A couple points, the length of sms format text messages being 160 is actually part of the standard. The longer messages you are able to send are sent as emails.
They're not - they're sent as multiple SMS messages. Any recent phone will join them together, but older phones get a series of messages with "1 of 3" at the top.
It was designed to be hotswappable. They didn't market it as such because it was temperamental. However, a freeware app called Mouse Jolt cleared up problems if you swapped anyway.
(I've swapped keyboards and mice between old Macs while running, and they worked for me. YMMV.)
However, you can say "some lego", as in "I'm getting some lego for Christmas". I think that'd translate as "I'm getting some lego-related products for Christmas" though, not as relating to the individual bricks.
Apple's old Project Builder did that I think. It let you choose when you started whether you wanted one window, few windows or many windows. I think few was project + single editor.
I chose many windows - I can't stand MDIs (and that includes tabbed browsing and other such things). I guess it's good to have the choice though...
I'm with you on that one. Although Nokia dealers can do it while you wait, which is better than sending it off.
Apparently it's to stop users easily getting round the blocking of phones from rival networks. Doesn't work 'cos there's plenty of back-alley phone dealers who'll do the unblocking for a small fee:)
Mac users pay for elegant boxes and a shiny theme, but not for consistency. Why else would Mac users choose a platform that, out of the box, comes with four different user interfaces (Classic, Carbon, Cocoa, and Metal)?
Firstly, it comes with two different styles of window - Aqua and Metal. Classic doesn't come with the OS by default any more, and carbon and cocoa have the same GUI unless there are bugs.
As I've said above though, we bitch about Apple's inconsistencies just as much as others.
Brushed Metal is appropriate IMO, but overused. It should just be the distinction between window == document (Aqua) and window == browser containing multiple documents (Metal). There are certain exceptions to that (Mellel?) and a lot of Mac users will avoid software that uses metal inappropriately where there is an alternative.
That's the key. Mac users aren't martyrs - we're not going to simply go without (say) a word processor because all of them have some interface problems. But I think Mac users are much more likely to go for the one with the least interface problems as opposed to the one with the highest feature count, unless it's a specific feature that they need.
Apple clearly doesn't want X11 applications on Macintosh
Bollocks! Why did they spend so much time developing an X11 window manager that runs alongside Aqua?
Apple might even sue over look-and-feel
Also bollocks! Not on their own platform. Many programs fudge the Aqua display instead of using native widgets (lo SPSS!). Apple don't care - they'd rather you do things properly, but in the end more apps is only beneficial to Apple.
On the other hand, a Cocoa based port of OOo is a lot of work and there doesn't seem to be much point to that either. That's why OOo will remain clunky and inconsistent on the Mac,
It's still possible, just not with the system slider. You can use AppleScript to change the volume. The command is:
set volume [0-7]
I've just checked, this doesn't play the sound. If you want to enter AppleScript in a shell file, the command to use is osascript. For example, in the terminal:
osascript -e "set volume 0"
You could save common volume levels as double-clickable shell scripts and put them in the scripts menu, thus using that for volume instead of the normal volume menu.
Well, I'm getting increasingly convinced that it is just not worth the effort for open source software to "break into the Mac market" because there are just too many whiners like you and too much politics. And that's what you are seeing with OOo and other software packages that are hard to port.
In my experience, most real-world users don't even notice the user interface differences between Firefox and other Macintosh applications. Apple has far more inconsistencies, for example, between Carbon and Cocoa or between their silver and glass apps.
It's not politics that's the problem. The thing I take issue with (along with many Mac users) is the idea that a whole app can be ported and the GUI not be rewritten. Mac users will often use which program feels best, rather than which is best for a political reason (eg Open Source == freedom) or for a price reason (eg Open Source == free).
The problem with OpenOffice is, even in its guise as NeoOffice, it feels clunky, un-Mac-like and inconsistent. Mac users will pay for consistency - the argument "It's ok, it may not be as finely tuned, but at least it's free!" does not work here. And loathe as I am to say it, Microsoft Office (for all its problems) feels more Mac-like than NeoOffice.
A transition layer would get the software running, but do no more than that. It wouldn't get it working well for Mac-users. That sort of thing would be good for obscure apps with no competition, but wherever there is competition then the winner will always be the one that respects the Macintosh user interface.
BTW, I am well aware of Apple's own inconsistencies. I bitch about those too. I don't use Safari, for example, because I find it a horrible use of Brushed Metal, and think that OmniWeb is superior despite costing money and not being from Apple. Apple get things wrong too, and when they do I am first in line to throw fruit.
You couldn't even tell what type of Document a Document was without opening it up in Productive.
That's because each file could contain multiple sheets, which could all be different types of document. So the file itself didn't have a type - the sheets in it did, but they didn't show up in your file browser 'cos they were inside the file.
It wouldn't feel indistinguishable from Cocoa. We've had this debate about Firefox many times. Firefox is the highest quality of app you could expect from that sort of approach - and many Mac users (me included) do not use it because it doesn't 'feel' mac-like.
Any emulating of the native widgets will bring in slight differences that users aren't always aware of consciously (unless they know the OS very well), but will annoy them with the inconsistency. For example, when I press a key I expect my mouse pointer to disappear - that's a system standard. But many apps that weren't written using Apple's frameworks don't do that.
Also, if you just have a translating layer (I'm envisioning something akin to the Aqua look for Java Swing), you'll end up with Aqua controls all clumped up because the positioning wasn't taken into account. Or you'll end up with the preferences option under the Edit menu, because other OSs don't have an app-name menu.
In general, Mac users are far more picky about these things. That's why breaking into the Mac market is hard if you don't put the effort into understanding the philosophy behind the interface. Anyone can do a port of a Windows or X11 app, switching the menus to appear Aqua and changing nothing else - but few Mac users will tolerate it. We require inter-app consistency much more than we do inter-platform consistency within one app. Even Adobe gets slated for some poor interface options in Photoshop that are too geared to the Windows crowd!
An app like Camino is an excellent example. Gecko for rendering (a cross platform library) but a Mac-specific interface. Adium uses gaim as a base library, and adds a Mac interface. These projects work. But when you attempt to port an existing interface, your work will NOT be well received!
I get horrible visual artifacts in the latest version of powerpoint... any time I hit return, the sides of the frame are messed up and stay there even when I move focus from that frame. This is with all updates applied.
Also, it has some strange hangups relating to paragraph spacing, and a bizarre hang if you apply a shadow to a text frame on a dark background. And I wish there was an easier shortcut for "Paste text with current style" - it sounds like a small feature but it drives me nuts putting together powerpoints for Church.
YMMV of course. But I've found a number of annoying bugs which make it all but unusable for me. I only use Powerpoint if I'm making docs for a Windows user and don't want to rely on Keynote's Powerpoint export.
There's a difference between adding a HTML rendering library, and integrating the full browser into Windows Explorer so that you HAVE to use it.
All those other OSs you mentioned use an open source rendering library, too - which I think counts in their favour compared to the incredibly proprietary IE:)
That's not quite fair. The word processing module is about as fully featured as most people need (until you get into the structured document league with things like LaTeX). The drawing module is also pretty good for the price - it can't hold a candle to illustrator of course, but for making simple vector diagrams to go inside a report it beats Word with one hand behind its back.
The best bit about AppleWorks was the true integration - have an actual spreadsheet inside a drawing document. A simple double-click switches your toolbox to the spreadsheet tools and you edit away. Ditto for an editable bitmap within your spreadsheet. Indeed, you can have a bitmap within a spreadsheet within a drawing document if you really want.
The bad things about AppleWorks are not related to features (except for a few niceties like live spellchecking which it lacks), or related to application design. They're pretty much 100% related to the poor quality port of the app, and a few bad UI decisions made since version 4. If they improved the OS X port of AppleWorks (with Quartz rendering, better support for OS X tech, and get the positioning right for Aqua elements), then it'd be fairly competitive again.
Of course, that's a lot of work - hence it'd probably be easier to write a brand new suite. But AppleWorks isn't fatally flawed, just neglected.
Slashdot Mirror
I just wish they'd do "You are position 31 of a queue of 62 people". That way you could decide how much the wait was worth to you!
A couple points, the length of sms format text messages being 160 is actually part of the standard. The longer messages you are able to send are sent as emails.
They're not - they're sent as multiple SMS messages. Any recent phone will join them together, but older phones get a series of messages with "1 of 3" at the top.
Amorya
KnoppMyth
Oh wait - you can't, unless you buy Quicktime Pro.
Here's to hoping Apple put fullscreen back in the free version at Macworld SF!
It was designed to be hotswappable. They didn't market it as such because it was temperamental. However, a freeware app called Mouse Jolt cleared up problems if you swapped anyway.
(I've swapped keyboards and mice between old Macs while running, and they worked for me. YMMV.)
However, you can say "some lego", as in "I'm getting some lego for Christmas". I think that'd translate as "I'm getting some lego-related products for Christmas" though, not as relating to the individual bricks.
Apparently that's why you can't get green lego bricks - they didn't want kids making army stuff.
Maybe an urban myth though.
Apple's old Project Builder did that I think. It let you choose when you started whether you wanted one window, few windows or many windows. I think few was project + single editor.
I chose many windows - I can't stand MDIs (and that includes tabbed browsing and other such things). I guess it's good to have the choice though...
I'm with you on that one. Although Nokia dealers can do it while you wait, which is better than sending it off.
:)
Apparently it's to stop users easily getting round the blocking of phones from rival networks. Doesn't work 'cos there's plenty of back-alley phone dealers who'll do the unblocking for a small fee
Mac users pay for elegant boxes and a shiny theme, but not for consistency. Why else would Mac users choose a platform that, out of the box, comes with four different user interfaces (Classic, Carbon, Cocoa, and Metal)?
Firstly, it comes with two different styles of window - Aqua and Metal. Classic doesn't come with the OS by default any more, and carbon and cocoa have the same GUI unless there are bugs.
As I've said above though, we bitch about Apple's inconsistencies just as much as others.
Brushed Metal is appropriate IMO, but overused. It should just be the distinction between window == document (Aqua) and window == browser containing multiple documents (Metal). There are certain exceptions to that (Mellel?) and a lot of Mac users will avoid software that uses metal inappropriately where there is an alternative.
That's the key. Mac users aren't martyrs - we're not going to simply go without (say) a word processor because all of them have some interface problems. But I think Mac users are much more likely to go for the one with the least interface problems as opposed to the one with the highest feature count, unless it's a specific feature that they need.
Apple clearly doesn't want X11 applications on Macintosh
Bollocks! Why did they spend so much time developing an X11 window manager that runs alongside Aqua?
Apple might even sue over look-and-feel
Also bollocks! Not on their own platform. Many programs fudge the Aqua display instead of using native widgets (lo SPSS!). Apple don't care - they'd rather you do things properly, but in the end more apps is only beneficial to Apple.
On the other hand, a Cocoa based port of OOo is a lot of work and there doesn't seem to be much point to that either. That's why OOo will remain clunky and inconsistent on the Mac,
True
and that is therefore Apple's fault
False.
Sorry, misunderstood.
It's still possible, just not with the system slider. You can use AppleScript to change the volume. The command is:
set volume [0-7]
I've just checked, this doesn't play the sound. If you want to enter AppleScript in a shell file, the command to use is osascript. For example, in the terminal:
osascript -e "set volume 0"
You could save common volume levels as double-clickable shell scripts and put them in the scripts menu, thus using that for volume instead of the normal volume menu.
Well, I'm getting increasingly convinced that it is just not worth the effort for open source software to "break into the Mac market" because there are just too many whiners like you and too much politics. And that's what you are seeing with OOo and other software packages that are hard to port.
In my experience, most real-world users don't even notice the user interface differences between Firefox and other Macintosh applications. Apple has far more inconsistencies, for example, between Carbon and Cocoa or between their silver and glass apps.
It's not politics that's the problem. The thing I take issue with (along with many Mac users) is the idea that a whole app can be ported and the GUI not be rewritten. Mac users will often use which program feels best, rather than which is best for a political reason (eg Open Source == freedom) or for a price reason (eg Open Source == free).
The problem with OpenOffice is, even in its guise as NeoOffice, it feels clunky, un-Mac-like and inconsistent. Mac users will pay for consistency - the argument "It's ok, it may not be as finely tuned, but at least it's free!" does not work here. And loathe as I am to say it, Microsoft Office (for all its problems) feels more Mac-like than NeoOffice.
A transition layer would get the software running, but do no more than that. It wouldn't get it working well for Mac-users. That sort of thing would be good for obscure apps with no competition, but wherever there is competition then the winner will always be the one that respects the Macintosh user interface.
BTW, I am well aware of Apple's own inconsistencies. I bitch about those too. I don't use Safari, for example, because I find it a horrible use of Brushed Metal, and think that OmniWeb is superior despite costing money and not being from Apple. Apple get things wrong too, and when they do I am first in line to throw fruit.
Amorya
System preferences -> Sound -> Sound effects -> Play feedback when volume keys are pressed
You couldn't even tell what type of Document a Document was without opening it up in Productive.
That's because each file could contain multiple sheets, which could all be different types of document. So the file itself didn't have a type - the sheets in it did, but they didn't show up in your file browser 'cos they were inside the file.
It wouldn't feel indistinguishable from Cocoa. We've had this debate about Firefox many times. Firefox is the highest quality of app you could expect from that sort of approach - and many Mac users (me included) do not use it because it doesn't 'feel' mac-like.
Any emulating of the native widgets will bring in slight differences that users aren't always aware of consciously (unless they know the OS very well), but will annoy them with the inconsistency. For example, when I press a key I expect my mouse pointer to disappear - that's a system standard. But many apps that weren't written using Apple's frameworks don't do that.
Also, if you just have a translating layer (I'm envisioning something akin to the Aqua look for Java Swing), you'll end up with Aqua controls all clumped up because the positioning wasn't taken into account. Or you'll end up with the preferences option under the Edit menu, because other OSs don't have an app-name menu.
In general, Mac users are far more picky about these things. That's why breaking into the Mac market is hard if you don't put the effort into understanding the philosophy behind the interface. Anyone can do a port of a Windows or X11 app, switching the menus to appear Aqua and changing nothing else - but few Mac users will tolerate it. We require inter-app consistency much more than we do inter-platform consistency within one app. Even Adobe gets slated for some poor interface options in Photoshop that are too geared to the Windows crowd!
An app like Camino is an excellent example. Gecko for rendering (a cross platform library) but a Mac-specific interface. Adium uses gaim as a base library, and adds a Mac interface. These projects work. But when you attempt to port an existing interface, your work will NOT be well received!
I get horrible visual artifacts in the latest version of powerpoint... any time I hit return, the sides of the frame are messed up and stay there even when I move focus from that frame. This is with all updates applied.
Also, it has some strange hangups relating to paragraph spacing, and a bizarre hang if you apply a shadow to a text frame on a dark background. And I wish there was an easier shortcut for "Paste text with current style" - it sounds like a small feature but it drives me nuts putting together powerpoints for Church.
YMMV of course. But I've found a number of annoying bugs which make it all but unusable for me. I only use Powerpoint if I'm making docs for a Windows user and don't want to rely on Keynote's Powerpoint export.
There's a difference between adding a HTML rendering library, and integrating the full browser into Windows Explorer so that you HAVE to use it. All those other OSs you mentioned use an open source rendering library, too - which I think counts in their favour compared to the incredibly proprietary IE :)
You can disable beeping when changing volume. It annoyed me in earlier versions of the OS, and I was really glad when they fixed it.
That's not quite fair. The word processing module is about as fully featured as most people need (until you get into the structured document league with things like LaTeX). The drawing module is also pretty good for the price - it can't hold a candle to illustrator of course, but for making simple vector diagrams to go inside a report it beats Word with one hand behind its back.
The best bit about AppleWorks was the true integration - have an actual spreadsheet inside a drawing document. A simple double-click switches your toolbox to the spreadsheet tools and you edit away. Ditto for an editable bitmap within your spreadsheet. Indeed, you can have a bitmap within a spreadsheet within a drawing document if you really want.
The bad things about AppleWorks are not related to features (except for a few niceties like live spellchecking which it lacks), or related to application design. They're pretty much 100% related to the poor quality port of the app, and a few bad UI decisions made since version 4. If they improved the OS X port of AppleWorks (with Quartz rendering, better support for OS X tech, and get the positioning right for Aqua elements), then it'd be fairly competitive again.
Of course, that's a lot of work - hence it'd probably be easier to write a brand new suite. But AppleWorks isn't fatally flawed, just neglected.
Amorya