Re:Don't compare Mac OS Finder to Windows Explorer
on
The Captains of Nautilus
·
· Score: 2, Informative
As a developper, I find the enthusiasm of your reply quite interesting. Can you provide examples/urls about the features of Finder you find superior to Nautilus' ? I mean, features not also found on win platforms ?
I would read the Human Interface Guidlines as mentioned in other replies. Next I would get my hands on a Mac and play with it. I hate to say it, but Finder is one of those things you need to experience to see the difference.
Given a set of operations to carry out, someone using a GUI file manager and someone else using a command line, I bet more than 9 times out of 10 the command line is faster.
It also has one big advantage, it's inherently scriptable.
Only if you understand all those CLI commands are those faster -- Grandma doesn't grep. Finder is also scriptable. However, all those commands you mentioned, are in Mac OS X, since Mac OS X is UNIX-based.
Don't compare Mac OS Finder to Windows Explorer
on
The Captains of Nautilus
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Isn't this whole explorer metaphor quite new to *NIX, and borrowed from win/mac OSes?
Oh, God, NO! Please don't compare the "whole explorer metaphor" to Mac OS. Finder is the most efficient (IMHO) file management system and perfected in Mac OS X. Windows Explorer and its red-headed stepchild, Nautilus, don't even come close. I've tried them both and they put up barriers to file management with bells and whistles that get in the way of what users really are doing with their files -- copying, moving, deleting, searching, locating and transfering.
Hop over to a CompUSA or an Apple Store and give Finder a spin and you will see the difference.
So, if I have, say, a laptop that I only reboot when I install system updates, and it almost never crashes, a journaling file system would not be very important for me?
On a laptop, a journaling file system would suck down a battery fast since it updates the hard drive contents more often than a non-journaling file system. The more the hard drive spins, the faster the battery is depleted. Journaling is geared to towards servers and power user desktops.
Why do you think that women trying to appear (or are) "Geek Knowledgeable" or "Brainy" on TV have short hairstyles? Do you think long hair on women makes them appear unintelligent? Do you think you are reinforcing this stereotype with your short locks? Or can this all be boiled down to unintelligent women have an unnatural fear of sharp objects being placed near them on a regular basis?
Would this mean that a commercial broadcast television show would have the artist's rights violated if the commercials are removed for distribution on DVD? It would seem that a broadcast commercial television program would have a producer creating an artistic product with commercial breaks in mind. Removing the commercials could interfere with that artistic vision. I watched many shows that have used the commercial break for dramatic pause.
Wow. You've turned the whole issue around.
It isn't the vendors of the multiple sources of x86 hardware that prevent us from running 'the best desktop version of UNIX' (a dubious claim on several levels). It's Apple Computer.
Apple is not preventing you from running "The Best Desktop Version of UNIX". They are more than happy to sell you a $1,000 Mac to run it on. And its not a dubious claim. There is not a better desktop version of UNIX on the Market. Remember, Linux is not UNIX. Its UNIX-Like. I run Tru64 and NetBSD as well and they do not come near the quality of Mac OS X on the Desktop.
Why am I even arguing with a Mac Head?
Dunno. Are you a masochist?
It's a bloody religion.
There has never been a Mac Jihad. So we are a bloodless religion. Would you like some of our literature?
No, the x86 folks have dozens, even hundreds of choices of motherboards to use. They don't have a single source motherboard they can strip out of it's vendor's case and put into a generic case.
Yet none of them will allow you to run the best desktop version of UNIX. How sad...
Sound like you have the same complaints I do with Chimera. However, I find that all browsers on Mac OS X crash more than I like. But since Chimera launches in mere seconds on my Mac, it has become my choice. You are right about the interface, IE is much cleaner. I really need to sit down and hack up a different one.
The next time I read someone in all seriousness using the term "blazingly fast" the baby seal gets it.
You toucha da Baby Seal and I'll senda Gianni Jacklone over to breaka your knees. Capiche? Fagetaboutit!!!
Chimera's great, I use it, but it has zero speed advantage over OmniWeb. Nil. Goosegg. And in my opinion, OmniWeb looks better.
OmniWeb wouldn't know a cascading style sheet if it jumped up and bit it on the ass. I constantly find errors in its interpretation of stylesheets. I find OmniWeb's rendering to be substandard compared Chimera. Save the 25 bucks and use Chimera.
Of course, lets heap praise on the Mozilla developers for their hard work. Without it, we would not have the best browser for Mac OS X, Chimera. Mozilla is a full of bloat that Mac OS X users don't need. We already have iChat, Address Book, Mail and iSync built into our beloved UNIX operating system. So a lot of Mozilla's functionality is not needed -- newsgroups are nice but we have better alternatives. Chimera is what Mac OS X users really need. Its blazingly fast, supports standards and gives Microsoft Internet Explorer something to aspire too. Poor Omniweb never knew what hit them.
If you want to reduce power usage, would you want to use an Intel x86 chip in that goal? Wouldn't a PPC Linux be more power efficient? I am sure others can bring up other lower power consuming chips that have Linux ports than Intel's power hungry beast.
Okay, bruiser. So tell me where I buy a fucking PPC motherboard that's ATX form factor.
There's no way in hell a lot of us are going to wander down proprietary lane and buy hardware from a company that is virulently and aggressively single-sourced.
Take a deep breath and read. Its amazing that you post on Slashdot and can't do a simple google search. Sheesh!
We did that before.
I would consult a mental health professional. Referring to yourself in the third person is not healthy.
Wanna talk bloat? Have you bothered to check what your memory usage is lately?
Want to talk about hysteria? Take a DEEP BREATH and CALM DOWN. It seems the frustration level of your Window Management system is making you a hostile individual that needs to BOLD and UPPERCASE non important information.
OS X IS NOT UNIX!
Uh, yes it is and the Open Group has Apple's back on this. Judging from your post, you need to get your facts straight. Take advantage of that "LEARNING" you so boldy promote. Maybe edit a few text files on who produces UNIX products...give you a hint, RedHat doesn't.
Sadly OS X has more in common with Windows than it does UNIX. It lends itself to some of RedHat's goofiness and I gave up on them a loooooooong time ago.
Sadly, you obviously have never used Mac OS X as a full time operating system or you would know this is absolutely false. Since Mac OS X is a UNIX product, it is more like UNIX than Windows. Common sense there buddy.
Keep this up in Slashdot and someone is going to punch your ticket for the CLUE TRAIN.
Actually, I think you got it the other way around. You're missing the point. Think different!
There is no source available for your windowing system.
If there is no source available, how does the author compile the binaries? Divine intervention?
Further, its RAM usage rivals if not exceeds that of X, not to mention the CPU horsepower required to generate the visual effects we all know and love. X is a lightweight, a true performer compared to Aqua.
CPU Horsepower required can't be that high sense most people gripe that the PPC manufacturer is far behind that of the x86 manufacturer in terms of speed.
Slashdot Mirror
I would read the Human Interface Guidlines as mentioned in other replies. Next I would get my hands on a Mac and play with it. I hate to say it, but Finder is one of those things you need to experience to see the difference.
Only if you understand all those CLI commands are those faster -- Grandma doesn't grep. Finder is also scriptable. However, all those commands you mentioned, are in Mac OS X, since Mac OS X is UNIX-based.
Oh, God, NO! Please don't compare the "whole explorer metaphor" to Mac OS. Finder is the most efficient (IMHO) file management system and perfected in Mac OS X. Windows Explorer and its red-headed stepchild, Nautilus, don't even come close. I've tried them both and they put up barriers to file management with bells and whistles that get in the way of what users really are doing with their files -- copying, moving, deleting, searching, locating and transfering.
Hop over to a CompUSA or an Apple Store and give Finder a spin and you will see the difference.
On a laptop, a journaling file system would suck down a battery fast since it updates the hard drive contents more often than a non-journaling file system. The more the hard drive spins, the faster the battery is depleted. Journaling is geared to towards servers and power user desktops.
Extra credit: Do you prefer mousse or gel?
Would this mean that a commercial broadcast television show would have the artist's rights violated if the commercials are removed for distribution on DVD? It would seem that a broadcast commercial television program would have a producer creating an artistic product with commercial breaks in mind. Removing the commercials could interfere with that artistic vision. I watched many shows that have used the commercial break for dramatic pause.
Why ask me? If you knew about UNIX, you would hop over to the Open Group and see for yourself.
F you and the Mac you rode into town on.
No thanks. I don't F anyone that can't afford a Mac.
Apple is not preventing you from running "The Best Desktop Version of UNIX". They are more than happy to sell you a $1,000 Mac to run it on. And its not a dubious claim. There is not a better desktop version of UNIX on the Market. Remember, Linux is not UNIX. Its UNIX-Like. I run Tru64 and NetBSD as well and they do not come near the quality of Mac OS X on the Desktop.
Why am I even arguing with a Mac Head?
Dunno. Are you a masochist?
It's a bloody religion.
There has never been a Mac Jihad. So we are a bloodless religion. Would you like some of our literature?
Yet none of them will allow you to run the best desktop version of UNIX. How sad...
Ha, ha! I know the feeling. Yea, I remember using vi 20 years ago. Oh wait, I still do.
Sound like you have the same complaints I do with Chimera. However, I find that all browsers on Mac OS X crash more than I like. But since Chimera launches in mere seconds on my Mac, it has become my choice. You are right about the interface, IE is much cleaner. I really need to sit down and hack up a different one.
That's why I kissed Giant Lizard butt at the beginnning of the post.
You toucha da Baby Seal and I'll senda Gianni Jacklone over to breaka your knees. Capiche? Fagetaboutit!!!
Chimera's great, I use it, but it has zero speed advantage over OmniWeb. Nil. Goosegg. And in my opinion, OmniWeb looks better.
OmniWeb wouldn't know a cascading style sheet if it jumped up and bit it on the ass. I constantly find errors in its interpretation of stylesheets. I find OmniWeb's rendering to be substandard compared Chimera. Save the 25 bucks and use Chimera.
Get the latest nightly build here!
Isn't that what x86 folks do? And the plans show how to use an ATX case.
I should have known! :)
I had the same thought! :)
You think this is a joke but here's the proof that its true!
You're welcome!
If you want to reduce power usage, would you want to use an Intel x86 chip in that goal? Wouldn't a PPC Linux be more power efficient? I am sure others can bring up other lower power consuming chips that have Linux ports than Intel's power hungry beast.
Take a deep breath and read. Its amazing that you post on Slashdot and can't do a simple google search. Sheesh!
We did that before.
I would consult a mental health professional. Referring to yourself in the third person is not healthy.
Thanks for that insightful reply!
Obviously not to your level of insanity.
Wanna talk bloat? Have you bothered to check what your memory usage is lately?
Want to talk about hysteria? Take a DEEP BREATH and CALM DOWN. It seems the frustration level of your Window Management system is making you a hostile individual that needs to BOLD and UPPERCASE non important information.
OS X IS NOT UNIX!
Uh, yes it is and the Open Group has Apple's back on this. Judging from your post, you need to get your facts straight. Take advantage of that "LEARNING" you so boldy promote. Maybe edit a few text files on who produces UNIX products...give you a hint, RedHat doesn't.
Sadly OS X has more in common with Windows than it does UNIX. It lends itself to some of RedHat's goofiness and I gave up on them a loooooooong time ago.
Sadly, you obviously have never used Mac OS X as a full time operating system or you would know this is absolutely false. Since Mac OS X is a UNIX product, it is more like UNIX than Windows. Common sense there buddy.
Keep this up in Slashdot and someone is going to punch your ticket for the CLUE TRAIN.
Actually, I think you got it the other way around. You're missing the point. Think different!
There is no source available for your windowing system.
If there is no source available, how does the author compile the binaries? Divine intervention?
Further, its RAM usage rivals if not exceeds that of X, not to mention the CPU horsepower required to generate the visual effects we all know and love. X is a lightweight, a true performer compared to Aqua.
CPU Horsepower required can't be that high sense most people gripe that the PPC manufacturer is far behind that of the x86 manufacturer in terms of speed.
What other operating system would you want to use but UNIX?