or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Windows 7 vs. Mac OS X Snow Leopard: Apple ups the ante
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Windows 7 vs. Mac OS X Snow Leopard: Apple ups the ante - Page 3

post #81 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prince View Post

Apple is using standard HTML5 and JavaScript to implement MobileMe, that's why any modern browser can use it. There is no proprietary plugin required to download (OVER AND OVER AGAIN as with Silverlight). That's the difference. No need to be frustrated and angry.

Have they stopped blocking Opera then? I tested that when MobileMe came out because I was curious, Opera was blocked no matter what user agent I used.

Sebastian
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
post #82 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post

Sorry but that is a crap list.

Only if you are a fan of MS and don't like this uncomfortable truth. MS has to adopt open standards. As many of its proprietary standards are not widely used. But MS still wants to push its own proprietary standards.

Quote:
UNIX - Windows NT - So Apple are selling something thats free, and Microsoft wrote there own, this is what your paying for remember

UNIX isn't free, Apple has continued development of it. My over all point is that one is open, the other is proprietary.

Quote:
Webkit - Trident - Again same logic

I agree same logic, one is open, one is proprietary.

Quote:
HTML/Javacript/CSS - IE Propretary Extensions - Are you trying to say IE doesn't support HTML/Javascript and CSS, because last time I checked it did. Not only that IE was the first browser to support CSS!

I'm saying Apple supports standards with no proprietary extensions. While MS supports proprietary extensions and some standards.

Quote:
H.264 - Windows Media Video - Doesn't MS support H.264 as well? AAC - Windows Media Audio - Supports both...JPEG - Windows Media Photo - Again are you trying to say MS don't support JPEG's

Again one is open, one is proprietary. MS has to also support JPEG, H,264 and AAC otherwise Windows Media would not be able to display a great deal of the content in the world. But its not their goal to support open standards.

Quote:
PDF - XML - You know there not the same thing right. Not only that but XML was a standard long before Adobe decided they would release PDF's to become a standard! XML is also like the biggest standard the world has ever seen.

You are right I was too general, I meant XPS - the XML paper specification.

Quote:
Its like you've said the thing for a company to do it make a product full of stuff they can get for free and never invent anything themselves, then sell it. Rather than support all the standards and try having a go at inventing a few things along the way. After all what do you think things are before there standards?

You cannot use open standard software for free you have to pay a license for their use. Apple often further adds development to open source software and gives it back to the open source community for free. So none of this is free for Apple.

The problem ultimately is that MS uses its dominance to compete with everyone and consolidate all standards and services under Windows. MS has in the past used its dominance to kill competitors and stifle innovation that will not directly benefit Windows.
post #83 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Kuehn View Post

I really don't know if it will be released in client or not, but the more important question is whether it will matter at all. Even if it is released the chances of being able to boot off a ZFS volume are really slim. And since 95%+ of all users have only a single hard drive, and only a single (non-Bootcamp) volume on that, ZFS becomes moot.

Additionally I would argue that ZFS's strengths really kick in only when you have multiple drives put into the same pool, and that sort of thing is beyond most people. I do recognize that there are some strengths with only a single volume (checksum scrubbing, snapshots, etc), but there are also a lot of problems with it at the moment (Sun is only now starting to have support for booting, and recognize that there are problems on heavily loaded systems). And some of the strengths come with huge caveats: snapshots are nice, but when you start running out of space on the drive what do you do? You can't just eliminate older versions of a large file, you have to wiping out the whole snapshot.

So Apple may well have read/write support for ZFS in 'client, but it is only going to be advertised for 'server, where having your remote-user data on a separate volume is not only supported bu actively recommended. And even there I bet Apple will be conservative and list it as supported rather than recommended.

That is exactly my thought. I dont think ZFS will ever caught on in Client Side. ZFS will properly included in Client without much advertise. Because it is simple not a user wanted feature.

May be it wont be included until Apple release a Apple Home Server. Which the clients will then install the OS update to interact with Apple Home Server ZFS system.

As we need more storage and backup. We would want to move those large HDD to outside. Keeping the Client Slim. By the time ZFS iron out all of its issues. SSD will be moving mainstream into all Apple's computer. Apple is already largest Flash buyer in the industry, they get better pricing and economy of scales once this apply to SSD. Which is essentially the same thing.

Therefore apart from the forth coming Apple Home Server, I dot see ZFS's place in Client side of things.

There are only two kind of people in this world.

Those who dont understand Apple and those who misunderstood Apple.

Reply

There are only two kind of people in this world.

Those who dont understand Apple and those who misunderstood Apple.

Reply
post #84 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksec View Post

Therefore apart from the forth coming Apple Home Server, I dot see ZFS's place in Client side of things.

How about reading and writing data on those servers?

Sebastian
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
post #85 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slewis View Post

To be fair, UNIX isn't really a standard, and "UNIX" certification of Unix-like OSs isn't exactly the most important thing to IT, and "WMP" is being considered by the JPEG group to be adopted as JPEG XR, VC-1 is also an open standard that competes with H.264.

My point is that UNIX is open Windows NT is not.

Yes MS has been forced to submit its media standards for open source because this is the only way they have a chance of being widely used. As the market moves away from MS proprietary software.


Quote:
Linux isn't an answer at all, I assume you're pointing out the different distributions.

I never claimed it was a utopia, but it would still help Apple immensely to have a larger number of developers for the core OS and the core frameworks, as well as help their customers, and other benefits I already outlined (if they pulled off a transition correctly). Your arguments are also too simple,

I brought up Linux as an example to say that open source doesn't necessarily work the way you claim it would for OS X.
post #86 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

My point is that UNIX is open Windows NT is not.

Yes MS has been forced to submit its media standards for open source because this is the only way they have a chance of being widely used. As the market moves away from MS proprietary software.

Yes, generally ANY company that wishes for their formats, in this decade anyway, to be widely adopted will submit them to a standards body, and generally any company that wishes for any interoperability of any kind or at least does not want to waste time remaking the wheel will adopt other open standards. UNIX has been reduced to a spec, I don't consider it a standard even if you can "certify" it and be able to use it's trademark, common UNIX software has long since been ported to Unix-like systems, BSD ended up rewriting UNIX but is still considered UNIX, OSs based on System V like Solaris and AIX can claim to have original UNIX source code, but if a Linux distributor had the money they could iron out anything in their distro that's not compliant, make it compliant, then submit it the Open Group and be proud licensees of a name, at least POSIX is a real standard, but even that's not important to anybody except management government agencies.

Edit: I wanted to add, that Microsoft also opened up some of .NET, including the CLR and the C# language, and I'm sure that if we had a comparison chart of which open standards (not open source, the two are not the same thing at all) are supported along with the level of support (bare minimum or all of it), we'd find Microsoft on a bare minimum, on par with Apple, and more likely, ahead of Apple. But such a comparison would be worthless because in the end they both support a metric assload of standards, some of which they started, mostly those they didn't, and they both take two different approaches to developing their OSs, Microsoft with a mostly closed source model, although Singularity is an open source research project, and Apple with their mostly open source kernel and userland but mostly closed source APIs, frameworks, and bundled apps and tools. I'm in preference of Apple's model over Microsoft's, but still think Apple would benefit from opensourcing all of their APIs and frameworks, even if they don't have the incentive to right now.

Quote:
I brought up Linux as an example to say that open source doesn't necessarily work the way you claim it would for OS X.

Linux is a kernel that supports more architectures and probably more drivers (a Linux driver project claims it does anyway, I'd believe it simply because while it lags behind in newer hardware for wireless chipsets and graphics cards, less so recently but to an extent, it's support for older hardware is likely unparalleled when compared to any other kernel) than any other operating system in the world, I say that substantiates my claims that it would lead to Mac OS X being ported to more architectures and with a larger library of drivers so better hardware support as well, sadly it seems the kernel developers focus more on server performance than desktop performance, but there are patch sets to improve desktop performance. Of course if Mac OS X were ported to more architectures, then of course software could be compiled in a fat mach-o binary to support those other architectures, I've always wondered how it would run on the Cell.

Sebastian
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
post #87 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slewis View Post

How about reading and writing data on those servers?

Sebastian

That is why i said

May be it wont be included ( or tuned on ) until Apple release a Apple Home Server. Which the clients will then install the OS update to interact with Apple Home Server ZFS system.

There are only two kind of people in this world.

Those who dont understand Apple and those who misunderstood Apple.

Reply

There are only two kind of people in this world.

Those who dont understand Apple and those who misunderstood Apple.

Reply
post #88 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksec View Post

That is why i said

May be it wont be included ( or tuned on ) until Apple release a Apple Home Server. Which the clients will then install the OS update to interact with Apple Home Server ZFS system.

1) That would be pointless, on par with not bundling a Terminal emulator or X emulator stupid, when they could just bundle the file system with both read and write access without hurting anyone or anything, and providing a useful tool for developers and admins to test Apple's ZFS support.

2) I'm not talking about your theoretical server, I'm talking about Apple's real servers that will use ZFS, the client OS should at bare minimum be able to read and write data from the server OS.

3) Even if they don't include it in Mac OS X by default, people will just grab it at macosforge.org, but it would still be stupid of them not to bundle it.

Sebastian
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
post #89 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by bokuwaomar View Post

You know, adding a menu bar to the top of each screen isn't exactly difficult, and it would make a lot of people's lives easier.

But it does introduce UE (user experience) issues along with ease of use issues.
a cool option for the power user, not for the basic. would be cool if it were terminal enabled, but that's it.
post #90 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maserati View Post

All I want from any new OS release is please, for the love of God, do something about system font conflicts with the Helvetica family. License the real Helvetica and Helvetica Neue, fix the system versions so the font metrics match... ANYTHING.

That'd be a feature most design shops would kill for.

Amen! I just spent an entire day trying to figure out why Flash CS4 kept crashing on launch. Turns out it was the Helvetica Family of fonts I have. Only way to resolve it was to go spend $300 and purchase a version from Veer. Works like a champ now. But now I only have a limited set of Helvetica fonts. The full set will run you around $1700.
post #91 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slewis View Post

How about reading and writing data on those servers?

Sebastian

This will probably be handled by a network protocol unless you want to connect your server hard drives directly to your client (for whatever reason).
post #92 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post

... Almost all the techies where I work use multiple screens so I know what you are talking about though. IMO however, having multiple screens is mostly a status thing, even though none would admit to that...Personally I never liked switching my head around all the time, so I've used virtual desktop (software) solutions (on every computer I've had that allows it) for many years.

No mate, even for office work one can be much more productive with 2 screens. When doing work, for me nowadays, design or non-design (text, email, web surfing based), it is very difficult with just one screen, especially if that screen is a 13" or even 15".
post #93 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Only if you are a fan of MS and don't like this uncomfortable truth. MS has to adopt open standards. As many of its proprietary standards are not widely used. But MS still wants to push its own proprietary standards.

UNIX isn't free, Apple has continued development of it. My over all point is that one is open, the other is proprietary.

I agree same logic, one is open, one is proprietary.

I'm saying Apple supports standards with no proprietary extensions. While MS supports proprietary extensions and some standards.

Again one is open, one is proprietary. MS has to also support JPEG, H,264 and AAC otherwise Windows Media would not be able to display a great deal of the content in the world. But its not their goal to support open standards.

You are right I was too general, I meant XPS - the XML paper specification.

You cannot use open standard software for free you have to pay a license for their use. Apple often further adds development to open source software and gives it back to the open source community for free. So none of this is free for Apple.

The problem ultimately is that MS uses its dominance to compete with everyone and consolidate all standards and services under Windows. MS has in the past used its dominance to kill competitors and stifle innovation that will not directly benefit Windows.

That still doesn't make any sense out of your list of 7 technologies Microsoft support 5 of them and the only 2 they don't is UNIX, which quite frankly is never going to happen as its the equivelent of Microsofts core technology, why would they change? And WebKit which came after they developed there version so again why should they change. Also its not like you cant run WebKit if you want.

I don't get what it is you expect Microsoft to do, stop developing new ideas? And if they do develop new things why shouldn't they keep it for themselves, after all they developed it in the first place. It's not that much different with Apple, if you wan't to write an iPhone App you have to use Apples technology (no Java aloud) and have to sell it through the App Store, no independant stores aloud.
post #94 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by bokuwaomar View Post

Apple is marketing their new LED Cinema Display as a docking station for notebooks though, and the main benefit of using the LED Cinema Display would not be the second screen, but the larger screen.

In this case because the difference between the two screens is so huge, yeah I don't think it is for dual-screen use. One 24" is some really nice screen real estate in and of itself. Unless for music and video editing, etc. where one would use a pair of 23" or 24" or 30"s.
post #95 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashmanBurgess View Post

Amen! I just spent an entire day trying to figure out why Flash CS4 kept crashing on launch. Turns out it was the Helvetica Family of fonts I have. Only way to resolve it was to go spend $300 and purchase a version from Veer. Works like a champ now. But now I only have a limited set of Helvetica fonts. The full set will run you around $1700.

NO WONDER the typography and embedding, etc. all gets weirded out in CS4. Thanks. I am enlightened.
post #96 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

MobileMe requires the installation of a control panel on Windows. Not only that, but you're required to install iTunes as well.

"Download and install the latest version of iTunes. iTunes is required to set up MobileMe on your PC."

And iTunes installs services that launch transparently with the OS and run in the background, whether or not you even use iTunes.

Apple sucks hard at software that isn't running on their computers.

So how do you suggest they make your system watch out for push updates without running a background process?
post #97 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by bokuwaomar View Post

You know, adding a menu bar to the top of each screen isn't exactly difficult, and it would make a lot of people's lives easier.

Won't happen.
If you're talking about one long menu bar that spans both screens, you're implying the need for literally dozens of drop-downs, icons, etc. What a mess that would be.
If you're talking about a duplicate menu bar on each monitor, I can think of half a dozen interface guidelines that that violates, starting with confusing duplication and 'corner anchoring'.
In 25 years of using a Mac, I've never heard anyone ask for that. First time for everything, I guess.
post #98 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post

Well, yeah. I was being overly snarky I guess. Sorry.

I bet if you asked Apple's designers about this though, they would say that this problem was "fixed" by the addition of spaces in Leopard. I'm not sure I would disagree either. It's the same kind of "solve it with software" thing that Apple did with iPhone's keyboard.

Almost all the techies where I work use multiple screens so I know what you are talking about though. IMO however, having multiple screens is mostly a status thing, even though none would admit to that. The extra screen is typically for watching some process or other, or monitoring a server somewhere, neither of which is *really* necessary to have the second screen for (again IMO).

Personally I never liked switching my head around all the time, so I've used virtual desktop (software) solutions (on every computer I've had that allows it) for many years.

Multiple screens if far from a 'status thing'.
I work all day on a dual screen where I can slide distracting windows out of my main sight but still see them peripherally, or can compare large documents side-by-side.
While I need this less at home, I absolutely miss having it.
post #99 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by TiAdiMundo View Post

And Safari has major security issues on Windows.

Yup, and a gourmet meal served in an outhouse is less than appealing as well.
post #100 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

No mate, even for office work one can be much more productive with 2 screens. When doing work, for me nowadays, design or non-design (text, email, web surfing based), it is very difficult with just one screen, especially if that screen is a 13" or even 15".

My argument was that for me (and of course others probably), having two virtual screens is a much better solution than having the multiple physical screens. At work I currently use an iMac. I always have about three screens on the go, but they are "spaces" or virtual desktops. Virtual desktop software has been around for years and years but has only recently been built into OS X.

It's also my contention that in the techie realm at least, some of the reason for the extra *physical* screens is to do with status. The more work you do, the more screens, and the bigger screens you (apparently) need. It's also good to have many terminal windows open, and have lots of Unix-y goodness scrolling through them when the boss walks by.

Obviously, that's a (tiny) dig at techies who probably make up the majority of posters here, so no one's going to agree with me on that. It would be like Porche drivers owning up to buying the car to show (at least partially), how "manly" they are and to impress their dates. Everyone knows these are factors but no one will say it out loud.
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
post #101 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB View Post

Multiple screens if far from a 'status thing'.
I work all day on a dual screen where I can slide distracting windows out of my main sight but still see them peripherally, or can compare large documents side-by-side.
While I need this less at home, I absolutely miss having it.

I've read at least one report that a larger monitor is better than 2 separate ones. If you could have both of your documents side-by-side on one large screen would that not be better? Would n't having virtual windows so you could separate your personal and work windows be cheaper and more organized? My questions are not statements, I'm curious.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #102 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post

That still doesn't make any sense out of your list of 7 technologies Microsoft support 5 of them and the only 2 they don't is UNIX, which quite frankly is never going to happen as its the equivelent of Microsofts core technology, why would they change? And WebKit which came after they developed there version so again why should they change. Also its not like you cant run WebKit if you want.

It only makes no sense if you choose to ignore that MS has developed proprietary technology with the intent to compete directly against open software.

The industry largely decided to use open standards for media playback and document viewing. MS has had no choice but to support open standards along with their proprietary standards. But if given the choice MS would prefer the industry uses its proprietary standards.

Quote:
I don't get what it is you expect Microsoft to do, stop developing new ideas? And if they do develop new things why shouldn't they keep it for themselves, after all they developed it in the first place. It's not that much different with Apple, if you wan't to write an iPhone App you have to use Apples technology (no Java aloud) and have to sell it through the App Store, no independant stores aloud.

I'm not at all saying MS should not develop new ideas and proprietary platforms. Their is a clear difference between developing a product and trying to compete against everyone and dominate everything.

Their is no need for MS to compete against every standard, every service, and every major software company. MS cannot effectively compete against everyone, its a strategy that is not working and is costing MS billions in losses.

Their is some crucial technology that needs to be interoperable software that is not tied to any one company's interests. MS has proven a bad stuart of dominant standards. In the sense that MS has been willing to stifle technology that threatens the dominance of Windows. Such as the internet itself.
post #103 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

It only makes no sense if you choose to ignore that MS has developed proprietary technology with the intent to compete directly against open software.

The industry largely decided to use open standards for media playback and document viewing. MS has had no choice but to support open standards along with their proprietary standards. But if given the choice MS would prefer the industry uses its proprietary standards.

How is Apple any different, pray tell?
post #104 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I've read at least one report that a larger monitor is better than 2 separate ones. If you could have both of your documents side-by-side on one large screen would that not be better? Would n't having virtual windows so you could separate your personal and work windows be cheaper and more organized? My questions are not statements, I'm curious.

It's all personal preference.
My work setup is a Lenovo X61, the very small laptop with no trackpad, and a 20" monitor, docked in an expansion bay. Multiple monitors lets me pick and choose what I need. Undock for meetings, where i don't need a lot of screen real estate, and docked for when I need 10-15 apps/windows open.
Plus, as I said, having a separate screen lets me move distractions out of field of vision, but still off to the side if I need to notice it.
I look forward to the day when I can plug my as-yet-non-existent iPad into a keyboard/dock at home for a similar small/big combo.
post #105 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddhaface View Post

How is Apple any different, pray tell?

In what areas?
post #106 of 153
Quote:
So how do you suggest they make your system watch out for push updates without running a background process?

I have no problem with the MobileMe control panel. Obviously it helps a lot. I mentioned that to counter the dishonest assertion that MobileMe was built on open standards and didn't require proprietary software. It does. I don't have a problem with proprietary software.

Beyond that, the vast majority of my post was about the user being forced to install iTunes and its unrelated background processes as well.

Not to mention the "Apple Updater" that will hassle you into installing Safari as well.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #107 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

Not to mention the "Apple Updater" that will hassle you into installing Safari as well.

Yes if it wasn't for Apple, Windows users would never be subjected to ballon pop ups telling them that "updates are ready to be installed".
post #108 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by TiAdiMundo View Post

HP already ships 64bit versions of Vista for a lot of Desktops and notebooks. And important detail is that the new Windows Server version developed with Windows 7 called "Server 2008 R2" will only be available in 64bit. Since Vista SP1 the client and server versions of Windows do share the same code base (kernel and stuff).

This means that OEMs do have to create 64bit drivers for a lot of hardware. There is no real reason not to deliver new client systems in 32bit.

Another reason for 64bit is the cheap memory. 4 GB RAM or even 8 GB isn't something special for Desktops at the end of this year. As you know 32bit only supports up to 3 GB.

By golly, you're right. I went to FutureShop today, and about half the desktop and laptops come with Vista 64-bit installed.
post #109 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB View Post

It's all personal preference.
My work setup is a Lenovo X61, the very small laptop with no trackpad, and a 20" monitor, docked in an expansion bay. Multiple monitors lets me pick and choose what I need. Undock for meetings, where i don't need a lot of screen real estate, and docked for when I need 10-15 apps/windows open.
Plus, as I said, having a separate screen lets me move distractions out of field of vision, but still off to the side if I need to notice it.
I look forward to the day when I can plug my as-yet-non-existent iPad into a keyboard/dock at home for a similar small/big combo.

Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post

My argument was that for me (and of course others probably), having two virtual screens is a much better solution than having the multiple physical screens. At work I currently use an iMac. I always have about three screens on the go, but they are "spaces" or virtual desktops. Virtual desktop software has been around for years and years but has only recently been built into OS X.

It's also my contention that in the techie realm at least, some of the reason for the extra *physical* screens is to do with status. The more work you do, the more screens, and the bigger screens you (apparently) need. It's also good to have many terminal windows open, and have lots of Unix-y goodness scrolling through them when the boss walks by.

Obviously, that's a (tiny) dig at techies who probably make up the majority of posters here, so no one's going to agree with me on that. It would be like Porche drivers owning up to buying the car to show (at least partially), how "manly" they are and to impress their dates. Everyone knows these are factors but no one will say it out loud.

Understood. Some techies probably just have a server ping constantly running on a screen... But I do use an extra screen, I'm not out to impress anyone since I have to carry a 17" screen to work a few days a week. That ain't worth the trouble just to impress somebody. Heh. A lot of people at my office do a lot of work on a 13" MacBook. If I were the boss, the mobility is great, but I would feel their productivity is hampered when sitting at a desk. Unless they have very good eyesight or suitable glasses/contacts. Which they might. Or generally I'm picky.
post #110 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaCowboy View Post

By golly, you're right. I went to FutureShop today, and about half the desktop and laptops come with Vista 64-bit installed.

Damn... I wish Asia would catch up in that regard. We've got the latest motherboards, CPUs and GPUs, and RAM is hella cheap... but they aren't pushing Vista 64-bit just yet, still just Vista 32-bit. Vista 64-bit Ultimate purchased by itself is about the price of a CPU+motherboard...!
post #111 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I've read at least one report that a larger monitor is better than 2 separate ones. If you could have both of your documents side-by-side on one large screen would that not be better? Would n't having virtual windows so you could separate your personal and work windows be cheaper and more organized? My questions are not statements, I'm curious.

I used Spaces for a while but I stopped after a while. I'd rather have physical screens, with stuff just minimized when not in use, or just hidden.

If I could have one 20" monitor that would be good. But two 19" widescreen, for example, would be better. This is because if I have one 20" yes I can have two windows side by side. But I'd be constantly having to resize windows, even on a Mac... All the apps I would have to constantly adjust the window sizing depending on how I want to move things around. I'm very fanatical about symmetry. If I had two 19" screens, maximising one document/ app on one screen or the other is faster, most apps you just hit the Green button and maximise it.

Given that I have a Macbook 13", if I could have just one external 20" widescreen would be just nice. Then I wouldn't need two screens. But right now I just have a 17" 1280x1024 as my external screen. So I need two screens, the Macbook 13" and the external 17".

I'm using my laptop now in a "docking station" kind of way when I am at work and home at a desk.

If I had a Mac Pro I would use two 23". If I had an iMac 20" I might not need an external monitor.
post #112 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

Yes if it wasn't for Apple, Windows users would never be subjected to ballon pop ups telling them that "updates are ready to be installed".

Actually, the Apple Update isn't a balloon pop up, and try playing the Sims 2 while that thing keeps popping up. My girlfriend has a mac and loves the Sims. It kills her, because she spent all of that money on the game and expansions, and the quality is terrible, and pop-ups kick her out of the game. She loves her mac, but plays all of her games on my pc.
post #113 of 153
Honestly if budget was not a factor I'd get the latest 17" MacBook Pro with antiglare, leave one 23" Apple Cinema Display at my workplace desk and have one 24" LED Cinema Display at my home desk.

That would be a Porsche lifestyle, and yes, that would be luxurious. Not sure if it would impress the ladies other than helping them think I'm a rich kid and they should hang around me more and invite their friends that are models over to party at my place.

But then I'd also have to get a 46" TV screen and XBox360 and BluRay player and Home Theatre sound system and AppleTV for the lounge area.

You know, for symmetry.
post #114 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB View Post

It's all personal preference.
My work setup is a Lenovo X61, the very small laptop with no trackpad, and a 20" monitor, docked in an expansion bay. Multiple monitors lets me pick and choose what I need. Undock for meetings, where i don't need a lot of screen real estate, and docked for when I need 10-15 apps/windows open.
Plus, as I said, having a separate screen lets me move distractions out of field of vision, but still off to the side if I need to notice it.
I look forward to the day when I can plug my as-yet-non-existent iPad into a keyboard/dock at home for a similar small/big combo.

Isn't it interesting that there is no similar docking station* for a MacBook/Pro/MacMini (right now) where you close the MacBook, put it into some docking station and can use *two* monitors at once...

*Unless someone has a recommended product they can share with us?

How is http://www.displaylink.com ?

The Kensington one looks a little less-spec'ed
http://us.kensington.com/html/14499.html
post #115 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Um, yeah, of course that is what I mean. Who would honestly think that Apple has shelved their next OS for over a month? And why would I mention the internal builds that I have no ability to access and would surely not be discussing on this forum if I did have access to them because I'd then be an Apple employee or doing something very shady?

Correction, BEEN an Apple employee. Have been.

There's a reason to things and a reason THINGS are tracked (TRACKED!). If a copy surfaces, somebody gets pulled aside, never to be heard from again. There are rules, both old and new. Dev copies are not shipping because there's no need for it. Any/every app under 10.5 will work on 10.6.

10.6 slims down some code. Off-loads some to the GPU and introduces some new stuff. Stuff that is already there in xcode. Stuff that will debut for developers later are the later units and will be released with XC 4.

10.6 early released kernels were built prior to 08MBPS so no drivers were seen. Updated kernels were being built separately in a diff team.

When you build a modular OS like OS X and Linux you can work on certain things separately, make test compiles all together test then destroy taking notes back.

I'm NOT an Apple, inc. emp, nor do I play one but I know how the system works.

ZFS will probably be server only for a large number of reasons. Client side though, at deployment they may be avail but it will require a complete format and install, Hello Time Machine.
post #116 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Threpac View Post

Actually, the Apple Update isn't a balloon pop up, and try playing the Sims 2 while that thing keeps popping up. My girlfriend has a mac and loves the Sims. It kills her, because she spent all of that money on the game and expansions, and the quality is terrible, and pop-ups kick her out of the game. She loves her mac, but plays all of her games on my pc.

Why not turn off update notification? Or Auto check for updates.
post #117 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Threpac View Post

Actually, the Apple Update isn't a balloon pop up, and try playing the Sims 2 while that thing keeps popping up. My girlfriend has a mac and loves the Sims. It kills her, because she spent all of that money on the game and expansions, and the quality is terrible, and pop-ups kick her out of the game. She loves her mac, but plays all of her games on my pc.

Reread the post and whom I replied to. I'm not talking about Apple's OSX SU.
post #118 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

I used Spaces for a while but I stopped after a while. I'd rather have physical screens, with stuff just minimized when not in use, or just hidden.

I would use Spaces if it wasn't broken. Many apps get confused by it and you have to jump through hoops to get the window you want. Excel does weird stuff like all your windows are in space #3, you click on the icon in the dock and go to space #2. This time is not only M$ who have it wrong.

I haven't done an update in a while so possibly some of this has been fixed but for now I am back in single-screen mode. This is something that was right on X-windows a long time ago. I'm not sure if NeXT supported this concept but if they did, it wouldn't be the only aspect where the Mac port of NeXTstep went backwards.

Philip Machanick creator of Opinionations and Green Grahamstown
Department of Computer Science, Rhodes University, South Africa

Reply

Philip Machanick creator of Opinionations and Green Grahamstown
Department of Computer Science, Rhodes University, South Africa

Reply
post #119 of 153
Quote:
Yes if it wasn't for Apple, Windows users would never be subjected to ballon pop ups telling them that "updates are ready to be installed".

That's one way to dodge the issue, I suppose. A cowardly and insipid way, but a way…
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #120 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slewis View Post

Yes, generally ANY company that wishes for their formats, in this decade anyway, to be widely adopted will submit them to a standards body, and generally any company that wishes for any interoperability of any kind or at least does not want to waste time remaking the wheel will adopt other open standards. UNIX has been reduced to a spec, I don't consider it a standard even if you can "certify" it and be able to use it's trademark, common UNIX software has long since been ported to Unix-like systems, BSD ended up rewriting UNIX but is still considered UNIX, OSs based on System V like Solaris and AIX can claim to have original UNIX source code, but if a Linux distributor had the money they could iron out anything in their distro that's not compliant, make it compliant, then submit it the Open Group and be proud licensees of a name, at least POSIX is a real standard, but even that's not important to anybody except management government agencies.

UNIX was never open source; the model was far worse. Universities got it close to free including source and were expected to contribute back any improvements, a deal so asymmetric that it led to developments like free BSD. M$ tried to pull off the same stunt but no one was interested by that time. IBM still sells AIX but Linux is being pushed (and developed) heavily by them now. Their model is similar to Apple's: they give away most of their work, but charge for value adds, including support. Apple charges for a decent user interface so you don't need as much support. A clear choice there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slewis View Post

Of course if Mac OS X were ported to more architectures, then of course software could be compiled in a fat mach-o binary to support those other architectures, I've always wondered how it would run on the Cell.

Probably terribly like everything else. Getting decent performance out of Cell is a PhD-level project. More detail at my blog.

Philip Machanick creator of Opinionations and Green Grahamstown
Department of Computer Science, Rhodes University, South Africa

Reply

Philip Machanick creator of Opinionations and Green Grahamstown
Department of Computer Science, Rhodes University, South Africa

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Windows 7 vs. Mac OS X Snow Leopard: Apple ups the ante