I think he was trying to be funny (the brought to you by SlashdotLogic(TM) should tip you).
Curiously, according to your numbers...
Apple sells over 4 million Macs per year (as you said, the number came from a quarterly report). A good chunk of those had G4s sold by Freescale, but eventually all the Mac lines should be running on G5s and successors. Meanwhile, on average, Microsoft sold around 4 million Xboxes per year, and Nintendo sold almost 5 million Gamecubes.
So, according to those numbers, Apple should be as valuable as a customer for IBM as MS or Nintendo. After all, all three console manufacturers are using different chips from IBM.
Now I don't believe this is true, I believe that losing Apple was a huge blow for IBM only from the PR point of view, but your numbers seem not to be a real proof against the contrary.
The fact that they had also been maintaining Intel versions of the entire OS and presumably all their other in-house software was the surprise.
No, that's the Marklar project I was referring to.
Back in the days of Rhapsody, Apple showed full versions of the complete OS (or what they had at the time) for both PowerPC and x86. When they announced MacOS X, they (officially) killed the x86 port, leaving only the core OS, Darwin, which you can download and (try to) compile on your PC if you want to (and maybe even succeed).
But rumors talked about a project named Marklar. The goal of that project was to always keep a version of the whole OS compiling on a second processor architecture (the obvious choice was x86), for several reasons:
If you have code that cleanly compiles in two different architectures, chances are that jumping to a third architecture is relatively easy, as the platform-specific parts are already identified.
Maintaining more than one architecture helps identify bugs that may be obscured by the idiosyncrasies of a particular architecture. This is one of the advantages that Linus Torvalds sees in developing Linux on his G5.
If Motorola/Freescale and IBM failed to produce a healthy PowerPC lineup, it would be easy to jump to a new chip family. (Around that time Motorola was having problems producing G4s over 500 MHz, so the fear was justified).
Most rumors are at least partially false. This one turned out to be mostly (or totally) true. The biggest surprise was not the confirmation of the project, but the fact that Apple decided to use Intel's x86 chip instead of something else (say AMD's chips) or getting a company with great expertise in the field (again AMD or even Intel) to help in producing better PowerPCs.
Their existing sales are going to drop, perhaps precipitously, while they try to figure out how to make OSX on Intel work.
OS X already works on Intel. Yesterday's demo was delivered using Tiger running on a Mac/Intel machine (3.6 GHz Pentium 4). Jobs even confessed that all previous versions of MacOS X have always been compiled for Intel also. (Of course the existence of project Marklar had always been rumored, he just confirmed it).
Xcode 2.1 was also released yesterday, providing cross-compilation and production of "universal" (fat) binaries. The developers got a copy yesterday at WWDC, and it's a free download for the rest of us. Of course we don't have the hardware to test the Intel binaries, but some of the developers will get Mac/Intel prototypes in two weeks to start testing their apps, and correcting the platform-specific issues.
Apparently the Memphis repair depot has had a horrible track, not just on parts failing, but extremely sloppy repair practices. The issue is supposed to have improved, though.
I would say that the problem here is cheap, badly trained labor, and poor standards controls in Memphis, not in Mexico. (I say cheap labor because the wages in Memphis are much lower than in many other parts of the U.S.).
The salaries in Latin America and parts of Asia are substantially lower than in richer regions of the world. Sometimes this is a consequence of underpaying the workers, but sometimes the difference is due to an extremely lower cost of life. In the latter cases, the workers are actually very, very well payed, and the quality of their work is remarkable.
Except you'll have a DRM laden control device and I'll be watching Sealab2021 on mine.
iPods support MP3, MP3 VBR, (non-DRMed) AAC (such as the one you get when ripping CDs with iTunes), Apple Lossless, WAV, and AIFF. None of these formats have DRM restrictions. Admittedly, you will probably only want MP3 VBR, AAC, and (if you are an audiophile), Apple Lossless. Ogg Vorbis would be nice, but quite frankly I don't know any none-geek that even knows it exists.
My point is that iPods are not "DRM laden". If you don't want to use DRMed files, you don't have to. It appears that your problem is that you are so blinded by your zealotry that you didn't even take the time to actually research the product before rejecting it.
Sorry, but that hasn't been my experience (and judging by the other responses I'm certainly not alone). Maybe you have an additional issue in your installation that most of us don't have?
The next time the Finder hangs on you, try switching to another application (command+tab, Exposé, click other window or dock icon, whatever). *Then* try to invoke the Force Quit window (command+Option+esc or from the Apple menu). In the worst cases that works for me.
Regarding restarting the machine (if you really need to, but in my case that has never been Finder related), try holding the power button for several seconds.
Keynote costs about $1000 more and runs a lot slower (factor in outrageously expensive and slow Apple hardware).
Well, this troll was kind of funny, so I'll bite.
First, as you can read here, "many of the computer security folks back at FBI HQ use Macs running OS X, since those machines can do just about anything: run software for Mac, Unix, or Windows, using either a GUI or the command line. And they're secure out of the box. In the field, however, they don't have as much money to spend, so they have to stretch their dollars by buying WinTel-based hardware."
So they were giving their demo using Windows XP because they are poor, but they actually prefer Macs.
Second, you can get Keynote and Mac hardware that will run it flawlessly for far less than $1000. Even portables, although you may have to settle for a second hand one. (Or get an edu discount for an iBook, etc).
Third, since you haven't used Macs seriously recently (if ever), you can't really say they are slow. Leave those claims to people who actually know what they're talking about.
And last, even if a particular Mac is slow by today's standards, that is actually a moot point since you don't need a lot of power to run a decorous Keynote (or PowerPoint) presentation.
Well, since that made you so happy, here you have an extra tip:
If you regularly need to type in different languages, type Command-shift-; on a Cocoa text field (works for some Carbon apps too). This brings up the Spelling floating window where you can easily switch the language used for spell-checking.
I have been a Mac user since 2003 and I'm amazed to discover sweet things like this frequently. Enjoy!
It actually is for Macs though. $300+ for the 1G upgrade on a mini? ouch.
You shouldn't buy RAM from Apple, just as you wouldn't buy it from Dell. They sell it at ridiculous prices.
The Mac Mini uses standard 184 pin PC2700 RAM. You can get it for $196 from Crucial, or $137 from NewEgg, and I guess you could find it cheaper if you search for five minutes more.
Say I'm browsing a folder and I want to put a file into it... I have to switch from the filer (which is way too much an app rather than a desktop environment) to the text editor, then type, then save, then find the folder in the minifiler if it isn't one of the default folders.
The filer? Well, I suppose you don't use MacOS X too much then.;)
OK, once you are in the save dialog box you can drag and drop the folder (or the little icon in the title bar of the folder window) from the Finder into the dialog box to jump directly to it. If needed, you can drag the icon, use Exposé or Cmd-tab to return to your application, and then release it on the dialog box.
By the way, you can use those little icons in the title bars of saved documents to copy them around, drop them into other applications (works great to include a picture in a word processor document), etc.
Apple-` is application defined though, and apps have to support it, which in my experience has been very few.
Sorry to contradict you, but that hasn't been my experience at all. I can't recall a single application for which it doesn't work. (I don't use any Classic applications, though).
I guess we simply use a very different set of applications. Which ones do you use (so I can avoid them)?
Japan not only did not want to "surrender" after we bombmed them, they absolutely REFUSED to surrender after we went and dropped a single nuclear bomb. It took a 2nd to convince the Emperor to over-throw the military junta ruling Japan and surrender.
Just some food for though:
As this guy said in another post, it was completely unrealistic to assume that, after having all Hiroshima's telecommunications infrastructure destroyed by the bomb, the Japanese leaders would have a clear picture of what had happened in only three days. (Aug 9 to Aug 11, Nagasaki was bombed in the 12th). Again as Quanza said, fifty years later we had the Southeast Asia tsunami and three days later we still didn't have anything close to a clear picture of the magnitude of the catastrophe.
Another thing: The two atomic bombs used were completely different. (From Wikipedia):
One of the models (not sure which) was proven to work in the trials in New Mexico. Why did the US risk a mission using a different type of bomb? What were they trying to prove? From the scientific point of view, testing both kinds of bombs in urban areas is fascinating (in a creepy kind of way).
Does this mean that Nagasaki's bombing had a different goal other than getting Japan to surrender fast? No, it doesn't. Does it mean that maybe you should put the flag down for a second an begin to realize that what you have been told about your country for all your life may not be completely true, and that maybe it's also revisionist history? Definitely.
I think that you agree with me in one thing: the different systems use human interface guidelines that tend to be more or less consistent. When you jump from one system to another, there is a natural desire to continue using what previously made you comfortable (for example, I wanted to continue using virtual desktops). But you should try to refrain from doing that, and instead at least try to make sense of the rules of the new system. You may eventually find out that they actually make sense (also) and that you can live very happily with them. But first you must give them a chance.
Now, returning to your comment: I'm actually a little messy with my windowing... I normally have around 40 windows open, and frequently reach 80. (I know because I have counted them in several occasions, specially when someone laughs at me when I use F9 Exposé). Yes, I know it's way too messy, (and I do use Tabs in Safari extensively). Part of the problem is that I frequently start doing things that I leave half done, and I don't want to close them because I don't want to lose the "inspiration".
With so many windows open, F9 in Exposé is basically useless. So what do I use? F10. F10 "Exposé's" only the windows of the current application (see here). With Tab you switch to the next application with open windows, Shfit-Tab cycles in the opposite direction. It's very fast!
One caveat: all your X-Window windows appear in the same group.
For quick glances F9 still works great because you can set the window you are monitoring towards a border of the screen, so you now where to expect it.
Furthermore, I use the screen of my 15" PowerBook almost exclusively. I could certainly find a larger screen (or a second one) very useful, but I hate to connect and disconnect things.
So I suggest that you give OS X's interface a chance. That means bearing with it at least two weeks. If things don't work for you, you can always use those utilities you were making fun of. And if OS X definitely doesn't cut the cheese for you... well, these machines actually make very nice Linux laptops...
Actually, I just use Open Apple + Space to cycle between the input formats I use.
No, no, that changes the input method, for example to switch from an English to a French keyboard layout, or to one of those funny palettes used to input Asian languages.
I'm talking about switching the dictionary used to check spelling. Related, but not the same thing.
First, all the Mac users out there seem to praise the user interface, and say that they can not find a single flaw in it, and then proceed to tweak the heck out of it by a gazillion third party programs.
Hmmm.... let me tell you my story, which is of course anecdotical and may not apply to you, but anyway...
I used to work rather extensively with Linux boxes in a company I used to work for. When the boxes were powerful enough (some were old boxes that we rescued for simple specific tasks), I used KDE on them. When I got my Powerbook, one of the things that I immediately missed were the virtual desktops that the KDE WM (and many lighter ones) had.
So, when Desktop Manager was declared "mature enough" I installed it. It rocked! It worked basically just as I expected it to. I was in heaven. The extremely cool transitions were the icing on the cake. Though they are unnecessary eye candy (and can be turned off), they are real eye openers.
Two or three weeks later I realized that I wasn't really using the virtual desktops. In fact, I was occasionally annoyed by not having a particular window in my current v.d. A couple of days later, I uninstalled Desktop Manager altogether.
That same has happened with literally dozens of UI utilities: I instal them and some time later (usually less than two days) I throw them away. I even like many of them, but in the end I simply don't find them useful.
Nowadays, the only 3rd party UI utility I have installed and actually use is WinSwitch, which replaces the name of the user with his "picture" for fast user switching, and that's only because I wanted to save some space in the menu bar.
Not only does it work for html text boxes, but for virtually all Cocoa text boxes.
Furthermore: it's a snap to switch to a different language (Cmd-shift-; and select the new language) in case you frequently use more than one.
And since this works for all Cocoa applications, you also get it in Mail applications, word processors, and even graphics packages (because the developers get it for free).
...Microsofts Cairo (large parts of which made it into Win95 and Win98)
A very small nitpick: Cairo was the codename for Windows NT 4. As you say, huge parts of it didn't make it to the final versions, and some are still waiting for Longhorn.
The codenames for Win95 and Win98 were Chicago and Memphis.
When one item costs twice as much as another, and doesn't offer twice as much, why buy the more expensive item? [...] I think iPod's are way overpriced, but even if they were on par, I haven't seen what makes them so special.
Congratulations for finding a product that works great for you and your wife, and saving $200 dollars at the same time. I understand why you are so satisfied with your purchase.
Just a minor comment: according to your post, you just tested the Creative (Nomad?), saw I fit your needs, and looked no further. That's good. But you never tested the iPod. Therefore, you don't really know what you are missing. Other than the exterior design, you don't know what makes your player different from an iPod, and why some people (apparently a lot, actually) prefer the iPods over the Creative players. For products like these, it takes interacting with them for a while (more than a few seconds) to really understand their differences.
Apple stated in the call they have 70% market share in on-line downloads
s/downloads/legal downloads/
They're just a teeny-tiny little fraction of the music that's traded online.
Yes but almost all the illegal music is encoded as MP3 that play in any of the players, including all the iPods. Therefore, illegal music doesn't lean the balance in favor (or against) any of the players in the market, which is what the parent post and the Creative dude refer to.
I practiced and could calculate 43rd root of a 100 digit number 1 to 3 seconds.
Well, I guess that's not so outrageous depending on the precision you need. All the 43rd roots of 100 digit numbers are greater than 200 and less than 212, so if you only need integer precision you only have 13 choices. And memorizing 12 thresholds is not that hard.
Before claiming to be an authority on any topic you should calm down and try to do some additional research. Even your dermatologist, who necessarily knows much more about skin cancer than his patients, will not know everything, unless he is actually a researcher on cancer (obviously most aren't, and many of the real experts in the area are actually biophysicists). Furthermore, your dermatologist can't humanly transmit all his knowledge to you in a few minutes.
A few facts that you will want to cross-check with him:
UVB rays are by far the main cause of sun-induced skin cancer.
UVA rays (of higher wavelength than UVB) and short-wavelength visible light (specially under 434 nm; visible is usually considered anything over 400 nm, some times less, depending on the person) are believed to inhibit the synthesis of melatonin, increasing the incidence of cancer (and not only melanomas!).
The doses required for UVA and, very specially, visible light to have an actual effect on the cells is so much higher than the dose of UVB (or C) required, that it's not considered a significant risk (you won't believe how many things in our regular life are suspected to cause cancer). Nevertheless, some controversy has been caused by the fact that normal sunscreens are basically ineffective against UVA and visible light.
There are different kinds of UV lamps used for different purposes. They not only vary in intensity, but also in spectrum, with recreational lights leaning more towards UVA than UVB.
So basically almost everything you have said is correct. But also most of what Tabilizer said is correct, although part is not very significant after quantifying the variables (for example the risks). So I agree more with you than with him: "don't play with UV light, it's not worth it", but I do acknowledge that the basic information he spread was essentially true, although not really relevant.
Please, continue providing what you believe is good information. And when you see that someone is spreading what you think is misinformation correct them promptly, but do it in a decent way. Things like:
I realize this is slashdot, and every idiot thinks their opinion is correct, but I remind you, UV systems are an area where I have professional expertise and you don't know jack shit about them compared to me. So just SHUT the FUCK up...
...I suggest you do not provide reckless, illogical, stupid contradictions to information given to me by qualified medical specialists,...
actually weaken your point because they make you look like an intolerant bigot (even more since you are not even the one with professional expertise). A well written response in which you don't insult the other person is will probably get the message across more effectively, not only to the other poster but, more importantly, to the people who may have been misguided by him.
Some literature to help you get a better insight on the topic (note that most is not even recent):
Erren TC.
Does light cause internal cancers? The problem and challenge of an ubiquitous exposure. Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2002 Jul;23 Suppl 2:61-70. Review.
Kvam E, Tyrrell RM.
Induction of oxidative DNA base damage in human skin cells by UV and near visible radiation. Carcinogenesis. 1997 Dec;18(12):2379-84.
Loggie BW, Eddy JA.
Solar considerations in the development of cutaneous melanoma. Semin Oncol. 1988 Dec;15(6):494-9.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, kind of.
But in the exact same way someone could claim that the Europeans invented the World Wide Web making the Internet what it is today.
I think he was trying to be funny (the brought to you by SlashdotLogic(TM) should tip you).
Curiously, according to your numbers...
Apple sells over 4 million Macs per year (as you said, the number came from a quarterly report). A good chunk of those had G4s sold by Freescale, but eventually all the Mac lines should be running on G5s and successors. Meanwhile, on average, Microsoft sold around 4 million Xboxes per year, and Nintendo sold almost 5 million Gamecubes.
So, according to those numbers, Apple should be as valuable as a customer for IBM as MS or Nintendo. After all, all three console manufacturers are using different chips from IBM.
Now I don't believe this is true, I believe that losing Apple was a huge blow for IBM only from the PR point of view, but your numbers seem not to be a real proof against the contrary.
No, that's the Marklar project I was referring to.
Back in the days of Rhapsody, Apple showed full versions of the complete OS (or what they had at the time) for both PowerPC and x86. When they announced MacOS X, they (officially) killed the x86 port, leaving only the core OS, Darwin, which you can download and (try to) compile on your PC if you want to (and maybe even succeed).
But rumors talked about a project named Marklar. The goal of that project was to always keep a version of the whole OS compiling on a second processor architecture (the obvious choice was x86), for several reasons:
Most rumors are at least partially false. This one turned out to be mostly (or totally) true. The biggest surprise was not the confirmation of the project, but the fact that Apple decided to use Intel's x86 chip instead of something else (say AMD's chips) or getting a company with great expertise in the field (again AMD or even Intel) to help in producing better PowerPCs.
OS X already works on Intel. Yesterday's demo was delivered using Tiger running on a Mac/Intel machine (3.6 GHz Pentium 4). Jobs even confessed that all previous versions of MacOS X have always been compiled for Intel also. (Of course the existence of project Marklar had always been rumored, he just confirmed it).
Xcode 2.1 was also released yesterday, providing cross-compilation and production of "universal" (fat) binaries. The developers got a copy yesterday at WWDC, and it's a free download for the rest of us. Of course we don't have the hardware to test the Intel binaries, but some of the developers will get Mac/Intel prototypes in two weeks to start testing their apps, and correcting the platform-specific issues.
Apparently the Memphis repair depot has had a horrible track, not just on parts failing, but extremely sloppy repair practices. The issue is supposed to have improved, though.
I would say that the problem here is cheap, badly trained labor, and poor standards controls in Memphis, not in Mexico. (I say cheap labor because the wages in Memphis are much lower than in many other parts of the U.S.).
The salaries in Latin America and parts of Asia are substantially lower than in richer regions of the world. Sometimes this is a consequence of underpaying the workers, but sometimes the difference is due to an extremely lower cost of life. In the latter cases, the workers are actually very, very well payed, and the quality of their work is remarkable.
iPods support MP3, MP3 VBR, (non-DRMed) AAC (such as the one you get when ripping CDs with iTunes), Apple Lossless, WAV, and AIFF. None of these formats have DRM restrictions. Admittedly, you will probably only want MP3 VBR, AAC, and (if you are an audiophile), Apple Lossless. Ogg Vorbis would be nice, but quite frankly I don't know any none-geek that even knows it exists.
My point is that iPods are not "DRM laden". If you don't want to use DRMed files, you don't have to. It appears that your problem is that you are so blinded by your zealotry that you didn't even take the time to actually research the product before rejecting it.
Safari users:
m /v iew.php?mode=bookmarklet&url='+escape(location),'B ugMeNot','location=no,status=yes,menubar=no,scroll bars=yes,resizable=yes,width=385,height=450'))
To get a BugMeNot entry for the current page, you can add any bookmark to the Bookmarks Bar, and change its "Address" field to:
javascript:void(window.open('http://bugmenot.co
Make sure you remove all the spaces and returns introduced by Slashdot.
(Tip originally from MacOSXHints.)
Sorry, but that hasn't been my experience (and judging by the other responses I'm certainly not alone). Maybe you have an additional issue in your installation that most of us don't have?
The next time the Finder hangs on you, try switching to another application (command+tab, Exposé, click other window or dock icon, whatever). *Then* try to invoke the Force Quit window (command+Option+esc or from the Apple menu). In the worst cases that works for me.
Regarding restarting the machine (if you really need to, but in my case that has never been Finder related), try holding the power button for several seconds.
Well, this troll was kind of funny, so I'll bite.
First, as you can read here, " many of the computer security folks back at FBI HQ use Macs running OS X, since those machines can do just about anything: run software for Mac, Unix, or Windows, using either a GUI or the command line. And they're secure out of the box. In the field, however, they don't have as much money to spend, so they have to stretch their dollars by buying WinTel-based hardware."
So they were giving their demo using Windows XP because they are poor, but they actually prefer Macs.
Second, you can get Keynote and Mac hardware that will run it flawlessly for far less than $1000. Even portables, although you may have to settle for a second hand one. (Or get an edu discount for an iBook, etc).
Third, since you haven't used Macs seriously recently (if ever), you can't really say they are slow. Leave those claims to people who actually know what they're talking about.
And last, even if a particular Mac is slow by today's standards, that is actually a moot point since you don't need a lot of power to run a decorous Keynote (or PowerPoint) presentation.
Well, since that made you so happy, here you have an extra tip:
If you regularly need to type in different languages, type Command-shift-; on a Cocoa text field (works for some Carbon apps too). This brings up the Spelling floating window where you can easily switch the language used for spell-checking.
I have been a Mac user since 2003 and I'm amazed to discover sweet things like this frequently. Enjoy!
It actually is for Macs though. $300+ for the 1G upgrade on a mini? ouch.
You shouldn't buy RAM from Apple, just as you wouldn't buy it from Dell. They sell it at ridiculous prices.
The Mac Mini uses standard 184 pin PC2700 RAM. You can get it for $196 from Crucial, or $137 from NewEgg, and I guess you could find it cheaper if you search for five minutes more.
The filer? Well, I suppose you don't use MacOS X too much then.
OK, once you are in the save dialog box you can drag and drop the folder (or the little icon in the title bar of the folder window) from the Finder into the dialog box to jump directly to it. If needed, you can drag the icon, use Exposé or Cmd-tab to return to your application, and then release it on the dialog box.
By the way, you can use those little icons in the title bars of saved documents to copy them around, drop them into other applications (works great to include a picture in a word processor document), etc.
Sorry to contradict you, but that hasn't been my experience at all. I can't recall a single application for which it doesn't work. (I don't use any Classic applications, though).
I guess we simply use a very different set of applications. Which ones do you use (so I can avoid them)?
That depends on what you call North America. But in any case, Mexico is in North America, not in Central America.
Central America isn't part of North America.
According to some definitions of "continent", it is.
And according all definitions, like the one you use, Mexico is definitely in North America, not in Central America.
Just some food for though:
As this guy said in another post, it was completely unrealistic to assume that, after having all Hiroshima's telecommunications infrastructure destroyed by the bomb, the Japanese leaders would have a clear picture of what had happened in only three days. (Aug 9 to Aug 11, Nagasaki was bombed in the 12th). Again as Quanza said, fifty years later we had the Southeast Asia tsunami and three days later we still didn't have anything close to a clear picture of the magnitude of the catastrophe.
Another thing: The two atomic bombs used were completely different. (From Wikipedia):
Hiroshima's "Little Boy": 12-15 kt - gun type Uranium-235 fission bomb
Nagasaki's "Fat Man": 20-22 kt - implosion type Plutonium-239 fission bomb
One of the models (not sure which) was proven to work in the trials in New Mexico. Why did the US risk a mission using a different type of bomb? What were they trying to prove? From the scientific point of view, testing both kinds of bombs in urban areas is fascinating (in a creepy kind of way).
Does this mean that Nagasaki's bombing had a different goal other than getting Japan to surrender fast? No, it doesn't. Does it mean that maybe you should put the flag down for a second an begin to realize that what you have been told about your country for all your life may not be completely true, and that maybe it's also revisionist history? Definitely.
I think that you agree with me in one thing: the different systems use human interface guidelines that tend to be more or less consistent. When you jump from one system to another, there is a natural desire to continue using what previously made you comfortable (for example, I wanted to continue using virtual desktops). But you should try to refrain from doing that, and instead at least try to make sense of the rules of the new system. You may eventually find out that they actually make sense (also) and that you can live very happily with them. But first you must give them a chance.
Now, returning to your comment: I'm actually a little messy with my windowing... I normally have around 40 windows open, and frequently reach 80. (I know because I have counted them in several occasions, specially when someone laughs at me when I use F9 Exposé). Yes, I know it's way too messy, (and I do use Tabs in Safari extensively). Part of the problem is that I frequently start doing things that I leave half done, and I don't want to close them because I don't want to lose the "inspiration".
With so many windows open, F9 in Exposé is basically useless. So what do I use? F10. F10 "Exposé's" only the windows of the current application (see here). With Tab you switch to the next application with open windows, Shfit-Tab cycles in the opposite direction. It's very fast!
One caveat: all your X-Window windows appear in the same group.
For quick glances F9 still works great because you can set the window you are monitoring towards a border of the screen, so you now where to expect it.
Furthermore, I use the screen of my 15" PowerBook almost exclusively. I could certainly find a larger screen (or a second one) very useful, but I hate to connect and disconnect things.
So I suggest that you give OS X's interface a chance. That means bearing with it at least two weeks. If things don't work for you, you can always use those utilities you were making fun of. And if OS X definitely doesn't cut the cheese for you... well, these machines actually make very nice Linux laptops...
Actually, I just use Open Apple + Space to cycle between the input formats I use.
No, no, that changes the input method, for example to switch from an English to a French keyboard layout, or to one of those funny palettes used to input Asian languages.
I'm talking about switching the dictionary used to check spelling. Related, but not the same thing.
Hmmm.... let me tell you my story, which is of course anecdotical and may not apply to you, but anyway...
I used to work rather extensively with Linux boxes in a company I used to work for. When the boxes were powerful enough (some were old boxes that we rescued for simple specific tasks), I used KDE on them. When I got my Powerbook, one of the things that I immediately missed were the virtual desktops that the KDE WM (and many lighter ones) had.
So, when Desktop Manager was declared "mature enough" I installed it. It rocked! It worked basically just as I expected it to. I was in heaven. The extremely cool transitions were the icing on the cake. Though they are unnecessary eye candy (and can be turned off), they are real eye openers.
Two or three weeks later I realized that I wasn't really using the virtual desktops. In fact, I was occasionally annoyed by not having a particular window in my current v.d. A couple of days later, I uninstalled Desktop Manager altogether.
That same has happened with literally dozens of UI utilities: I instal them and some time later (usually less than two days) I throw them away. I even like many of them, but in the end I simply don't find them useful.
Nowadays, the only 3rd party UI utility I have installed and actually use is WinSwitch, which replaces the name of the user with his "picture" for fast user switching, and that's only because I wanted to save some space in the menu bar.
Not only does it work for html text boxes, but for virtually all Cocoa text boxes.
Furthermore: it's a snap to switch to a different language (Cmd-shift-; and select the new language) in case you frequently use more than one.
And since this works for all Cocoa applications, you also get it in Mail applications, word processors, and even graphics packages (because the developers get it for free).
...Microsofts Cairo (large parts of which made it into Win95 and Win98)
A very small nitpick: Cairo was the codename for Windows NT 4. As you say, huge parts of it didn't make it to the final versions, and some are still waiting for Longhorn.
The codenames for Win95 and Win98 were Chicago and Memphis.
Congratulations for finding a product that works great for you and your wife, and saving $200 dollars at the same time. I understand why you are so satisfied with your purchase.
Just a minor comment: according to your post, you just tested the Creative (Nomad?), saw I fit your needs, and looked no further. That's good. But you never tested the iPod. Therefore, you don't really know what you are missing. Other than the exterior design, you don't know what makes your player different from an iPod, and why some people (apparently a lot, actually) prefer the iPods over the Creative players. For products like these, it takes interacting with them for a while (more than a few seconds) to really understand their differences.
Hints: user interface, accompanying software.
Yes but almost all the illegal music is encoded as MP3 that play in any of the players, including all the iPods. Therefore, illegal music doesn't lean the balance in favor (or against) any of the players in the market, which is what the parent post and the Creative dude refer to.
Well, I guess that's not so outrageous depending on the precision you need. All the 43rd roots of 100 digit numbers are greater than 200 and less than 212, so if you only need integer precision you only have 13 choices. And memorizing 12 thresholds is not that hard.
A few facts that you will want to cross-check with him:
So basically almost everything you have said is correct. But also most of what Tabilizer said is correct, although part is not very significant after quantifying the variables (for example the risks). So I agree more with you than with him: "don't play with UV light, it's not worth it", but I do acknowledge that the basic information he spread was essentially true, although not really relevant.
Please, continue providing what you believe is good information. And when you see that someone is spreading what you think is misinformation correct them promptly, but do it in a decent way. Things like:
actually weaken your point because they make you look like an intolerant bigot (even more since you are not even the one with professional expertise). A well written response in which you don't insult the other person is will probably get the message across more effectively, not only to the other poster but, more importantly, to the people who may have been misguided by him.
Some literature to help you get a better insight on the topic (note that most is not even recent):
Does light cause internal cancers? The problem and challenge of an ubiquitous exposure.
Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2002 Jul;23 Suppl 2:61-70. Review.
Induction of oxidative DNA base damage in human skin cells by UV and near visible radiation.
Carcinogenesis. 1997 Dec;18(12):2379-84.
Solar considerations in the development of cutaneous melanoma.
Semin Oncol. 1988 Dec;15(6):494-9.