> The desktop is quite nice although not as nice as gnome. > But that's not a problem because IRIX can also run > gnome!
And if you're otherwise inclined, you can also get the IRIX desktop for Linux (no, I haven't tried it):
http://www.5dwm.org/
Personally, I prefer 4Dwm to all other desktops I've tried, *especially* this crappy thing I have to use on my Mac. How anyone can think the Apple GUI is good is beyond me...!
"The very slight increase in performance, the addition of two good connectivity options, and the steep price cuts combine to make the PowerMac line's price/performance ratio a little less embarrassing than it has been previously."
Seems more accurate to me. I own a couple of Mac's and they won't be getting any more of my money until they fix some stuff:
"The FSB still clocks in at a pitiful 167MHz SDR, and of course the dual-processor machines in the line still use the same old shared-bus topology."
> their desktop SUCKS... but it just is not in the same world as GNOME, KDE, WinXP or MacOSX.
On the contrary. The desktop works *very* nicely.
I have used all those other desktops you mention, and they leave my arm muscles all tied up in knots.
Mac OS X is the one I use mostly, and it is the worst. It is totally infelixble. There is no way to make it 'focus follows mouse' and disable 'autoraise', both of which are available on ALL the others (IINM).
Using IRIX is like freedom for my arms.
Max.
PS. Yes, I have spent most of my 17 professional years on IRIX/4Dwm, and I don't appreciate being forced to change now. OS X's window manager is aweful, but at least it has the applications and doesn't isn't such a pain to administer as MS.
I own two Apple computers, and, at times, I hate using them. The GUI is so inflexible.
People seem to have the opinion that Apples let you work the way you want to work. Well that's bollocks. The GUI forces you to use click-to-focus and an auto-raise window behaviour even if you've not used machines with that behaviour for all of your 17 years in the computing industry. I'm told that even MS Windows allows you to change that behaviour, if you want.
And that single menu thing sucks too. For example, right now I am using Mozilla on a second monitor attached to my Powerbook. If I want to access the menu for mozilla, I have to move the mouse over to the other screen to do so. How brain dead is that? If I had 20 monitors attached to it (if it could handle that, which I don't think any Apple can), then it would be impossible - not a bright policy for the future.
Then there's the fact that they made Aqua incompatible with X windows, when there are plenty of window managers out there which work just fine, thank you. Why didn't they use one like that? Instead they chose one which a pain to use. Sure you can get X window managers for it, but they don't work 'quite right' - like using 'x2x' for example.
Also, ever since I bought the things, it feels like I'm bleeding money! I thought I could use iMovie to edit movies I download from my ReplayTV, but, no, they have implemented a 2GB limit on importing files which forces me to buy a professional application (FCP), which does *way* more than I need. Then I find that iDVD won't work with 3rd party DVD-R/RW drives and Apple don't even supply a DVD-R/RW for the Powerbook (they do now, but that didn't help me back then).
Apple customer support sucks too, IMO. They should try calling Microsoft Mac support to see how it should be done. I called them for help with Powerpoint X and they gave me excellent support. Each time I call Apple support, unless it is something completely noddy, they are useless or refuse to help (like if I mention the word 'terminal' for example, their knee jerk reaction is to say "we don't support..." bla bla).
No, the only reason I use an Apple is that most applications are available for them (so they are useful) and they're not MS (political preference).
If the commercial apps were available for Linux, I would most certainly switch (back) to that...but they're not and the 'free' ones just don't cut it.
Re:No, it's fine. Click-to-focus SUCKS
on
Is Mac OS X Slow?
·
· Score: 1
Hmm. I looks quite useful, and does seem to implement 'focus-follows-mouse', but it also implements an 'auto-raise', which is most annoying. I can't seem to get any preferences panel for it, and I can't find any documentation.......a step in the right direction, to be sure.
Mac? Pa. It sucks because of the single menu thing - you have to keep moving the mouse back to the other screen in order to access the menu. I mean, how brain dead is that? Any more than 2 screens and you'd be pulling your hair out.
Now SGI systems, on the other hand, can have upto 128 monitors on a single system. Now *thats* what I call multi-monitor support!
And 16 people can use them all at the same time.
<http://www.sgi.com/visualization/onyx/3000/ir3/ co nfigs.html#3800>
No, it's fine. Click-to-focus SUCKS
on
Is Mac OS X Slow?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I have a 800MHz G4 TiBook, and it runs quite nicely, thank you. It could certainly be faster, and I have no idea how much of that is caused by the application, the OS, or the hardware.
What I *do* find annoying, and what slows me down no-end, is the fact that the GUI is click-to-focus, and autoraises windows.
When I am running with two monitors, and I have an application on the second screen, I don't appreciate having to move the mouse pointer and my head, in order to access the menu for that application, which is still stuck on the first screen.
APPLE: put the menus back where they belong - with the application windows! (or at least make it an option) - that's solve the problem stopping focus-follows-mouse too.
Even Microsoft 'allows' you to have 'focus-follows-mouse'...
> (NOTE: Although almost 200,000 bugs have been > reported, there are not - and have not been - that > many bugs in Mozilla.)"
What? I am *positive* there are still bugs in mozilla. How the hell would they know how much bugs are left? There could easily be 200,000 bugs, since you can never say s/w (especially as complex as mozilla) is bug free - they will just keep on popping up. All they can say is that they haven't found that many - yet.
You point out that the having the menu bar at the top of the screen is the reason for not having 'focus-follows-mouse', but fail to reach the obvious conclusion that, therefore, the menu should be moved back into the windows, where they belong.
Why, oh, why, didn't they make it work with X? Not being able to 'setenv DISPLAY' really sucks. And, yes, I've used OroborOSX, but it doesn't work for Aqua windows, and cut and paste doesn't work between them etc etc. Not the ideal solution (but better than nothing, I guess).
Yes, I hate that focus is only on the top window too - and it auto pops windows.
I mean even MS Windows can be made to work with focus-follows-mouse etc etc. Apple is way behind in this capability. I find it kind of rude that they seem to be forcing me to work the way they say is best.
Having a single menu at the top of the screen doesn't work very well for multiple monitors. I often am using an app on the second monitor and get pissed off having to move my mouse and head all the way to the other monitor in order to access the menu.
They just haven't really thought this through, have they? It's all geared up for the small single screened machines of the older Macs.
You don't like 'classic'? Well, I'm not sure I ever used it, but I sure don't like the GUI that comes with OS X (Aqua? I get confused by the names).
It only supposed point and click to get focus. Windows with focus have to be at the front of the window stack etc etc.
Sucks bug time.
Even Windows allows you to change this, but the stupid single menu at the top of the screen makes it difficult for OS X (though I expect there are ways around it).
Still, I prefer the look and feel of OS X to any MS Windows I've used, but I'd prefer if I could just move the mouse over a window to get focus (without clicking or moving windows to the front of the window stack) like on X-Windows.
My experience of Apple's support is also less than satisfactory.
On the other hand, I needed support on Microsoft Office/X and saw that you get two free calls to Microsoft for free with each product (or something like that). So I called Microsoft and I found the support I received to be excellent.
And, if you know me, you will know how hard it is for me to say anything positive about Microsoft...
(Don't know about Tivo) ReplayTV has the ability to act precisely like a VCR, with start/end/channel programmability. If you don't want to have any of the more advanced features, then, IINM, you can buy it w/o the service (I guess you still end up paying for the ethernet h/w, which you might still use or not).
I have the 4040 which had lifetime service included. I think the newer 4500 series is pretty much the same thing but with an optional (?) subscription service, and is (much) cheaper than my 4040 was.
You've fallen for another Apple trick. I assume you went here:
where it has a nice inviting button labelled:
"iDVD 2.1"
Well, if you actually press that button, you get a page with the title:
"Get iDVD 2 Updater"
and, sure enough, the minimum system requirements are detailed as:
" iDVD 2.0 or later. Mac OS X, v10.1.3 or later. Any Power Macintosh G4 or G4 iMac equipped with a built-in Apple SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW drive). Minimum of 256MB of RAM installed with 384MB recommended."
I don't know about your friends, but I tried and failed.
I understand that they might want to use a 'free' iDVD copy to sell their DVD-R/RW drives.
What I don't understand is why they don't sell it separately as well. Kind of like Roxio Toast - it's often included (not 'free', but 'included') with drives, but you can buy it separately too.
> And modifying and redistributing a binary is not a copyright violation?
They didn't modify a binary. All they distributed was a patch that would modify a binary. Even if applying the patch was illegal, I don't think selling the patch is.
I don't understand this point. It is the 'no way to track sales' part that doesn't ring true.
The way they have it, it doesn't matter if they pay the mpeg2 fee on iDVD or the Superdrive, since iDVD isn't supplied w/o the superdrive and has been fixed to not work with any other drive (so it doesn't matter if someone sells it on).
If they paid the fee on iDVD, then they could sell it separately and add the mpeg2 fee. Just as easy to track; and Apple would be making it available to more customers too, so could make more money from it[1][2]. People have every right to sell the copy of iDVD that came with their machines if they don't need it, but the fee would be associated with the original iDVD purchase (whether it was included in the OS, or bought separately) and so would be already paid.
I don't understand your argument, apart from "that's the way it is". If so, then (IMO) that is/was a dumb decision by Apple, but they could easily change it with the next release of iDVD.
Max.
[1] They would be losing the customers who upgrade to a new computer simply for the capability of burning DVDs. I doubt that this is a large number of customers. [2] I assume this is the way it works with DVD Studio Pro and/or Final Cut Pro. IINM, iMovie doesn't have an mpeg2 encoder (it exports to iDVD in 'dv' format), so the fee doesn't apply, but iDVD could be sold under exactly the same terms as DVD Studio Pro; but would cost less due to substantially less capability.
I don't want the s/w for free; I want to pay for it.
I bought a Powerbook recently.
Apple don't supply external (firewire) DVD-R/RW, so I was forced to get one from a 3rd party (even though I'd rather go with apple).
Apple don't sell iDVD so I can't get it unless I purchase it from someone else (which would then not be supported by Apple, I would assume). But there's not point, because...
Apple have fixed iDVD to not work with external drives.
So, Apple got my initial money for the Powerbook, but they are *forcing* me to go elsewhere for a DVD burning solution....and Apple gain from this how, exactly?
I'll answer my own question. If I want to buy from Apple, the only options are a 3rd party drive, and DVD Studio Pro which runs at $999. It could be argued that I have more money than sense, so I went with that option.
I then discover that iMovie, which I was hoping to use to edit my movies, doesn't import files anything over (something like) 20GB and only imports 'dv' files which are very big. Almost all the files I wanted to import are bigger than that. I was informed that this is another 'fix' Apple had done - why I'm not sure. So, if I want to stick with Apple, the only option was to get Final Cut Pro which runs at another $999. Again, I've more money than sense, so I bought that too - which included a $300 mail in rebate since I bought it with DVD Studio Pro. Er thanks Apple.
I don't see how Apple can expect Powerbook owners who want to do basic DVD authoring to feel anything but screwed by Apple. That's certainly the way I feel.
Slashdot Mirror
> The desktop is quite nice although not as nice as gnome.
:
> But that's not a problem because IRIX can also run
> gnome!
And if you're otherwise inclined, you can also get the IRIX desktop for Linux (no, I haven't tried it)
http://www.5dwm.org/
Personally, I prefer 4Dwm to all other desktops I've tried, *especially* this crappy thing I have to use on my Mac. How anyone can think the Apple GUI is good is beyond me...!
(special 'hi' to b-a)
I prefer ArsTechnica's analysis :
:
"The very slight increase in performance, the addition of two good connectivity options, and the steep price cuts combine to make the PowerMac line's price/performance ratio a little less embarrassing than it has been previously."
Seems more accurate to me. I own a couple of Mac's and they won't be getting any more of my money until they fix some stuff
"The FSB still clocks in at a pitiful 167MHz SDR, and of course the dual-processor machines in the line still use the same old shared-bus topology."
http://www.arstechnica.com/
AAASGIE
> their desktop SUCKS... but it just is not in the same world as GNOME, KDE, WinXP or MacOSX.
On the contrary. The desktop works *very* nicely.
I have used all those other desktops you mention, and they leave my arm muscles all tied up in knots.
Mac OS X is the one I use mostly, and it is the worst. It is totally infelixble. There is no way to make it 'focus follows mouse' and disable 'autoraise', both of which are available on ALL the others (IINM).
Using IRIX is like freedom for my arms.
Max.
PS. Yes, I have spent most of my 17 professional years on IRIX/4Dwm, and I don't appreciate being forced to change now. OS X's window manager is aweful, but at least it has the applications and doesn't isn't such a pain to administer as MS.
http://futuretech.mirror.vuurwerk.net/idescsi.html
also, lots of other useful SGI info.
Max.
It looks like it came straight out of a Thunderbirds episode. I wonder if they had Gerry Anderson as a design consultant?
They're not the same thing. IMO, 'Shelved' == 'indefinitely postponed'.
I own two Apple computers, and, at times, I hate using them. The GUI is so inflexible.
People seem to have the opinion that Apples let you work the way you want to work. Well that's bollocks. The GUI forces you to use click-to-focus and an auto-raise window behaviour even if you've not used machines with that behaviour for all of your 17 years in the computing industry. I'm told that even MS Windows allows you to change that behaviour, if you want.
And that single menu thing sucks too. For example, right now I am using Mozilla on a second monitor attached to my Powerbook. If I want to access the menu for mozilla, I have to move the mouse over to the other screen to do so. How brain dead is that? If I had 20 monitors attached to it (if it could handle that, which I don't think any Apple can), then it would be impossible - not a bright policy for the future.
Then there's the fact that they made Aqua incompatible with X windows, when there are plenty of window managers out there which work just fine, thank you. Why didn't they use one like that? Instead they chose one which a pain to use. Sure you can get X window managers for it, but they don't work 'quite right' - like using 'x2x' for example.
Also, ever since I bought the things, it feels like I'm bleeding money! I thought I could use iMovie to edit movies I download from my ReplayTV, but, no, they have implemented a 2GB limit on importing files which forces me to buy a professional application (FCP), which does *way* more than I need. Then I find that iDVD won't work with 3rd party DVD-R/RW drives and Apple don't even supply a DVD-R/RW for the Powerbook (they do now, but that didn't help me back then).
Apple customer support sucks too, IMO. They should try calling Microsoft Mac support to see how it should be done. I called them for help with Powerpoint X and they gave me excellent support. Each time I call Apple support, unless it is something completely noddy, they are useless or refuse to help (like if I mention the word 'terminal' for example, their knee jerk reaction is to say "we don't support..." bla bla).
No, the only reason I use an Apple is that most applications are available for them (so they are useful) and they're not MS (political preference).
If the commercial apps were available for Linux, I would most certainly switch (back) to that...but they're not and the 'free' ones just don't cut it.
Hmm. I looks quite useful, and does seem to implement 'focus-follows-mouse', but it also implements an 'auto-raise', which is most annoying. I can't seem to get any preferences panel for it, and I can't find any documentation.... ...a step in the right direction, to be sure.
thanks for the tip.
Max.
Mac? Pa. It sucks because of the single menu thing - you have to keep moving the mouse back to the other screen in order to access the menu. I mean, how brain dead is that? Any more than 2 screens and you'd be pulling your hair out.
/ co nfigs.html#3800>
Now SGI systems, on the other hand, can have upto 128 monitors on a single system. Now *thats* what I call multi-monitor support!
And 16 people can use them all at the same time.
<http://www.sgi.com/visualization/onyx/3000/ir3
I have a 800MHz G4 TiBook, and it runs quite nicely, thank you. It could certainly be faster, and I have no idea how much of that is caused by the application, the OS, or the hardware.
What I *do* find annoying, and what slows me down no-end, is the fact that the GUI is click-to-focus, and autoraises windows.
When I am running with two monitors, and I have an application on the second screen, I don't appreciate having to move the mouse pointer and my head, in order to access the menu for that application, which is still stuck on the first screen.
APPLE: put the menus back where they belong - with the application windows! (or at least make it an option) - that's solve the problem stopping focus-follows-mouse too.
Even Microsoft 'allows' you to have 'focus-follows-mouse'...
Sigh.
> (NOTE: Although almost 200,000 bugs have been
> reported, there are not - and have not been - that
> many bugs in Mozilla.)"
What? I am *positive* there are still bugs in mozilla. How the hell would they know how much bugs are left? There could easily be 200,000 bugs, since you can never say s/w (especially as complex as mozilla) is bug free - they will just keep on popping up. All they can say is that they haven't found that many - yet.
Max.
I wonder if you have MS Windows set up so that focus follows mouse instead of click to focus, will it copy that over?
:
i c. shtml>
(rhetorical, that is)
Vote for "Focus follows mouse" here
<http://www.koingosw.com/products/slideshow_mag
Not that the results make any difference...
Max.
You point out that the having the menu bar at the top of the screen is the reason for not having 'focus-follows-mouse', but fail to reach the obvious conclusion that, therefore, the menu should be moved back into the windows, where they belong.
Why, oh, why, didn't they make it work with X? Not being able to 'setenv DISPLAY' really sucks. And, yes, I've used OroborOSX, but it doesn't work for Aqua windows, and cut and paste doesn't work between them etc etc. Not the ideal solution (but better than nothing, I guess).
Yes, I hate that focus is only on the top window too - and it auto pops windows.
I mean even MS Windows can be made to work with focus-follows-mouse etc etc. Apple is way behind in this capability. I find it kind of rude that they seem to be forcing me to work the way they say is best.
Having a single menu at the top of the screen doesn't work very well for multiple monitors. I often am using an app on the second monitor and get pissed off having to move my mouse and head all the way to the other monitor in order to access the menu.
They just haven't really thought this through, have they? It's all geared up for the small single screened machines of the older Macs.
doesn't seem to work for me. I don't get any 'focus follows mouse' behaviour.
Have they not heard/seen/read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:Restaurant at the End of the Universe?
Tsk.
You don't like 'classic'? Well, I'm not sure I ever used it, but I sure don't like the GUI that comes with OS X (Aqua? I get confused by the names).
It only supposed point and click to get focus. Windows with focus have to be at the front of the window stack etc etc.
Sucks bug time.
Even Windows allows you to change this, but the stupid single menu at the top of the screen makes it difficult for OS X (though I expect there are ways around it).
Still, I prefer the look and feel of OS X to any MS Windows I've used, but I'd prefer if I could just move the mouse over a window to get focus (without clicking or moving windows to the front of the window stack) like on X-Windows.
My experience of Apple's support is also less than satisfactory.
On the other hand, I needed support on Microsoft Office/X and saw that you get two free calls to Microsoft for free with each product (or something like that). So I called Microsoft and I found the support I received to be excellent.
And, if you know me, you will know how hard it is for me to say anything positive about Microsoft...
(Don't know about Tivo) ReplayTV has the ability to act precisely like a VCR, with start/end/channel programmability. If you don't want to have any of the more advanced features, then, IINM, you can buy it w/o the service (I guess you still end up paying for the ethernet h/w, which you might still use or not).
I have the 4040 which had lifetime service included. I think the newer 4500 series is pretty much the same thing but with an optional (?) subscription service, and is (much) cheaper than my 4040 was.
You've fallen for another Apple trick. I assume you went here :
:
:
:
where it has a nice inviting button labelled
"iDVD 2.1"
Well, if you actually press that button, you get a page with the title
"Get iDVD 2 Updater"
and, sure enough, the minimum system requirements are detailed as
"
iDVD 2.0 or later.
Mac OS X, v10.1.3 or later.
Any Power Macintosh G4 or G4 iMac equipped with a built-in Apple SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW drive).
Minimum of 256MB of RAM installed with 384MB recommended."
Sigh.
And your point is?
No they don't allow you do download it for free. Only the *upgrade) is available.
Although, some have said that the upgrade is actually a full working copy, but that's (sort of) beside the point.
I don't know about your friends, but I tried and failed.
I understand that they might want to use a 'free' iDVD copy to sell their DVD-R/RW drives.
What I don't understand is why they don't sell it separately as well. Kind of like Roxio Toast - it's often included (not 'free', but 'included') with drives, but you can buy it separately too.
Max.
> And modifying and redistributing a binary is not a copyright violation?
They didn't modify a binary. All they distributed was a patch that would modify a binary. Even if applying the patch was illegal, I don't think selling the patch is.
I don't understand this point. It is the 'no way to track sales' part that doesn't ring true.
The way they have it, it doesn't matter if they pay the mpeg2 fee on iDVD or the Superdrive, since iDVD isn't supplied w/o the superdrive and has been fixed to not work with any other drive (so it doesn't matter if someone sells it on).
If they paid the fee on iDVD, then they could sell it separately and add the mpeg2 fee. Just as easy to track; and Apple would be making it available to more customers too, so could make more money from it[1][2]. People have every right to sell the copy of iDVD that came with their machines if they don't need it, but the fee would be associated with the original iDVD purchase (whether it was included in the OS, or bought separately) and so would be already paid.
I don't understand your argument, apart from "that's the way it is". If so, then (IMO) that is/was a dumb decision by Apple, but they could easily change it with the next release of iDVD.
Max.
[1] They would be losing the customers who upgrade to a new computer simply for the capability of burning DVDs. I doubt that this is a large number of customers.
[2] I assume this is the way it works with DVD Studio Pro and/or Final Cut Pro. IINM, iMovie doesn't have an mpeg2 encoder (it exports to iDVD in 'dv' format), so the fee doesn't apply, but iDVD could be sold under exactly the same terms as DVD Studio Pro; but would cost less due to substantially less capability.
I don't want the s/w for free; I want to pay for it.
...and Apple gain from this how, exactly?
I bought a Powerbook recently.
Apple don't supply external (firewire) DVD-R/RW, so I was forced to get one from a 3rd party (even though I'd rather go with apple).
Apple don't sell iDVD so I can't get it unless I purchase it from someone else (which would then not be supported by Apple, I would assume). But there's not point, because...
Apple have fixed iDVD to not work with external drives.
So, Apple got my initial money for the Powerbook, but they are *forcing* me to go elsewhere for a DVD burning solution.
I'll answer my own question. If I want to buy from Apple, the only options are a 3rd party drive, and DVD Studio Pro which runs at $999. It could be argued that I have more money than sense, so I went with that option.
I then discover that iMovie, which I was hoping to use to edit my movies, doesn't import files anything over (something like) 20GB and only imports 'dv' files which are very big. Almost all the files I wanted to import are bigger than that. I was informed that this is another 'fix' Apple had done - why I'm not sure. So, if I want to stick with Apple, the only option was to get Final Cut Pro which runs at another $999. Again, I've more money than sense, so I bought that too - which included a $300 mail in rebate since I bought it with DVD Studio Pro. Er thanks Apple.
I don't see how Apple can expect Powerbook owners who want to do basic DVD authoring to feel anything but screwed by Apple. That's certainly the way I feel.
Max.