Your're not wrong! The internet Nexus site is pretty negative but strangely features mainly articles on macs!? The guy has a fixation on them. Maybe he is a closet lover!
Yes I now have celebrity email, cool (yes I know, lowest form of wit!)
Do you want to read, I guess I just didn't have enough energy to argue with this guy!
Dear Paul,
> > > >
> > > > You are clearly delusional with regards to your opinion of OSX. I
> > > > regularly use both XP and osX panther and it seems clear that osx
> > > > has ease of use features that are not included with XP, such as
> > > > expose and a greater overiding simplicity when compared
> > to windows
> > > > and classic mac os. Someone who was only familar with
> > windows could
> > > > make such a bizarre statement. XP is a better OS product than
> > > > previous versions of windows primarily due to stability
> > > > improvements, however the interface has changed very little since
> > > > 1995 and I fail to see any practical improvements.
> > > > Everyone is of course entitled to an opinion.
> > > >
> > > > Best Regards
> > > >
> > > > Dr Chris Welsby
Then He wrote back:
Paul Thurrott wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks for writing. I agree with your last comment. But
> > you'll have to
> > > supply better ease of use arguments than Expose, which needs to be
> > > first found and then enabled before you can use it (thus, it's not
> > > discoverable or, ahem, easy to use); XP offers simpler
> > > window-clutter-removal tech (task button grouping) and it's on by
> > > default. And saying OS X has "greater overiding [sic]
> > simplicity" is
> > > sort of baseless, if you'll excuse me. What does that mean? If it
> > > means fewer features, OK, there's a case there. It's certainly less
> > > busy than XP. But OS X offers users no starting point at
> > all, and no help along the way.
> > >
> > > XP offers an evolutionary interface over previous Windows versions,
> > > but offers context-sensitive task panes that change
> > depending on which
> > > content you're working with. If you view a folder full of
> > song files
> > > for example, or select a song file, the task pane changes
> > to offer you
> > > options related to that file type. OS X has nothing like this.
> > >
> > > I'll be posting an article to the SuperSite later this week that
> > > explains this further. But it's a fact that Microsoft has
> > evolved--and
> > > continues to evolve--the desktop OS paradigm beyond
> > anything Apple has
> > > done. I know that's not what Apple people are used to
> > hearing, but it's true.
> > >
> > > Don't get me wrong: OS X is a great OS (the claims of me
> > "slamming" it
> > > are unfounded). But under the glitz, it's just a pretty
> > classic desktop OS.
> > > There really aren't many "ease of use" improvements per se,
> > unless you
> > > count the stuff Apple has done over the past few years
> > correctly the
> > > problems it introduced in the first OS X release, let alone
> > new usage
> > > models, such as the iterative and task-based work Microsoft
> > has done.
> > >
> > > Paul
This did cheese me off a tad so I summond up enough energy for a reply:
HI Paul,
> >
> > Well thanks very much for the quick reply. I hear what you
> > are saying and don't get me wrong either, XP is a very
> > capable system.
> > I am not sure there is any point in countering your responses
> > with regards ease of use since your response has hilighted
> > what I guess is a sort of philisophical difference between
> > our expectations of a system.
> > I considered expose as an ease of use feature because it
> > makes life easier. I understand your point about it not being
Slashdot Mirror
Your're not wrong!
The internet Nexus site is pretty negative but strangely features mainly articles on macs!?
The guy has a fixation on them.
Maybe he is a closet lover!
It really was a cut and paste disaster. If you can be bother to read all that text, what do you think?
Please accuse the annoying > that have appeared throughout my post and dont ask why. Thanks
Yes I now have celebrity email, cool (yes I know, lowest form of wit!) Do you want to read, I guess I just didn't have enough energy to argue with this guy! Dear Paul, > > > > > > > > You are clearly delusional with regards to your opinion of OSX. I > > > > regularly use both XP and osX panther and it seems clear that osx > > > > has ease of use features that are not included with XP, such as > > > > expose and a greater overiding simplicity when compared > > to windows > > > > and classic mac os. Someone who was only familar with > > windows could > > > > make such a bizarre statement. XP is a better OS product than > > > > previous versions of windows primarily due to stability > > > > improvements, however the interface has changed very little since > > > > 1995 and I fail to see any practical improvements. > > > > Everyone is of course entitled to an opinion. > > > > > > > > Best Regards > > > > > > > > Dr Chris Welsby Then He wrote back: Paul Thurrott wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for writing. I agree with your last comment. But > > you'll have to > > > supply better ease of use arguments than Expose, which needs to be > > > first found and then enabled before you can use it (thus, it's not > > > discoverable or, ahem, easy to use); XP offers simpler > > > window-clutter-removal tech (task button grouping) and it's on by > > > default. And saying OS X has "greater overiding [sic] > > simplicity" is > > > sort of baseless, if you'll excuse me. What does that mean? If it > > > means fewer features, OK, there's a case there. It's certainly less > > > busy than XP. But OS X offers users no starting point at > > all, and no help along the way. > > > > > > XP offers an evolutionary interface over previous Windows versions, > > > but offers context-sensitive task panes that change > > depending on which > > > content you're working with. If you view a folder full of > > song files > > > for example, or select a song file, the task pane changes > > to offer you > > > options related to that file type. OS X has nothing like this. > > > > > > I'll be posting an article to the SuperSite later this week that > > > explains this further. But it's a fact that Microsoft has > > evolved--and > > > continues to evolve--the desktop OS paradigm beyond > > anything Apple has > > > done. I know that's not what Apple people are used to > > hearing, but it's true. > > > > > > Don't get me wrong: OS X is a great OS (the claims of me > > "slamming" it > > > are unfounded). But under the glitz, it's just a pretty > > classic desktop OS. > > > There really aren't many "ease of use" improvements per se, > > unless you > > > count the stuff Apple has done over the past few years > > correctly the > > > problems it introduced in the first OS X release, let alone > > new usage > > > models, such as the iterative and task-based work Microsoft > > has done. > > > > > > Paul This did cheese me off a tad so I summond up enough energy for a reply: HI Paul, > > > > Well thanks very much for the quick reply. I hear what you > > are saying and don't get me wrong either, XP is a very > > capable system. > > I am not sure there is any point in countering your responses > > with regards ease of use since your response has hilighted > > what I guess is a sort of philisophical difference between > > our expectations of a system. > > I considered expose as an ease of use feature because it > > makes life easier. I understand your point about it not being