpenFirmware and type 'eject' there. There's many many ways to skin this particular cat.
The famous Model M! I completely understand not wanting that Windows key. I'd still go without too, but the temptation of Bluetooth was too great :)
:)
Anyway, it certainly looks like it's possible. Get a $4 PS/2-to-USB adapter, then install the GPL tool, DoubleCommand (SourceForge Project], Homepage) There's a stack of options there for altering key behaviour.
Heh. I quite like the idea of a tiny Mac Mini with a nice clunky retro keyboard.
Good question, well put. Obviously, I can only answer for myself... but here goes.
I'm a network admin/programmer (when called upon). My work is a Windows shop, although I can wield some Linuxy l33tness when given the chance.
I originally got an iMac G3/500 for the family. It's been a great little machine. But it's just not got the power for hard-core web browsing (Safari gets a bit sluggish after 4 or 5 tabs!). Generally, although it works admirably and reliably, I'm after some more power.
But my switch to the Mac has finally let me do all those things that computers have been promising for decades. I've lost count of the number of times I'd tried out some whiz-bang PIM software or somesuch. Usually, I'd tire of inputting data, or simply find a PC's software and hardware just to unwieldy to use for that sort of 'personal' organisation.
As OS X matured, and I added a couple of extras (bluetooth USB dongle, iPod, Airport Express)... things have finally clicked.
Address Book, Mail and iSync work excellently. The Mac pulled my contacts from my phone, and I was sorted. None of the pain of inputting shedloads of information. That's all well and good, but I still wasn't sure how useful it'd be. It could quite easily have turned into the same old thing where I quickly found it inconvenient to use the computer for this stuff.
However, here's what I call the 'invisible hand' trick. Firstly, the hardware & OS meant the Mac was a solid as a rock. It hasn't once thrown me a curveball in 3 years. Then, it's silent. So it's never powered off, and always available. Important for a living-room computer. I don't have to think about the fact that I'm using a computer when I want to get to my info.
It's just there -- unobtrusive and reliable. It'll make sure I always have all my info everywhere. Before I've even got my key in the front door, the Mac's interrogating my phone for calendar events, new/modified contact info etc. And I didn't have to do anything. I can note someone's email address on my phone, and just know that when I get home, Address Book and Mail will know it without me raising a finger. When I dock my iPod to charge, it'll load itself up with my contacts' info and full calendar too. Alarms I've set on my phone or in iCal are replicated across all three. The iPod will beep me about an upcoming day event or appointment. Even the stuff my basic phone can't hold -- addresses, notes, whatever -- I can call up anywhere at the scroll of a wheel (and all without needing an internet connection).
Likewise, iTunes and iPhoto are great media managers. I've coupled iPhoto with the free 'myPhoto' php software and OS X's Apache webserver. Now, my photo library's available anywhere with an internet connection. And again, I do absolutely no work to make this happen. If it's in the library, it's on the web.
Plus, the Mac is a gateway & firewall for my LAN. DHCP server. File server. SSH provider. VPN tunneller. It mixes flexibility with sheer ease of use. It also has some truly best-in-class software. Adium is a simply beautiful IM client. Omnigraffle is one of those programs I didn't even know I wanted until I tried it. Money's a fantastic home finance application. Keynote's stunning.
For me, I can't find anything else that gives the combination of excellent design, raw Unix goodness, ease of use, some truly unique applications, breadth of capability and reliability. Windows (paradoxically) doesn't have the software I want... not to mention being about as exciting to use as a ring-binder. Linux is great. I've enjoyed learning more on Linux systems that I have since my old 8-bit computers. But whilst I love the tinkering, the learning and the feedback the Linux provides, sometimes the effort/reward ratio slips. OS X gives me the right balance. The geeky 'aint that cool'ness, mixed with some genuine usefulness, and topped with the down-to-earth day-to-day software I need.
The Mac Mini will do all this f
Ah, thanks for that. I had an inkling I might've been wrong!
Incidentally, for those questioning the position of the power button, the reason it's on the back of the Mac Mini (as well as tucked away on the side of the eMacs, and the rear (IIRC) of the sunflower iMacs) is that Apple see no reason to shut down a desktop Mac entirely. For the most part, they're right. Sleeping the system's much more convenient. Just use the menu, or let it sleep after an idle time-out. Wake by hitting a key.
The Apple keyboards have different notation on the modifier keys, but no more than a modern Windows keyboard.
;))
When I connect my Apple Pro USB keyboard to my PC, the Command key maps to the Windows key, Option maps to Alt, and (unsurprisingly) Control is Control.
Likewise, my Logitech Cordless Desktop MX which I bought for my PC has both PC and Mac labels on the keys. Win-logo & Command 'splat'. 'Alt' & the Option 'train-tracks'.
I'm planning on ordering a 1.5GHz Mac Mini (+ bluetooth/802.11g, Superdrive, 512MB) on pay-day. I reckon I'll get a USB KVM switch and hook the Cordless Desktop's base unit to the switch. I'll be able to stay wireless, and be able to toggle between to two systems with a couple of keypresses.
I don't think there's been a Power button on Apple keyboards since they used the ADC bus (laptops still use ADC internally, hence the power button). However, these key combo's do the job:
Option-Command-Eject: Sleep
Control-Command-Eject: Restart
Control-Command-Option-Eject: Shutdown
(lucky those modifier keys are right next to eachother
That'd be a shame. Out of interest, when's this broadcast flag coming into effect?
I'm a UKer, so I'm not up on the details.
Cheers,
Chris