Tres wrote: Time to go back to testing school....I'm afraid you're not a very good tester
I'm not a professional tester and have never been to 'testing school' so it would have hard to go back. I'm an end user who observed an invalid example of a difference between Windows and OS X in the article and remarked on it.
Every other reply is drawing the same conclusion. If a button is active, it's not greyed out (ie it LOOKs active). You even validate this through your observations (in your case the only possible action is reload because there is no history to go back or forwards to, and the page isn't currently loading).
I'll sum it up for you: The article (which you may not have read) says that when Safari is not the active window, the toolbars are ghosted. That isn't the case. Period. TFA shows a screenshot where the tool bar is indeed ghosted, but for other reasons.
"With that in mind, note that, even though the IE window is not front-most, the "back" button looks as though it's active. The non-IE windows are more consistent in appearance, but if you didn't know that the red "x" or close widget in the front-most window shows that it is the active window, it would be somewhat easy for a new user to get confused about which window is the one they're really working in."
He goes on to say
"You'll see in the screenshot of the same kind of window layering in Mac OS X that, even with the similarity of the brushed metal windows in both the Finder and Safari, it's more obvious which window is active. None of the Safari widgets show as active, while the Finder window, being active, has the "live" controls"
In the example screenshot, you can see that he has opened a blank page (or rather, not opened anything). I have a strong suspicion he would have known this, he specifically uses 'BACK' as an example, yet anyone instinctivly knows that a browser doesn't have an active BACK unless you have nagivated FORWARDs first.
TFA has quite a bit about how OS X does a better job of making it clear which windows are active/inactive etc.
His example is of Safari in the background of something else, and the Back/Forward/Reload/Stop buttons being greyed out. On Vista, he points to the similar buttons still being full colour and equating that to confusion.
The only reason his Safari buttons are grey is because he hasn't loaded a web page and has nothing to go back to, reload or stop. In OS X, with a page loaded those buttons would indeed look active. Yes, I just tested;)
By your argument there was no market for the Airport Express or similar.
The iTV, to me, is worth putting beside my Wii, my Neuston (and quite possible PS3 once they come down in price in AU) simply because it promises to be a seamless consumer experience. Well integrated to both your local library and an online source (in this case we're speculating YouTube), which anyone can use much like they can use the cable and DVD boxes to watch stuff.
I've had a http://www.neuston.com/en/mc500.php Neuston for about 3 years but still use my Airport Express for music to the living room Hi-Fi. I'm even willing to either walk down the hall to my PC or pop open my notebook to turn on or change music in preference to fighting with the Neuston remote http://www.neuston.com/Images/MC500/MC500_in_10.jp g and 'technically good enough' software interface. The cheaper (than projected iTV price) Neuston has been doing the network streaming of video for years too, but it just isn't good enough to be bothered with.
The iTV will do for Video what Airport Express does for music but WITH a decent 'on TV' software interface and remote. Just like the iPod, they aren't the first on the market with the general idea, but they will be the first to do it RIGHT.
The way I see it, Apple are pretty cosy with Parallels. Parallels 'coherence' is pretty slick and moving very quickly in each beta to the point that I now have an 'IE7' icon on my dock and for all intents and piurposes it's a native app. (BTW, I only need IE for testing and troubleshotting when an end user is on it, I'm a Safari user in the main:)
There can't be much work required for Apple to actually include it and hide the 'third party-ness'. At the very least, they could just bundle it. Parallels Inc. has already done all the 'prohibitive R&D' to make it work.
Parent: "Not to mention it would be incredibly risky for Apple to acquire and bolt on a complex 3rd party application at this late stage in Leopard development"
Who says they haven't been working on it for the last 6 months? That they changed references on their web site from 'bootcamp' to 'parallels' must at least raise suspicions that they saw it as something worth aligning themselves to.
I've been hotelling in the US for 6 weeks doing nothing (I like a nothing break every few years from my day job n AU).....I shoulda been in that line...
I trialled OTRS and while I thought it looked like a good system, there was some amount of work required to get it right for my organisation. We ended up buying an unlimited license for WebHelpDesk
We've had it for just over a year, done 12,000 tickets, entered inventory for 150 sites and are pretty happy with it. It's not open source, but it is multi platform coming with easy installers for Win, Mac OS, Solaris and Linux. I've run it on Mac to trial and currently Win in production.
Two? My OS came on one diskette. It also came with an AmigaBASIC disk. However, the entire OS is not on disk. There's also 512kB (for the A500) of ROM without which the system will not function.
That was a later revision with Kickstart in ROM. Originally Kickstart was also a disk which you booted then could boot Workbench if you wanted - or could boot something else (eg a game).
This simply shows your ignorance. Over fifteen years ago we quit using 3270's
Would this be a bad time to mention that about 15,000 people at my company start their day at my workplace by typing 'IMS' on an IBM or Memorex Telex green screen coax connected to a cluster controller via sync serial to a 3474?
Oh - and quite possibly they serve you from time to time:)
While we are migrating lots of people to modern devices using tn3270, the real junk is still here - it works despite the years.
I was doing a fascetious little word-play on the 'universal binaries' that are supposed to run well on Intel and PowerPC processors!
:) Fair enough.
The problem, however, is that your post is one of hundreds saying the same thing, the only difference being that the rest are being perfectly serious...
Sathias (884801): "He sold you a product. I suppose the electricity companies that sell you the power that runs your computer are stealing from you as well?"
So if it was impossible to buy a loaf of bread without also being charged for peanut butter (because the peanut butter company could easily put the bakery out of business - and even if you were nut alergic) you would say it was perfectly reasonable 'sale'?
The parents point is that MS repeatedly used underhand tactics to force OEMs to sell customers a copy of Windows whether they wanted it or not. And despite the EULA saying you could return the licence for a refund, the reality was that the process to do so was so convoluted that it could only have been designed to ensure noone ever excercised that option. In the case of IBM, they went a bit further in 1995, refusing to allow IBM to sell the [then] very important Windows 95 unless IBM stopped marketing OS/2.
A fair amount of them ('us' if you are one too) have both platforms for a variety of reasons.
I have 2 Macs (laptops) and a high end desktop PC. The PC is, I'm nearly ashamed to admin, basically for game playing but I do honestly use it for other work to, although nothing I can't use my Macs for. As a hands-on IT manager in a non-Mac company, the reality is that I need Intel hardware for general mucking about too.
If Macs can be dual boot, it's a near cert my next desktop will be a Mac.
How do you figure that? What have 'PCs' won exactly?
The PC Vs Mac thing is really Windows Vs Mac OS X.
It's not Linux on a PC Vs Mac, it's not Mac OS on Intel Vs Windows. The PC Vc Mac argument is [these days] a straight out OS grudge - not even relevant to this thread about CPUs.
[disclaimer - I'm not advocating alchol abuse in the following post, just putting a quart into perspective based on common realities]
re: Drinking a quart of wiskey being impossible / will cause alcohol poisioning
After recently seeing the '21 days' episode covering alcohol by the guy that did 'Super Size me', I can understand that this is apparently (yet inexplicably) the case in America. For those who haven't seen it, they had somone binge drink....but their definition was something silly like 2 or 3 measures in 2 hours, and they were puking after 3 glasses of wine.
But in at least the UK and Australia a litre is a decent but by no means unusual quantity - It's the bottle you buy to go somewhere, or glug before going out when your mission is to get pissed quick. Even at school, I'm not sure I knew anyone that developed anything beyond vomiting and gonig to bed moaning after their litre of vodka mixed into a 3 lt coke.
I'm going to abandon this thread because just about every reply to my post is reading mine in the context of TFA and not the parent post I was replying to.
I can't resist replying to one part of the above post though:
(Since 1981? You have kids who are at least 24 (assuming they were newborn infants in '81) whose 'net access you're actively needing to control? You'd be able to define conditions on which they can live under your roof by then, and treat them like adults over that.)
Since 1981? News flash: I was a kid once too. I guess forgot to explicitly state that. I began being one in mid 1974, so I have a perspective on their view and how their mind works:)
Heh. You probably think your teens aren't having sex too.:)
Directed at the guy with 7 PCs, the above is EXACTLY in line with my thoughts. Kids are out rooting about, smoking, taking drugs and whatever else (not necessarily all at once:), but that's what kids do from an astonishingly young age). Past 13, you can safely assume the wool is over your eyes to some extent.
My parents were good responsible parents. I did all of the above from 13. I'm now a well adjusted 31 in a good career year old getting around to kids of my own.
The unthinkable things I mentioned are, in moderation, normal growing up and experimentation. Having a patrol past public computers and disallowing the closing of doors is just asking for trouble. If my parents had tried to suggest I can't shut my door I'd have rebeled against it 10 fold. In reality, they were normally asking me to shut it to help mute 'that racket' coming from my speaker cabs
We have to parent, but let's not kid ourselves about how effective we are being.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not a professional tester and have never been to 'testing school' so it would have hard to go back. I'm an end user who observed an invalid example of a difference between Windows and OS X in the article and remarked on it.
Every other reply is drawing the same conclusion. If a button is active, it's not greyed out (ie it LOOKs active). You even validate this through your observations (in your case the only possible action is reload because there is no history to go back or forwards to, and the page isn't currently loading).
I'll sum it up for you: The article (which you may not have read) says that when Safari is not the active window, the toolbars are ghosted. That isn't the case. Period. TFA shows a screenshot where the tool bar is indeed ghosted, but for other reasons.
"With that in mind, note that, even though the IE window is not front-most, the "back" button looks as though it's active. The non-IE windows are more consistent in appearance, but if you didn't know that the red "x" or close widget in the front-most window shows that it is the active window, it would be somewhat easy for a new user to get confused about which window is the one they're really working in."
He goes on to say
"You'll see in the screenshot of the same kind of window layering in Mac OS X that, even with the similarity of the brushed metal windows in both the Finder and Safari, it's more obvious which window is active. None of the Safari widgets show as active, while the Finder window, being active, has the "live" controls"
In the example screenshot, you can see that he has opened a blank page (or rather, not opened anything). I have a strong suspicion he would have known this, he specifically uses 'BACK' as an example, yet anyone instinctivly knows that a browser doesn't have an active BACK unless you have nagivated FORWARDs first.
His example is of Safari in the background of something else, and the Back/Forward/Reload/Stop buttons being greyed out. On Vista, he points to the similar buttons still being full colour and equating that to confusion.
The only reason his Safari buttons are grey is because he hasn't loaded a web page and has nothing to go back to, reload or stop. In OS X, with a page loaded those buttons would indeed look active. Yes, I just tested ;)
Shudder. These LA trannys don't even try anymore.....
The iTV, to me, is worth putting beside my Wii, my Neuston (and quite possible PS3 once they come down in price in AU) simply because it promises to be a seamless consumer experience. Well integrated to both your local library and an online source (in this case we're speculating YouTube), which anyone can use much like they can use the cable and DVD boxes to watch stuff.
I've had a http://www.neuston.com/en/mc500.php Neuston for about 3 years but still use my Airport Express for music to the living room Hi-Fi. I'm even willing to either walk down the hall to my PC or pop open my notebook to turn on or change music in preference to fighting with the Neuston remote http://www.neuston.com/Images/MC500/MC500_in_10.jp g and 'technically good enough' software interface. The cheaper (than projected iTV price) Neuston has been doing the network streaming of video for years too, but it just isn't good enough to be bothered with.
The iTV will do for Video what Airport Express does for music but WITH a decent 'on TV' software interface and remote. Just like the iPod, they aren't the first on the market with the general idea, but they will be the first to do it RIGHT.
The way I see it, Apple are pretty cosy with Parallels. Parallels 'coherence' is pretty slick and moving very quickly in each beta to the point that I now have an 'IE7' icon on my dock and for all intents and piurposes it's a native app. (BTW, I only need IE for testing and troubleshotting when an end user is on it, I'm a Safari user in the main :)
There can't be much work required for Apple to actually include it and hide the 'third party-ness'. At the very least, they could just bundle it. Parallels Inc. has already done all the 'prohibitive R&D' to make it work.
Who says they haven't been working on it for the last 6 months? That they changed references on their web site from 'bootcamp' to 'parallels' must at least raise suspicions that they saw it as something worth aligning themselves to.
..wooosshhhh...
I think it's safe to assume he means 'Wolfmother' given;
a) he plugs them at the end
b) they are pretty awesome
I've been hotelling in the US for 6 weeks doing nothing (I like a nothing break every few years from my day job n AU).....I shoulda been in that line...
http://webhelpdesk.com/
We've had it for just over a year, done 12,000 tickets, entered inventory for 150 sites and are pretty happy with it. It's not open source, but it is multi platform coming with easy installers for Win, Mac OS, Solaris and Linux. I've run it on Mac to trial and currently Win in production.
That was a later revision with Kickstart in ROM. Originally Kickstart was also a disk which you booted then could boot Workbench if you wanted - or could boot something else (eg a game).
Would this be a bad time to mention that about 15,000 people at my company start their day at my workplace by typing 'IMS' on an IBM or Memorex Telex green screen coax connected to a cluster controller via sync serial to a 3474?
Oh - and quite possibly they serve you from time to time :)
While we are migrating lots of people to modern devices using tn3270, the real junk is still here - it works despite the years.
Well, aren't they?
The problem, however, is that your post is one of hundreds saying the same thing, the only difference being that the rest are being perfectly serious...
Oh for Gods sake...why haven't they already done a 'universal virus' to hit Linux or NetWare or .... on Intel then?
Nice when a typo can raise more than a spelling correction :)
So if it was impossible to buy a loaf of bread without also being charged for peanut butter (because the peanut butter company could easily put the bakery out of business - and even if you were nut alergic) you would say it was perfectly reasonable 'sale'?
The parents point is that MS repeatedly used underhand tactics to force OEMs to sell customers a copy of Windows whether they wanted it or not. And despite the EULA saying you could return the licence for a refund, the reality was that the process to do so was so convoluted that it could only have been designed to ensure noone ever excercised that option. In the case of IBM, they went a bit further in 1995, refusing to allow IBM to sell the [then] very important Windows 95 unless IBM stopped marketing OS/2.
I have 2 Macs (laptops) and a high end desktop PC. The PC is, I'm nearly ashamed to admin, basically for game playing but I do honestly use it for other work to, although nothing I can't use my Macs for. As a hands-on IT manager in a non-Mac company, the reality is that I need Intel hardware for general mucking about too.
If Macs can be dual boot, it's a near cert my next desktop will be a Mac.
The PC Vs Mac thing is really Windows Vs Mac OS X.
It's not Linux on a PC Vs Mac, it's not Mac OS on Intel Vs Windows. The PC Vc Mac argument is [these days] a straight out OS grudge - not even relevant to this thread about CPUs.
OS X Server has alot going for it, but you're hardly going to want to run a production server on a PowerBook.
How about we turn it aronud - why wouldn't you use an Apple server?
re: Drinking a quart of wiskey being impossible / will cause alcohol poisioning
After recently seeing the '21 days' episode covering alcohol by the guy that did 'Super Size me', I can understand that this is apparently (yet inexplicably) the case in America. For those who haven't seen it, they had somone binge drink....but their definition was something silly like 2 or 3 measures in 2 hours, and they were puking after 3 glasses of wine.
But in at least the UK and Australia a litre is a decent but by no means unusual quantity - It's the bottle you buy to go somewhere, or glug before going out when your mission is to get pissed quick. Even at school, I'm not sure I knew anyone that developed anything beyond vomiting and gonig to bed moaning after their litre of vodka mixed into a 3 lt coke.
Again, I have been attacked out of context. Your tirade is supporting my position
Since 1981? News flash: I was a kid once too. I guess forgot to explicitly state that. I began being one in mid 1974, so I have a perspective on their view and how their mind works :)
Directed at the guy with 7 PCs, the above is EXACTLY in line with my thoughts. Kids are out rooting about, smoking, taking drugs and whatever else (not necessarily all at once :), but that's what kids do from an astonishingly young age). Past 13, you can safely assume the wool is over your eyes to some extent.
My parents were good responsible parents. I did all of the above from 13. I'm now a well adjusted 31 in a good career year old getting around to kids of my own.
The unthinkable things I mentioned are, in moderation, normal growing up and experimentation. Having a patrol past public computers and disallowing the closing of doors is just asking for trouble. If my parents had tried to suggest I can't shut my door I'd have rebeled against it 10 fold. In reality, they were normally asking me to shut it to help mute 'that racket' coming from my speaker cabs
We have to parent, but let's not kid ourselves about how effective we are being.