Nothing "earth-shattering" in the recent OS X releases? How about a code base that makes my 6 year old Cube run faster with each release and is faster now than when I first got it with OS 9 on it? How about Spotlight? How about Dashboard? How about Expose? How about plug and play that just works? How about the Core Foundation (audio, video, image, and soon animation)?
To name a few.
You missed the point. He said he's impressed with Apple's OS overall; I think If you tally up all that has been added, cumulatively, since the transition from 9 to X, anyone would agree it's an "earth-shattering" improvement over what came before. The point the guy in the article was making that these have been incremental additions over a matter of years, rather than what MS has attempted to do; deliver everything it should have been working on since XP was released all at once. What will be "earth-shattering" at this point is if they can actually do so by January. I much prefer Apple's approach, but I'm not going to compare the transition from Panther to Tiger, or Tiger to Leopard, to the transition, say, from 98 to XP, or 9 to X. They're building slowly on the platform, not completely revamping it.
Individually, the only item in your list I completely agree with is Exposé, and that came out 3 years ago. Spotlight needs work; I find it no faster or more useful than the Finder search available in Panther, and the portability of metadata remains a barrier to me, as I need to use multiple computers and OS's constantly. It will be very impressive if they can some day get it right, and certainly they are ahead of the pack there. Dashboard is merely nice; it will not change the world and as someone pointed out earlier, the concept has existed in previous Apple operating systems. Speed improvements over the barely usable Cheetah or Puma are hardly anything to boast about, the "Core" stuff has come one at a time and not one is invidually anything the end-user will notice or be excited about, and "plug and play that just works" is marketing spiel, not reality (both XP and OS X are better than their predecessors at this, are getting better all the time, and still trip up on some devices).
"I am impressed with Apple OS and I like the way over the last couple of releases they have made a series of incremental improvements. It has not been earth-shattering," the analyst added.
You see, this is how Apple's strategy is working out really quite nicely. Microsoft brings out a new workstation based operating system every few years, and whilst few of the features are "ground-breaking" (solely because most of these features are either integrated into other OSes already or have been created previously by a third-party developer as a standalone product), they completely revamp the core system code and then expect it to be the equivalent of the second coming, every time heralding an era of end-user bliss. I'm now quite happy with Windows XP, but the first couple of years were a nightmare.
Now, OK, Apple has this issue back when migrating for Classic Mac OS to Mac OS X; but seeing as Apple had previously been tweaking, developing and perfecting the classic OS for over decade, it is understandable that a whole new re-think had to now be done. And to this day, each 'annual' release of OS X is not a whole reworking of the kernel but tweaks and developments both complimening the existing but at the same time promoting the latest technology rather than alienating all of it.
I was under the impression that post-Beta 2 builds have been considerably better.
Still, I'm doubtful about a January consumer release. I think it will be spring... especially with Apple giving themselves more time with Leopard.
You are correct: I have a post-Beta 2 build I've been running for a while and have had zero blue screens or other stability problems. Vista is not anywhere near the same class as OS X, but it is not as horrible as some of the press makes it out to be.
Seriously! The parallels are pretty uncanny. I thereby predict an incremental change to XP in Spring with even less features than Vista currently claims that is just XP with different pictures and a new name.
You heard it hear first, folks! Unless someone else has already said it... In which case, need better security on my secret notebooks.
Seriously! The parallels are pretty uncanny. I thereby predict an incremental change to XP in Spring with even less features than Vista currently claims that is just XP with different pictures and a new name.
You heard it hear first, folks! Unless someone else has already said it... In which case, need better security on my secret notebooks.
You are correct: I have a post-Beta 2 build I've been running for a while and have had zero blue screens or other stability problems. Vista is not anywhere near the same class as OS X, but it is not as horrible as some of the press makes it out to be.
Yes, OS X had bugs early on... but it wasn't touted as a replacement for OS 9 until later when it was ready. Vista IS touted as a replacement ready-to-use for XP.
And as the article said, it's not that there are bugs... it's that there are so MANY, so LATE in development, compared even to past MS Windows versions.
And yes, Copland was a dead end, but Apple started fresh and came up with OS X. So MS could abandon Vista and start again too, and come up with something great eventually.
The thing is, even if OS X WAS "just as bad as Vista"... that was 6 years ago Microsoft, at best, is 5 years late even if the bugs go away.
Nothing "earth-shattering" in the recent OS X releases? How about a code base that makes my 6 year old Cube run faster with each release and is faster now than when I first got it with OS 9 on it?
dude, i love apple and the mac os, but i'm going to call "horse puckey" when i smell it -- faster than a fresh os 9 install on that cube? no way, man. you may have a case if you include additional 3rd party app installs (since os 9's pre-emptive multitasking would make any background app dog slow), but, out of the box, os 9 as a system still runs faster than mac os x on g4 processors. my dual 1.25 ghz g4 blazes when booted under os 9. problem is, i don't have any software left that really NEEDS os 9 (except my diablo ii install disc), so i really don't get any use out of it).
Yes, OS X had bugs early on... but it wasn't touted as a replacement for OS 9 until later when it was ready. Vista IS touted as a replacement ready-to-use for XP.
And as the article said, it's not that there are bugs... it's that there are so MANY, so LATE in development, compared even to past MS Windows versions.
And yes, Copland was a dead end, but Apple started fresh and came up with OS X. So MS could abandon Vista and start again too, and come up with something great eventually.
The thing is, even if OS X WAS "just as bad as Vista"... that was 6 years ago Microsoft, at best, is 5 years late even if the bugs go away.
ok, I must have missed the post where someone said OS X was as bad as vista... and they must have been on crack when they posted it.
Anyway, out of curiosity, anyone remember what happened to the Microsoft vs Apple marketshare during the copland era? was there a significant change? I have to ask cause I was busy playing Marathon at the time and wasn't paying attention.
Vista is already a failure. it's had so many problems that there is not way any IT department is going to upgrade to it.
IT departments make all their money by talkin' thick users into installing windows; Vista is going to be a right little money spinner for them! Why do you think no IT peeps push OS X - They would be out of work; their services no longer needed!
...out of the box, os 9 as a system still runs faster than mac os x on g4 processors. my dual 1.25 ghz g4 blazes when booted under os 9. problem is, i don't have any software left that really NEEDS os 9 (except my diablo ii install disc), so i really don't get any use out of it).
OS9 is still MUCH snappier in performance than OSX. I still keep an OS9 box for CAD, and except for the fact it's still more crashy than X, I consider it the best "feeling" OS Apple had to date. X still responds sluggishly for my taste.
IT departments make all their money by talkin' thick users into installing windows; Vista is going to be a right little money spinner for them! Why do you think no IT peeps push OS X - They would be out of work; their services no longer needed!
Yes, but there comes a point as a tech when you've secured your job and any further bad, em, I mean 'Strategic', recomendations you make are simply inflicting "Packard Hell" on yourself. I bet Vista will cross that line instantaneously.
Google Desktop and MSN search are Spotlight knock-offs released after their respective companies got a good look at the Tiger beta.
Must be nice to live in the world where anything that's put out must be a knock-off of an Apple feature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meelash
Dashboard is an extension of an idea that existed in System 6 in the 1980's called Desk Accessories.
Oh, that's right, its not stealing anything from Konfabulator, even though it works and looks basically JUST LIKE IT! Its "let's go back as far as possible and see what we can compare Dashboard to that Apple has done". Fine, you want to say its an extension of Desk Accessories (a System 1 thing, not a system 6 thing), I can go with that. But then how is rehashing something that was done in the 80's an 'earth-shattering' advance. And technically not as good in one sense, because, without hacking the OS, you can't see the stuff on the calculator after you're finished with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meelash
As for the Core foundation, it isn't necessary for something to be popularly known to be an earth-shattering development.
It may not need to be popular, but its got to have some kind of legs. What are the Core technologies? A set of libraries or frameworks you can use within your program to perform certain tasks. What does it mean? Well, in essence, if someone is developing a multimedia app, they can use these frameworks rather than buying someone else's frameworks or coding your own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meelash
While questions remain, TimeMachine looks to do the same by making backup something for the masses.
I don't see that. Based on what I've read and heard (which could be all wrong), TimeMachine requires a second hard drive (external) of at least the same size as your internal, and it only can back up then entire drive, not individual folders. The versioning is interesting, but that doesn't outweigh the fact that most users don't have, nor will they buy, an external hard drive (they want to back up to CD or DVD, an option Apple only offers with .Mac). And most people with external hard drives probably already have backup systems in place that offer better security and restoration.
BTW, did you notice how the animation TimeMachine uses is a lot like the animation Windows Vista uses for stacking their windows? Apparently copying works both ways....
IT departments make all their money by talkin' thick users into installing windows; Vista is going to be a right little money spinner for them! Why do you think no IT peeps push OS X - They would be out of work; their services no longer needed!
Unfortunately, it's true to an extent. There's so much time and money that tech folks and corporate america invest in understanding how to administer, maintain, and fix Windows, that no one seriously considers ever changing. Think about all those MCSEs, etc. out there. They've paid good money for those certificates, and have generally gotten compensated for their time. And they do know things ordinary mortals do not. My tech here at my school can do things to my Dell laptop that would make me blush.
Of course, I don't ever need to do these things to my Mac. I've got more up-time, fewer (zero) viruses, fewer patches, and fewer network and other problems with my Mac than I have with my Dell at school. And I do more with it in terms of creating tests, quizzes, handouts, etc. I get more done in Word X (the first OS X release) and I do it quicker on my Mac, than I do on my laptop.
But is any of this going to change our tech's mind and make her suggest Macs? Hellz no. She doesn't know the first thing about Macs, doesn't trust them, refuses to support them, and doesn't want to see them around. Why? She's invested years and years into figuring out Windows. And that's it.
Example: Our newspaper teacher was wondering whether to get Macs or PCs. I convinced her to get a whole raft of G4 minis (the non-integrated graphics was one of the winning arguments, along with the fact that most layout depts use Macs). When she agreed, she spoke to our tech, who got really nervous but said the newspaper could do what it wanted as long as she didn't have to do anything for them. The deal was all set, and all the tech had to do was allow one measly internet/network connection (which she would have to do regardless of which platform the newspaper went with). I even offered to do all tech support free of charge. The network port threw her for a loop, she ran to the principle saying it would cause all kinds of problems, and the principle stepped in and "strongly encouraged" the newspaper teacher to go with Dell, promising that our tech would support them. So they went with Dells... (And btw, no, the tech doesn't support them.)
Another example: my brother-in-law is a tech guy (networking) constantly messing around with ("fixing") his PC. He sometimes comes over to our house because he needs to email or check something on the web and his comp is screwed. Whenever I point out that OS X either doesn't have these problems or automatically configures them (and doesn't lose its settings in some strange registry/dll limbo), and maybe he should switch, his constant refrain is: "Yeah, but I work with PCs." He knows how to fix these stange Windows problems, so he feels safe with them.
I don't see that. Based on what I've read and heard (which could be all wrong), TimeMachine requires a second hard drive (external) of at least the same size as your internal, and it only can back up then entire drive, not individual folders. The versioning is interesting, but that doesn't outweigh the fact that most users don't have, nor will they buy, an external hard drive (they want to back up to CD or DVD, an option Apple only offers with .Mac). And most people with external hard drives probably already have backup systems in place that offer better security and restoration.
BTW, did you notice how the animation TimeMachine uses is a lot like the animation Windows Vista uses for stacking their windows? Apparently copying works both ways....
I think much of what you've read and heard is wrong. The fact of the matter is, that while most people like to have a big hard drive, they never use most of it. Time Machine will make use of this extra space by backing up files that you change, which is a very small percentage of what most people have on their hard drives. Many of the larger files are media that they keep for viewing/listening, not editing. Time Machine will work in the background on your internal hard drive. There will probably be an easy user setting to set how much HD space to use before Time Machine deletes the oldest/lowest priority backups, all automatically.
I'd say it's not likely. They can use the extra time to refine the features, plus hold out til the last second to spring the surprises on Microsoft.
Apple can't wait forever for MS to get its act together. They'll stick to their scheduled release date, just to rub it in Microsoft's face that at least one company can get an OS out on time.
As for the wishes that this could be Microsoft's Copland, that's just wishful thinking. MS doesn't have the option to wait too much longer while it tries again. If they announce that Vista is history, the company will take a huge hit in the market. If anything, they've already pulled a Copland, since they scrapped the Longhorn code base and restarted Vista a couple of years ago.
OS X may not be "earth-shattering" but the Grand Canyon wasn't shattered from the ground. Slow and steady wins the race.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdj21ya
The fact of the matter is, that while most people like to have a big hard drive, they never use most of it.
You've never seen my computer. 700GB of storage, 40GB total free space on all partitions.
BTW, did you notice how the animation TimeMachine uses is a lot like the animation Windows Vista uses for stacking their windows? Apparently copying works both ways....
Comments
Nothing "earth-shattering" in the recent OS X releases? How about a code base that makes my 6 year old Cube run faster with each release and is faster now than when I first got it with OS 9 on it? How about Spotlight? How about Dashboard? How about Expose? How about plug and play that just works? How about the Core Foundation (audio, video, image, and soon animation)?
To name a few.
You missed the point. He said he's impressed with Apple's OS overall; I think If you tally up all that has been added, cumulatively, since the transition from 9 to X, anyone would agree it's an "earth-shattering" improvement over what came before. The point the guy in the article was making that these have been incremental additions over a matter of years, rather than what MS has attempted to do; deliver everything it should have been working on since XP was released all at once. What will be "earth-shattering" at this point is if they can actually do so by January. I much prefer Apple's approach, but I'm not going to compare the transition from Panther to Tiger, or Tiger to Leopard, to the transition, say, from 98 to XP, or 9 to X. They're building slowly on the platform, not completely revamping it.
Individually, the only item in your list I completely agree with is Exposé, and that came out 3 years ago. Spotlight needs work; I find it no faster or more useful than the Finder search available in Panther, and the portability of metadata remains a barrier to me, as I need to use multiple computers and OS's constantly. It will be very impressive if they can some day get it right, and certainly they are ahead of the pack there. Dashboard is merely nice; it will not change the world and as someone pointed out earlier, the concept has existed in previous Apple operating systems. Speed improvements over the barely usable Cheetah or Puma are hardly anything to boast about, the "Core" stuff has come one at a time and not one is invidually anything the end-user will notice or be excited about, and "plug and play that just works" is marketing spiel, not reality (both XP and OS X are better than their predecessors at this, are getting better all the time, and still trip up on some devices).
"I am impressed with Apple OS and I like the way over the last couple of releases they have made a series of incremental improvements. It has not been earth-shattering," the analyst added.
You see, this is how Apple's strategy is working out really quite nicely. Microsoft brings out a new workstation based operating system every few years, and whilst few of the features are "ground-breaking" (solely because most of these features are either integrated into other OSes already or have been created previously by a third-party developer as a standalone product), they completely revamp the core system code and then expect it to be the equivalent of the second coming, every time heralding an era of end-user bliss. I'm now quite happy with Windows XP, but the first couple of years were a nightmare.
Now, OK, Apple has this issue back when migrating for Classic Mac OS to Mac OS X; but seeing as Apple had previously been tweaking, developing and perfecting the classic OS for over decade, it is understandable that a whole new re-think had to now be done. And to this day, each 'annual' release of OS X is not a whole reworking of the kernel but tweaks and developments both complimening the existing but at the same time promoting the latest technology rather than alienating all of it.
I was under the impression that post-Beta 2 builds have been considerably better.
Still, I'm doubtful about a January consumer release. I think it will be spring... especially with Apple giving themselves more time with Leopard.
You are correct: I have a post-Beta 2 build I've been running for a while and have had zero blue screens or other stability problems. Vista is not anywhere near the same class as OS X, but it is not as horrible as some of the press makes it out to be.
<Cough!> Ahem.... Copland.
Seriously! The parallels are pretty uncanny. I thereby predict an incremental change to XP in Spring with even less features than Vista currently claims that is just XP with different pictures and a new name.
You heard it hear first, folks!
Seriously! The parallels are pretty uncanny. I thereby predict an incremental change to XP in Spring with even less features than Vista currently claims that is just XP with different pictures and a new name.
You heard it hear first, folks!
You are correct: I have a post-Beta 2 build I've been running for a while and have had zero blue screens or other stability problems. Vista is not anywhere near the same class as OS X, but it is not as horrible as some of the press makes it out to be.
I bet you were running it on a mac.
And as the article said, it's not that there are bugs... it's that there are so MANY, so LATE in development, compared even to past MS Windows versions.
And yes, Copland was a dead end, but Apple started fresh and came up with OS X. So MS could abandon Vista and start again too, and come up with something great eventually.
The thing is, even if OS X WAS "just as bad as Vista"... that was 6 years ago
Nothing "earth-shattering" in the recent OS X releases? How about a code base that makes my 6 year old Cube run faster with each release and is faster now than when I first got it with OS 9 on it?
dude, i love apple and the mac os, but i'm going to call "horse puckey" when i smell it -- faster than a fresh os 9 install on that cube? no way, man. you may have a case if you include additional 3rd party app installs (since os 9's pre-emptive multitasking would make any background app dog slow), but, out of the box, os 9 as a system still runs faster than mac os x on g4 processors. my dual 1.25 ghz g4 blazes when booted under os 9. problem is, i don't have any software left that really NEEDS os 9 (except my diablo ii install disc), so i really don't get any use out of it).
That tune from the Vonage commercials is on the mix tape!
Yes, OS X had bugs early on... but it wasn't touted as a replacement for OS 9 until later when it was ready. Vista IS touted as a replacement ready-to-use for XP.
And as the article said, it's not that there are bugs... it's that there are so MANY, so LATE in development, compared even to past MS Windows versions.
And yes, Copland was a dead end, but Apple started fresh and came up with OS X. So MS could abandon Vista and start again too, and come up with something great eventually.
The thing is, even if OS X WAS "just as bad as Vista"... that was 6 years ago
ok, I must have missed the post where someone said OS X was as bad as vista... and they must have been on crack when they posted it.
Anyway, out of curiosity, anyone remember what happened to the Microsoft vs Apple marketshare during the copland era? was there a significant change? I have to ask cause I was busy playing Marathon at the time and wasn't paying attention.
Vista is already a failure. it's had so many problems that there is not way any IT department is going to upgrade to it.
IT departments make all their money by talkin' thick users into installing windows; Vista is going to be a right little money spinner for them! Why do you think no IT peeps push OS X - They would be out of work; their services no longer needed!
...out of the box, os 9 as a system still runs faster than mac os x on g4 processors. my dual 1.25 ghz g4 blazes when booted under os 9. problem is, i don't have any software left that really NEEDS os 9 (except my diablo ii install disc), so i really don't get any use out of it).
OS9 is still MUCH snappier in performance than OSX. I still keep an OS9 box for CAD, and except for the fact it's still more crashy than X, I consider it the best "feeling" OS Apple had to date. X still responds sluggishly for my taste.
This is News ?
IT departments make all their money by talkin' thick users into installing windows; Vista is going to be a right little money spinner for them! Why do you think no IT peeps push OS X - They would be out of work; their services no longer needed!
Yes, but there comes a point as a tech when you've secured your job and any further bad, em, I mean 'Strategic', recomendations you make are simply inflicting "Packard Hell" on yourself.
Google Desktop and MSN search are Spotlight knock-offs released after their respective companies got a good look at the Tiger beta.
Must be nice to live in the world where anything that's put out must be a knock-off of an Apple feature.
Dashboard is an extension of an idea that existed in System 6 in the 1980's called Desk Accessories.
Oh, that's right, its not stealing anything from Konfabulator, even though it works and looks basically JUST LIKE IT! Its "let's go back as far as possible and see what we can compare Dashboard to that Apple has done". Fine, you want to say its an extension of Desk Accessories (a System 1 thing, not a system 6 thing), I can go with that. But then how is rehashing something that was done in the 80's an 'earth-shattering' advance. And technically not as good in one sense, because, without hacking the OS, you can't see the stuff on the calculator after you're finished with it.
As for the Core foundation, it isn't necessary for something to be popularly known to be an earth-shattering development.
It may not need to be popular, but its got to have some kind of legs. What are the Core technologies? A set of libraries or frameworks you can use within your program to perform certain tasks. What does it mean? Well, in essence, if someone is developing a multimedia app, they can use these frameworks rather than buying someone else's frameworks or coding your own.
While questions remain, TimeMachine looks to do the same by making backup something for the masses.
I don't see that. Based on what I've read and heard (which could be all wrong), TimeMachine requires a second hard drive (external) of at least the same size as your internal, and it only can back up then entire drive, not individual folders. The versioning is interesting, but that doesn't outweigh the fact that most users don't have, nor will they buy, an external hard drive (they want to back up to CD or DVD, an option Apple only offers with .Mac). And most people with external hard drives probably already have backup systems in place that offer better security and restoration.
BTW, did you notice how the animation TimeMachine uses is a lot like the animation Windows Vista uses for stacking their windows? Apparently copying works both ways....
IT departments make all their money by talkin' thick users into installing windows; Vista is going to be a right little money spinner for them! Why do you think no IT peeps push OS X - They would be out of work; their services no longer needed!
Unfortunately, it's true to an extent. There's so much time and money that tech folks and corporate america invest in understanding how to administer, maintain, and fix Windows, that no one seriously considers ever changing. Think about all those MCSEs, etc. out there. They've paid good money for those certificates, and have generally gotten compensated for their time. And they do know things ordinary mortals do not. My tech here at my school can do things to my Dell laptop that would make me blush.
Of course, I don't ever need to do these things to my Mac. I've got more up-time, fewer (zero) viruses, fewer patches, and fewer network and other problems with my Mac than I have with my Dell at school. And I do more with it in terms of creating tests, quizzes, handouts, etc. I get more done in Word X (the first OS X release) and I do it quicker on my Mac, than I do on my laptop.
But is any of this going to change our tech's mind and make her suggest Macs? Hellz no. She doesn't know the first thing about Macs, doesn't trust them, refuses to support them, and doesn't want to see them around. Why? She's invested years and years into figuring out Windows. And that's it.
Example: Our newspaper teacher was wondering whether to get Macs or PCs. I convinced her to get a whole raft of G4 minis (the non-integrated graphics was one of the winning arguments, along with the fact that most layout depts use Macs). When she agreed, she spoke to our tech, who got really nervous but said the newspaper could do what it wanted as long as she didn't have to do anything for them. The deal was all set, and all the tech had to do was allow one measly internet/network connection (which she would have to do regardless of which platform the newspaper went with). I even offered to do all tech support free of charge. The network port threw her for a loop, she ran to the principle saying it would cause all kinds of problems, and the principle stepped in and "strongly encouraged" the newspaper teacher to go with Dell, promising that our tech would support them. So they went with Dells... (And btw, no, the tech doesn't support them.)
Another example: my brother-in-law is a tech guy (networking) constantly messing around with ("fixing") his PC. He sometimes comes over to our house because he needs to email or check something on the web and his comp is screwed. Whenever I point out that OS X either doesn't have these problems or automatically configures them (and doesn't lose its settings in some strange registry/dll limbo), and maybe he should switch, his constant refrain is: "Yeah, but I work with PCs." He knows how to fix these stange Windows problems, so he feels safe with them.
Weird.
I don't see that. Based on what I've read and heard (which could be all wrong), TimeMachine requires a second hard drive (external) of at least the same size as your internal, and it only can back up then entire drive, not individual folders. The versioning is interesting, but that doesn't outweigh the fact that most users don't have, nor will they buy, an external hard drive (they want to back up to CD or DVD, an option Apple only offers with .Mac). And most people with external hard drives probably already have backup systems in place that offer better security and restoration.
BTW, did you notice how the animation TimeMachine uses is a lot like the animation Windows Vista uses for stacking their windows? Apparently copying works both ways....
I think much of what you've read and heard is wrong. The fact of the matter is, that while most people like to have a big hard drive, they never use most of it. Time Machine will make use of this extra space by backing up files that you change, which is a very small percentage of what most people have on their hard drives. Many of the larger files are media that they keep for viewing/listening, not editing. Time Machine will work in the background on your internal hard drive. There will probably be an easy user setting to set how much HD space to use before Time Machine deletes the oldest/lowest priority backups, all automatically.
I'd say it's not likely. They can use the extra time to refine the features, plus hold out til the last second to spring the surprises on Microsoft.
Apple can't wait forever for MS to get its act together. They'll stick to their scheduled release date, just to rub it in Microsoft's face that at least one company can get an OS out on time.
As for the wishes that this could be Microsoft's Copland, that's just wishful thinking. MS doesn't have the option to wait too much longer while it tries again. If they announce that Vista is history, the company will take a huge hit in the market. If anything, they've already pulled a Copland, since they scrapped the Longhorn code base and restarted Vista a couple of years ago.
OS X may not be "earth-shattering" but the Grand Canyon wasn't shattered from the ground. Slow and steady wins the race.
The fact of the matter is, that while most people like to have a big hard drive, they never use most of it.
You've never seen my computer. 700GB of storage, 40GB total free space on all partitions.
BTW, did you notice how the animation TimeMachine uses is a lot like the animation Windows Vista uses for stacking their windows? Apparently copying works both ways....
Do you really think MS invented this ?
C'mon