The search for a system "that just works" took me through
Windows 3.1,
Windows 95,
Windows 98,
Windows Millennium Edition,
Windows 2000,
Windows 2000 Professional,
Windows XP Home,
Windows XP Professional,
Windows XP Media Center edition
and ultimately to Windows Vista Ultimate.
The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome, so I guess I was insane. Sanity kicked in last year with Leopard, followed rapidly by Snow Leopard.
The quest is over!
That said, I am still stuck with Windows in a virtualized form on my Mac simply because Microsoft has yet to build a Mac version of Office that is compatible with the PC version. And, yes, I know that Microsoft claims that Office 2008 is compatible with Office 2007, but that is simply not true.
Microsoft could of course, become honest and quite validly claim that an advantage of Windows is having "full Microsoft Office compatibility"
So I still have to waste my time helping Windows to keep on running.
If MS is so into promoting Blu Ray, then why does the new xbox 360 lack Blu Ray? I mean, you're more likely to watch a Blu Ray on you're TV than you're PC (I have Blu ray in my laptop but never use it) and I thought that cloud & external Hard drives are the modern way to back up you're pc. Blu Ray is for 3D an Full HD films, not for PCs and plenty of mac owners are happy to live without blu ray.
And why MS saying Macs can't do 3G when they clearly can with a plug-in Usb 3g dongle or people could just get an iPad or iPhone (iPhone also does 3g tethering so that macs could have 3g using an iPhone).
New macs support SD cards, external Hard drives and USB sticks which are standard formats for data storage so stating that Macs don't have memory stick readers (Sony's memory cards) doesn't make a difference.
Macs don't need TV tuners because they can access BBC iPlayer, ITV Player, 4od, 5 on demand plus many other online video services (plus plenty more to come in future) and Mac users can download there favourite programmes from iTunes. The point is that online video services are the way to go
Overall, the reason Macs are better is because they focus on the features that count rather than a load of features which will be obsolete in a couple of years and macs focus on more stable, secure, better looking and eaiser to use operating systems. Plus, Macs havbe good intergration with there portable products and Apple TV.
Just because you want to close the window in which you are working (writing a letter, perhaps) doesn't mean you want to quit the application you were using to write that letter.... you may, in fact, want to write a second letter, using the same application .... that's why the red button doesn't close the application. It's the Mac way ... you'll get used to it ... trust me.
Except for some programs. Like iCal, System Preferences, Disk Utility. Then again to use your logic, I suppose that these are applications that when you hit the window you generally do want to close the application. But what about Address Book & Calculator? When I close them I want to exit the program...especially Address Book.
Is this business as usual for MSFT or are they becoming more worried about Apple's successes, especially in the mobile platform arena and trying to stem the tide of marketshare losses?
My reading of the tea leaves is that MSFT is more worried, especially given the most recent failure of the kin phone. They really have a lot riding on the introduction of their new mobile platform. And there is also google(android) and hp(palm) to compete with so it isn't just Apple that they are competing with.
Except for some programs. Like iCal, System Preferences, Disk Utility. Then again to use your logic, I suppose that these are applications that when you hit the window you generally do want to close the application. But what about Address Book & Calculator? When I close them I want to exit the program...especially Address Book.
The problem is one of mindset. The OS X Team designed the OS around multitasking - an I'm not just talking about the OS world of "Mulitasking Operating Systems", I mean a human performing multiple tasks at once. Windows is, very much, designed around performing a series of tasks, one at a time. In the Windows World, lots of users (Even myself when I use Windows) feel slightly odd if a window is not maximised. THe functionality of the X button is the way it is for the same reason. In Windows, an Application (Nee, Program) has, historically, been expected to be called upon to perform a task and then simply be dismissed in favour of the next task.
In OS X, Apps are generally expected to be left running (That's also why Apple is so "hey look at the shiny" about Grand Central Dispatch, which increases the efficiency of this behaviour) to perform background operations and enable users to pivot between multiple tasks instantly. Spaces was added to aid this practice too.
You can see the thought process at work also in the difference between the OS X Dock and the legacy Windows Taskbar. The Taskbar is virtually useless for handling more than around a half dozen Windows, whereas the Dock is capable of managing easily three times that number of open Apps. Interestingly enough, Microsft has switched to the Dock model with the latest revision of the Taskbar in Windows 7 and they do seem to be switching more to a multi-task mindset.
On top of that, Windows and OS X consider what constitutes a "Window" differently. In OS X, because it is multitask-oriented, every Document or functionality instance gets its own window. In Windows, every Program Instance gets its own window (This notably breaks the "Click X on the window to close the Program" behaviour, as it - usually - only does this when there is only one instance, ie window, open), and Documents tend to be grouped into different Windows. Both of these groupings are actually inconsistent in terms of behaviour owing to the different natures of different kinds of App. But it comes back to this: Apple is designing things so that you can easily do lots of things at once, Microsft tends to design things so that they are harder to lose track of and it is difficult to get distracted.
Neither Windows nor OS X does it objectively incorrectly, it's down to personal preference. For me, I change behaviour to suit the OS, but by default I prefer the OS X mindset. I'm a Spaces fiend.
So Microsoft is standing behind their product and trying to show the benefits compared to their closest competitor. Apple does the same exact thing, as stated in the article, so not sure how this is news. This is the same campaign Microsoft has been running for a while now.
Apple USED TO run such ads. They do not any more.
Apple does the same exact thing
Hardly the 'exact same thing'. Far from it, in fact:
"Adweek named the "Get a Mac" campaign the best ad campaign of the decade."
Think that'll happen to Microsoft's sad little "Me Too" campaign? Not a chance. Apple's ads were entertaining, focused, light, memorable and witty. Microsoft's are dull, dreary, cloying, predictable, meandering and ponderous. And they are easily (and gratefully) forgotten the second they're over.
I'll also be pleased when apple announce 4096 hi def movies on their screens, that leave blu-ray in the dirt. Optical discs are dead, i've even stopped backing up to blu-ray now, that was a short lived toy. Why spend 8 - 10 on a disc when I can buy a 32gB SD card for less and it's easier to store and faster read/write speeds?
Blu-Ray is too low def for Apple's MiniDisplayPort. That is why Apple doesn't allow HDMI. HDMI is low-rez compared to MiniDisplyPort.
The problem is one of mindset. The OS X Team designed the OS around multitasking - an I'm not just talking about the OS world of "Mulitasking Operating Systems", I mean a human performing multiple tasks at once. Windows is, very much, designed around performing a series of tasks, one at a time. In the Windows World, lots of users (Even myself when I use Windows) feel slightly odd if a window is not maximised. THe functionality of the X button is the way it is for the same reason. In Windows, an Application (Nee, Program) has, historically, been expected to be called upon to perform a task and then simply be dismissed in favour of the next task.
In OS X, Apps are generally expected to be left running (That's also why Apple is so "hey look at the shiny" about Grand Central Dispatch, which increases the efficiency of this behaviour) to perform background operations and enable users to pivot between multiple tasks instantly. Spaces was added to aid this practice too.
You can see the thought process at work also in the difference between the OS X Dock and the legacy Windows Taskbar. The Taskbar is virtually useless for handling more than around a half dozen Windows, whereas the Dock is capable of managing easily three times that number of open Apps. Interestingly enough, Microsft has switched to the Dock model with the latest revision of the Taskbar in Windows 7 and they do seem to be switching more to a multi-task mindset.
On top of that, Windows and OS X consider what constitutes a "Window" differently. In OS X, because it is multitask-oriented, every Document or functionality instance gets its own window. In Windows, every Program Instance gets its own window (This notably breaks the "Click X on the window to close the Program" behaviour, as it - usually - only does this when there is only one instance, ie window, open), and Documents tend to be grouped into different Windows. Both of these groupings are actually inconsistent in terms of behaviour owing to the different natures of different kinds of App. But it comes back to this: Apple is designing things so that you can easily do lots of things at once, Microsft tends to design things so that they are harder to lose track of and it is difficult to get distracted.
Neither Windows nor OS X does it objectively incorrectly, it's down to personal preference. For me, I change behaviour to suit the OS, but by default I prefer the OS X mindset. I'm a Spaces fiend.
FINALLY!!! someone that gets it. Eloquently put sir!
No, because background applications that aren't running processes don't continue to use the same amount of RAM as when the application is in the foreground or running intensive background processes. This is a silly comment to make, and highlights a lack of knowledge.
3 of the 5 PCs have succumb to viral threats in the past 6 months,
Do you need an update to your AV software? What do you use? Some are much better than others.
Which viruses did you get? 3 different ones? Or did the virus travel through your LAN from the first infected PC to the others? Why didn't the 2 remaining PCs get infected? Do you use them differently? Are the infected computes used by unsophisticated users?
I went to the MS propoganda page yesterday and used their "Help Me Select a New PC" tool.
Why? Because I just did this a month ago for a new Windows laptop at work (another Thinkpad), and I wanted to be humored by Microsoft's take on what I should get.
So off it goes...
...yup, its a pretty "friendly" and slick presentation. Looked like it was done in Adobe Flash, BTW.
Okay, listened to the (young guy voice) chat, etc, etc. Yup, for a 'Road Warrior' laptop, its a trade-off between weight, capability and battery life - - MS got that one correct.
Oh, an upsell attempt for Windows professional: all I have to do is to WRITE DOWN BY HAND (because you didn't offer a "Print Coupon" button) the special redemption code. Golly, perhaps it is prophetic that the code was "0". Yes, that's one zero :-).
Okay, get rid of the ad.
Now show me your recommended laptops like you promised.
(white blank screen).
Um, did I hit the wrong button?
(white blank screen)
No, I'm on a fast connection. Can't be that its still waiting to load...but I'll wait a bit longer.
(white blank screen)
Well, I *am* running this website with Windows and IE...
Cancel the screen - - start going through the propoganda a second time.
skip, skip, skip ahead.
Okay, gimmie my recommendations.
(white blank screen)
Yeah, I've seen this before.
(white blank screen)
Abort. Reload - - use the "jump to" command to go right to their page with all products and move the sliders around.
Okay, found a few.
Okay, found all of their 'business' road machines.
Techie Specs
Techie Specs
Techie Specs
Techie Specs
...what, NO BATTERY LIFE data listed?
Where's that 'provide feedback' button? Ah, there it is!
"Dear MS:
you told us that there was a trade-off between weight and battery life ... and then only told me HALF of the answer. Get a clue, bozos" (sic).
Some things never change in the MS camp of cluelessness.
Microsoft's marketing can be quite humorous. I'm still quite amused at the fact that their original "Mojave Experiment" website was hosted on a LAMP server.
This is a silly comment to make, and highlights a lack of knowledge.
Sure. Lack of knowledge would fit me perfectly. I'm not using Mac.
But what I'm asking is since Mac users generally left the program running, then the Mac will consume more RAM than Windows, in which user tend to exit program when finished.
In other words, If I buy a Mac I should look for more RAM than when I buy PC?
Still I'm not sure why the heck, on Mac, the program is *not* closed when you hit the red circle though.
Get to know your keyboard shortcuts. You have probably figured out the Command key replaces the Windows Control key. Command W for window and Command Q for Quitting a program. Apple has the Hide command as well. Guess that was used more when screen real estate was at a premium.
That's not untrue, it's a fact. There are currently no known un-patched viral threats for Mac OS X. And I can only think of two that have existed in the past 4 years, both of which were speedily patched. Perhaps you are confusing "Virus" with "Malware". A virus is a form of malware which spreads and replicates itself without user input. As it stands, no Mac Viruses are known to exist in the wild, just malware - of which there is proportionally less than on Windows. To wit, I have two Macs in the house and there are 5 PCs. All the PCs run anti-virus software. The Macs do not. 3 of the 5 PCs have succumb to viral threats in the past 6 months, the Macs? Untouched despite lacking antivirus.
So essential you're just reiterating what I posted, "Untrue... plain and simple (just far fewer)", and to the average computer user the semantics of calling it malware or virus is completely moot.
Choice...Or lack of it. This is the Mac's biggest failing. Excusable when WIndows was a disaster and Apple used PPC architecture and different bus systems. Now that they are simply Intel (maybe soon AMD?) PC's running OS X it is absolutely inexcusable. A premium is paid for OS X and hardware but Apple customers are given short shrift when it comes to expandability.
OS X could do with greater exposure and to do this Apple really do need to think about releasing a Mac, even limited cloning, for computing enthusiasts. Perhaps a new Brand name for the range.
Though to do this they need good programmers and a committed relationship with developers to keep on top of drivers. No big deal with a bank balance as large as theirs.
Soon to be completely swamped by Android devices and more feature flexible tablets, I guess we'll all just have to hope Steve Jobs dies soon and new blood prevents Apple and MacOS from sliding back to the bad old days when its significance wasn't even detectable.
Jobs did a fantastic job bringing Apple back into the limelight. Now I fear his inability to think outside the box will stifle Apple.
Though I don't use Blu-ray it is bloody embarrassing that an expensive computer like the Mac doesn't support it for commercial film replay. I've heard Steve Jobs thoughts on the matter, though, once again, he cannot escape his own brain. It's ludicrous that Apple Mac users have to boot into Windows to play Blu-ray disks. Internet bandwidth is variable country to country, town to town and an attitude that 720 is "good enough" reminds me of the tasteless and compromised thinking at Microsoft of old.
Steve... Windows 7 is not Windows 3.1, 95 or Vista, it is now a very capable and rock-solid OS which I have never had crash on me whereas my Console Crash-Logs on Mac OSX SL is stuffed to bursting.
I agree with you. Trust me though, "they" won't listen. I find it insane to think Apple would like me to drop big money on an iMac every five years. Why should I have to replace both the computer and the screen, just because Steve wants me to? Hell, Goldilocks had better choices! At least she found "just right." The Pro is too much, the mini too little. And yes, I want a computer driven by AMD. No Choice Joyce! I don't ever want a notebook.
It doesn't work that way when you're attacking the underdog. When you're king of the mountain you should NEVER come down to a challenger's level...
At least not unless you're scared of them.
Microsoft is making their money regardless of what apple does but with moves like this, they are showing that Apple is a bigger threat than they let on.
So it's perfectly fine when Apple (alleged King of the Smartphone Hill) does it e.g. the 'Look, Their Phones Attenuate Too - When Held 'Unnaturally' ", but it's not when other companies do it.
There are some serious flaws in that (lack of) rational... Very Serious.
After all: 'Apple is making their money regardless of what others do but with moves like this, they are showing that the competition is more important than they let on.'
Comments
Windows 3.1,
Windows 95,
Windows 98,
Windows Millennium Edition,
Windows 2000,
Windows 2000 Professional,
Windows XP Home,
Windows XP Professional,
Windows XP Media Center edition
and ultimately to Windows Vista Ultimate.
The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome, so I guess I was insane. Sanity kicked in last year with Leopard, followed rapidly by Snow Leopard.
The quest is over!
That said, I am still stuck with Windows in a virtualized form on my Mac simply because Microsoft has yet to build a Mac version of Office that is compatible with the PC version. And, yes, I know that Microsoft claims that Office 2008 is compatible with Office 2007, but that is simply not true.
Microsoft could of course, become honest and quite validly claim that an advantage of Windows is having "full Microsoft Office compatibility"
So I still have to waste my time helping Windows to keep on running.
And why MS saying Macs can't do 3G when they clearly can with a plug-in Usb 3g dongle or people could just get an iPad or iPhone (iPhone also does 3g tethering so that macs could have 3g using an iPhone).
New macs support SD cards, external Hard drives and USB sticks which are standard formats for data storage so stating that Macs don't have memory stick readers (Sony's memory cards) doesn't make a difference.
Macs don't need TV tuners because they can access BBC iPlayer, ITV Player, 4od, 5 on demand plus many other online video services (plus plenty more to come in future) and Mac users can download there favourite programmes from iTunes. The point is that online video services are the way to go
Overall, the reason Macs are better is because they focus on the features that count rather than a load of features which will be obsolete in a couple of years and macs focus on more stable, secure, better looking and eaiser to use operating systems. Plus, Macs havbe good intergration with there portable products and Apple TV.
Just because you want to close the window in which you are working (writing a letter, perhaps) doesn't mean you want to quit the application you were using to write that letter.... you may, in fact, want to write a second letter, using the same application .... that's why the red button doesn't close the application. It's the Mac way ... you'll get used to it ... trust me.
Except for some programs. Like iCal, System Preferences, Disk Utility. Then again to use your logic, I suppose that these are applications that when you hit the window you generally do want to close the application. But what about Address Book & Calculator? When I close them I want to exit the program...especially Address Book.
My reading of the tea leaves is that MSFT is more worried, especially given the most recent failure of the kin phone. They really have a lot riding on the introduction of their new mobile platform. And there is also google(android) and hp(palm) to compete with so it isn't just Apple that they are competing with.
Neal
Except for some programs. Like iCal, System Preferences, Disk Utility. Then again to use your logic, I suppose that these are applications that when you hit the window you generally do want to close the application. But what about Address Book & Calculator? When I close them I want to exit the program...especially Address Book.
The problem is one of mindset. The OS X Team designed the OS around multitasking - an I'm not just talking about the OS world of "Mulitasking Operating Systems", I mean a human performing multiple tasks at once. Windows is, very much, designed around performing a series of tasks, one at a time. In the Windows World, lots of users (Even myself when I use Windows) feel slightly odd if a window is not maximised. THe functionality of the X button is the way it is for the same reason. In Windows, an Application (Nee, Program) has, historically, been expected to be called upon to perform a task and then simply be dismissed in favour of the next task.
In OS X, Apps are generally expected to be left running (That's also why Apple is so "hey look at the shiny" about Grand Central Dispatch, which increases the efficiency of this behaviour) to perform background operations and enable users to pivot between multiple tasks instantly. Spaces was added to aid this practice too.
You can see the thought process at work also in the difference between the OS X Dock and the legacy Windows Taskbar. The Taskbar is virtually useless for handling more than around a half dozen Windows, whereas the Dock is capable of managing easily three times that number of open Apps. Interestingly enough, Microsft has switched to the Dock model with the latest revision of the Taskbar in Windows 7 and they do seem to be switching more to a multi-task mindset.
On top of that, Windows and OS X consider what constitutes a "Window" differently. In OS X, because it is multitask-oriented, every Document or functionality instance gets its own window. In Windows, every Program Instance gets its own window (This notably breaks the "Click X on the window to close the Program" behaviour, as it - usually - only does this when there is only one instance, ie window, open), and Documents tend to be grouped into different Windows. Both of these groupings are actually inconsistent in terms of behaviour owing to the different natures of different kinds of App. But it comes back to this: Apple is designing things so that you can easily do lots of things at once, Microsft tends to design things so that they are harder to lose track of and it is difficult to get distracted.
Neither Windows nor OS X does it objectively incorrectly, it's down to personal preference. For me, I change behaviour to suit the OS, but by default I prefer the OS X mindset. I'm a Spaces fiend.
So Microsoft is standing behind their product and trying to show the benefits compared to their closest competitor. Apple does the same exact thing, as stated in the article, so not sure how this is news. This is the same campaign Microsoft has been running for a while now.
Apple USED TO run such ads. They do not any more.
Apple does the same exact thing
Hardly the 'exact same thing'. Far from it, in fact:
"Adweek named the "Get a Mac" campaign the best ad campaign of the decade."
Think that'll happen to Microsoft's sad little "Me Too" campaign? Not a chance. Apple's ads were entertaining, focused, light, memorable and witty. Microsoft's are dull, dreary, cloying, predictable, meandering and ponderous. And they are easily (and gratefully) forgotten the second they're over.
I'll also be pleased when apple announce 4096 hi def movies on their screens, that leave blu-ray in the dirt. Optical discs are dead, i've even stopped backing up to blu-ray now, that was a short lived toy. Why spend 8 - 10 on a disc when I can buy a 32gB SD card for less and it's easier to store and faster read/write speeds?
Blu-Ray is too low def for Apple's MiniDisplayPort. That is why Apple doesn't allow HDMI. HDMI is low-rez compared to MiniDisplyPort.
The problem is one of mindset. The OS X Team designed the OS around multitasking - an I'm not just talking about the OS world of "Mulitasking Operating Systems", I mean a human performing multiple tasks at once. Windows is, very much, designed around performing a series of tasks, one at a time. In the Windows World, lots of users (Even myself when I use Windows) feel slightly odd if a window is not maximised. THe functionality of the X button is the way it is for the same reason. In Windows, an Application (Nee, Program) has, historically, been expected to be called upon to perform a task and then simply be dismissed in favour of the next task.
In OS X, Apps are generally expected to be left running (That's also why Apple is so "hey look at the shiny" about Grand Central Dispatch, which increases the efficiency of this behaviour) to perform background operations and enable users to pivot between multiple tasks instantly. Spaces was added to aid this practice too.
You can see the thought process at work also in the difference between the OS X Dock and the legacy Windows Taskbar. The Taskbar is virtually useless for handling more than around a half dozen Windows, whereas the Dock is capable of managing easily three times that number of open Apps. Interestingly enough, Microsft has switched to the Dock model with the latest revision of the Taskbar in Windows 7 and they do seem to be switching more to a multi-task mindset.
On top of that, Windows and OS X consider what constitutes a "Window" differently. In OS X, because it is multitask-oriented, every Document or functionality instance gets its own window. In Windows, every Program Instance gets its own window (This notably breaks the "Click X on the window to close the Program" behaviour, as it - usually - only does this when there is only one instance, ie window, open), and Documents tend to be grouped into different Windows. Both of these groupings are actually inconsistent in terms of behaviour owing to the different natures of different kinds of App. But it comes back to this: Apple is designing things so that you can easily do lots of things at once, Microsft tends to design things so that they are harder to lose track of and it is difficult to get distracted.
Neither Windows nor OS X does it objectively incorrectly, it's down to personal preference. For me, I change behaviour to suit the OS, but by default I prefer the OS X mindset. I'm a Spaces fiend.
FINALLY!!! someone that gets it. Eloquently put sir!
In OS X, Apps are generally expected to be left running
In other words, it'll generally consume more RAM?
In other words, it'll generally consume more RAM?
No, because background applications that aren't running processes don't continue to use the same amount of RAM as when the application is in the foreground or running intensive background processes. This is a silly comment to make, and highlights a lack of knowledge.
3 of the 5 PCs have succumb to viral threats in the past 6 months,
Do you need an update to your AV software? What do you use? Some are much better than others.
Which viruses did you get? 3 different ones? Or did the virus travel through your LAN from the first infected PC to the others? Why didn't the 2 remaining PCs get infected? Do you use them differently? Are the infected computes used by unsophisticated users?
Bag of hurt no matter what, tho.
Why? Because I just did this a month ago for a new Windows laptop at work (another Thinkpad), and I wanted to be humored by Microsoft's take on what I should get.
So off it goes...
...yup, its a pretty "friendly" and slick presentation. Looked like it was done in Adobe Flash, BTW.
Okay, listened to the (young guy voice) chat, etc, etc. Yup, for a 'Road Warrior' laptop, its a trade-off between weight, capability and battery life - - MS got that one correct.
Oh, an upsell attempt for Windows professional: all I have to do is to WRITE DOWN BY HAND (because you didn't offer a "Print Coupon" button) the special redemption code. Golly, perhaps it is prophetic that the code was "0". Yes, that's one zero :-).
Okay, get rid of the ad.
Now show me your recommended laptops like you promised.
(white blank screen).
Um, did I hit the wrong button?
(white blank screen)
No, I'm on a fast connection. Can't be that its still waiting to load...but I'll wait a bit longer.
(white blank screen)
Well, I *am* running this website with Windows and IE...
Cancel the screen - - start going through the propoganda a second time.
skip, skip, skip ahead.
Okay, gimmie my recommendations.
(white blank screen)
Yeah, I've seen this before.
(white blank screen)
Abort. Reload - - use the "jump to" command to go right to their page with all products and move the sliders around.
Okay, found a few.
Okay, found all of their 'business' road machines.
Techie Specs
Techie Specs
Techie Specs
Techie Specs
...what, NO BATTERY LIFE data listed?
Where's that 'provide feedback' button? Ah, there it is!
"Dear MS:
you told us that there was a trade-off between weight and battery life ... and then only told me HALF of the answer. Get a clue, bozos" (sic).
Some things never change in the MS camp of cluelessness.
-hh
Microsoft's marketing can be quite humorous. I'm still quite amused at the fact that their original "Mojave Experiment" website was hosted on a LAMP server.
This is a silly comment to make, and highlights a lack of knowledge.
Sure. Lack of knowledge would fit me perfectly. I'm not using Mac.
But what I'm asking is since Mac users generally left the program running, then the Mac will consume more RAM than Windows, in which user tend to exit program when finished.
In other words, If I buy a Mac I should look for more RAM than when I buy PC?
Still I'm not sure why the heck, on Mac, the program is *not* closed when you hit the red circle though.
Get to know your keyboard shortcuts. You have probably figured out the Command key replaces the Windows Control key. Command W for window and Command Q for Quitting a program. Apple has the Hide command as well. Guess that was used more when screen real estate was at a premium.
That's not untrue, it's a fact. There are currently no known un-patched viral threats for Mac OS X. And I can only think of two that have existed in the past 4 years, both of which were speedily patched. Perhaps you are confusing "Virus" with "Malware". A virus is a form of malware which spreads and replicates itself without user input. As it stands, no Mac Viruses are known to exist in the wild, just malware - of which there is proportionally less than on Windows. To wit, I have two Macs in the house and there are 5 PCs. All the PCs run anti-virus software. The Macs do not. 3 of the 5 PCs have succumb to viral threats in the past 6 months, the Macs? Untouched despite lacking antivirus.
So essential you're just reiterating what I posted, "Untrue... plain and simple (just far fewer)", and to the average computer user the semantics of calling it malware or virus is completely moot.
Choice...Or lack of it. This is the Mac's biggest failing. Excusable when WIndows was a disaster and Apple used PPC architecture and different bus systems. Now that they are simply Intel (maybe soon AMD?) PC's running OS X it is absolutely inexcusable. A premium is paid for OS X and hardware but Apple customers are given short shrift when it comes to expandability.
OS X could do with greater exposure and to do this Apple really do need to think about releasing a Mac, even limited cloning, for computing enthusiasts. Perhaps a new Brand name for the range.
Though to do this they need good programmers and a committed relationship with developers to keep on top of drivers. No big deal with a bank balance as large as theirs.
Soon to be completely swamped by Android devices and more feature flexible tablets, I guess we'll all just have to hope Steve Jobs dies soon and new blood prevents Apple and MacOS from sliding back to the bad old days when its significance wasn't even detectable.
Jobs did a fantastic job bringing Apple back into the limelight. Now I fear his inability to think outside the box will stifle Apple.
Though I don't use Blu-ray it is bloody embarrassing that an expensive computer like the Mac doesn't support it for commercial film replay. I've heard Steve Jobs thoughts on the matter, though, once again, he cannot escape his own brain. It's ludicrous that Apple Mac users have to boot into Windows to play Blu-ray disks. Internet bandwidth is variable country to country, town to town and an attitude that 720 is "good enough" reminds me of the tasteless and compromised thinking at Microsoft of old.
Steve... Windows 7 is not Windows 3.1, 95 or Vista, it is now a very capable and rock-solid OS which I have never had crash on me whereas my Console Crash-Logs on Mac OSX SL is stuffed to bursting.
I agree with you. Trust me though, "they" won't listen. I find it insane to think Apple would like me to drop big money on an iMac every five years. Why should I have to replace both the computer and the screen, just because Steve wants me to? Hell, Goldilocks had better choices! At least she found "just right." The Pro is too much, the mini too little. And yes, I want a computer driven by AMD. No Choice Joyce! I don't ever want a notebook.
Originally Posted by DaHarder
... or possibly a taste of their own medicine.
It doesn't work that way when you're attacking the underdog. When you're king of the mountain you should NEVER come down to a challenger's level...
At least not unless you're scared of them.
Microsoft is making their money regardless of what apple does but with moves like this, they are showing that Apple is a bigger threat than they let on.
So it's perfectly fine when Apple (alleged King of the Smartphone Hill) does it e.g. the 'Look, Their Phones Attenuate Too - When Held 'Unnaturally' ", but it's not when other companies do it.
There are some serious flaws in that (lack of) rational... Very Serious.
After all: 'Apple is making their money regardless of what others do but with moves like this, they are showing that the competition is more important than they let on.'