"Anyone who counts on IBM is a fool, and has forgotten that before microsoft was "M$", IBM was the big evil."
They also seem to have forgotten that IBM was the subject of a 12 year DOJ anti-trust investigation, and would undoubtedly have been a convicted monopolist just like MS if YARA (Yet Another Republican Administration) hadn't decided that that big American companies should be allowed to use unfair tactics to destroy countless smaller American companies, and squashed the investigation. Some of the stuff that was uncovered by the DOJ makes Microsoft's worst offenses look like a Pollyanna adventure, and they'd undoubtedly still be acting in the same way today if their failure to adapt to massive changes in the IT sector hadn't handed them their corporate arses on a very big platter.
People who ask for statistics tend to forget the fact that unlike OS X, Linux runs on rather more than just personal computers and servers. There is a large and growing market for embedded Linux that includes:
3 million Tivo subscribers in the US, plus another million in the UK (Sky+).
According to this article (http://www.internetnews.com/wireless/article.php/ 3584431), Linux had a 23% share of the mobile phone market in 2005, which is nearly twice as much as Microsoft's 12.5% during the same period.
In this article (http://www.gartner.com/press_releases/asset_13247 3_11.html), Gartner say that there were 778.75 million mobile phones sold in 2005, so Linux's 23% of that equates to something in excess of 179 million units, which is a hell of a lot more than the 4 million or so Macs that were sold in the same year.
Note also that embedded Linux is used on a lot more than mobile phones, e.g:
IBM's attitude changed when OS/2 v. 2.X (i.e. the first version they wrote themselves rather than having MS do it for them) failed to take off in a big way despite a concerted and extended marketing campaign, thereby forcing them to consider the fact that they may have made some bad decisions when they forced MS to change various technical and marketing aspects of the system in its early days, e.g.:
-- MS had originally planned to make OS/2 a 32-bit OS, but IBM (who'd sold a lot of '286 machines to customers with a promise that they'd be able to run the new system) insisted that it target the 80286. This meant that OS/2 1.0 (which was a text-only OS until 1.1) could only run 1 DOS app at a time, and DOS apps were what most people had, so few saw a reason to spend extra money for something that could run their existing software almost as well as DOS, which came with their machines. This restriction continued to have an adverse effect until OS 2 2.0, by which time IBM were Microsoft competitors rather than partners.
-- The original design for OS/2 1.1's Presentation Manager was based on an extended version of the Windows API, because MS (who seemed to have a far better idea of how ISV minds worked than IBM at that point) reckoned that a high degree of source code compatibility would result in more applications for OS/2. IBM however felt that the Windows API was deficient (which was true), and insisted on a new, much more advanced but totally incompatible system for OS/2, which MS duly provided, albeit under protest.
-- Because they were the authors of both systems, MS were very amenable indeed to having OS/2 bundled with new PS/2 computers instead of PC-DOS. IBM on the other hand felt that OS/2 should be an extra cost option that gave more capabilities to their then considerable corporate customer base, while home and small business users would be content with the more restricted feature set offered by PC-DOS. This differentiation model had served them well during their mini and mainframe days, but (as Bill "a computer in every home" Gates predicted at the time), attempting to divide the PC market in this was way meant that most ISVs simply targeted both systems' common denominator (i.e. DOS) to ensure the widest possible market share for their products.
I remember attending an OS/2 developer conference in the UK in 1987 or 1988, where Bill Gates was the keynote speaker, and his enthusiasm for OS/2 was obvious, especially in the Q&A session following his presentation, where he fielded mostly hostile questions from an audience that was obviously less than convinced by it all. In each and every case, he ended by saying that while he understood why people might feel that way _now_, the fact of the matter was that DOS would be replaced by OS/2 fairly quickly, and the compatibility box was a legacy feature that would eventually be deprecated, so we'd all better start learning how to program for the OS/2 APIs right away. Yet within two or three years, Microsoft had abandoned OS/2 completely due to their dissatisfaction with various technical and marketing decisions by IBM that they felt had squandered any chances of success it might once have had. If IBM had listened to MS just a little, then they would likely have maintained their early enthusiasm, and 90% of desktops would now be running OS/2 XP and awaiting OS/2 Vista.
Switches? We'd have given _anything_ for some switches. Our viruses had to knock on the sides of mercury delay line memory tubes with tiny hammers, and we had to get up at 5 in the morning and make the hammers out of small nails by sticking bits of broken glass in our tongues to use as anvils, then our dad would beat us with wi' metal reels of paper tape to show us what would happen if we didn't do it right.
"It had nothing to do with heavy handed and illegal tactics by Microsoft on ISVs to ONLY make Microsoft Windows applications. And the fact that the Microsoft was found guilty of illegally protecting it's OS monopoly in the latest( 2nd one ) DOJ vs MSFT case was all just a dream...."
You're right, it actually had very little to do with any of those things, but the following did have a notable effect:
1) IBM charged small ISVs an exorbitant amount for dev. tools, but gave them away more or less for free to their big partners. This significantly reduced not only the number of shops who could afford to develop for OS/2, but by generating ill will, also resulted in fewer _wanting_ to develop for it.
2) The run-away success of Windows 3 meant that a rich tool ecosystem quickly grew up around it, making development both cheap and easy. And in contrast with IBM's attitude of "pay through the nose for everything unless you're big and rich", Microsoft expended considerable effort to ensure that small ISVs could obtain the tools and information they needed to develop for Windows, even if that meant directing them to a competitor's products (not something they do now!).
3) IBM would only supply beta versions of OS/2 to a select range of partners, whereas MS would send 3.X betas free to anyone who was willing to sign and fax the relevant NDA (betas of a future OS are important to ISVs for obvious reasons). I remember working for a little 3-man ISV in Spain, and obtained the Windows 3.1 beta with a full SDK, test applications from various vendors, the DDK, and masses of documentation in a huge box containing over a hundred 3.5" floppies that MS mailed from the US without even charging us for shipping. Then, because we'd actually responded with some bug reports, they sent us two boxed retail versions of the final product (one on CD which was then a fairly new thing for computers, and another on floppies) plus MS C, Word, and various other things, with a letter telling us it was a small token of thanks for helping them make a better product. Compare this with IBM, who wanted us to pay a fair amount just for accessing OS/2 developer documentation, and it becomes pretty obvious why that particular company wrote for Windows despite having bought an OS/2 C++ compiler from Borland (and a compiler as what one got, for the same price as Borland's entire C++ tool suite for DOS and Windows 3.X).
So by treating small developers as third class citizens whose only value was as a source of revenue, IBM managed to permanently piss off a lot of companies that later became significant players, but whose CEOs would rather saw their own dicks off with the edge of a brick than develop a product for anything remotely connected with Big Blue, irrespective of how technically wonderful it might be.
"The question is, "How many people need/want this tool?""
A more pertinent question is how many of those who are budgeting for the sort of gear (both in computing and audio terms) needed to take advantage of those facilities that separate high-end DAWs from much cheaper home studio packages from the same manufacturers will waste time buggering around with warez sites to avoid spending $1000 on software?
"Then, I suppose that the answer would be creating one international standard"
There are international standards for a fairly wide variety of things, but they tend to be managed by a whole bunch of different bodies, and compliance tends to be largely a matter of self-regulation, with few if any mechanisms for ensuring that items which claim to conform to such standards actually do. There are however moves afoot to enshrine some of them in WTO procedures, and the WTO does have teeth, so we'll just have to wait and see what effect this might have in the future.
"do the [EC] member states still need to apply their own individual certifications?)".
The point of EC standards was to harmonize what used to be a confusing bunch of member states' national standards to facilitate easier movement of goods across national boundaries within the community. I believe (although not being an expert means you should take this with a grain of salt!) that individual member states are responsible for ensuring that products comply with the relevant standards, but that compliance certification by one member nation will be accepted by all the others, so it only has to be done once. Note though that some member states may have national standards for things that aren't covered by EC ones, and these may still need to be complied with for certain types of merchandise.
"try the bookmark menu. go on. (which , by the way, has three entries that start with a "b" and by hitting b three times, I can cycle through them"
Good grief.
Point 1: this is what you wrote: ""By the way, try out firefox. The commands inside the menu's do not have any underlined letters(the menus themselves do) so again, you are wrong about the lack of an underlying implying to accelerator."
You said nothing about which menus you were talking about, because once again, your imprecise and childish writing style requires clairvoyance on my part to divine what you are trying to say, and I have not claimed to be clairvoyant.
point 2: Can you see a difference between what an accelerator does and what happens when you type a letter while in Firefox's Go or Bookmark menu? Try (for example) hitting Alt+F and then T in Firefox, and you'll see that a new tab automatically opens; Alt+E and then A immediately selects all the text on a page; etc. This is because (as I've said previously) an accelerator emulates a mouse click.
Now lets go to the Bookmarks" menu and try hitting a key. Oh look, the cursor moves to the first entry that starts with that letter! Now try clicking _on a different_ entry (i.e. not one that was zoomed to by typing a letter). Gadzooks! It opens, which is not what happens when you type a letter, is it? So typing a letter in these menus does not result in the same behaviour as typing an accelerator key, ergo these are not accelerators, so yet another of your lame points goes down in flames.
"oh, just so you don't do it anymore, wittering isn't a word."
It is according to the Oxford English Dictionary (www.askoxford.com, use full text search) which defines it thus:
witter
verb (usu. witter on) Brit. informal speak at length about trivial matters.
-- ORIGIN probably imitative.
Using a dictionary for grown-ups would have avoided yet another in your long line of embarrassingly wrong assertions.
On a final note, I am now utterly bored with answering your silly posts, so you can write whatever you choose, because I will not read it, and (just so it is clear) not reading it means that I cannot respond.
"They're pretty much saying that Euro standards are better than US/Japanese standards, which is somewhat worrying."
It's actually more a case of preventing goods being sold under "standards of convenience" rather than any ideas of superiority per se. It is likely that the US and Japanese standards are equally as good as the EC ones (and may in some cases be better), but if the EC accepts any foreign standards at all, then it either has to accept all of them, or have an equivalence list for a host of different products that consumers would need to know about so that they can avoid situations when the sticker on their fridge saying "Certified By The Zimbabwe Electrical Goods Commission as a level 5 device" actually means it was certified as a cattle prod because of a tendency to deliver massive electric shocks when used.
Note that I use the term "standards of convenience" as a reflection of what used to be a common practice for ships of using flags of convenience to avoid complying with the regulations of the countries that their owners operated companies in. Liberian flags became particularly notorious in the 1960s and 1970s due to a number of high-profile accidents, because the only regulation that Liberia had at that time was the ability to pay an elevated price for them. This was however still a lot cheaper than ensuring that often appallingly old and badly maintained vessels were seaworthy, and crewed by at least some people who knew what they were doing rather than using the cheapest labour that could be obtained, so a ship with Liberian flag was almost guaranteed to be a serious accident waiting to happen. This was eventually counteracted by most responsible nations prohibiting ships that did not comply with their own regulations from entering their ports, and in some cases from waters within their national boundaries, which effectively ended that particular use of flags of convenience, although they still exist for other non-safety related purposes.
of RMS nowadays due to his increasingly extreme views. However, when it comes to choosing between what he says and the utterances of that well known purveyor of utter shite Daniel Lyons on _any_ topic, I'll choose Stallman every time.
"Needing to change options to get the computer to show you short cuts is hiding those short cuts away. Of course, again, your reading comprehension is in question. Because if you can't see it, it is being hidden away."
The steps to access a list of global shortcuts is more or less the same for Windows and the Mac, and in neither case requires changing any options.
In Windows:
1) bring up help. 2) Type "shortcut keys" into the Search window, and hit return. 3) Select "Windows keyboard shortcuts overview" from the "Overviews, Articles, and Tutorials" section.
On Mac:
1) bring up Mac help. 2) Type "shortcuts" into the Search window, and hit return 3) Select "Mac OS X keyboard shortcuts" from the "Support Articles" section.
Given that both of the above require exactly the same number of steps, the Windows ones must also be "hidden away" if those on the Mac are.
"That great method for accessing the menus is completely half assed. the first letter does not always access an option (the "apple" menu has 4 options that start with the letter s, but S will only access two of them), and there aren't any underlined letters to cue me to them."
In the words of Homer Simpson, "Lord help me, I'm just not that bright". Did it even occur to you that, as with Windows drop-down lists (which also don't have lines to cue people in) maybe typing the first _two letters_ of menu entries with the same initial character might work, or are you completely incapable of doing anything on a computer without somebody guiding you through every single step?
"a quick search on my mac for accelerator keys and shortcuts brings up"
You won't find anything about accelerator keys in the Mac help because Macs don't have them, hence the fact that in my last post, I only talked about them in the context of Windows, e.g.:
'Most real Windows power users will know these and many others because they not only require less keystrokes than accelerators...'
and:
'Developers have to tell Windows which character in a menu entry or dialog control's text is an accelerator -- it doesn't make the decision for them automatically (which is IMO a good thing).'
"By the way, try out firefox. The commands inside the menu's do not have any underlined letters(the menus themselves do) so again, you are wrong about the lack of an underlying implying to accelerator. Just getting you brushed up so you don't go saying that again. Its just false."
What on earth are you wittering about? Firefox on Windows and Linux has underlined accelerators both on the menus themselves and the items in them, as one would expect, while Firefox on the Mac has no underlined accelerators at all because Macs don't use accelerators (so it's again as one would expect). Unless you have your own unique version of Firefox, i can therefore only assume that you have somehow managed to break your copy of it in some strange way, possibly by using a misbehaving theme or plug-in. On my Windows installation of Firefox (and several hundred others that I've seen), typing Alt+F brings up the File menu (which has the F underlined), and this has the following entries:
New Window, with the N for New underlined. New Tab, with the T for Tab underlined. Open Location..., with the L for location underlined. Open File..., with the O for Open underlined. Close, with the C underlined. Etc.
The Edit menu:
Undo with the U underlined. Redo with the R underlined. Cut with the T underlined. Copy with the C underlined. Etc.
Other menus and their entries are similarly endowed.
I suggest you check what plugins and theme you are using, because Firefox on Windows and Linux should have underlined accelerators in its menus, while nothing in the menus is supposed to be underlined in the Mac version.
"I have a 20" Intel Mac I got for video editing. It's a great machine but the one disappointment was they didn't come with a firewire 800 port. They do have dual 400s."
The iMac and iBook (now MacBook) are low-end systems designed primarily for the home / education market, so they've never had firewire 800 ports, and are unlikely to get them in the future, because Apple regard it as a professional feature that is only supplied with their "Pro" systems such as the old PowerBook/PowerMac, and newer MacBook Pro / Mac Pro.
"I'd happily pay several hundred more if they came with an 800 port.""
Sadly, you'd have to pay a lot more for a Mac Pro with an Apple 20" monitor, i.e. nearly double the price of the higher end iMac 20" model (i.e. $2800 compared to $1400). It is of course a lot more powerful, having two twin-core Xeons, a fair choice of graphics options, the ability to use 16MB of RAM, a faster DVD writer, four HD drive bays, etc., etc., etc., but the price difference is significant if all you want is a FireWire-800 port.
IMO it would be nice if Apple offered an "iMac Pro" in a fatter, easy-to-open case like that of the Rev. A iMac G5, with a single dual-core Xeon processor, Firewire-800, a better graphics card, and the ability to have (for example) up to 8GB of RAM, at a price point in between the current iMacs and the higher end Mac Pro (e.g. around $2000 for the 20" model). Such a machine could be quite successful in space-restricted environments where people want more "beef" than the existing iMac line, but haven't got anywhere to cram a big metal box into an already crowded workplace. Apple are of course unlikely to release such a system because it would not only be contrary to Jobs' currently successful strategy of having one desktop and laptop for the home / edu market, and another of each for pro users, but would also probably steal sales from their more expensive (and therefore more profitable) Mac Pro systems.
"In the long run, trying to limp along with Windows would be more expensive than switching."
I'm not defending Windows in any way at all, but the truth of the matter is that I've yet to see any convincing arguments which show that its TCO is significantly higher on _business_ desktops than anything else, especially when one considers how much software is available for it. Consider the following:
-- Small business users receive it on their machines, so it is effectively free (I know it's not really free, but I've not seen any machines from major vendors with another OS that are cheaper than a PC with Windows). The only extra cost they're likely to see when compared with other OS offerings is an annual AV software subscription, and those aren't particularly expensive. Add in the fact that people with Windows skills are much easier to find than those with other IT skills (and therefore cheaper) plus the fact that they can use the same software that their suppliers, customers, and accountant will probably be using, and you end up with a net TCO gain that more than offsets the small extra cost of an AV subscription.
-- Bigger companies have corporate licenses which are again much cheaper per machine than the Windows RRP. They will also have corporate licenses for AV products, and as most who have experienced these know, the corporate versions are far superior to single-user packages from the same vendors. Development needs are supplied by a range of world-class tools that are easy to find programmers for (and also get training for existing employees), and all the other factors that apply to small businesses viz. employee availability and compatibility with customer / supplier software are equally true for larger companies.
Remember also that a lot of big companies have been using IT for long enough to remember a time when the IBM system used by the accounting department wouldn't talk to the DEC that was running the production line, which in its turn wouldn't talk to the Prime that was used for warehouse inventory control. When compared to that, Windows is, for all its mediocrity and vulnerability, a veritable utopia of cooperating systems and software packages that can share data both internally and with their suppliers, customers, government, and anyone else that matters, so those trying to recommend (for example) Linux, with its panoply of at best partially compatible distros, may end up being teated less politely than they would like.
"If you know the product sucks, why the heck would you keep buying more of it?! In any other industry, all these companies would be looking for a new vendor, yet Microsoft magically gets a free pass."
Microsoft don't need a free pass because they've been using a very clever lock-in strategy which ensures that big corporate customers in particular now depend on them for everything. Their documents are stored in MS-specific formats that contain macros etc. which won't work with anything else; in-house custom software has been developed with Windows-specific tools that make porting to another platform very difficult indeed; corporate intranets contain vast quantities of IE-specific code that frequently depends on all manner of custom ActiveX controls; and staff have been trained to administer and use MS software and operating systems, so they would have to be re-trained if something else was used instead. The expense and disruption for a big organisation with thousands of computers in disparate locations (some of which may be in different countries) would be considerable, as would the risks for whoever came up with the idea if something goes badly wrong.
"Any IT manager that's not a drooling moron ought to be able to realize that the way to get better security is to go find a vendor other than Microsoft!"
No IT manager who isn't a complete moron would even consider embarking on a long, complex , and massively costly migration of a big company's IT resources unless they were left with no other alternative. So they patch, lock down, isolate, and vaccinate every Windows machine in an attempt to prevent disasters, because applying all these measures is still cheaper and easier than embarking on a long, costly, and above all risky migration to some other system that (from their POV) might cure some existing, known problems, but introduce a whole slew of new and unfamiliar ones.
"Indeed, sadly most people don't seem to realise this. They have less rights than baliffs."
They attempt to intimidate people by giving the impression that they are acting in some sort of government-mndated official capacity, when the truth of the matter is that they have no more rights or powers than a door-to-door salesman.
"They can, however, view your home from afar."
As can you or I.
"If you open the door and they hear Corronation Street in the background, this would count against you in court"
It would only count as part of the evidence necessary for obtaining a a search warrant. The advent of video recording has meant that hearing or even seeing a TV program on a screen isn't in and of itself evidence of license evasion.
"I guess you never used any alt+ "letters" commands in windows?"
Then you'd be wrong, I've been developing for Windows for well over 20 years, and not only know what an accelerator (_not_ the same as a shortcut) is, but also how to put them in applications (not that you have to be a very experienced dev. to do this, because it's one of the more rudimentary tasks).
"Yes, I know how to get to the shortcuts in Apple."
Then why did you claim that they were "hidden away", and say that the only ones you knew were those that others had told you about?
" And then what? Memorize 200 to get myself up to speed?"
I didn't have to memorise any, because most Mac shortcuts are exactly the same as their Windows counterparts except for the fact that Macs use the Apple key instead of the Control key that prefixes Windows shortcuts. Some examples:
Open a file: Ctrl+O on Win, Apple+O on Mac. Save a file: Ctrl+S on Win, Apple+S on Mac. Print file: Ctrl+P on Win, Apple+P on Mac. Copy selected text: Ctrl+C on Win, Apple+C on Mac. Paste text: Ctrl+V on Win, Apple+V on Mac. Cut text: Ctrl+X on Win, Apple+X on Mac. Find text: Ctrl+F on Win, Apple+F on Mac. Find again: Ctrl+G on Win, Apple+G on Mac. Etc., etc., etc.
Most real Windows power users will know these and many others because they not only require less keystrokes than accelerators, but also often access options that aren't on a menu or toolbar at all.
"you can choose the option you want with the arrow keys or a first letter(which is generally underlined). "
It will always be underlined, because menu entries or controls in dialogs that do not have an underlined character won't have a corresponding accelerator. Developers have to tell Windows which character in a menu entry or dialog control's text is an accelerator -- it doesn't make the decision for them automatically (which is IMO a good thing).
"But of course, you decide to refer to key binds which were not the series of short cuts I was referencing."
The fact that you don't know the terminology for your own favourite OS and applications isn't my problem. Shortcuts are exactly what I said they were when you talked about them, as this extract from the Word-2000 help file amply demonstrates:
"What are shortcut keys?
You can quickly accomplish tasks you perform frequently by using shortcut keys -- one or more keys you press on the keyboard to complete a task. For example, pressing CTRL+B changes the selected text to bold, just as clicking Bold on the formatting toolbar or or selecting Bold in the Font dialog box (Format menu) changes the selected text to bold"
The difference between an accelerator and a shortcut is thus an important one: an accelerator simulates a mouse click on something which is visible on the screen such as a menu or button, while a shortcut can perform an action without the need for any corresponding visual elements to represent it.
"so you can read that again and quit shitting a brick that there could be entire industries that would only find a Mac an expensive nuisance."
I said nothing whatsoever about the suitability of any computer / OS combination for any purpose at all, but instead confined my comments to observations about the unsuitability of whoever wrote such a misinformation-filled rant to be let loose with any computing device heavy enough to injure themselves or others. Why? The following quotes from your own original post should provide some sort of clue:
"There isn't even an easy to learn set of shortcuts. its all hidden. Worse yet, the 30 or 40 or so shortcuts I know I had to have people tell me."
A person who claims that shortcuts which can be learned about by typing "shortcut" into the OS help system are "hidden away" does an excellent impression of an idiot, and should not therefore be surprised if people assume them to be one.
"I could never use my mac without a mouse. I'm bound to it for basic functionality. I hardly touch my mouse at work or a
They do, but not because it's a good thing to have per se. One of the problems a new MS OS has (on the desktop at any rate) is the fact that its only real competition is older ones from Microsoft themselves. Despite their best marketing efforts, Windows XP has still only achieved around 50% penetration in the Windows sector after five years, with a good deal of the other 50% consisting of corporate customers who are still using (and indeed deploying to new hardware) Windows 2000. Obviously, MS would be delighted if both these users and their corporate XP customers would upgrade any existing Vista-capable hardware, and the promise of greater security is a good hook here, because global news coverage of certain wide-ranging attacks has meant that Windows' vulnerability to such things is well known to even the least technical corporate IT chiefs. Add in the fact that the extra security is one of the few things still in Vista that is potentially an easy sell to management types with control over big IT budgets, and it should be obvious why MS are making such a song-and-dance about it.
"Heroin has claimed (tens? hundreds? of) thousands and thousands of lives from overdoses, AIDS, gang related violence, suicides and other terrible things I cannot imagine."
Virtually all of these problems are a result of it being illegal. When alcohol was prohibited in the US, lots of people died or were permanently injured from so-called "bathtub liquor", which sometimes contained methyl alcohol (properly made booze only contains ethyl alcohol), and the gang-related violence during the prohibition era has become legendary. Note also that the incidence of chronic alcoholism in the US went up rather than down while prohibition was in effect, as did deaths from it, and the incidence of underage drinking rose very alarmingly indeed (illegal booze peddlers would sell to anyone with money). It's impossible to say whether net alcohol use went up or down, because the fact that all sales were illegal during that period means that there are no records to compare it with. However, much can be gleaned from anecdotal evidence such as Andrew Furseth's testimony to congress in 1926 (Furseth was president of the International Seaman's union of America):
"When the prohibition amendment was passed and the Volstead Act was enacted, about three months after that I came through Portland, Oreg. Now there is a certain district in Portland Oreg. where there is the so-called employment district--- it is usually amongst the working people, called the "slave market"--- and I was the most astonished man you ever saw. Before that I had seen drunkenness there, dilapidated men, helpless, and in any condition that you do not want to see human beings. This time, three months after this act was passed there was an entire change. The men walked around from one place to another looking for employment, seamen and others. And they were sober. And they looked at the conditions, and they said, "No, we will wait a little." There was more independence amongst them than I had ever seen before. That very class which is the worst and lowest class that we know of amongst the seamen and workingmen. And I became an ardent advocate of the Volstead Act.
Two years afterwards I came through the same identical place, staying in Portland for about three days, and went to the very same place for the purpose of looking at the situation, and the condition was worse than it had been prior to the passage of the law. As long as the prohibition legislation was enforced, could be enforced, as long as the bootlegging element had not been organized, and not get the stuff, everything looked well. But the moment that they could get it they got it. And they will find it when nobody else can. They will find it somewhere. If it is to be bought in the vicinity any where they will find it. And the condition is worse than it ever was, because the stuff that they drink is worse than ever."
"I would macs are far inferior to windows when it comes to shortcuts(especially in teh applications arena)"
As a heavy user of both systems, I've not noticed Mac apps having less keyboard shortcuts than their Windows equivalents, so they are not "inferior", just different.
" Granted, my job has me use about 5 different programs (Excel, Word, Powerpoint, Bloomberg, and a couple of other in house systems)
Whereas Apple apps use the Apple key plus a series of easy-to-remember letters, e.g. Apple+"S" for "Save", Apple + "M" for minimize a window, etc.
"but after getting used to the raw speed I can work at in windows based apps (alt + an easy to learn series of letters can do anything in office, which is what I love) I can't stand macs."
Strange then that as a Windows user from version 2.1 until XP, I have no difficulty driving a Mac or Linux machine running KDE or Gnome from the keyboard. Of course, not being a total arsehole does help.
"It is the height of idiot friendly"
If this was really the case, then you would be far better at using it than you seem to be. Obviously Apple only tested it on partial idiots instead of your variety, i.e. the complete and utter idiot.
"I can't work an anywhere near the speed I would like to. There isn't even an easy to learn set of shortcuts. its all hidden. Worse yet, the 30 or 40 or so shortcuts I know I had to have people tell me."
Remember me calling you an idiot just one paragraph ago? Here's why I did that:
Application shortcuts are exactly where they would be in Windows, i.e. next to the menu entry that they are a shortcut for.
Apple's help tells you where the global shortcuts are "hidden". It can be invoked thus:
1) Click on the desktop to change the menu bar to the one for Finder (or simply open Finder). 2) Click on the Help menu, and select "Mac Help" (easy even for you, as it is the only entry). 3) Type "shortcuts" into the little text window with a magnifier in its left corner, then hit the Enter key. 4) Follow the instructions.
I do of course realise that the above is very difficult when one has the IQ of frozen food packaging, hence the fact that you needed other Mac owners who know how to use a help function to tell you about these shortcuts.
"a good example was when I just installed windows. I had some motherboard issues(I built the computer and had to load a bootleg copy so I could load my legit copy) and it wouldn't recognize my mouse."
Perhaps you should try plugging it in to the correct port.
"But I would never recommend a mac for my office."
If there are others like you, I wouldn't recommend a Speak And Spell, let alone something heavy enough to injure somebody if it fell off a desk into your playpen.
"macs are great because they are some of the best made computers around. but I think my biggest problem is the damn OS"
While OS X is far from being perfect, it tends to work quite well for those who can manage to use a Help function.
"However TV Licensing (TVL) will expect your television not to display BBC1 or any other channels when they come round and turn it on"
They can't come round and turn it on, because they have no right to enter your home unless you specifically invite them. They act as if they have such a right, and may even wear police-like uniforms in an effort to make themselves look official, but they are in fact civilian employees of a company who have no more right of entry to private premises than any other civilian. A person may therefore simply say "go away", and close the door in their face, with no repercussions whatsoever (it will not count against you in court).
"and may question why you have an aerial on the roof"
They can question you, but you are not obliged to answer.
The only time that there is a requirement for cooperating with TVL is if they turn up with a search warrant, when they will be accompanied by at least one police officer. However, their right to search is strictly limited to places that could reasonably contain a TV, i.e. they cannot look under or inside mattresses, open drawers, etc., and any attempt to do so will result in a rebuke from the police, who are as concerned about your rights as those of TVL. Furthermore, they will be expected to pay for any damage they cause while searching, and cannot confiscate anything (again, the accompanying police officers are your friend here). Note that you are still not obliged to answer any questions from the TVL employee during such a search, but it's a good idea to answer any the police might have (usually ones that establish identity, age, etc.).
"The IF (about 35MHz) is detectable on the downlink cable form the ariel. It won't work with communal ariel systems though."
While this is true, unfortunately for the BBC's detector van charade, most of the aerial cables on houses that aren't isolated on a farm somewhere will be closer together than the 8.6M that is the wavelength of a 35MHz signal. Add to this the fact that 35MHz is also used for radio control transmitters (of which there are many nowadays) that output a lot more energy than TV set IFs, and you have a situation where they haven't a snowflake's chance in hell of finding one little IF strip out of the hundreds of other IFs and other spurious signals that surround it. The BBC are of course aware of this, so they have never attempted to present detector vans as evidence when prosecuting license evaders, because the last thing they want is some lawyer demanding that they demonstrate this technology in action, thereby wrecking a myth that has been perpetuated successfully for half a century
I believe that there may have been real detector vans in the 1950s, when few people had TVs, and even fewer were allowed to own transmitters of any sort (radio controlled models, CBs and the like were prohibited until fairly recently in the UK). TV use in the UK exploded during the 1960s however, so the technology became impractical, and ended up being used to intimidate non-technical people who didn't know that it wouldn't work.
So what are the rare non-dummy vans used for, then? One word: publicity. Every so often, the Beeb will organise a public demonstration in which a van full of gear sits in a field somewhere with its aerial pointing at a group of isolated houses. The "operator" has a console which is designed to look as impressive to non-techies as possible, i.e. lots of switches, knobs, lights, and illuminated read-outs of various types. His aerial will turn away from the group of houses, and then towards them, and lo! The dials change. Then the operator will claim that one particular house is watching such-and such a channel, has n TV sets, etc., which does of course work if whoever lives there isn't at the demo to sarcastically say "It must be burglars then, because I live there, so there's nobody home" (I saw this happen once!). Barring mishaps like that one, the assembled public and press lap it all up, and walk away thinking how great it is that technology can protect everyone from dangerous license evaders.
However, with the exception of the few publicity models, most of the "detector vans" that appear in UK streets now and then are simply an empty van with an aerial on top, and have been for at least 40 years. Most of the newer hand-held detectors are also fake, although unlike the vans they do at least have some electronics in them to generate the impressive looking display.
"Its not "crying wolf" when there really are exploits out there that could do damage. "Crying wolf" refers to giving out a warning when there is no danger, here this is a danger that just has yet to manifest itself into actual damage. You want people to pay attention to these kinds of things before they become problems, not after."
""Crying wolf" refers to giving out a warning when there is no danger"
The term "cry wolf" refers to a well-known parable in which a child claims he is _being attacked by wolves_ when he isn't. In the parable, wolves both exist, and are a danger, hence the fact that the entire community drops everything and comes running whenever he yells about being attacked, and their existence and dangerousness is confirmed by the fact that they eventually kill the errant child because the community now assumes that his real cries for help are yet another case of pissing them around.
NB: the misinformation level in your posts is increasing. If this is accidental (as i hope is the case), I suggest you check things before posting for the sake of your own credibility; if on the other hand it is deliberate, then you have no credibility to defend.
""I find this claim rather interesting, because ClamAV is neither a company or the product of a company, and AFAIK never has been.""
"Please don't bicker about semantics like those other guys who are claiming these exploits don't count because they worms, not "true viruses. it is obvious what I meant"
It seems to be you who is bickering over semantics in a rather pathetic attempt to pretend that you weren't completely and utterly wrong (which is something you seem to be rather good at lately).
For obvious meanings, I suggest you check back over your posts, where the context in which you used the term "company" make it quite clear that you (a) were claiming that ClamAv is an AV vendor who would thus have received Finisterre's code and therefore could be the source of a malicious version of Inqtana, and (b) by saying it was the first AV company you met, also claiming to be some sort of "AV industry insider" despite the fact that your posts display a notable ignorance of both malware in general, and the industry that has grown up around it.
NB: I will let you have the last word, as it appears that this is important to you. I shall not however either read or reply to it, because your increasingly strange "arguments" are embarrassing not only us, but anybody else who may end up reading them.
Slashdot Mirror
"Anyone who counts on IBM is a fool, and has forgotten that before microsoft was "M$", IBM was the big evil."
They also seem to have forgotten that IBM was the subject of a 12 year DOJ anti-trust investigation, and would undoubtedly have been a convicted monopolist just like MS if YARA (Yet Another Republican Administration) hadn't decided that that big American companies should be allowed to use unfair tactics to destroy countless smaller American companies, and squashed the investigation. Some of the stuff that was uncovered by the DOJ makes Microsoft's worst offenses look like a Pollyanna adventure, and they'd undoubtedly still be acting in the same way today if their failure to adapt to massive changes in the IT sector hadn't handed them their corporate arses on a very big platter.
People who ask for statistics tend to forget the fact that unlike OS X, Linux runs on rather more than just personal computers and servers. There is a large and growing market for embedded Linux that includes:
. html
/ 3584431), Linux had a 23% share of the mobile phone market in 2005, which is nearly twice as much as Microsoft's 12.5% during the same period.
7 3_11.html), Gartner say that there were 778.75 million mobile phones sold in 2005, so Linux's 23% of that equates to something in excess of 179 million units, which is a hell of a lot more than the 4 million or so Macs that were sold in the same year.
. htmll l - the-korg-oasys.html
3 million Tivo subscribers in the US, plus another million in the UK (Sky+).
These mobile phones use Linux as their OS: http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT9423084269
According to this article (http://www.internetnews.com/wireless/article.php
In this article (http://www.gartner.com/press_releases/asset_1324
Note also that embedded Linux is used on a lot more than mobile phones, e.g:
A bunch of VOIP phones: http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT9615003856
Linux-based routers, switches, and similar devices: http://linuxdevices.com/articles/AT2005548492.htm
Tablets and webpads with Linux: http://linuxdevices.com/articles/AT8349493265.htm
A high-end music synthesizer: http://digitalmedia.oreilly.com/2005/11/09/inside
I could probably Google around and find all manner of other embedded systems running Linux, but cannot be bothered.
IBM's attitude changed when OS/2 v. 2.X (i.e. the first version they wrote themselves rather than having MS do it for them) failed to take off in a big way despite a concerted and extended marketing campaign, thereby forcing them to consider the fact that they may have made some bad decisions when they forced MS to change various technical and marketing aspects of the system in its early days, e.g.:
-- MS had originally planned to make OS/2 a 32-bit OS, but IBM (who'd sold a lot of '286 machines to customers with a promise that they'd be able to run the new system) insisted that it target the 80286. This meant that OS/2 1.0 (which was a text-only OS until 1.1) could only run 1 DOS app at a time, and DOS apps were what most people had, so few saw a reason to spend extra money for something that could run their existing software almost as well as DOS, which came with their machines. This restriction continued to have an adverse effect until OS 2 2.0, by which time IBM were Microsoft competitors rather than partners.
-- The original design for OS/2 1.1's Presentation Manager was based on an extended version of the Windows API, because MS (who seemed to have a far better idea of how ISV minds worked than IBM at that point) reckoned that a high degree of source code compatibility would result in more applications for OS/2. IBM however felt that the Windows API was deficient (which was true), and insisted on a new, much more advanced but totally incompatible system for OS/2, which MS duly provided, albeit under protest.
-- Because they were the authors of both systems, MS were very amenable indeed to having OS/2 bundled with new PS/2 computers instead of PC-DOS. IBM on the other hand felt that OS/2 should be an extra cost option that gave more capabilities to their then considerable corporate customer base, while home and small business users would be content with the more restricted feature set offered by PC-DOS. This differentiation model had served them well during their mini and mainframe days, but (as Bill "a computer in every home" Gates predicted at the time), attempting to divide the PC market in this was way meant that most ISVs simply targeted both systems' common denominator (i.e. DOS) to ensure the widest possible market share for their products.
I remember attending an OS/2 developer conference in the UK in 1987 or 1988, where Bill Gates was the keynote speaker, and his enthusiasm for OS/2 was obvious, especially in the Q&A session following his presentation, where he fielded mostly hostile questions from an audience that was obviously less than convinced by it all. In each and every case, he ended by saying that while he understood why people might feel that way _now_, the fact of the matter was that DOS would be replaced by OS/2 fairly quickly, and the compatibility box was a legacy feature that would eventually be deprecated, so we'd all better start learning how to program for the OS/2 APIs right away. Yet within two or three years, Microsoft had abandoned OS/2 completely due to their dissatisfaction with various technical and marketing decisions by IBM that they felt had squandered any chances of success it might once have had. If IBM had listened to MS just a little, then they would likely have maintained their early enthusiasm, and 90% of desktops would now be running OS/2 XP and awaiting OS/2 Vista.
There are more OS X desktop users than Linux desktop users, not more OS X users overall.
Switches? We'd have given _anything_ for some switches. Our viruses had to knock on the sides of mercury delay line memory tubes with tiny hammers, and we had to get up at 5 in the morning and make the hammers out of small nails by sticking bits of broken glass in our tongues to use as anvils, then our dad would beat us with wi' metal reels of paper tape to show us what would happen if we didn't do it right.
"It had nothing to do with heavy handed and illegal tactics by Microsoft on ISVs to ONLY make Microsoft Windows applications. And the fact that the Microsoft was found guilty of illegally protecting it's OS monopoly in the latest( 2nd one ) DOJ vs MSFT case was all just a dream...."
You're right, it actually had very little to do with any of those things, but the following did have a notable effect:
1) IBM charged small ISVs an exorbitant amount for dev. tools, but gave them away more or less for free to their big partners. This significantly reduced not only the number of shops who could afford to develop for OS/2, but by generating ill will, also resulted in fewer _wanting_ to develop for it.
2) The run-away success of Windows 3 meant that a rich tool ecosystem quickly grew up around it, making development both cheap and easy. And in contrast with IBM's attitude of "pay through the nose for everything unless you're big and rich", Microsoft expended considerable effort to ensure that small ISVs could obtain the tools and information they needed to develop for Windows, even if that meant directing them to a competitor's products (not something they do now!).
3) IBM would only supply beta versions of OS/2 to a select range of partners, whereas MS would send 3.X betas free to anyone who was willing to sign and fax the relevant NDA (betas of a future OS are important to ISVs for obvious reasons). I remember working for a little 3-man ISV in Spain, and obtained the Windows 3.1 beta with a full SDK, test applications from various vendors, the DDK, and masses of documentation in a huge box containing over a hundred 3.5" floppies that MS mailed from the US without even charging us for shipping. Then, because we'd actually responded with some bug reports, they sent us two boxed retail versions of the final product (one on CD which was then a fairly new thing for computers, and another on floppies) plus MS C, Word, and various other things, with a letter telling us it was a small token of thanks for helping them make a better product. Compare this with IBM, who wanted us to pay a fair amount just for accessing OS/2 developer documentation, and it becomes pretty obvious why that particular company wrote for Windows despite having bought an OS/2 C++ compiler from Borland (and a compiler as what one got, for the same price as Borland's entire C++ tool suite for DOS and Windows 3.X).
So by treating small developers as third class citizens whose only value was as a source of revenue, IBM managed to permanently piss off a lot of companies that later became significant players, but whose CEOs would rather saw their own dicks off with the edge of a brick than develop a product for anything remotely connected with Big Blue, irrespective of how technically wonderful it might be.
To be even pickier, CERN created the World Wide Web, but the Internet sans WWW did indeed originate in the US.
"The question is, "How many people need/want this tool?""
A more pertinent question is how many of those who are budgeting for the sort of gear (both in computing and audio terms) needed to take advantage of those facilities that separate high-end DAWs from much cheaper home studio packages from the same manufacturers will waste time buggering around with warez sites to avoid spending $1000 on software?
"Then, I suppose that the answer would be creating one international standard"
There are international standards for a fairly wide variety of things, but they tend to be managed by a whole bunch of different bodies, and compliance tends to be largely a matter of self-regulation, with few if any mechanisms for ensuring that items which claim to conform to such standards actually do. There are however moves afoot to enshrine some of them in WTO procedures, and the WTO does have teeth, so we'll just have to wait and see what effect this might have in the future.
"do the [EC] member states still need to apply their own individual certifications?)".
The point of EC standards was to harmonize what used to be a confusing bunch of member states' national standards to facilitate easier movement of goods across national boundaries within the community. I believe (although not being an expert means you should take this with a grain of salt!) that individual member states are responsible for ensuring that products comply with the relevant standards, but that compliance certification by one member nation will be accepted by all the others, so it only has to be done once. Note though that some member states may have national standards for things that aren't covered by EC ones, and these may still need to be complied with for certain types of merchandise.
"try the bookmark menu. go on. (which , by the way, has three entries that start with a "b" and by hitting b three times, I can cycle through them"
Good grief.
Point 1: this is what you wrote:
""By the way, try out firefox. The commands inside the menu's do not have any underlined letters(the menus themselves do) so again, you are wrong about the lack of an underlying implying to accelerator."
You said nothing about which menus you were talking about, because once again, your imprecise and childish writing style requires clairvoyance on my part to divine what you are trying to say, and I have not claimed to be clairvoyant.
point 2: Can you see a difference between what an accelerator does and what happens when you type a letter while in Firefox's Go or Bookmark menu? Try (for example) hitting Alt+F and then T in Firefox, and you'll see that a new tab automatically opens; Alt+E and then A immediately selects all the text on a page; etc. This is because (as I've said previously) an accelerator emulates a mouse click.
Now lets go to the Bookmarks" menu and try hitting a key. Oh look, the cursor moves to the first entry that starts with that letter! Now try clicking _on a different_ entry (i.e. not one that was zoomed to by typing a letter). Gadzooks! It opens, which is not what happens when you type a letter, is it? So typing a letter in these menus does not result in the same behaviour as typing an accelerator key, ergo these are not accelerators, so yet another of your lame points goes down in flames.
"oh, just so you don't do it anymore, wittering isn't a word."
It is according to the Oxford English Dictionary (www.askoxford.com, use full text search) which defines it thus:
witter
verb (usu. witter on) Brit. informal speak at length about trivial matters.
-- ORIGIN probably imitative.
Using a dictionary for grown-ups would have avoided yet another in your long line of embarrassingly wrong assertions.
On a final note, I am now utterly bored with answering your silly posts, so you can write whatever you choose, because I will not read it, and (just so it is clear) not reading it means that I cannot respond.
"They're pretty much saying that Euro standards are better than US/Japanese standards, which is somewhat worrying."
It's actually more a case of preventing goods being sold under "standards of convenience" rather than any ideas of superiority per se. It is likely that the US and Japanese standards are equally as good as the EC ones (and may in some cases be better), but if the EC accepts any foreign standards at all, then it either has to accept all of them, or have an equivalence list for a host of different products that consumers would need to know about so that they can avoid situations when the sticker on their fridge saying "Certified By The Zimbabwe Electrical Goods Commission as a level 5 device" actually means it was certified as a cattle prod because of a tendency to deliver massive electric shocks when used.
Note that I use the term "standards of convenience" as a reflection of what used to be a common practice for ships of using flags of convenience to avoid complying with the regulations of the countries that their owners operated companies in. Liberian flags became particularly notorious in the 1960s and 1970s due to a number of high-profile accidents, because the only regulation that Liberia had at that time was the ability to pay an elevated price for them. This was however still a lot cheaper than ensuring that often appallingly old and badly maintained vessels were seaworthy, and crewed by at least some people who knew what they were doing rather than using the cheapest labour that could be obtained, so a ship with Liberian flag was almost guaranteed to be a serious accident waiting to happen. This was eventually counteracted by most responsible nations prohibiting ships that did not comply with their own regulations from entering their ports, and in some cases from waters within their national boundaries, which effectively ended that particular use of flags of convenience, although they still exist for other non-safety related purposes.
of RMS nowadays due to his increasingly extreme views. However, when it comes to choosing between what he says and the utterances of that well known purveyor of utter shite Daniel Lyons on _any_ topic, I'll choose Stallman every time.
"Needing to change options to get the computer to show you short cuts is hiding those short cuts away. Of course, again, your reading comprehension is in question. Because if you can't see it, it is being hidden away."
k de/style/keys/index.html#accelerator
The steps to access a list of global shortcuts is more or less the same for Windows and the Mac, and in neither case requires changing any options.
In Windows:
1) bring up help.
2) Type "shortcut keys" into the Search window, and hit return.
3) Select "Windows keyboard shortcuts overview" from the "Overviews, Articles, and Tutorials" section.
On Mac:
1) bring up Mac help.
2) Type "shortcuts" into the Search window, and hit return
3) Select "Mac OS X keyboard shortcuts" from the "Support Articles" section.
Given that both of the above require exactly the same number of steps, the Windows ones must also be "hidden away" if those on the Mac are.
"That great method for accessing the menus is completely half assed. the first letter does not always access an option (the "apple" menu has 4 options that start with the letter s, but S will only access two of them), and there aren't any underlined letters to cue me to them."
In the words of Homer Simpson, "Lord help me, I'm just not that bright". Did it even occur to you that, as with Windows drop-down lists (which also don't have lines to cue people in) maybe typing the first _two letters_ of menu entries with the same initial character might work, or are you completely incapable of doing anything on a computer without somebody guiding you through every single step?
"a quick search on my mac for accelerator keys and shortcuts brings up"
You won't find anything about accelerator keys in the Mac help because Macs don't have them, hence the fact that in my last post, I only talked about them in the context of Windows, e.g.:
'Most real Windows power users will know these and many others because they not only require less keystrokes than accelerators...'
and:
'Developers have to tell Windows which character in a menu entry or dialog control's text is an accelerator -- it doesn't make the decision for them automatically (which is IMO a good thing).'
Note however that they are also used in KDE, Java, and various other environments, but _not_ on Macs running Mac OS. You can for example find information about KDE's usage here:
http://developer.kde.org/documentation/standards/
"By the way, try out firefox. The commands inside the menu's do not have any underlined letters(the menus themselves do) so again, you are wrong about the lack of an underlying implying to accelerator. Just getting you brushed up so you don't go saying that again. Its just false."
What on earth are you wittering about? Firefox on Windows and Linux has underlined accelerators both on the menus themselves and the items in them, as one would expect, while Firefox on the Mac has no underlined accelerators at all because Macs don't use accelerators (so it's again as one would expect). Unless you have your own unique version of Firefox, i can therefore only assume that you have somehow managed to break your copy of it in some strange way, possibly by using a misbehaving theme or plug-in. On my Windows installation of Firefox (and several hundred others that I've seen), typing Alt+F brings up the File menu (which has the F underlined), and this has the following entries:
New Window, with the N for New underlined.
New Tab, with the T for Tab underlined.
Open Location..., with the L for location underlined.
Open File..., with the O for Open underlined.
Close, with the C underlined.
Etc.
The Edit menu:
Undo with the U underlined.
Redo with the R underlined.
Cut with the T underlined.
Copy with the C underlined.
Etc.
Other menus and their entries are similarly endowed.
I suggest you check what plugins and theme you are using, because Firefox on Windows and Linux should have underlined accelerators in its menus, while nothing in the menus is supposed to be underlined in the Mac version.
"I have a 20" Intel Mac I got for video editing. It's a great machine but the one disappointment was they didn't come with a firewire 800 port. They do have dual 400s."
The iMac and iBook (now MacBook) are low-end systems designed primarily for the home / education market, so they've never had firewire 800 ports, and are unlikely to get them in the future, because Apple regard it as a professional feature that is only supplied with their "Pro" systems such as the old PowerBook/PowerMac, and newer MacBook Pro / Mac Pro.
"I'd happily pay several hundred more if they came with an 800 port.""
Sadly, you'd have to pay a lot more for a Mac Pro with an Apple 20" monitor, i.e. nearly double the price of the higher end iMac 20" model (i.e. $2800 compared to $1400). It is of course a lot more powerful, having two twin-core Xeons, a fair choice of graphics options, the ability to use 16MB of RAM, a faster DVD writer, four HD drive bays, etc., etc., etc., but the price difference is significant if all you want is a FireWire-800 port.
IMO it would be nice if Apple offered an "iMac Pro" in a fatter, easy-to-open case like that of the Rev. A iMac G5, with a single dual-core Xeon processor, Firewire-800, a better graphics card, and the ability to have (for example) up to 8GB of RAM, at a price point in between the current iMacs and the higher end Mac Pro (e.g. around $2000 for the 20" model). Such a machine could be quite successful in space-restricted environments where people want more "beef" than the existing iMac line, but haven't got anywhere to cram a big metal box into an already crowded workplace. Apple are of course unlikely to release such a system because it would not only be contrary to Jobs' currently successful strategy of having one desktop and laptop for the home / edu market, and another of each for pro users, but would also probably steal sales from their more expensive (and therefore more profitable) Mac Pro systems.
"In the long run, trying to limp along with Windows would be more expensive than switching."
I'm not defending Windows in any way at all, but the truth of the matter is that I've yet to see any convincing arguments which show that its TCO is significantly higher on _business_ desktops than anything else, especially when one considers how much software is available for it. Consider the following:
-- Small business users receive it on their machines, so it is effectively free (I know it's not really free, but I've not seen any machines from major vendors with another OS that are cheaper than a PC with Windows). The only extra cost they're likely to see when compared with other OS offerings is an annual AV software subscription, and those aren't particularly expensive. Add in the fact that people with Windows skills are much easier to find than those with other IT skills (and therefore cheaper) plus the fact that they can use the same software that their suppliers, customers, and accountant will probably be using, and you end up with a net TCO gain that more than offsets the small extra cost of an AV subscription.
-- Bigger companies have corporate licenses which are again much cheaper per machine than the Windows RRP. They will also have corporate licenses for AV products, and as most who have experienced these know, the corporate versions are far superior to single-user packages from the same vendors. Development needs are supplied by a range of world-class tools that are easy to find programmers for (and also get training for existing employees), and all the other factors that apply to small businesses viz. employee availability and compatibility with customer / supplier software are equally true for larger companies.
Remember also that a lot of big companies have been using IT for long enough to remember a time when the IBM system used by the accounting department wouldn't talk to the DEC that was running the production line, which in its turn wouldn't talk to the Prime that was used for warehouse inventory control. When compared to that, Windows is, for all its mediocrity and vulnerability, a veritable utopia of cooperating systems and software packages that can share data both internally and with their suppliers, customers, government, and anyone else that matters, so those trying to recommend (for example) Linux, with its panoply of at best partially compatible distros, may end up being teated less politely than they would like.
"If you know the product sucks, why the heck would you keep buying more of it?! In any other industry, all these companies would be looking for a new vendor, yet Microsoft magically gets a free pass."
Microsoft don't need a free pass because they've been using a very clever lock-in strategy which ensures that big corporate customers in particular now depend on them for everything. Their documents are stored in MS-specific formats that contain macros etc. which won't work with anything else; in-house custom software has been developed with Windows-specific tools that make porting to another platform very difficult indeed; corporate intranets contain vast quantities of IE-specific code that frequently depends on all manner of custom ActiveX controls; and staff have been trained to administer and use MS software and operating systems, so they would have to be re-trained if something else was used instead. The expense and disruption for a big organisation with thousands of computers in disparate locations (some of which may be in different countries) would be considerable, as would the risks for whoever came up with the idea if something goes badly wrong.
"Any IT manager that's not a drooling moron ought to be able to realize that the way to get better security is to go find a vendor other than Microsoft!"
No IT manager who isn't a complete moron would even consider embarking on a long, complex , and massively costly migration of a big company's IT resources unless they were left with no other alternative. So they patch, lock down, isolate, and vaccinate every Windows machine in an attempt to prevent disasters, because applying all these measures is still cheaper and easier than embarking on a long, costly, and above all risky migration to some other system that (from their POV) might cure some existing, known problems, but introduce a whole slew of new and unfamiliar ones.
"Indeed, sadly most people don't seem to realise this. They have less rights than baliffs."
They attempt to intimidate people by giving the impression that they are acting in some sort of government-mndated official capacity, when the truth of the matter is that they have no more rights or powers than a door-to-door salesman.
"They can, however, view your home from afar."
As can you or I.
"If you open the door and they hear Corronation Street in the background, this would count against you in court"
It would only count as part of the evidence necessary for obtaining a a search warrant. The advent of video recording has meant that hearing or even seeing a TV program on a screen isn't in and of itself evidence of license evasion.
"I guess you never used any alt+ "letters" commands in windows?"
Then you'd be wrong, I've been developing for Windows for well over 20 years, and not only know what an accelerator (_not_ the same as a shortcut) is, but also how to put them in applications (not that you have to be a very experienced dev. to do this, because it's one of the more rudimentary tasks).
"Yes, I know how to get to the shortcuts in Apple."
Then why did you claim that they were "hidden away", and say that the only ones you knew were those that others had told you about?
" And then what? Memorize 200 to get myself up to speed?"
I didn't have to memorise any, because most Mac shortcuts are exactly the same as their Windows counterparts except for the fact that Macs use the Apple key instead of the Control key that prefixes Windows shortcuts. Some examples:
Open a file: Ctrl+O on Win, Apple+O on Mac.
Save a file: Ctrl+S on Win, Apple+S on Mac.
Print file: Ctrl+P on Win, Apple+P on Mac.
Copy selected text: Ctrl+C on Win, Apple+C on Mac.
Paste text: Ctrl+V on Win, Apple+V on Mac.
Cut text: Ctrl+X on Win, Apple+X on Mac.
Find text: Ctrl+F on Win, Apple+F on Mac.
Find again: Ctrl+G on Win, Apple+G on Mac.
Etc., etc., etc.
Most real Windows power users will know these and many others because they not only require less keystrokes than accelerators, but also often access options that aren't on a menu or toolbar at all.
"you can choose the option you want with the arrow keys or a first letter(which is generally underlined). "
It will always be underlined, because menu entries or controls in dialogs that do not have an underlined character won't have a corresponding accelerator. Developers have to tell Windows which character in a menu entry or dialog control's text is an accelerator -- it doesn't make the decision for them automatically (which is IMO a good thing).
"But of course, you decide to refer to key binds which were not the series of short cuts I was referencing."
The fact that you don't know the terminology for your own favourite OS and applications isn't my problem. Shortcuts are exactly what I said they were when you talked about them, as this extract from the Word-2000 help file amply demonstrates:
"What are shortcut keys?
You can quickly accomplish tasks you perform frequently by using shortcut keys -- one or more keys you press on the keyboard to complete a task. For example, pressing CTRL+B changes the selected text to bold, just as clicking Bold on the formatting toolbar or or selecting Bold in the Font dialog box (Format menu) changes the selected text to bold"
The difference between an accelerator and a shortcut is thus an important one: an accelerator simulates a mouse click on something which is visible on the screen such as a menu or button, while a shortcut can perform an action without the need for any corresponding visual elements to represent it.
"so you can read that again and quit shitting a brick that there could be entire industries that would only find a Mac an expensive nuisance."
I said nothing whatsoever about the suitability of any computer / OS combination for any purpose at all, but instead confined my comments to observations about the unsuitability of whoever wrote such a misinformation-filled rant to be let loose with any computing device heavy enough to injure themselves or others. Why? The following quotes from your own original post should provide some sort of clue:
"There isn't even an easy to learn set of shortcuts. its all hidden. Worse yet, the 30 or 40 or so shortcuts I know I had to have people tell me."
A person who claims that shortcuts which can be learned about by typing "shortcut" into the OS help system are "hidden away" does an excellent impression of an idiot, and should not therefore be surprised if people assume them to be one.
"I could never use my mac without a mouse. I'm bound to it for basic functionality. I hardly touch my mouse at work or a
"Microsoft doesn't give a damn about security"
They do, but not because it's a good thing to have per se. One of the problems a new MS OS has (on the desktop at any rate) is the fact that its only real competition is older ones from Microsoft themselves. Despite their best marketing efforts, Windows XP has still only achieved around 50% penetration in the Windows sector after five years, with a good deal of the other 50% consisting of corporate customers who are still using (and indeed deploying to new hardware) Windows 2000. Obviously, MS would be delighted if both these users and their corporate XP customers would upgrade any existing Vista-capable hardware, and the promise of greater security is a good hook here, because global news coverage of certain wide-ranging attacks has meant that Windows' vulnerability to such things is well known to even the least technical corporate IT chiefs. Add in the fact that the extra security is one of the few things still in Vista that is potentially an easy sell to management types with control over big IT budgets, and it should be obvious why MS are making such a song-and-dance about it.
"Heroin has claimed (tens? hundreds? of) thousands and thousands of lives from overdoses, AIDS, gang related violence, suicides and other terrible things I cannot imagine."
Virtually all of these problems are a result of it being illegal. When alcohol was prohibited in the US, lots of people died or were permanently injured from so-called "bathtub liquor", which sometimes contained methyl alcohol (properly made booze only contains ethyl alcohol), and the gang-related violence during the prohibition era has become legendary. Note also that the incidence of chronic alcoholism in the US went up rather than down while prohibition was in effect, as did deaths from it, and the incidence of underage drinking rose very alarmingly indeed (illegal booze peddlers would sell to anyone with money). It's impossible to say whether net alcohol use went up or down, because the fact that all sales were illegal during that period means that there are no records to compare it with. However, much can be gleaned from anecdotal evidence such as Andrew Furseth's testimony to congress in 1926 (Furseth was president of the International Seaman's union of America):
"When the prohibition amendment was passed and the Volstead Act was enacted, about three months after that I came through Portland, Oreg. Now there is a certain district in Portland Oreg. where there is the so-called employment district--- it is usually amongst the working people, called the "slave market"--- and I was the most astonished man you ever saw. Before that I had seen drunkenness there, dilapidated men, helpless, and in any condition that you do not want to see human beings. This time, three months after this act was passed there was an entire change. The men walked around from one place to another looking for employment, seamen and others. And they were sober. And they looked at the conditions, and they said, "No, we will wait a little." There was more independence amongst them than I had ever seen before. That very class which is the worst and lowest class that we know of amongst the seamen and workingmen. And I became an ardent advocate of the Volstead Act.
Two years afterwards I came through the same identical place, staying in Portland for about three days, and went to the very same place for the purpose of looking at the situation, and the condition was worse than it had been prior to the passage of the law. As long as the prohibition legislation was enforced, could be enforced, as long as the bootlegging element had not been organized, and not get the stuff, everything looked well. But the moment that they could get it they got it. And they will find it when nobody else can. They will find it somewhere. If it is to be bought in the vicinity any where they will find it. And the condition is worse than it ever was, because the stuff that they drink is worse than ever."
"I would macs are far inferior to windows when it comes to shortcuts(especially in teh applications arena)"
As a heavy user of both systems, I've not noticed Mac apps having less keyboard shortcuts than their Windows equivalents, so they are not "inferior",
just different.
" Granted, my job has me use about 5 different programs (Excel, Word, Powerpoint, Bloomberg, and a couple of other in house systems)
Whereas Apple apps use the Apple key plus a series of easy-to-remember letters, e.g. Apple+"S" for "Save", Apple + "M" for minimize a window, etc.
"but after getting used to the raw speed I can work at in windows based apps (alt + an easy to learn series of letters can do anything in office,
which is what I love) I can't stand macs."
Strange then that as a Windows user from version 2.1 until XP, I have no difficulty driving a Mac or Linux machine running KDE or Gnome from
the keyboard. Of course, not being a total arsehole does help.
"It is the height of idiot friendly"
If this was really the case, then you would be far better at using it than you seem to be. Obviously Apple only tested it on partial idiots instead of your variety, i.e. the complete and utter idiot.
"I can't work an anywhere near the speed I would like to. There isn't even an easy to learn set of shortcuts. its all hidden. Worse yet, the 30 or 40 or so shortcuts I know I had to have people tell me."
Remember me calling you an idiot just one paragraph ago? Here's why I did that:
Application shortcuts are exactly where they would be in Windows, i.e. next to the menu entry that they are a shortcut for.
Apple's help tells you where the global shortcuts are "hidden". It can be invoked thus:
1) Click on the desktop to change the menu bar to the one for Finder (or simply open Finder).
2) Click on the Help menu, and select "Mac Help" (easy even for you, as it is the only entry).
3) Type "shortcuts" into the little text window with a magnifier in its left corner, then hit the Enter key.
4) Follow the instructions.
I do of course realise that the above is very difficult when one has the IQ of frozen food packaging, hence the fact that you needed other Mac owners who know how to use a help function to tell you about these shortcuts.
"a good example was when I just installed windows. I had some motherboard issues(I built the computer and had to load a bootleg copy so I could load my legit copy) and it wouldn't recognize my mouse."
Perhaps you should try plugging it in to the correct port.
"But I would never recommend a mac for my office."
If there are others like you, I wouldn't recommend a Speak And Spell, let alone something heavy enough to injure somebody if it fell off a desk into your playpen.
"macs are great because they are some of the best made computers around. but I think my biggest problem is the damn OS"
While OS X is far from being perfect, it tends to work quite well for those who can manage to use a Help function.
"However TV Licensing (TVL) will expect your television not to display BBC1 or any other channels when they come round and turn it on"
They can't come round and turn it on, because they have no right to enter your home unless you specifically invite them. They act as if they have such a right, and may even wear police-like uniforms in an effort to make themselves look official, but they are in fact civilian employees of a company who have no more right of entry to private premises than any other civilian. A person may therefore simply say "go away", and close the door in their face, with no repercussions whatsoever (it will not count against you in court).
"and may question why you have an aerial on the roof"
They can question you, but you are not obliged to answer.
The only time that there is a requirement for cooperating with TVL is if they turn up with a search warrant, when they will be accompanied by at least one police officer. However, their right to search is strictly limited to places that could reasonably contain a TV, i.e. they cannot look under or inside mattresses, open drawers, etc., and any attempt to do so will result in a rebuke from the police, who are as concerned about your rights as those of TVL. Furthermore, they will be expected to pay for any damage they cause while searching, and cannot confiscate anything (again, the accompanying police officers are your friend here). Note that you are still not obliged to answer any questions from the TVL employee during such a search, but it's a good idea to answer any the police might have (usually ones that establish identity, age, etc.).
"The IF (about 35MHz) is detectable on the downlink cable form the ariel. It won't work with communal ariel systems though."
While this is true, unfortunately for the BBC's detector van charade, most of the aerial cables on houses that aren't isolated on a farm somewhere will be closer together than the 8.6M that is the wavelength of a 35MHz signal. Add to this the fact that 35MHz is also used for radio control transmitters (of which there are many nowadays) that output a lot more energy than TV set IFs, and you have a situation where they haven't a snowflake's chance in hell of finding one little IF strip out of the hundreds of other IFs and other spurious signals that surround it. The BBC are of course aware of this, so they have never attempted to present detector vans as evidence when prosecuting license evaders, because the last thing they want is some lawyer demanding that they demonstrate this technology in action, thereby wrecking a myth that has been perpetuated successfully for half a century
I believe that there may have been real detector vans in the 1950s, when few people had TVs, and even fewer were allowed to own transmitters of any sort (radio controlled models, CBs and the like were prohibited until fairly recently in the UK). TV use in the UK exploded during the 1960s however, so the technology became impractical, and ended up being used to intimidate non-technical people who didn't know that it wouldn't work.
So what are the rare non-dummy vans used for, then? One word: publicity. Every so often, the Beeb will organise a public demonstration in which a van full of gear sits in a field somewhere with its aerial pointing at a group of isolated houses. The "operator" has a console which is designed to look as impressive to non-techies as possible, i.e. lots of switches, knobs, lights, and illuminated read-outs of various types. His aerial will turn away from the group of houses, and then towards them, and lo! The dials change. Then the operator will claim that one particular house is watching such-and such a channel, has n TV sets, etc., which does of course work if whoever lives there isn't at the demo to sarcastically say "It must be burglars then, because I live there, so there's nobody home" (I saw this happen once!). Barring mishaps like that one, the assembled public and press lap it all up, and walk away thinking how great it is that technology can protect everyone from dangerous license evaders.
However, with the exception of the few publicity models, most of the "detector vans" that appear in UK streets now and then are simply an empty van with an aerial on top, and have been for at least 40 years. Most of the newer hand-held detectors are also fake, although unlike the vans they do at least have some electronics in them to generate the impressive looking display.
"Its not "crying wolf" when there really are exploits out there that could do damage. "Crying wolf" refers to giving out a warning when there is no danger, here this is a danger that just has yet to manifest itself into actual damage. You want people to pay attention to these kinds of things before they become problems, not after."
""Crying wolf" refers to giving out a warning when there is no danger"
The term "cry wolf" refers to a well-known parable in which a child claims he is _being attacked by wolves_ when he isn't. In the parable, wolves both exist, and are a danger, hence the fact that the entire community drops everything and comes running whenever he yells about being attacked, and their existence and dangerousness is confirmed by the fact that they eventually kill the errant child because the community now assumes that his real cries for help are yet another case of pissing them around.
NB: the misinformation level in your posts is increasing. If this is accidental (as i hope is the case), I suggest you check things before posting for the sake of your own credibility; if on the other hand it is deliberate, then you have no credibility to defend.
""I find this claim rather interesting, because ClamAV is neither a company or the product of a company, and AFAIK never has been.""
"Please don't bicker about semantics like those other guys who are claiming these exploits don't count because they worms, not "true viruses. it is obvious what I meant"
It seems to be you who is bickering over semantics in a rather pathetic attempt to pretend that you weren't completely and utterly wrong (which is something you seem to be rather good at lately).
For obvious meanings, I suggest you check back over your posts, where the context in which you used the term "company" make it quite clear that you (a) were claiming that ClamAv is an AV vendor who would thus have received Finisterre's code and therefore could be the source of a malicious version of Inqtana, and (b) by saying it was the first AV company you met, also claiming to be some sort of "AV industry insider" despite the fact that your posts display a notable ignorance of both malware in general, and the industry that has grown up around it.
NB: I will let you have the last word, as it appears that this is important to you. I shall not however either read or reply to it, because your increasingly strange "arguments" are embarrassing not only us, but anybody else who may end up reading them.
"Oppressive Stalinist Dictatorships: a really, really bad idea, run by humans."
Western Democracies: a moderately bad idea run by humans.