It's not the size that matters... it's the pixels. Currently my work display is WMCX (1920x1440), but occasionally I use a WQXGA monitor (2560x1600). But even that doesn't matter because screen real estate follows the garage paradigm - shit expands to fill the available space. The more pixels I have the more data I want (need) to display. I don't want any of it wasted on something that seems to me a redundancy. I often need to view a window that is not the active window - but I never need to see a menu bar in a window that is not the active window...
It routinely crashes with MS Outlook and Internet Explorer. Also, it often gets a bluescreenofdeath just waking from sleep. Nothing out of the ordinary. Of course, the problems might be with blackice, virus detection, remote maintenance software, or some of the other "security" software my IT department installs.
Mine crashes at least once a week. It's maintained by IT experts, not by me. The problems are probably due to some of the security software they require, but nevertheless I was only relating my experience - not the general worldwide view.
In general, users don't like change. If the UI were changing dramatically every rev then you'd be complaining that the re-learning curve is too steep...
There were significant changes from 7 to 8 to 9. None of them were like the change from 9 to X, but not too dissimilar as 10.0 to 10.1 to 10.2, etc.. If you look at the reaction to the user community when Apple went from 9 to X, there was a lot of resistance and a lot of unhappy campers.
Early adopters are the minority. Most people resist change. Windows Vista is actually an exceptional case. A lot more people were eager to escape the problems of XP and they made a leap of faith that Vista "had" to be better. That was good for Vista because it helped to wring out a lot of bugs. The lack of early adopters probably had a lot to do with the failure of ME.
Not if it's configured right and you don't run crappy software. My wife's Mac running MacOS 9 is 10 times more stable than my PC running XP with the latest SP. Not bad for an OS that hasn't been touched in 7 years.
I know what you're going to say... "of course XP is unstable, switch to Vista"... Only problem is, my company won't run Vista because it's actually more unstable than XP for some of the applications we run and incompatible with some of our custom hardware.
See, the one menu bar is one of the things I like most about the MacOS. I hate to waste screen real estate with dozens of menu bars that I'm not using. And in Windows I'm always making the mistake of clicking on the menu before my brain catches up and I realize I just clicked on a menu from the window behind the one I'm working in. Knowing exactly where your menus are at all times... priceless!
I don't know what you're talking about. MacOS 9 context switches the menus just the same as OSX...
By today's standards, MacOS 9 may seem quaint and unintuitive. To a certain degree, MacOS 9 was limited by OS 8 which was limited by OS 7 in 1991. If you want to criticize the older Mac OSes, you need to compare it to something else from the 1991 timeframe. Back in those days we're talking about Windows 3.0 (surely you're not scoring that higher in UI grace), AmigaOS (not bad, but pretty similar UI to MacOS on purpose, though clearly the AmigaOS had superior preemptive multitasking), VMS, SunOS, OS/2... we're getting farther down the food chain here. But maybe I'm missing something - what do you think was a superior OS/UI experience to MacOS at the time?
I don't see the original post mentioning OS9, but I'm pretty sure he/she was referring to OS9, the real-time multitasking OS written originally for the Motorola 6809 (Not MacOS 9). OS9 is still alive and well.
My wife still runs MacOS 9 on an old G3 Gossamer. It does everything she wants and needs. Why upgrade? There are lots of people still using MacOS 9.
I'm pretty sure the original poster for OS9 was not talking about MacOS 9. There's an old OS called OS9 that had nothing to do with Macs. It was one of the rirst real-time multitasking OSes. It's still going strong with hobbists because it's tiny, efficient, and powerful. It was originally developed for the Motorola 6809, which is where it gets it's name.
People with 64-bit SPARC or PowerPC machines generally run very little 64-bit software...
I'm not an IT professional, so I don't know the technical details. However, we have a lot of SPARCs running 64-bit and only a few running 32-bit. The 32-bit machines are only there to support a handful of applications that can't run in 64-bit mode. However, the applications that run on both run much, much faster on the 64-bit machines... and just to be clear, we're talking about the same physical hardware, just a different OS. Therefore I challenge your claim about the limited use of 64-bit software and your claim that addressability is the only concern (at least for SPARC-based users).
Men, on the other hand, rarely use anything but a map.
I think it's cultural.
I lived in Scotland for a while and whenever I asked for directions the men would always say something like: drive down this road a piece until you get to the Crooked Horseshoe Pub, take a right and drive to the second roundabout after the Dog and Monkey Pub. Take the third right and drive to the Old Tennents Pub. Go right at the next roundabout and drive about 3 miles. If you reach the Goose Bridge Pub you've gone too far... Stop and have a cold one, then go back about a mile or so.
Show them a map and they look at you like you just asked them to diagram a sentence in Latin... and you're likely to hear some quaint Scottish expressions...
If someone steals your car, do you call the car manufacturer and ask them to disable the car remotely so no one can drive it?
No, you have the police call OnStar and they disable it...
The surprising thing for me is that the companies that have this capability and are resisting this are missing an opportunity to make a lot of money on what some people obviously think is a valuable service.
The utility of conducting experiments that aid in our understanding of what conditions and chemistry are essential to be on one side or the other of that man-made line we call life.
Claiming that virus(es) are alive is a classification error. Cells can be alive, but the components of cells are not alive. A virus is not alive in the same way that DNA, RNA, proteins, and all of the other components of a cell are not alive. What makes a cell alive is how those components interact. When a virus infects a cell it becomes one more non-living component of that cell.
Slashdot Mirror
Cool! Thanks!
It's not the size that matters... it's the pixels. Currently my work display is WMCX (1920x1440), but occasionally I use a WQXGA monitor (2560x1600). But even that doesn't matter because screen real estate follows the garage paradigm - shit expands to fill the available space. The more pixels I have the more data I want (need) to display. I don't want any of it wasted on something that seems to me a redundancy. I often need to view a window that is not the active window - but I never need to see a menu bar in a window that is not the active window...
It routinely crashes with MS Outlook and Internet Explorer. Also, it often gets a bluescreenofdeath just waking from sleep. Nothing out of the ordinary. Of course, the problems might be with blackice, virus detection, remote maintenance software, or some of the other "security" software my IT department installs.
Mine crashes at least once a week. It's maintained by IT experts, not by me. The problems are probably due to some of the security software they require, but nevertheless I was only relating my experience - not the general worldwide view.
Nope. I was referring to OS9.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS-9
However, apparently the original poster was referring to MacOS 9 - Just didn't/couldn't see the post...
I've never used RISC OS, but I have to admit, at least as far as the menu implementation, that sounds even better.
In general, users don't like change. If the UI were changing dramatically every rev then you'd be complaining that the re-learning curve is too steep...
There were significant changes from 7 to 8 to 9. None of them were like the change from 9 to X, but not too dissimilar as 10.0 to 10.1 to 10.2, etc.. If you look at the reaction to the user community when Apple went from 9 to X, there was a lot of resistance and a lot of unhappy campers.
Early adopters are the minority. Most people resist change. Windows Vista is actually an exceptional case. A lot more people were eager to escape the problems of XP and they made a leap of faith that Vista "had" to be better. That was good for Vista because it helped to wring out a lot of bugs. The lack of early adopters probably had a lot to do with the failure of ME.
That was one way to change the active application, but clicking on a window changed focus, as well. Pre-system 7 you may be right.
You got me there. For some reason, the original post wasn't showing up for me and all I saw was the OS9... Color my face red!
Not if it's configured right and you don't run crappy software. My wife's Mac running MacOS 9 is 10 times more stable than my PC running XP with the latest SP. Not bad for an OS that hasn't been touched in 7 years.
I know what you're going to say... "of course XP is unstable, switch to Vista"... Only problem is, my company won't run Vista because it's actually more unstable than XP for some of the applications we run and incompatible with some of our custom hardware.
See, the one menu bar is one of the things I like most about the MacOS. I hate to waste screen real estate with dozens of menu bars that I'm not using. And in Windows I'm always making the mistake of clicking on the menu before my brain catches up and I realize I just clicked on a menu from the window behind the one I'm working in. Knowing exactly where your menus are at all times... priceless!
I don't know what you're talking about. MacOS 9 context switches the menus just the same as OSX...
By today's standards, MacOS 9 may seem quaint and unintuitive. To a certain degree, MacOS 9 was limited by OS 8 which was limited by OS 7 in 1991. If you want to criticize the older Mac OSes, you need to compare it to something else from the 1991 timeframe. Back in those days we're talking about Windows 3.0 (surely you're not scoring that higher in UI grace), AmigaOS (not bad, but pretty similar UI to MacOS on purpose, though clearly the AmigaOS had superior preemptive multitasking), VMS, SunOS, OS/2... we're getting farther down the food chain here. But maybe I'm missing something - what do you think was a superior OS/UI experience to MacOS at the time?
I don't see the original post mentioning OS9, but I'm pretty sure he/she was referring to OS9, the real-time multitasking OS written originally for the Motorola 6809 (Not MacOS 9). OS9 is still alive and well.
My wife still runs MacOS 9 on an old G3 Gossamer. It does everything she wants and needs. Why upgrade? There are lots of people still using MacOS 9.
I'm pretty sure the original poster for OS9 was not talking about MacOS 9. There's an old OS called OS9 that had nothing to do with Macs. It was one of the rirst real-time multitasking OSes. It's still going strong with hobbists because it's tiny, efficient, and powerful. It was originally developed for the Motorola 6809, which is where it gets it's name.
Verdict: NOT DEAD (OS9 nor MacOS 9)
Sorry, forgot to mention... linux
We're running linux, but the same probably applies to some smaller degree.
No. I said exactly the same hardware, just different OSes loaded. Different versions of linux, to be precise.
I'm not an IT professional, so I don't know the technical details. However, we have a lot of SPARCs running 64-bit and only a few running 32-bit. The 32-bit machines are only there to support a handful of applications that can't run in 64-bit mode. However, the applications that run on both run much, much faster on the 64-bit machines... and just to be clear, we're talking about the same physical hardware, just a different OS. Therefore I challenge your claim about the limited use of 64-bit software and your claim that addressability is the only concern (at least for SPARC-based users).
This should complement my House Arrest Ankle Bracelet quite nicely...
The iPhone already has an integrated magnetic digital compass...
I think it's cultural.
I lived in Scotland for a while and whenever I asked for directions the men would always say something like: drive down this road a piece until you get to the Crooked Horseshoe Pub, take a right and drive to the second roundabout after the Dog and Monkey Pub. Take the third right and drive to the Old Tennents Pub. Go right at the next roundabout and drive about 3 miles. If you reach the Goose Bridge Pub you've gone too far... Stop and have a cold one, then go back about a mile or so.
Show them a map and they look at you like you just asked them to diagram a sentence in Latin... and you're likely to hear some quaint Scottish expressions...
That wooshing sound you just heard was the point flying right over your head... :-)
I'm not talking specifically or exclusively about cars, I'm talking about and product/device that is technically capable to lo-jack and/or brick.
No, you have the police call OnStar and they disable it...
The surprising thing for me is that the companies that have this capability and are resisting this are missing an opportunity to make a lot of money on what some people obviously think is a valuable service.
The utility of conducting experiments that aid in our understanding of what conditions and chemistry are essential to be on one side or the other of that man-made line we call life.
Claiming that virus(es) are alive is a classification error. Cells can be alive, but the components of cells are not alive. A virus is not alive in the same way that DNA, RNA, proteins, and all of the other components of a cell are not alive. What makes a cell alive is how those components interact. When a virus infects a cell it becomes one more non-living component of that cell.