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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
... 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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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.
Webkit - Trident - Again same logic
I agree same logic, one is open, one is proprietary.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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).
... 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".
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
And Safari has major security issues on Windows.
Yup, and a gourmet meal served in an outhouse is less than appealing as well.
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.
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.