As far as network resources are concerned, my network survives sleeping fine, though I don't use wifi as it's a desktop on a GigE connection.
Trust me, you soon learn to turn off wireless on your Apple laptop before changing locations. Things got twice as bad when I signed up for.Mac and put the iDisk on my desktop... if I open up the laptop on the commuter train to work (which has extremely unreliable wireless), Finder's frozen for a half hour solid.
But the point here is that you can't really make a fair judgement, given you don't seem to even know how to use Windows in the first place. If I had a Mac in front of me and I didn't know how to eject a disk, then you handed me a Windows computer and I learned how to eject a disk on it, then yes I'd think the Windows computer was better.
It's kind of hard to answer your numerous questions without knowing what icon, exactly, you're clicking on. If you click the icon in the System Tray that looks like a PCMCIA card sliding out of a slot and has a tooltip to the effect of "Eject Removable Devices", it will pop up a menu of all the removable devices on your computer including USB disks. You select the one you want to eject, and you're done. It disappears, then a little speech bubble appears and says "your device is safely removed" and you can pull it out. At least as easily as OS X, PLUS you get graphical feedback when it's actually OK to physically remove the device.
There's no right-clicking involved... if you're right-clicking at all, you're doing something wrong.
If you're clicking on the icon of the USB disk in "My Computer" you're probably doing something wrong. (Although maybe that is a way to do it also; I've actually never tried.)
The point is, I use and (generally) like Mac OS X also, but you can't spout out shit about Windows if you don't KNOW Windows. I could as easily say that Mac OS X sucks ass because there's no way to format a disk, which displays about the same level of ignorance about Mac OS as you did about Windows.
If you use both systems, you realize that both do a lot of right and a lot of wrong. Windows Explorer is excellent at handling a folder with 10,000+ files in it, when that same directory will crash Finder. Meanwhile, OS X has the Expose window-switching method which is far superior than any equivalent method in Windows. Meanwhile, Windows handles network resources about 30,000 times smarter than OS X and won't freeze or choke if you put your computer to sleep, then wake it in a different wifi network. Meanwhile, Mail.app is a better email client than Outlook, meanwhile Outlook has a much better calendar than iCal, etc etc etc.
The first few versions of Macintosh didn't multitask... (with the exception of Desk Accessories, which weren't allowed to have any menus at all) it was "safe" to modify the top menu because you were only running one app at a time anyway. Windows was designed to multitask from the start. By the time Apple/Switcher started to allow multitasking, it would have been impossible to get every application writer to "fix" their app so that it attached menus to the window, and so Mac OS uses a single menu because, basically, "it always has." And remember, Apple did the GUI thing first, so it's Microsoft who did it "wrong" based on the existing example.;)
I'm not sure which method I prefer. When you have a couple big monitors, the advantages of the affixed menu kind of disappear... I mean, sure Fitt's Law makes it easier to target, but being two monitors to the left of the pointer makes it a lot harder to target at the same time.
Ejecting a USB storage device in windows is a 5 click, 2 dialog box, and one context menu procedure... on a mac it's two click procedure, one to open finder one to eject.
How do you figure? You click on the "removable media" icon, then click on the drive letter of the USB device you want to remove... it's 2 clicks. I'm a Mac user, but stop with this stupid FUD.
One thing you didn't mention is that Windows XP will *tell* you when the disk is actually ejected, and it won't remove the icon for that disk until it's actually safe to remove. Frequently, when I eject a USB memory stick in OS X, the icon will disappear and I'll pull out the drive only to be yelled at because I "improperly removed" it! Stupid OS X... don't remove the damned icon if you're not ready to lose the disk.
I've had lock-ups before when Finder was trying to update the.Mac online drive on an unreliable internet connection, or trying to connect to a drive it no longer has access to (i.e. when the wireless network changes.) I've never seen anything else lock up the system, either on my iBook or my G5. (Not even the menu bar. Sometimes a program will block the menu bar, but if I click on the desktop or another program, it becomes usable again.)
I wonder if it's a x86 thing? Maybe some bad emulation going on? I dunno.
Finder locks up, because it's a giant ball of shit, but other OS X applications shouldn't lock up enough to force a reboot. Are you 100% sure it's not a bad stick of RAM causing your problems?
Almost always, when people complain about bluescreens in Windows or lockups in OS X, it's bad hardware from my experience. Nearly 100% of the time.
Sounds like a good idea. Why doesn't serious biology and science just mass-rename the concept of "evolution" to "superhappychange" or some other cheesy term. Then you can instantly dismiss anybody who says "evolution" as out-of-touch and ignore their arguments.
Of course, from my experience, the vast majority of people arguing over "evolution" are actually arguing against "natural selection," which is a different concept altogether. Natural Selection presumes Evolution, but Evolution doesn't require Natural Selection.
I guess if you're really worried you could move to a country that, you know, actually HAS a computer industry and makes OSes. You know, just as a little bit of advice.
Daggerfall was a raging bug-fest. It was literally impossible to beat most dungeons without cheating-- not because the monsters were difficult, but because that "randomly generated large world" you're so fond of often generated bottomless pits that caused you to fall out of the world, or frequently designed dungeons with one-way traps in them.
You could steal anything from any shop by just entering the shop, then using "Wait" until the shop was closed-- shopkeeper leaves you locked in! You can take whatever you want, then "Wait" until the shop opens again to leave. Moronic AI.
Sorry, but how anybody can like a game that buggy, I'll never know. Morrowind made up for it, being excellent on all levels, and Oblivion more-than made up for it.
You used to have to go to MUDs or MUCKs to have fake sex with your anthropomorphic wolf lover, but now you can do it in Second Life with graphical avatars and animations and everything! Please kill me now!
Just to be fair to Metallica, they didn't want to create draconian copy rights, they just wanted to be asked permission before their music was used for something. I think that's a fair request. Whether they would grant permission or not without draconian copy rights, who knows, but the point is that nobody asked them.
Step 1: Complain about drop-in-the-ocean piracy for a decade.
Slow down here a second. While VHS copying might well have been "drop in the ocean" piracy, Napster was not by any stretch of the imagination. It had newspaper headlines all over, and it was so popular that many, if not most, college internet connections were running 95% Napster traffic for years.
... or I can just double-click the Remote Desktop icon and type in my password. Wow, Linux is SO EASY TO USE!
You can use ssh tunneling to secure more than just VNC or remote X sessions at a cost of some simplicity of use.
Actually, no I can't because I have WORK to get done that doesn't involve tinkering with my computer for three months to figure out all that crap you just typed.
1) What the hell is the point of restriction connections to local machines only? You can remote in to your computer... but only from your computer! Moronic.
2) In fact, that's the whole beauty of the "Unix way" you've got a small program like ssh that you can use to secure all kinds of less-secure remote processes, rather than having all the various programs reinvent the wheel every time.
If you have enough free time to learn how. I looked up instructions for how to do this on Ubuntu, it was complete gibberish to me. Why it can't just be secure BY DEFAULT like Microsoft's implementation, who freakin' knows?
In any case, VNC also doesn't lock out your local monitor when you're using the computer remotely, and there's no way to secure that. Microsoft's does it by default, of course.
1) It doesn't run on my Windows box. DUUUHHH!! I remote control the PC from the Mac, not the other way around. Apple's Remote Desktop does the exact opposite of what I need.
And why should these aesthetic presence and ease-of-use conflict?
Unix geeks think that anything that looks good MUST by extension be badly designed. This doesn't apply in any other field. In fact, pilots are known for judging the quality of an aircraft by its appearance... the best planes just *look* like they belong in the air.
When asked about OS X compositing effects, they assume the only purpose is to look good and not to assist in usability. Anybody who's even glanced at the Expose feature in OS X can dispute that easily.
Heck, even Slashdot itself:
You most likely are not so interested in yourself, and probably would be more interested in the Preferences links you see up top there, where you can customize Slashdot, change your password, or just click pretty widgets to kill time.
When you visit a user page. (And, BTW, web widgets look like ASS if you use the default appearance. They're the opposite of pretty widgets.)
I love it when a webpage specifies a dark/black image background but neglects to set the background color to something dark. So the image doesn't load for whatever reason, and suddenly you're confronted with a white-on-white color-scheme!
For me, it was that Windows XP Pro included Remote Desktop for free. That's a killer feature... for Linux and OS X you have to install VNC which doesn't work that well and isn't secure by default (and impossible to make secure easily.)
That Microsoft released a Mac OS X client for Remote Desktop is just frosting on the cake.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as network resources are concerned, my network survives sleeping fine, though I don't use wifi as it's a desktop on a GigE connection.
.Mac and put the iDisk on my desktop... if I open up the laptop on the commuter train to work (which has extremely unreliable wireless), Finder's frozen for a half hour solid.
Trust me, you soon learn to turn off wireless on your Apple laptop before changing locations. Things got twice as bad when I signed up for
Constantly pisses me off.
Dude. FoxIt PDF reader.
Running Adobe Reader is asking for trouble... there might be a more bloated and crappy application, but I don't know it.
Yes, yes, I use a Mac, too.
But the point here is that you can't really make a fair judgement, given you don't seem to even know how to use Windows in the first place. If I had a Mac in front of me and I didn't know how to eject a disk, then you handed me a Windows computer and I learned how to eject a disk on it, then yes I'd think the Windows computer was better.
It's kind of hard to answer your numerous questions without knowing what icon, exactly, you're clicking on. If you click the icon in the System Tray that looks like a PCMCIA card sliding out of a slot and has a tooltip to the effect of "Eject Removable Devices", it will pop up a menu of all the removable devices on your computer including USB disks. You select the one you want to eject, and you're done. It disappears, then a little speech bubble appears and says "your device is safely removed" and you can pull it out. At least as easily as OS X, PLUS you get graphical feedback when it's actually OK to physically remove the device.
There's no right-clicking involved... if you're right-clicking at all, you're doing something wrong.
If you're clicking on the icon of the USB disk in "My Computer" you're probably doing something wrong. (Although maybe that is a way to do it also; I've actually never tried.)
The point is, I use and (generally) like Mac OS X also, but you can't spout out shit about Windows if you don't KNOW Windows. I could as easily say that Mac OS X sucks ass because there's no way to format a disk, which displays about the same level of ignorance about Mac OS as you did about Windows.
If you use both systems, you realize that both do a lot of right and a lot of wrong. Windows Explorer is excellent at handling a folder with 10,000+ files in it, when that same directory will crash Finder. Meanwhile, OS X has the Expose window-switching method which is far superior than any equivalent method in Windows. Meanwhile, Windows handles network resources about 30,000 times smarter than OS X and won't freeze or choke if you put your computer to sleep, then wake it in a different wifi network. Meanwhile, Mail.app is a better email client than Outlook, meanwhile Outlook has a much better calendar than iCal, etc etc etc.
They didn't "make" the distinction, they just never "un-made" the distinction. Macintosh started out as a single-task system, remember.
The first few versions of Macintosh didn't multitask... (with the exception of Desk Accessories, which weren't allowed to have any menus at all) it was "safe" to modify the top menu because you were only running one app at a time anyway. Windows was designed to multitask from the start. By the time Apple/Switcher started to allow multitasking, it would have been impossible to get every application writer to "fix" their app so that it attached menus to the window, and so Mac OS uses a single menu because, basically, "it always has." And remember, Apple did the GUI thing first, so it's Microsoft who did it "wrong" based on the existing example. ;)
I'm not sure which method I prefer. When you have a couple big monitors, the advantages of the affixed menu kind of disappear... I mean, sure Fitt's Law makes it easier to target, but being two monitors to the left of the pointer makes it a lot harder to target at the same time.
Ejecting a USB storage device in windows is a 5 click, 2 dialog box, and one context menu procedure... on a mac it's two click procedure, one to open finder one to eject.
How do you figure? You click on the "removable media" icon, then click on the drive letter of the USB device you want to remove... it's 2 clicks. I'm a Mac user, but stop with this stupid FUD.
One thing you didn't mention is that Windows XP will *tell* you when the disk is actually ejected, and it won't remove the icon for that disk until it's actually safe to remove. Frequently, when I eject a USB memory stick in OS X, the icon will disappear and I'll pull out the drive only to be yelled at because I "improperly removed" it! Stupid OS X... don't remove the damned icon if you're not ready to lose the disk.
I've had lock-ups before when Finder was trying to update the .Mac online drive on an unreliable internet connection, or trying to connect to a drive it no longer has access to (i.e. when the wireless network changes.) I've never seen anything else lock up the system, either on my iBook or my G5. (Not even the menu bar. Sometimes a program will block the menu bar, but if I click on the desktop or another program, it becomes usable again.)
I wonder if it's a x86 thing? Maybe some bad emulation going on? I dunno.
He's running Windows 2003. And moving to Vista soon. It says right in the summary.
Finder locks up, because it's a giant ball of shit, but other OS X applications shouldn't lock up enough to force a reboot. Are you 100% sure it's not a bad stick of RAM causing your problems?
Almost always, when people complain about bluescreens in Windows or lockups in OS X, it's bad hardware from my experience. Nearly 100% of the time.
Sounds like a good idea. Why doesn't serious biology and science just mass-rename the concept of "evolution" to "superhappychange" or some other cheesy term. Then you can instantly dismiss anybody who says "evolution" as out-of-touch and ignore their arguments.
Of course, from my experience, the vast majority of people arguing over "evolution" are actually arguing against "natural selection," which is a different concept altogether. Natural Selection presumes Evolution, but Evolution doesn't require Natural Selection.
I guess if you're really worried you could move to a country that, you know, actually HAS a computer industry and makes OSes. You know, just as a little bit of advice.
Daggerfall was a raging bug-fest. It was literally impossible to beat most dungeons without cheating-- not because the monsters were difficult, but because that "randomly generated large world" you're so fond of often generated bottomless pits that caused you to fall out of the world, or frequently designed dungeons with one-way traps in them.
You could steal anything from any shop by just entering the shop, then using "Wait" until the shop was closed-- shopkeeper leaves you locked in! You can take whatever you want, then "Wait" until the shop opens again to leave. Moronic AI.
Sorry, but how anybody can like a game that buggy, I'll never know. Morrowind made up for it, being excellent on all levels, and Oblivion more-than made up for it.
So it's not like they've been producing only FPS games this entire time, and Viva Pinata is fun as hell.
You used to have to go to MUDs or MUCKs to have fake sex with your anthropomorphic wolf lover, but now you can do it in Second Life with graphical avatars and animations and everything! Please kill me now!
Agreed. Was this written by a 13-year old?
The pointless linking to the YouTube videos don't really help the cause either.
Just to be fair to Metallica, they didn't want to create draconian copy rights, they just wanted to be asked permission before their music was used for something. I think that's a fair request. Whether they would grant permission or not without draconian copy rights, who knows, but the point is that nobody asked them.
Step 1: Complain about drop-in-the-ocean piracy for a decade.
Slow down here a second. While VHS copying might well have been "drop in the ocean" piracy, Napster was not by any stretch of the imagination. It had newspaper headlines all over, and it was so popular that many, if not most, college internet connections were running 95% Napster traffic for years.
Slashdot's only posted 36 Vista-bashing stories this week! Step it up, people! There should be at least ten a day!
... or I can just double-click the Remote Desktop icon and type in my password. Wow, Linux is SO EASY TO USE!
You can use ssh tunneling to secure more than just VNC or remote X sessions at a cost of some simplicity of use.
Actually, no I can't because I have WORK to get done that doesn't involve tinkering with my computer for three months to figure out all that crap you just typed.
I dunno, his Ro-Beasts seem pretty pathetic. We could probably just attack them with a Voltron toy and they wouldn't know the difference.
1) What the hell is the point of restriction connections to local machines only? You can remote in to your computer... but only from your computer! Moronic.
2) In fact, that's the whole beauty of the "Unix way" you've got a small program like ssh that you can use to secure all kinds of less-secure remote processes, rather than having all the various programs reinvent the wheel every time.
If you have enough free time to learn how. I looked up instructions for how to do this on Ubuntu, it was complete gibberish to me. Why it can't just be secure BY DEFAULT like Microsoft's implementation, who freakin' knows?
In any case, VNC also doesn't lock out your local monitor when you're using the computer remotely, and there's no way to secure that. Microsoft's does it by default, of course.
A couple reasons.
1) It doesn't run on my Windows box. DUUUHHH!! I remote control the PC from the Mac, not the other way around. Apple's Remote Desktop does the exact opposite of what I need.
2) It's expensive. Remote Desktop is free.
And why should these aesthetic presence and ease-of-use conflict?
Unix geeks think that anything that looks good MUST by extension be badly designed. This doesn't apply in any other field. In fact, pilots are known for judging the quality of an aircraft by its appearance... the best planes just *look* like they belong in the air.
When asked about OS X compositing effects, they assume the only purpose is to look good and not to assist in usability. Anybody who's even glanced at the Expose feature in OS X can dispute that easily.
Heck, even Slashdot itself:
You most likely are not so interested in yourself, and probably would be more interested in the Preferences links you see up top there, where you can customize Slashdot, change your password, or just click pretty widgets to kill time.
When you visit a user page. (And, BTW, web widgets look like ASS if you use the default appearance. They're the opposite of pretty widgets.)
I love it when a webpage specifies a dark/black image background but neglects to set the background color to something dark. So the image doesn't load for whatever reason, and suddenly you're confronted with a white-on-white color-scheme!
For me, it was that Windows XP Pro included Remote Desktop for free. That's a killer feature... for Linux and OS X you have to install VNC which doesn't work that well and isn't secure by default (and impossible to make secure easily.)
That Microsoft released a Mac OS X client for Remote Desktop is just frosting on the cake.