Which Os is better among the Windows Vista.

[Michael Kennedy]

If they traded the idiotic single button trackpad for an industry
standard 2
button variety I'd buy one of those. Yeah, I know, there's tricks to get
around it, but I want my second button, just like *all* the competition
provides.

Haven't checked out the MacBooks, have you? They have a "two-finger"
right-button emulation mode that's really sweet -- better than a "real"
button because it's always right under your finger.

Plus, of course, multi-button mouses (mice?) are readily available.

Isaac[/QUOTE]

I don't know if that sounds seet or like a PITA. Guess I'd have to use it
to know.

 

[James Sweet]

If they traded the idiotic single button trackpad for an industry
standard 2
button variety I'd buy one of those. Yeah, I know, there's tricks to get
around it, but I want my second button, just like *all* the competition
provides.

Haven't checked out the MacBooks, have you? They have a "two-finger"
right-button emulation mode that's really sweet -- better than a "real"
button because it's always right under your finger.

Plus, of course, multi-button mouses (mice?) are readily available.

Isaac[/QUOTE]

Yes I have, I've used one a number of times and it's one of the "tricks" I
referred to. I want a real 2 button track pad, the Toshiba laptop I use has
one, and I won't buy a laptop that doesn't. It's a feature I want, and a
feature that you can get anywhere else, nothing will change my mind.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

Nice.

William S., isn't this what you said you were waiting for, before you
bought a mac? Now you can.

It sure sounds like it. Of course, I'm dead-broke (literally) at the moment.
But when I'm ready for a new computer, it'll be nice to have a wider choice.

I notice various commentators finally echoing my thoughts that the Mac is
"superior" primarily because it's a closed system. But the Mac doesn't
"leave Windows in the dust", simply because Windows offers a wider variety
and range of software.

I wonder if Apple will ever create an OS that will run Windows applications
directly and transparently. I don't think it's impossible, but it would
require a huge programming effort.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

If they traded the idiotic single button trackpad for an industry-

standard 2-button variety I'd buy one of those. Yeah, I know,
there's tricks to get around it, but I want my second button,
just like *all* the competition provides.

I remember Apple promoting their single-button mouse because it reduced the
number of decisions the user had to make, conveniently overlooking the fact
that designers would (and did) find all sorts of things for a mouse to do.
The result is that, with a single-button mouse, you now have to remember
which key to press to access these features.

I also remember John Dvorak griping that the Windows industry had not yet
decided what the "official" use of the second button would be. It finally
decided on displaying properties & functions, an excellent choice.

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

I also remember John Dvorak griping that the Windows industry had not yet
decided what the "official" use of the second button would be. It finally
decided on displaying properties & functions, an excellent choice.

The OS I use decided on a 3 button mouse over a quarter of a century ago.
We have five 'fingers' - two needed to move the mouse so three spare.
Surely it makes sense to use those?

 

[clifto]

Pointless. That'll just make it slower still.

It probably runs nicely on a 200 THz processor with 128 TB of memory.

 

[clifto]

If they traded the idiotic single button trackpad for an industry standard 2
button variety I'd buy one of those. Yeah, I know, there's tricks to get
around it, but I want my second button, just like *all* the competition
provides.

Get Linux and you can have THREE mouse buttons, all very handy.

 

[Don Bowey]

It sure sounds like it. Of course, I'm dead-broke (literally) at the moment.
But when I'm ready for a new computer, it'll be nice to have a wider choice.

I notice various commentators finally echoing my thoughts that the Mac is
"superior" primarily because it's a closed system. But the Mac doesn't
"leave Windows in the dust", simply because Windows offers a wider variety
and range of software.

I wonder if Apple will ever create an OS that will run Windows applications
directly and transparently. I don't think it's impossible, but it would
require a huge programming effort.

I don't see that as an advantage over what they have already done.

 

[Dave]

I wonder if Apple will ever create an OS that will run Windows
applications
directly and transparently. I don't think it's impossible, but it would
require a huge programming effort.

You have a basic misunderstanding of how the OS works. Software is written
and compiled to run on a particular OS/processor combo. You can't run a
Windows app on a UNIX box "natively" any more than you can drive a boat on
an asphalt highway... on a very fundamental level it just doesn't work.

I don't know how this "parallels" software works BUT I am guessing (and I'm
pretty sure about this) that it's a virtual dos machine environment similar
to VMWare or WINE where there is an application which emulates a windows OS
computer and which is displayed on the Mac OS X computer. It may APPEAR
that you are switching between the two OS's, but in reality you are running
OS X UNIX on the processor full-time and DISPLAYING (full-screen or
otherwise) a PROGRAM which is running the Windows app (perhaps within the
familiar Windows desktop). the only other way it could be done is the way
IBM and the big boys have been doing it for decades: partition the system
(memory, cpu cores, i/o bus, etc.) so that different OS's run CONCURRENTLY
on different processor cores within the same physical machine. OS X is
simply not designed or implemented to do this. Kudos to the writers of
Parallels for their most excellent-sounding product, I will check it out.

Having jumped back into the Mac world recently with my iMac purchase, I will
say that much as I dislike Microsoft, they have a better interface for
administering some things like network connections and firewalls, but that
is only my opinion. My background is in UNIX system administration, so I am
thrilled that the OS x backend is UNIX but... the GUI tools to administer
the vast power of the OS is geared towards trendy Jim whose skills lie in
perhaps advertising or image manipulation and who has no ability or desire
to completely control his machine... he wants a warm fuzzy "automagic"
interface which eliminates any technicial ability requirements. Just about
all of the Apple documentation deals with the fuzzy simple interface and
does not address the underlying OS which is UNIX. Although I've been in the
IT field for several decades, I had one helluva time configuring my wireless
adaptor to talk to my wireless print server in ad hoc mode... it took me
literally two hours. That having been said, my techno-illiterate wife could
sit down and follow the instructions to get the machine talking via ehternet
to our DSL modem (insecure as THAT is given OS X's default setting for their
less-than-perfect firewall is "OFF" out of the box) and hence onto the
internet... Apple is bang-on meeting the needs/wants of their intended
market.

Dave S.

 

[Dave]

If they traded the idiotic single button trackpad for an industry standard
2 button variety I'd buy one of those. Yeah, I know, there's tricks to get
around it, but I want my second button, just like *all* the competition
provides.

Yeah, I don't understand Apple's stubbornness with that single-button mouse.
Sure it looks cool (oops, answered my own question) but using the control
key to access the shortcut menus is just plain stupid and inefficient. Why
should I have to use two hands to do the same thing I could easily and
simply do with one with a Logitech mouse?

 

[Dave]

The OS I use decided on a 3 button mouse over a quarter of a century ago.
We have five 'fingers' - two needed to move the mouse so three spare.
Surely it makes sense to use those?

Yes, remember the three-button optical mouse (with the special metal optical
pickup mouse pad) that Sun shipped with their IPC/IPX/Sparcstation machines
in what, 1987? It was a bitch to keep that pad clean enough to work
smoothly but ahhh, the third button... I also always liked their
CUT/COPY/PASTE keyboard buttons... why not add buttons to eliminate multiple
actions for functions that people perform ALL THE TIME? I'd get rid of the
"scroll lock" and "pause/break" buttons on the PC KB in favor of COPY and
PASTE.

Dave S.

 

[Dave]

I disagree with the consensus. Go for Vista Ultimate. What's wrong with
it? Just that it's new?

Not only is it new, it's also slower, it requires huge amount of resources
to run "optimally" and contains more than its' share of bugs. Oh, and the
lack of backward-compatibility, did I mention that?

 

[William Sommerwerck]

You have a basic misunderstanding of how the OS works. Software is written
and compiled to run on a particular OS/processor combo. You can't run a
Windows app on a UNIX box "natively" any more than you can drive a boat
on an asphalt highway... on a very fundamental level it just doesn't work.

Oh, but I do understand it. I said "directly and transparently", not
natively.

The Apple OS could, in principle, support all the Windows API calls, address
spaces, etc. Windows software would think it was running in a Windows
environment.

I don't know how this "parallels" software works BUT I am guessing (and I'm
pretty sure about this) that it's a virtual dos machine environment similar
to VMWare or WINE where there is an application which emulates a windows OS
computer and which is displayed on the Mac OS X computer. It may APPEAR
that you are switching between the two OS's, but in reality you are running
OS X UNIX on the processor full-time and DISPLAYING (full-screen or
otherwise) a PROGRAM which is running the Windows app (perhaps within the
familiar Windows desktop). the only other way it could be done is the way
IBM and the big boys have been doing it for decades: partition the system
(memory, cpu cores, i/o bus, etc.) so that different OS's run CONCURRENTLY
on different processor cores within the same physical machine. OS X is
simply not designed or implemented to do this. Kudos to the writers of
Parallels for their most excellent-sounding product, I will check it out.

That seems plausible.

 

[Dave]

very fundamental level it just doesn't work.

Oh, but I do understand it. I said "directly and transparently", not
natively.

The Apple OS could, in principle, support all the Windows API calls,
address
spaces, etc. Windows software would think it was running in a Windows
environment.

Yes, it would be possible but holy shit why would you want to? There would
be a huge huge huge cost to develop hooks for all of the MS API's and for
what? You can already run an emulator and (with a minimal performance hit)
run all the windows apps...

I think a more simple way to go about it would be to write a simple wrapper
for your windows app which scripts the launching of the app within the
emulator app when you click it with your mouse. Couple of lines and you're
done....

 

[Dave]

If they did, you'd have no motivation to buy the "perfect" new system.

This applies to all software companies, not just Microsoft.

Make that "all companies".

I wonder if the computer industry will end up like the auto industry: a few
big players. I will gladly pay for the option to purchase reasonably priced
spare parts for 20 years in exchange for giving up ultimate customizability
of my car. Any day of the week.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

very fundamental level it just doesn't work.
Yes, it would be possible but holy shit why would you want to? There would
be a huge huge huge cost to develop hooks for all of the MS API's and for
what? You can already run an emulator and (with a minimal performance hit)
run all the windows apps...

The reason you would want to is to allow the truly simultaneous operation of
Mac and Windows programs. Of course, anything that gave the _illusion_ of
same would be just as good, of cours.

I think a more simple way to go about it would be to write a simple wrapper
for your windows app which scripts the launching of the app within the
emulator app when you click it with your mouse. Couple of lines and you're
done...

Okay.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

Make that "all companies".

I wonder if the computer industry will end up like the auto industry: a few
big players. I will gladly pay for the option to purchase reasonably priced
spare parts for 20 years in exchange for giving up ultimate customizability
of my car. Any day of the week.

It seems that all industries tend to devolve toward a few big players,
simply because of bad management or shakeouts during economic downturns.

There are good reasons for damning Microsoft (and Apple, for that matter),
but if it weren't for Windows, there would be no single "universal" (???)
platform for software and it would be economically more difficult for
software companies to develop niche products. The paradox (at least with
respect to operating systems) is that fewer operating systems means a wider
variety of software products.

 

[Don Bowey]

very fundamental level it just doesn't work.
Yes, it would be possible but holy shit why would you want to? There would
be a huge huge huge cost to develop hooks for all of the MS API's and for
what? You can already run an emulator and (with a minimal performance hit)
run all the windows apps...

The Windows emulator was very s l o w....... even on this MacBook Pro,
which has a 2.16 GHz processor. For what I wanted, it was inadequate.

Windows via Parallels and XP is not slow.

 

[isw]

I don't know if that sounds seet or like a PITA. Guess I'd have to use it
to know.

If you don't like it, you can turn it off. It annoys me every time I use
my old Pismo, because I do the "two-finger thump" and nothing happens.

Two finger motions also emulate a wheel mouse -- draw fingers down,
scroll up; draw fingers sideways, scroll sideways. Nice.

Isaac

 

[isw]

I notice various commentators finally echoing my thoughts that the Mac is
"superior" primarily because it's a closed system.

UNIX (BSD, actually) is a "closed system"? That will be news to a lot of
folks.

But the Mac doesn't "leave Windows in the dust", simply because Windows
offers a wider variety and range of software.

Windows proponents often say that, but when put to it, they are usually
unable to name any particular areas of software other than games or very
expensive, special purpose apps for offices or engineers where Macs are
deficient. That a PC has a larger availability of games is a given. In
fact, if you start with the premise that a PC is a game machine that
also does spread sheets, a lot of the architectural aspects of PCs make
a lot more sense. And those expensive special-purpose apps are of no
particular interest to the typical home user.

Can you do better? In what areas are Macs unable to perform because of
the unavailability of software? (Not "I can't run this specific Windows
app or something exactly like it", but "no Mac software to perform the
function satisfactorily exists").

Isaac