Everything Google has done so far has been pure gold, so it's hard not to believe they've their acquired their taste from having at least a passing familiarity with the best designed OS GUI around.
These cult of Mac books - whether it be 'Insanely Great' or 'The Second Coming of Steve Jobs' or 'The Mac Bathroom Reader' etc - are now a dime a dozen.
I'd like to see a book on the practise of MAC bashing. I see a lot more of that in the IT press than fan worship.
Museums and galleries have already been using regular iPods as tour guides, example, so with a color screen to display the artwork at the same time, this seems a natural fit.
Untrue. They may have wanted to do it, but it turns out the IDE mode used for the iPod drive is not suitable for the CF mode used in digital cameras (or vice versa). These microdrives were probably manufacturered specifically for the iPod, unlike the microdrives used in less popular MP3 hard drive based players which were more generic.
However, the Creative MuVo did have a suitable drive, and THAT is the one that photographers bought to cannibalize, as it was cheaper than buying a microdrive by itself, so you may be thinking of that one.
done in Apple Garamond (Apple's serif font which they use for branding)?
You're out of date: Apple haven't used Garamond for quite a while, probably since Microsoft started using it for product packaging.
I *think* Apple's current font is Lucida Grande, a sans-serif font that has a modern, 21st century feel. (Guess what Microsoft will be using in 5 years!)
what Lucas is doing to erase it is as insidious as any 'terrorism'.... If Phantom Menace hadn't sucked, there is a good chance we could have avoided being in Iraq today.
Someone takes his sci-fi *way* to seriously.
But at +5 Insightful, it seems you're not alone. The people here scare me sometimes.
Automator won't do much more that AppleScript couldn't already do (which is quite a lot, since you can AppleScript the Terminal and give it shell commands), it will just give scripting a point & click interface.
As a poster above said, a script by itself, whether it be Bash, AppleScript or Automator, is not really much of an exploit, it's the manner of getting on to the system that is.
Spinal Tap references aside, actually you can: the iPod's volume amp is a little higher most consumer electronic devices. Rumor has it that because Steve Jobs is slightly hard of hearing, he insisted on the extra volume.
It got them in trouble in France as French/EU regulations prohibited audio devices playing above a certain dB.
Linus developed/works on the kernel, which given that it's arguably superior to the NT/XP kernel, is every bit ready for widespread adoption on desktop systems.
What is lacking for Linux is a consistent GUI layer, so expected of a desktop OS these days. (For most desktop users, the GUI *is* the OS.)
That's mainly because it takes a lot of coordinated resources to bring something so all encompassing to fruition, with fundamental design decisions that must permeate the OS, and there is no one company that can impose those decisions on its OS and have everyone instantly adopt them, unlike Microsoft or Apple or Be could/can.
That is a weakness of the open source approach to building an OS, but ultimately it will get there.
If you were using Mac OS X, you could do this anyway, courtesy of Aqua's every-pixel-is-double-buffered-and-alpha-channeled thing.
If programming in a Unix shell, go to Terminal > Window Settings > Color, and slide the Transparency slider to reveal the DVD Player behind...
If in another app, install WindowShade and you can make any app's window semi-transparent, eg, surf the web with Firefox while watching DVDs behind the window.
I actually do this from time to time, working and being entertained in the same visual space. (I don't think it's good for productivity though!)
He was saying it is an unrealistic expectation to sell that many units of software alone, but that Apple could probably make up the revenue by still selling hardware and other value added stuff.
Strange but true, one of the early codenames for the Macintosh project was intended to be "Bicycle." I believe it was Steve Jobs who wanted it called that.
As Bill "I didn't ever say 640K oughta be enough for anyone, what you see on your BIOS setup is purely your imagination" Gates recently said, in several years time there will only be two OSes - Windows and Linux.
So, all us Mac users^B^B^B^B^B fanboys will then need another OS to run our beautiful style-over-substance-hardware with, once Mac OS X suddenly disappears from existence.
Maybe MS's chairman is not so money conscious after all if he wants to see Mac OS X die. Consider this: Microsoft writes, sells and generates a tidy sum of money from their software on a Mac, immeasurably more than the money they make from Linux, for which they write and sell no software.
In fact, some estimates put it that when an iMac is purchased along with the Mac version of Office, Microsoft actually makes more on the sale than Apple. The reason? Even though the iMac is $1000 and Office is $300, the margins on hardware manufacture are about 20% but for software they are 80-90%. (That's also why Microsoft is worth more than any hardware maker in the industry.)
In essence, Bill G is saying he doesn't care if this Mac revenue dries up. But that's a rather expensive way of putting an end to those thorn-in-the-side zealots who are always saying Mac OS X is better than Windows. Why should he care about those under this "delusion" if MS still makes $$$ when a "competitive" product is sold? Even if by some miracle Mac OS X got to 10% of the market, that's 4x more healthy Mac revenue for Microsoft.
Financially, it would be in Microsoft's interest to eat humble crow and ensure Mac OS X does survive - after all, they make more money out of it than a PC running a ripped off copy of Windows + Office, even if the latter does swell the marketshare numbers.
Everything you say is true. However, you seem to imply it's not the case that OSS is thriving on Mac OS X too?
And if Linux does become mainstream, do you really think Adobe and Macromedia will release Photoshop and Flash as open source projects?
Possibly you've got the impression Mac OS X is only closed source because, unlike Linux currently, OS X has a vast array of commercial software available for it.
But it also has all the open source free software available to it as well...
PS "If all you want is pretty pictures" is derogatory. An appealing UI is important.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe he uses a Mac?
Everything Google has done so far has been pure gold, so it's hard not to believe they've their acquired their taste from having at least a passing familiarity with the best designed OS GUI around.
These cult of Mac books - whether it be 'Insanely Great' or 'The Second Coming of Steve Jobs' or 'The Mac Bathroom Reader' etc - are now a dime a dozen.
I'd like to see a book on the practise of MAC bashing. I see a lot more of that in the IT press than fan worship.
I for one will welcome the fact that the built-in Solitaire
No, no, no! The rules are that any phrase on Slashdot that begins with "I for one" has to end with "overlords."
So your post must become:
"I for one welcome our new thumb-driven color Solitaire overlords."
Museums and galleries have already been using regular iPods as tour guides, example, so with a color screen to display the artwork at the same time, this seems a natural fit.
Untrue. They may have wanted to do it, but it turns out the IDE mode used for the iPod drive is not suitable for the CF mode used in digital cameras (or vice versa). These microdrives were probably manufacturered specifically for the iPod, unlike the microdrives used in less popular MP3 hard drive based players which were more generic.
However, the Creative MuVo did have a suitable drive, and THAT is the one that photographers bought to cannibalize, as it was cheaper than buying a microdrive by itself, so you may be thinking of that one.
Good parody! That's pretty much how the anti-Apple brigade expresses itself.
done in Apple Garamond (Apple's serif font which they use for branding)?
You're out of date: Apple haven't used Garamond for quite a while, probably since Microsoft started using it for product packaging.
I *think* Apple's current font is Lucida Grande, a sans-serif font that has a modern, 21st century feel. (Guess what Microsoft will be using in 5 years!)
what Lucas is doing to erase it is as insidious as any 'terrorism'. ...
If Phantom Menace hadn't sucked, there is a good chance we could have avoided being in Iraq today.
Someone takes his sci-fi *way* to seriously.
But at +5 Insightful, it seems you're not alone. The people here scare me sometimes.
Automator won't do much more that AppleScript couldn't already do (which is quite a lot, since you can AppleScript the Terminal and give it shell commands), it will just give scripting a point & click interface.
As a poster above said, a script by itself, whether it be Bash, AppleScript or Automator, is not really much of an exploit, it's the manner of getting on to the system that is.
Correction, the center top of the screen showed:
Self-respecting Apple users like to get these things right!
Not when I enforce my patents on the time machine they'll have to use they won't!
Spinal Tap references aside, actually you can: the iPod's volume amp is a little higher most consumer electronic devices. Rumor has it that because Steve Jobs is slightly hard of hearing, he insisted on the extra volume.
It got them in trouble in France as French/EU regulations prohibited audio devices playing above a certain dB.
LCD Display = Liquid Crystal Display Display
I guess if they installed LCD displays on ATM machines for entering your PIN number, it would drive you nuts!
Linus developed/works on the kernel, which given that it's arguably superior to the NT/XP kernel, is every bit ready for widespread adoption on desktop systems.
What is lacking for Linux is a consistent GUI layer, so expected of a desktop OS these days. (For most desktop users, the GUI *is* the OS.)
That's mainly because it takes a lot of coordinated resources to bring something so all encompassing to fruition, with fundamental design decisions that must permeate the OS, and there is no one company that can impose those decisions on its OS and have everyone instantly adopt them, unlike Microsoft or Apple or Be could/can.
That is a weakness of the open source approach to building an OS, but ultimately it will get there.
Me too. There's a touch of Douglas Adams about it... "The spaceship fleet hung in the air in precisely the way a ton of bricks doesn't."
I guess if they installed LCD displays on ATM machines for entering your PIN number, it would drive you nuts!
If you were using Mac OS X, you could do this anyway, courtesy of Aqua's every-pixel-is-double-buffered-and-alpha-channeled thing.
If programming in a Unix shell, go to Terminal > Window Settings > Color, and slide the Transparency slider to reveal the DVD Player behind...
If in another app, install WindowShade and you can make any app's window semi-transparent, eg, surf the web with Firefox while watching DVDs behind the window.
I actually do this from time to time, working and being entertained in the same visual space. (I don't think it's good for productivity though!)
Is a Real Time OS any relation to a Real Soon Now OS?
Or is the latter an exclusively Microsoft concept?
There are two virtual desktops for Mac OS X:
1. VirtualDesktop
2. Desktop Manager
Also, Panther's worth updating to, not just for Exposé, it has many under the hood enhancements.
Er, I don't think he was disagreeing with you.
He was saying it is an unrealistic expectation to sell that many units of software alone, but that Apple could probably make up the revenue by still selling hardware and other value added stuff.
But it's not going to happen.
Just wait for Steve Jobs to get his hands on it - slap on a coat of bright white paint and market it as an iBike...
Then 5 years later, Michael Dell will slap a black coat of paint on it and sell it as the Dell Despairon Bike 4800.
It will run Microsoft Bike OS 2009, which will stop every 5 miles until you to get off and clear the super large mutated viruses off the spokes.
Strange but true, one of the early codenames for the Macintosh project was intended to be "Bicycle." I believe it was Steve Jobs who wanted it called that.
Reference: Bicycle vs. Macintosh(The Unofficial Apple Weblog)
Why? Clearly they're looking ahead.
As Bill "I didn't ever say 640K oughta be enough for anyone, what you see on your BIOS setup is purely your imagination" Gates recently said, in several years time there will only be two OSes - Windows and Linux.
So, all us Mac users^B^B^B^B^B fanboys will then need another OS to run our beautiful style-over-substance-hardware with, once Mac OS X suddenly disappears from existence.
Maybe MS's chairman is not so money conscious after all if he wants to see Mac OS X die. Consider this: Microsoft writes, sells and generates a tidy sum of money from their software on a Mac, immeasurably more than the money they make from Linux, for which they write and sell no software.
In fact, some estimates put it that when an iMac is purchased along with the Mac version of Office, Microsoft actually makes more on the sale than Apple. The reason? Even though the iMac is $1000 and Office is $300, the margins on hardware manufacture are about 20% but for software they are 80-90%. (That's also why Microsoft is worth more than any hardware maker in the industry.)
In essence, Bill G is saying he doesn't care if this Mac revenue dries up. But that's a rather expensive way of putting an end to those thorn-in-the-side zealots who are always saying Mac OS X is better than Windows. Why should he care about those under this "delusion" if MS still makes $$$ when a "competitive" product is sold? Even if by some miracle Mac OS X got to 10% of the market, that's 4x more healthy Mac revenue for Microsoft.
Financially, it would be in Microsoft's interest to eat humble crow and ensure Mac OS X does survive - after all, they make more money out of it than a PC running a ripped off copy of Windows + Office, even if the latter does swell the marketshare numbers.
Everything you say is true. However, you seem to imply it's not the case that OSS is thriving on Mac OS X too?
And if Linux does become mainstream, do you really think Adobe and Macromedia will release Photoshop and Flash as open source projects?
Possibly you've got the impression Mac OS X is only closed source because, unlike Linux currently, OS X has a vast array of commercial software available for it.
But it also has all the open source free software available to it as well...
PS "If all you want is pretty pictures" is derogatory. An appealing UI is important.