I don't think you have to worry about the latter. How many legitimate penis-pill and "get rich quick" websites are there anyways?"
I don't know, but any that exist do have a right to exist. And there are plenty of legit companies that could be offering low mortgage rates or great deals on software which could easily be framed. All someone has to do fake a couple of emails and their website gets smashed.
To get hit, those companies would have to spam wouldn't they? And that is not legit AFAIK. The products may be fine and dandy, but it's the spam we're discussing here. Also, the scale of spam (which is the very problem) makes this self-regulating. If 10% do this reply action, a company sending a thousand ads won't be seriously affected - but someone shoving out millions of mails will. Convenient, no?
The one feature that Microsoft Windows used to have (I haven't checked recently) is the ability to maneuver around the system without a mouse. I'm not talking about a gazillion shortcut keys, but rather the ability to actually Get Work Done when you have no mouse at all hooked up to the system (or the mouse is buried under a pile of paper and you just need to quickly do some otherwise GUI-based task.
I'd be happy enough with the Amiga solution (Amiga-Arrow keys would move the mouse pointer, and Amiga-Return would send a mouse-click), so I guess there's an implementation that wouldn't be borrowing from Microsoft available.
Maybe I can make your day then: check in the "Accessibility" preferences (or whatever it is in english, you know the white guy in a blue ball) and there are "mouse keys" that do, pretty much, exactly the Amiga thing only with the numeric keyboard.
Oh, and don't miss the hilarious cursor enlargement feature:D
1. Control keys can be changed in the preferences... (snip)
Agreed, but a more obvious (to a new user) method or changing the default would make it easier for people to switch from Windows. (Which may not be the point but would make Apple happy).
Seems you are just talking about different settings. There is
A setting for customising any keyboard shortcut
A (fairly recently added) setting for exchaning command/option/ctrl/shift/caps lock in any way you like, including turning caps lock off!
You were probably talking about the older (1) while the (2) is the setting relevant to this overinflated issue. Just to clarify!
You seem to believe that someone here is proposing forcing users to use context menus as the only way to access functionality. Nobody is suggesting that. We're saying ALLOW users to access functionality via context menus, because it's a great way to work.
Actually, users may very well end up being forced to use context menus. A few badly-ported mac apps do this, because the programmer was so spaced-out on context menus that s/he didn't care to put equivalent commands in the real menus.
In contrast, look at how the mac actually works: everything is available in the Fitt's law-compliant top menus, and certain common options as well as power user features are in context menus too. The advantage? Since developers can't expect anyone to be looking in the context menus, they have to make all options available in dropdown menu.
Which they should have done in the first place, but as you might know developers are people too and occassionally take the easy way out...
That doesn't help on laptops. Sure I can use a mouse when I have plenty of space to myself, but sometimes there just isn't room or I need to be ready to pack up quickly. Also, the lack of a scroll wheel is particularly annoying.
Unfortunately two buttons doesn't help on laptops either, because a trackpad isn't handled the same way as a mouse where two fingers may be held steady on two buttons.
It isn't very practical with a touchscreen, nor with a stylus. Starting to get the picture?
Multi-button mice, or rather multi-button clicking, is not a very well-thought out UI concept. And tell me why, why does windows use double and triple-click too? I mean, those are substitutes for the rare occassions when you really need multiple click modes.
When you are sitting in front of your laptop, instead of cursing the button deficiency you should pray that your problem is solved by more developers following apple's example and cut the ties to a particular two-button input device. Seems even MS are trying; PocketPCs have a "click-and-hold" which, incidentally works exactly as in the OS X dock. Why? Because requiring several click buttons is impractical.
Seriously, I don't think two buttons is that much of a problem. I usually tell the people I'm teaching, "Always click the left button unless I say otherwise," and they get the message.
Maybe a mouse can be more than not a problem? Maybe it can allow you freedom in the way you hold it? Maybe a clever design can induce the right expectations and behavior for programs?
I think Ctrl+Clicking everywhere in OS X is a sign that there really is a need for the second button. The context menus dramatically cut down on mouse travel. Having a wheel is great too - you don't really understand how helpful it is until you work on a computer that doesn't have one after you're used to it.
AFAIK the single group "control-clicking everywhere" are switchers who won't embrace the mac way of using menus or don't want to pony up a few bucks for the small keyboard on a LED windows users like to call a mouse. It's main virtue is that it corrects the flawed menu layout in windows, where the menus are spread out all over the place. The problem: you don't know what's inside the right-clk menu until it comes up, so you tend to click, well, everywhere.
Now, if Macs did the underlined access keys, I'd be absolutely thrilled. I navigate most menus by keyboard instead of mouse, and full keyboard access in Mac's Accessibility preferences just isn't the same.
Maybe it's the mac in general that isn't the same as...windows?
On thefacebook.com, "visualize my friends" creates an svg file that shows all the connections between your friends, and Safari displays it just fine.
If you have the Adobe SVG plugin it does. But not by itself. Try ctrl-clicking on the SVG graphic and select "About SVG viewer", voilá!
Apple adding native support would mean that there would be a userbase with SVG support by default, as with good PNG transparency support and CSS text shadows where Apple has paved the way.
Seems like these days you just can't ask people to download appropriate plugins anymore. Oh how I miss the roarin' nineties...
2. Commodore could not market it's way out of a wet paper sack. If Commodore bought KFC they would have changed the name to "Warn dead birds in a paper bucket".
So you're saying that not even sincere product information such as this infomercial did make a difference?
3) Finally, as I've stated more times that I can to recall, the point isn't even the iPod, it's the seamless integration. Even today, any review of a PC/WMA device has an obligatory starting section about how hard the software was to install, sync, and keep working, as well as firmware updates, and "we're sure this will be fixed soon". You just don't see that with the iPod.
I also say that whenever this subject comes up (all the time, that is)
The way I see it there are a number of "decoys" that will keep the iPod's competition focused on the wrong things for who knows how long:
Features. A music player really only needs a few "features" - the right ones. These include playing, changing tracks easily and in an efficient (read not annoying) way. Changing volume should be even easier. Anything else will make a few (loud) people very happy, but otherwise only serves as a kind of techno-poetry in marketing pamphlets.
Coolness, ie. marketing. Surely Apple do care and spend the occasional $$ on marketing, and some people evidently have a sweet eye to whatever product they churn out. But I insist along with lots of other posts here that the coolness is secondary, it may come from the iPod being good and/or overpriced. And in case of the latter, how come everybody tries to compete on price, tell me?
Design. Of course Apple's advantage is not technological, then it must be design! Only that to come to such a conclusion you have to misunderstand both design and technology. Technology isn't just cramming standard components together in a box, and as stated just about everywhere, design is more than putting sparkle glue on that box.
A well-informed attempt to knock over the iPod should make sure to nail the hardware/software integration. Organising songs over again on your player, picking out songs for variety and charging are all routine tasks that aren't fun and shouldn't have to be considered. Choosing songs in lots of ways (by Album, Genre, Playlist, Composer etc.) is fun and so is rating them! And this interaction could probably be taken further than what the iPod currently offers. But I like Apple's effort so let's hope none of the contributors to the FA reads this;-)
Their 'product' isn't just OS X, it's the complete hardware/software package.
A lot of Wintel users, and even particularily Linux geeks don't get that. In fact I believe that grandma or the "man off the street" has an easier time grasping this concept. Not because of ignorance, but rather what would be called a "freedom of choice RDF" in another part of the universe.
Many actual mac users don't get it either (but they all appreciate the HW/SW integration and stability that comes with it) IMO OS X without macs is like asking for compressed gas without that expensive, unnecessary can that comes with it.
Ehm..uh..on my company we rely on Dark Castle for our everyday, down and dirty business. We just can't afford Apple making another switch leaving industry proffessionals out in the cold like this.
No siree-bob. Windows just delivers more bang-per-buck when it comes to cornerstone legacy apps like Reversi.
The enviro that will stop working with Rosetta is Classic. Carbon != Classic and will continue run as long as it meets the other requirements for Rosetta.
I am quite confident that nobody* has been developing for Classic since 'round 2001. That doesn't mean that certain-people-that-won't-be-seen-dead-changing-th eir-software-in-any-way-ever (frequent in the publishing industry) still run Classic apps. Moreover, even if there actually were Classic/OS 9 apps developed right now these users still would not use them for the same reason.
* I do know of a few audio apps. But they've been simultaneously released for OS X so it's beside the point here.
Maybe not so bad by BSD standards, but we need something that someone unfamiliar with the command line can use. Given we don't even have a gui frontend for Fink yet as far as I'm aware the chances someone will do so for Cedega in any reasonable amount of time doesn't seem great.
I'm not sure it makes much of a difference, but there is a GUI frontend for Fink called FinkCommander. It's all right.
We seem to share the views on most of this fishy issue, and I do agree that "just a" is an unsuitable prefix for "recompile".
But is it certain that Apple is phasing out the PPC and just not hedging their bets?. I know what Steve-Jay said, but are there any facts indicating that they're really gonna drop the PPC? Does New XCode, currently the only Mac/x86 compiler on the planet even support compiling x86-only binaries? Apple tends to force their customers into doing "what's best", can't they do that to developers too?
Laptops are the fastest growing, most important segment to the company, and the iBook and PowerBook lines are both hurting for serious updates. The continued failure of these updates to appear suggests that their are serious issues preventing their appearance
I agree that laptops are important to Apple. If they are a major reason for a switch, tell me then, why does the CNet article not mention them?
Similarily, if processor speeds are determining, why switch the high-ends last? This sounds more like the conclusion by a-few-cores-short-of-a-cpu analyst than based in a scoop.
There's also a distinct smell of spin over this story, considering that
A lot is missing, who would know the timeframe and order of mac families to switch, but not which "Intel microprocessor" to use - there are a few of quite differing design, you know!
I constantly hear Mac zealots all excited about their new shiny G5 in some overly pretentious colour like magenta or something and how well it interfaces with their iPod. Most PC people I know are more interested in buying a $600 video card for their 5 year old PC.
How many people would drop Windows for OS X on their Intel/AMD hardware? I know that I would gladly fork out the $400 for OSX to run it on my laptop.
$400 is quite the lot of money meaning you're exceptionally keen on OS X on x86 HW, or put otherwise, quite adversed towards Apple hardware. Am I right?
The general consensus is that were Apple to adopt x86 architecture for OS X their hardware is doomed to extinction (because of low-end competition) and thus they will become a software + minor hardware (mice, iPods etc.) company like Microsoft whom they will also be competing head-on with.
Of course I can see a point in this, though I also see a point in Apple's well-supported, consistent hardware for less tech-centered users such as myself. But I really do not think Apple is ready to get into this game for a while yet. As mentioned before, if Apple manages to do the transition as smooth as ever there will still be a transition - which cost them a lot of their user base last time. And the market for non-zero priced OS alternatives for Wintel is tough at best, even the free 'nixes don't do that well against M$.
Apple do have some appreciation for their products but I think the boxes and current business model (subsidise software with hardware sales) are a little underestimated really.
Actually, what would be really suprising to me is if Apple moves to Intel chips rather than AMD after the recent blatant Apple-oriented attack by Intel with the Pandora PC (Mac Mini look-alike). It's the popularity of the x86 architecture that's attractive rather than Intel itself.
So, Intel and Apple (though not x86) is mentioned in some rumor articles and you will now be surprised unless Apple switch to AMD x86 processors?.
My advice? Next time be wary of the difference between caffeine and cocaine.
No, they haven't said nuthin' 'bout x86. It is automatically read into any mention of Apple and Intel thanks to the decade-old wet dream of a fully piratable Mac OS running on cheap Intel hardware.
Migrating to x86 does not seem too good a move for Apple, however letting Intel in on the PPC game might certainly be. If Apple actually are going to switch to the legacy-ridden x86 architecture there has to be one or two more technological surprises in store...
Slightly less unlikely is itanium: there will be about as much work for Apple regardless a switch to x86-64 or anything else. If so, why give cloners the upper hand? For Apple there's no value in being binary compatible with old DOS junk.
Of course, yet another possibility is that CNet got it all wrong (they didn't get it all right, that's for sure) and this is not about macs but some new appliance!
I commonly use both PCs and Macs and I want a broswer that I can use on both. As other operating systems gain users this will become more of an issue.
Unfortunately, M$ has a "solution" for you. Check out IE or WMP for the Mac. They could both be bundled as "Microsoft Alibi for Macintosh".
They truly suck as mac apps, they don't even adhere 100% to MS' own standards and their only purpose is for Microsoft to be able to claim "Yes, we're multi-platform. Both IE and Windows Media are available for the mac". I got served with this recently when buying a digital camera - I'm supposed to watch video clips in WiMP only, and the best quality codec is "not supported on the mac". Yet it says on the box that it's suitable for the mac...
Similar non-products for GNULinux aren't hard to envision.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, and don't miss the hilarious cursor enlargement feature
I figured the amiga version was a first, just playing... And you are right about the 68ks, they were far crunchier than one'd expect.
- A setting for customising any keyboard shortcut
- A (fairly recently added) setting for exchaning command/option/ctrl/shift/caps lock in any way you like, including turning caps lock off!
You were probably talking about the older (1) while the (2) is the setting relevant to this overinflated issue. Just to clarify!Actually, users may very well end up being forced to use context menus. A few badly-ported mac apps do this, because the programmer was so spaced-out on context menus that s/he didn't care to put equivalent commands in the real menus.
In contrast, look at how the mac actually works: everything is available in the Fitt's law-compliant top menus, and certain common options as well as power user features are in context menus too. The advantage? Since developers can't expect anyone to be looking in the context menus, they have to make all options available in dropdown menu.
Which they should have done in the first place, but as you might know developers are people too and occassionally take the easy way out...
Unfortunately two buttons doesn't help on laptops either, because a trackpad isn't handled the same way as a mouse where two fingers may be held steady on two buttons.
It isn't very practical with a touchscreen, nor with a stylus. Starting to get the picture?
Multi-button mice, or rather multi-button clicking, is not a very well-thought out UI concept. And tell me why, why does windows use double and triple-click too? I mean, those are substitutes for the rare occassions when you really need multiple click modes.
When you are sitting in front of your laptop, instead of cursing the button deficiency you should pray that your problem is solved by more developers following apple's example and cut the ties to a particular two-button input device. Seems even MS are trying; PocketPCs have a "click-and-hold" which, incidentally works exactly as in the OS X dock. Why? Because requiring several click buttons is impractical.
Now sue 'em!
If you have the Adobe SVG plugin it does. But not by itself. Try ctrl-clicking on the SVG graphic and select "About SVG viewer", voilá!
Apple adding native support would mean that there would be a userbase with SVG support by default, as with good PNG transparency support and CSS text shadows where Apple has paved the way.
Seems like these days you just can't ask people to download appropriate plugins anymore. Oh how I miss the roarin' nineties...
I also say that whenever this subject comes up (all the time, that is)
The way I see it there are a number of "decoys" that will keep the iPod's competition focused on the wrong things for who knows how long:
A well-informed attempt to knock over the iPod should make sure to nail the hardware/software integration. Organising songs over again on your player, picking out songs for variety and charging are all routine tasks that aren't fun and shouldn't have to be considered. Choosing songs in lots of ways (by Album, Genre, Playlist, Composer etc.) is fun and so is rating them! And this interaction could probably be taken further than what the iPod currently offers. But I like Apple's effort so let's hope none of the contributors to the FA reads this ;-)
A lot of Wintel users, and even particularily Linux geeks don't get that. In fact I believe that grandma or the "man off the street" has an easier time grasping this concept. Not because of ignorance, but rather what would be called a "freedom of choice RDF" in another part of the universe.
Many actual mac users don't get it either (but they all appreciate the HW/SW integration and stability that comes with it) IMO OS X without macs is like asking for compressed gas without that expensive, unnecessary can that comes with it.
Ehm..uh..on my company we rely on Dark Castle for our everyday, down and dirty business. We just can't afford Apple making another switch leaving industry proffessionals out in the cold like this.
No siree-bob. Windows just delivers more bang-per-buck when it comes to cornerstone legacy apps like Reversi.
The enviro that will stop working with Rosetta is Classic. Carbon != Classic and will continue run as long as it meets the other requirements for Rosetta.
I am quite confident that nobody* has been developing for Classic since 'round 2001. That doesn't mean that certain-people-that-won't-be-seen-dead-changing-th eir-software-in-any-way-ever (frequent in the publishing industry) still run Classic apps. Moreover, even if there actually were Classic/OS 9 apps developed right now these users still would not use them for the same reason.
* I do know of a few audio apps. But they've been simultaneously released for OS X so it's beside the point here.
Hey, this was supposed to be funny but it's actually real Insightful. Wait. Now it's funny again.
I'm not sure it makes much of a difference, but there is a GUI frontend for Fink called FinkCommander. It's all right.
Well what'd'ya know! I still think it's more trying to choke IBM than the awesome power of x86. Now where's Steve's expensive new suit, the lawsuit!?
We seem to share the views on most of this fishy issue, and I do agree that "just a" is an unsuitable prefix for "recompile".
But is it certain that Apple is phasing out the PPC and just not hedging their bets?. I know what Steve-Jay said, but are there any facts indicating that they're really gonna drop the PPC? Does New XCode, currently the only Mac/x86 compiler on the planet even support compiling x86-only binaries? Apple tends to force their customers into doing "what's best", can't they do that to developers too?
I agree that laptops are important to Apple. If they are a major reason for a switch, tell me then, why does the CNet article not mention them?
Similarily, if processor speeds are determining, why switch the high-ends last? This sounds more like the conclusion by a-few-cores-short-of-a-cpu analyst than based in a scoop.
There's also a distinct smell of spin over this story, considering that
$400 is quite the lot of money meaning you're exceptionally keen on OS X on x86 HW, or put otherwise, quite adversed towards Apple hardware. Am I right?
The general consensus is that were Apple to adopt x86 architecture for OS X their hardware is doomed to extinction (because of low-end competition) and thus they will become a software + minor hardware (mice, iPods etc.) company like Microsoft whom they will also be competing head-on with.
Of course I can see a point in this, though I also see a point in Apple's well-supported, consistent hardware for less tech-centered users such as myself. But I really do not think Apple is ready to get into this game for a while yet. As mentioned before, if Apple manages to do the transition as smooth as ever there will still be a transition - which cost them a lot of their user base last time. And the market for non-zero priced OS alternatives for Wintel is tough at best, even the free 'nixes don't do that well against M$.
Apple do have some appreciation for their products but I think the boxes and current business model (subsidise software with hardware sales) are a little underestimated really.
So, Intel and Apple (though not x86) is mentioned in some rumor articles and you will now be surprised unless Apple switch to AMD x86 processors?.
My advice? Next time be wary of the difference between caffeine and cocaine.
No, they haven't said nuthin' 'bout x86. It is automatically read into any mention of Apple and Intel thanks to the decade-old wet dream of a fully piratable Mac OS running on cheap Intel hardware.
Migrating to x86 does not seem too good a move for Apple, however letting Intel in on the PPC game might certainly be. If Apple actually are going to switch to the legacy-ridden x86 architecture there has to be one or two more technological surprises in store...
Slightly less unlikely is itanium: there will be about as much work for Apple regardless a switch to x86-64 or anything else. If so, why give cloners the upper hand? For Apple there's no value in being binary compatible with old DOS junk.
Of course, yet another possibility is that CNet got it all wrong (they didn't get it all right, that's for sure) and this is not about macs but some new appliance!
Unfortunately, M$ has a "solution" for you. Check out IE or WMP for the Mac. They could both be bundled as "Microsoft Alibi for Macintosh".
They truly suck as mac apps, they don't even adhere 100% to MS' own standards and their only purpose is for Microsoft to be able to claim "Yes, we're multi-platform. Both IE and Windows Media are available for the mac". I got served with this recently when buying a digital camera - I'm supposed to watch video clips in WiMP only, and the best quality codec is "not supported on the mac". Yet it says on the box that it's suitable for the mac...
Similar non-products for GNULinux aren't hard to envision.