Could somebody please explain the 'scoring' system here? Why is johnpaul getting 2 points for stating that he didn't actually watch the keynote, while I get only a score 1 for actually providing clarifying information ???
That explains it. Well, I guess I'm a sucker for keynotes and yes, sometimes, you get some interesting detail out of them. I mean, watching them yourself. If you haven't watched it yourself, you wouldn't have heard Steve note it was done on an iMac. So, excuse my sharp reply, I was just astonished.
This is an assumption you make. In my experience, Mac users are at least as experienced as average Windows users. Remember, if you assume, you make an ass of u and me.
article is the assumption that Mac users are too smug over security. Where's proof for that ? Just because they're demonstrably safer doesn't mean they're smug over it. Certainly, it's worth discussing the ins and outs of Mac-related safety. However you look at it though, nobody in the world knows nearly enough Mac users to call them generally smug over security issues. How would anybody know ? And anyway, an article that begins with a general ad personas attack, should always be taken with caution. As for the content, others have shown that to be less than accurate. This is just a lame display of under-informed tech journalism trying to impress the ignorant.
As Steve said, the keynote was done on an Intel iMac. Also, he said Photoshop was running on Rosetta and that it wouldn't be fast enough for pros, but good enough for occasional home-use. Doesn't anybody actually watch the stuff they comment on ?
That analogy doesn't hold water either. You can ride the same roads as far as (funtionally identical) apps go. Also, more importantly, I've never seen a racing car without seat belts and wouldn't recommend using one either...
What would be the purpose of IE:Mac ? Certainly not to keep it the way it was. Compared to today's browsers on the Macintosh, it's vastly inferior, as so many have pointed out. However, there seems to be hoping that it could be made more like IE for Windows, thus adding superior compatibility. Yet, even if the latter would happen, it would be rather counter-productive, I think. Certainly, you would gain some compatibility in the short run. On the other hand, there are alternatives, if you absolutely need to use IE specific sites. Probably much more so, with Intel's/Apple's virtualization scheme (vide infra). So, why would it be even counter-productive ? I think a goal for the Internet should be standards compliance. This makes you independent of specific platforms or applications, gives you freedom of choice and facilitates development. The non-IE share is on the rise. The recent success of Firefox, and even the slight market share increase of Macs have already resulted in more sites becoming standards compliant. That momentum must not be lost. So, running after a proprietary solution is exactly the wrong way to go. What matters is the push for standards. IE, no matter on what platform, has no place in that.
P.S. If indeed, it will at some point be possible to use Windows applications under MacOSX without switching systems, the whole issue will be gone anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Could somebody please explain the 'scoring' system here? Why is johnpaul getting 2 points for stating that he didn't actually watch the keynote, while I get only a score 1 for actually providing clarifying information ???
That explains it. Well, I guess I'm a sucker for keynotes and yes, sometimes, you get some interesting detail out of them. I mean, watching them yourself. If you haven't watched it yourself, you wouldn't have heard Steve note it was done on an iMac. So, excuse my sharp reply, I was just astonished.
This is an assumption you make. In my experience, Mac users are at least as experienced as average Windows users. Remember, if you assume, you make an ass of u and me.
article is the assumption that Mac users are too smug over security. Where's proof for that ? Just because they're demonstrably safer doesn't mean they're smug over it. Certainly, it's worth discussing the ins and outs of Mac-related safety. However you look at it though, nobody in the world knows nearly enough Mac users to call them generally smug over security issues. How would anybody know ? And anyway, an article that begins with a general ad personas attack, should always be taken with caution. As for the content, others have shown that to be less than accurate. This is just a lame display of under-informed tech journalism trying to impress the ignorant.
As Steve said, the keynote was done on an Intel iMac. Also, he said Photoshop was running on Rosetta and that it wouldn't be fast enough for pros, but good enough for occasional home-use. Doesn't anybody actually watch the stuff they comment on ?
On the other hand, who'd buy a cheap PC to run MacOS X ?
That analogy doesn't hold water either. You can ride the same roads as far as (funtionally identical) apps go. Also, more importantly, I've never seen a racing car without seat belts and wouldn't recommend using one either...
What would be the purpose of IE:Mac ? Certainly not to keep it the way it was. Compared to today's browsers on the Macintosh, it's vastly inferior, as so many have pointed out. However, there seems to be hoping that it could be made more like IE for Windows, thus adding superior compatibility. Yet, even if the latter would happen, it would be rather counter-productive, I think. Certainly, you would gain some compatibility in the short run. On the other hand, there are alternatives, if you absolutely need to use IE specific sites. Probably much more so, with Intel's/Apple's virtualization scheme (vide infra). So, why would it be even counter-productive ? I think a goal for the Internet should be standards compliance. This makes you independent of specific platforms or applications, gives you freedom of choice and facilitates development. The non-IE share is on the rise. The recent success of Firefox, and even the slight market share increase of Macs have already resulted in more sites becoming standards compliant. That momentum must not be lost. So, running after a proprietary solution is exactly the wrong way to go. What matters is the push for standards. IE, no matter on what platform, has no place in that.
P.S. If indeed, it will at some point be possible to use Windows applications under MacOSX without switching systems, the whole issue will be gone anyway.