My PC friend and his complaints with Macs

[mateybob]

"Umm, who said I never realized how to use the &? My point about running multiple instances of a program was that I didn't expect the command prompt to be a necessary tool for such a simple thing. And just to let you know: the & has NOTHING to do with running multiple instances of a program. The & assigns a task to be executed in the background (it forks off a process rather than hanging the terminal while it runs). But as other people here have mentioned, when running programs from the terminal, OSX doesn't stop multiple instances from being assigned their own pids. "

err well youre the one that said you couldnt run multiple instances of the same program on macosx so CLEARLY you did not think about &... and the very purpose of & is to fork a new process so if you had half a brain youd use it run an additional instance.. i laugh at your attempt to make me sound ignorant with your processes101 speak..

anyway its funny how with your next post you completely nailed your coffin with some seriously ignorant statements that really go to show how you dont know ANYTHING about macosx... next time you adamantly want to criticise something please at least know what youre talking about... almost everything im going to point out here has been said before but ill reiterate anyway just so maybe youll be convinced to give macosx a second chance.. (and you really should)

"1. write programs out of the box - yep"
not anything nearly as good as xcode..

"3. immune to most virii, etc. - Check, as well as immunization to hack attacks "
everything has a built in firewall these days.. also btw you cant be "immune" to hacks..

"5. MICROSOFT office - Comes with the exact equivalent (but OOo is more powerful and free, and can share any kind of document with MS, even powerpoint presentations)"
well so does macosx

"7. Surf faster than IE - umm, this depends on your internet connection more than teh browser, so a comparison is hard."
no actually the speed at which the browser can interpret and render html has nothign to with the connection speed..

"15. best GUI - this is an issue of taste. I can make KDE look like Aqua, but faster and prettier. But again its a matter of taste."
you can make anything LOOK like aqua but a GUI isnt about LOOKS its about FUNTIONALITY... lets see you make KDE do expose...

"17.change backgrounds on a timed scale - Chuckle-chuckle - only mac users would consider this "functionality"... Maybe a nice little extra, but hardly a reason why OSX is "better" than anything else."
you get a point.. actually this feature sucks.. the only time my macosx has EVER crashed was when i was using this...

"23. built in server software (Apache)"
so does macosx (apache).. where do you get your info? does linux also have built in j2ee containers? (really im not saying it doesnt im just asking).. macosx as a couple..

"24. built in ftp software"
please learn to use unix... man ftp is a good place to start..

"25. support for running Windows apps (wine)"
vpc... but as a side note how usefull is this anyway?

"27. advanced image editing (GIMP)"
lol

"28. Support for all sorts of video formats (mov,mpg,wmv,dv,...)"
lol

"29. Easy disk burning - two commands can copy a cd to the hard drive and write it to another cd"
lol

"30. Virtual desktops"
perhaps the only good point youve ever made..

"31. math/science software (astronomy, math equations, circuit emulation...)"
lol.. seriously you make it too easy.. do some research before you criticise...

"33. Automounting/unmouting (supermounting). Just pop in that usb drive, and yank it out, no need to unmount or drag to the trash or anything. Same thing for cds and floppies."
you are an idiot.. i cant even be bothered to argue why anymore.. maybe tomorrow...

"35. Hundreds of pages of built in documentation"
ditto.. omg are you sure youve ever even used a mac?

 

[ChrisH3677]

just want to sidetrack a bit....

re #7... Opera 7 rendered the page www.theage.com.au 15 seconds faster than IE 6 Both used the same connection (thru a Billion router modem)

Normally that would be impressive enough as it is...
but Opera was running on an Pentium 166 with 8Mb RAM and running Win95a.

And IE6 was running on a 2 year old Dell box.

I still prefer Safari on the Mac, but that really impressed.

 

[thecombatwombat]

I really don't mean to flame or be a jerk but . . .

OK, I'm not claiming to really know about your friend's credentials here, but like others have said, it seems to me he doesn't know that much about the core of OS X, or of UNIX in general.

I'm a similar convert: 3 years of nothing but linux until I got my powerbook.

Can't get any feedback when an app crashes? Can't run multiple instances?

From my terminal.

Macintosh > gdb /Applications/iChat.app/Contents/MacOS/iChat
GNU gdb 5.3-20030128 (Apple version gdb-309) (Thu Dec 4 15:41:30 GMT 2003)
Copyright 2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
GDB is free software, covered by the GNU General Public License, and you are
welcome to change it and/or distribute copies of it under certain conditions.
Type "show copying" to see the conditions.
There is absolutely no warranty for GDB. Type "show warranty" for details.
This GDB was configured as "powerpc-apple-darwin".
Reading symbols for shared libraries .......... done
(gdb) run
Starting program: /Applications/iChat.app/Contents/MacOS/iChat
Reading symbols for shared libraries ......................................................................... done
Reading symbols for shared libraries . done
Reading symbols for shared libraries . done
Reading symbols for shared libraries . done
Reading symbols for shared libraries . done
Reading symbols for shared libraries . done
Reading symbols for shared libraries . done
Reading symbols for shared libraries . done
Reading symbols for shared libraries . done
Reading symbols for shared libraries . done

Program exited normally.
(gdb) quit


I'm running a second instance of iChat in gdb right now. (I'm sure your friend knows all about gdb.)

I'd worked out a lot of other examples, but I'm sure this thread covers them.

I love linux too, but I think willful ignorance is causing you to miss out on a lot.

 

[tamara6]

"What you do in a week, we do in an hour."
What I do in a week can stand as a 486DX server for months without a reboot.

Well, fine, but what I set up in an hour has run just fine as a server for just about a year now (it was set up in July, 2003). It is both a web server and a file server (SMB and AFP). And for the past 6 months I've been about 1500 miles away from it. Nothing has gone wrong, and I haven't had to worry about being so far away.

And it is running on a Mac that is about 3.5 years old.

 

[iShater]

Actually, that applies to the PC side as well. Can't tell you how many programmers I bump into who are TRYING to build a system, but don't really get it *_*

Hardware/Software. I have yet to meet someone who is as good a tweaker/builder as they are a programmer.

Cause we never met

 

[Macmaniac]

Intx13 wrote "Which mentiones another fact (and this goes against Windows as well). Linux can be put on any ancient piece of crap machine and run just fine. CAse in point, I run (I just did the install today) Mandrake 10.0 on a 665Mhz Duron."
Actually I am going to have to prove a point, Mac OS X does run on very ancient Mac hardware, first it runs on all the original iMac G3's at around 300mhz, and if you want to get creative you can install a program called XPostfacto on older pre-G3 macs to put OS X on them currently you can go all the way back to the PowerMac 7300, and the Powerbook 2400. They are currently working on getting it to work on PowerMac models as old as the 4400 series. Now mind you these macs are at least 6-7 years old and they can run OS X decently with a nice shot of RAM and a newer video card, and if you want to put a little extra money into it you can upgrade the processor on most of these Powermacs to G4s.
And since you love Linux I have seen Linux that runs decently put on a Mac SE which is getting close to 15-20 years old, so old Mac hardware can run what you want to run

 

[amols]

Where is free Linux ??

I just went to the Mandrake website to see if I can download the latest version 9.1 which has a nice new feature called MOL (Mac-on-Linux) which they claim to run Mac OSX at native speed "inside Linux". But when I went to the download page, they said I need to have a 66$/year membership to download it . WTH... so now the cost of Linux is not TCO but "66$/year+TCO". So much for the free community. And I used to think 129$/18 months is expensive.

 

[dopefiend]

I just went to the Mandrake website to see if I can download the latest version 9.1 which has a nice new feature called MOL (Mac-on-Linux) which they claim to run Mac OSX at native speed "inside Linux". But when I went to the download page, they said I need to have a 66$/year membership to download it . WTH... so now the cost of Linux is not TCO but "66$/year+TCO". So much for the free community. And I used to think 129$/18 months is expensive.

Nah, its free. Your just blind

http://www.mandrakelinux.com/en/ftp.php3

 

[amols]

Yeah...found it. Thanx. The download link was somewhat hidden. The Mac has really spoiled me. I was distracted by the line on the page "Free Software can only remain healthy with your financial support"

 

[ingenious]

"While leaving the first user logged in?!?"
Yes, I assume you can do the same in OSX. You grab a terminal, and su to a different user. Then you (in linux) start up konqueror or something. Inside that manager, you are the other user. Any programs you run are run as the other user. It's pretty nice, but its nothing new.

OS X lets you do that in the GUI, rolling one desktop over and bringing up the next. I was just making sure I understood what you were saying.

 

[ingenious]

Intx13 wrote "Which mentiones another fact (and this goes against Windows as well). Linux can be put on any ancient piece of crap machine and run just fine. CAse in point, I run (I just did the install today) Mandrake 10.0 on a 665Mhz Duron."
Actually I am going to have to prove a point, Mac OS X does run on very ancient Mac hardware, first it runs on all the original iMac G3's at around 300mhz, and if you want to get creative you can install a program called XPostfacto on older pre-G3 macs to put OS X on them currently you can go all the way back to the PowerMac 7300, and the Powerbook 2400. They are currently working on getting it to work on PowerMac models as old as the 4400 series. Now mind you these macs are at least 6-7 years old and they can run OS X decently with a nice shot of RAM and a newer video card, and if you want to put a little extra money into it you can upgrade the processor on most of these Powermacs to G4s.
And since you love Linux I have seen Linux that runs decently put on a Mac SE which is getting close to 15-20 years old, so old Mac hardware can run what you want to run

Actually it runs natively on 233 MHz G3 iMacs.......

 

[intx13]

Well hello there..

Okay, I'm really getting tired of mateybob and his comments.

"err well youre the one that said you couldnt run multiple instances of the same program on macosx so CLEARLY you did not think about &... and the very purpose of & is to fork a new process so if you had half a brain youd use it run an additional instance.. i laugh at your attempt to make me sound ignorant with your processes101 speak.."

I was talking about running multiple instances WITHOUT use of the terminal. Read over the posts and surely you can see that. And as a side note, I have never TRIED to make you look ignorant, you did that all by yourself.

"anyway its funny how with your next post you completely nailed your coffin with some seriously ignorant statements that really go to show how you dont know ANYTHING about macosx"

I assume at this point you would list the ignorant points I supposedly made, but instead you just copy/pasted my post. Why? I was listing things Linux has, and wanted to know if OSX had the same things. Why do you assume I was trying to fool you or something? How about from now on you let the people who will actually reply to my questions do the talking?

""31. math/science software (astronomy, math equations, circuit emulation...)"
lol.. seriously you make it too easy.. do some research before you criticise..."

Again mateybob, you're either illiterate or you're purposely not reading my posts. I wasn't claiming that OSX didin't have those things, I was just asking. Calm down and use your head. And DOES OSX have these things built in? You haven't said so. You just told me to "do some research".

Combatwombat:
"Can't get any feedback when an app crashes? Can't run multiple instances?
From my terminal."

I don't want to have to open up a term just to run two of the same programs.

"it seems to me he doesn't know that much about the core of OS X, or of UNIX in general."

You're missing my points. If OSX is so User friendly, why do you need to use the terminal to do all these simple things? Yes, I know all about gdb. I'm well aware how to use the terminal. But why should you need those things just to figure out why your program crashed?

So I installed Mandrake 10.0, and its really nice. Some stuff it comes with:
1. Audacity (mp3 editor,creator - like acid)
2. kdenlive (digital video editor, more complex and powerful than imovie, but not near the level of final cut)
3. Multiple sessions, so you can log back and forth between users with the F# keys (VERY fast, like less than a second)
4. Supermounting

Now before you flip out mateybob, I'm not trying to fool you or anything, so calm down. I'm just listing some of the cool stuff Mdk comes with.

"And since you love Linux I have seen Linux that runs decently put on a Mac SE which is getting close to 15-20 years old, so old Mac hardware can run what you want to run"

No question, but can that computer run OSX? I doubt it.

--On the subject of supermounting
"I look forward to experimenting with that when I build the Linux box."

So I just installed Mdk10.0 and it has even better supoermounting. IT's really cool. As far as I can tell, the drive itself is mounted when a sync is requested, but according to fstab it's mounted as "none". The entry looks something like "none supermount /mnt/cdrom /dev/hdc blahblahblah" for the cdrom. I wish I knew the details..

Okay, enough for now. Mateybob, please please please read the posts before you respond. I don't like having to scroll all the way past your responses to find the good ones. I'm not trying to fool you, offend you, upset you, make you cry, or anything of the slightest foul nature. I'm just trying to have an intelligent discussion with some people who make (to me uncomprehensible) choices about their computers, and you're getting in the way of that. I'm not telling you not to post, just please think through your thoughts first. If you've never done that before, you'll find a crank on the side of your head. Turn it until smoke and/or sparks come out your ears At least thats what I do...

 

[Macmaniac]

"And since you love Linux I have seen Linux that runs decently put on a Mac SE which is getting close to 15-20 years old, so old Mac hardware can run what you want to run"

No question, but can that computer run OSX? I doubt it.

With the appropriate modding it can. All you have to do is gut the SE and put the inards of a G4 cube into it, it takes some work, but google around I know a few exist. Do you see Microsoft supporting computers that are 7+ years old with XP? Apple like microsoft is a company that is out to make a profit plain and simple, is it more economical to have programmers spend time getting OS X to work on a Mac Plus, or work on adding new features. They can't cater to the 5% of their install base whose computers are older then 7 years. They want them to buy a new computer so eventually they stop supporting them so if they want to upgrade they have to buy new Hardware. Now with Linux you have a bunch of people who like to program in their spare time, so if they want to get Linux to work on a watch or an Apple II then good for them.
One quick question how is old is your oldest computer running Linux? A 660mhz Duron is not too terribly old, its a lot younger then my 7 year old 100mhz Performa. Heck at that speed it can't have been built more then 4 years ago.

 

[tamara6]

intx13,

One place to find out about some of the software available for the Mac is versiontracker (http://www.versiontracker.com and click on the Mac OS X tab). You can search by keywords or by category. If you are curious about this or that sort of software, you can go there and search for it (instead of posting here and risking run-ins with the locals).

By this point, if you have actually read all the posts and not just MateyBob's, you realize that Macs are not as incapable as you thought. I think that was the whole point of this entire thread. Not to convert you into a Mac enthusiast, but simply to inform you that using a Macintosh is a legitimate way to solve many, many problems. You can program them, use them in the arts, use them in the sciences, and use them for personal fun. I really do hope that you've seen all that. And that maybe, in the future, when you meet a Mac user you will consider him (or her) your computing equal, someone that simply prefers a different operating system than you do.

I really don't see the need to continue this thread. We've answered all your questions, comments, and complaints. My advice to you is to simply agree with the above paragraph and then exit gracefully.

Tamara

 

[ingenious]

I was talking about running multiple instances WITHOUT use of the terminal. Read over the posts and surely you can see that. And as a side note, I have never TRIED to make you look ignorant, you did that all by yourself.

Okay, I think I get why there's such a misunderstanding here: intx13 is trying to make OS X (unknowingly) behave just like Windows or Linux. Okay, I'll try to explain this one.

OS X, Linux, and Windows, as you know are all totally different Operating Systems. Different Kernel as well (Linux and Mac OS X are similar). Different File Systems, different GUI, and different way of doing things. In Windows at least, it's sometimes necessary to run multiple instances of a program to insure stability, or whatever other reason. In Mac OS X, because of the way the GUI is set up and the UNIX underlayment, it's not necessary to run multiple instances of a program. It's just the way the GUI works. That's why that functionality is not built into the GUI, but accessable from the terminal, where more advanced users can do this if they need to as explained by other posters.

Again mateybob, you're either illiterate or you're purposely not reading my posts. I wasn't claiming that OSX didin't have those things, I was just asking. Calm down and use your head. And DOES OSX have these things built in? You haven't said so. You just told me to "do some research".

There's some scientific software buillt in, like a scientific calculator (very basic stuff I know, but still... ), but I don't think there's anything else. What I meant above was that software was available.

Combatwombat:
"Can't get any feedback when an app crashes? Can't run multiple instances?
From my terminal."

I don't want to have to open up a term just to run two of the same programs.

You don't have to use the terminal. There's an application in the Applications or Utilities folder that does this. Right now I can't remember what's it's called, but someone else will.


On a side note, whenever a program crashes, the Crash Reporter comes up (That is, if you're using Panther [10.3.x]) and it lists the information there.

You're missing my points. If OSX is so User friendly, why do you need to use the terminal to do all these simple things? Yes, I know all about gdb. I'm well aware how to use the terminal. But why should you need those things just to figure out why your program crashed?

Please see the above part of my post.

So I installed Mandrake 10.0, and its really nice. Some stuff it comes with:
1. Audacity (mp3 editor,creator - like acid)
2. kdenlive (digital video editor, more complex and powerful than imovie, but not near the level of final cut)
3. Multiple sessions, so you can log back and forth between users with the F# keys (VERY fast, like less than a second)
4. Supermounting

Yes, I know about Audacity and you've talked about supermounting, but the way your post is written makes it sound like flame bait. Respectfully, I want to point out that you've been on us for acting this way, but here again you're doing it. BTW, OS X will use FUS graphically pretty fast as well.

No question, but can that computer run OSX? I doubt it.

With the application called XPostFacto can it? I don't know. But not natively. That's obvious. OS X is a very graphic intensive OS, compared to Linux.

--On the subject of supermounting
"I look forward to experimenting with that when I build the Linux box."

So I just installed Mdk10.0 and it has even better supoermounting. IT's really cool. As far as I can tell, the drive itself is mounted when a sync is requested, but according to fstab it's mounted as "none". The entry looks something like "none supermount /mnt/cdrom /dev/hdc blahblahblah" for the cdrom. I wish I knew the details..

Hmmm, not sure if that would work on OS X and that's probably why they've not included it yet. It sounds like something that would be used on a server or a desktop whose devices and drives are never removed. It would not work on a laptop as far as I can tell.

Okay, enough for now. Mateybob, please please please read the posts before you respond. I don't like having to scroll all the way past your responses to find the good ones. I'm not trying to fool you, offend you, upset you, make you cry, or anything of the slightest foul nature. I'm just trying to have an intelligent discussion with some people who make (to me uncomprehensible) choices about their computers, and you're getting in the way of that. I'm not telling you not to post, just please think through your thoughts first. If you've never done that before, you'll find a crank on the side of your head. Turn it until smoke and/or sparks come out your ears At least thats what I do...

Again, respectfully, that's not what your posts have come across as to me. Maybe some of my posts have been the same way, but I've been trying (with the execption of one) to remain civil in this discussion. We all need to "treat others as we want to be treated."


Also, to quell some confusion, could you go to (on one of those lab Macs) Apple Menu> About this Mac and tell us what version of Mac OS X it is?

 

[ChrisH3677]

Ok, I'm gunna distill for intx13 what he has found good about Linux which if he said here without fallacious arguments about OSX, would have got little disagreement, only people saying how OSX matches it.

1) Most Linux distros can be monetarily free if you can source them that way (eg copy a mates, have unlimited download and adsl)
2) Linux is a stable and robust multi-tasking OS.
3) Linux provides multi-session environment (alt-1, alt-2, alt-3 etc I believe)
4) Linux distros come with an absolute plethora of applications, utilities and development tools, many of them the equal of commercial software.
5) Linux distros come with emulators and the like to enable running of applications for other platforms
6) Linux runs on the broadest range of hardware and, if not run with a GUI interface, runs on the oldest hardware.
7) Linux distros comes in many flavors ensuring anyone of any knowledge level, (except maybe novices) find a distro that suits their needs.
8) Linux has some useful features (eg Supermounting) not yet available on other OSes

So these are the things that I think intx13 wanted to say. I agree with all of them. But they don't make Linux better than OSX. For almost all of them I could counter how OSX competes and make a list of things about OSX that is why it's so good. But that doesn't make OSX better than Linux. As has been repeatedly said, each to their own.

PS just before anyone else does...
1) OSX has a proven lower TCO than other OSes
2) ditto OSX
3) OSX doesn't do this as far as I can tell. Does have FUS though.
4) OSX comes with a good range of apps, utilities and tools. A plethora of software is available online.
5) Emulators are available for OSX to run other OSes apps
6) OSX runs well on older hardware
7) OSX is suitable for anyone from novice to geek
8) ditto OSX eg Services; built-in spell checker; spring-loaded folders

 

[ingenious]

intx13,

One place to find out about some of the software available for the Mac is versiontracker (http://www.versiontracker.com and click on the Mac OS X tab). You can search by keywords or by category. If you are curious about this or that sort of software, you can go there and search for it (instead of posting here and risking run-ins with the locals).

By this point, if you have actually read all the posts and not just MateyBob's, you realize that Macs are not as incapable as you thought. I think that was the whole point of this entire thread. Not to convert you into a Mac enthusiast, but simply to inform you that using a Macintosh is a legitimate way to solve many, many problems. You can program them, use them in the arts, use them in the sciences, and use them for personal fun. I really do hope that you've seen all that. And that maybe, in the future, when you meet a Mac user you will consider him (or her) your computing equal, someone that simply prefers a different operating system than you do.

I really don't see the need to continue this thread. We've answered all your questions, comments, and complaints. My advice to you is to simply agree with the above paragraph and then exit gracefully.

Tamara

Don't forget their business use, or network or internet servers, or gaming, or school work, or anything Windows can do (except program Windows programs without VPC, but can Windows program Mac OS X programs?). (Just pointing this out so intx13 doesnt have to ask.)

 

[tamara6]

Don't forget their business use, or network or internet servers, or gaming, or school work, or anything Windows can do (except program Windows programs without VPC, but can Windows program Mac OS X programs?). (Just pointing this out so intx13 doesnt have to ask.)

Actually, if you use RealBASIC you can program for Linux and Windows. And CodeWarrior will develop for just about anything, I think. That's not counting other more-or-less cross platform languages like java, perl, python, etc.

 

[thejazzman10]

dude, van helsing was edited using FCP.

also, see my sig.

 

[mateybob]

"I was talking about running multiple instances WITHOUT use of the terminal. Read over the posts and surely you can see that. "

this is funny.. ok heres a quote from your first post: "you can't (as far as I can tell) run two instances of one task at once."... whats that? youre an idiot? yes i thought so...

"I assume at this point you would list the ignorant points I supposedly made, but instead you just copy/pasted my post. "

what? if you actually read my post i DID list all the ignorant posts you made AND commented on them.. i dont know what youre talking about here... is basic reading and comprehension perhaps in issue for you aswell?

anyway kudos to you for ignoring 95% of my post and then acting like IM ignorant..

at this point id like to get back to the core issue..

"I'm just trying to have an intelligent discussion with some people who make (to me uncomprehensible) choices about their computers"

why uncomprehensible? the only point youve made so far that wasnt completely shot down for being flat out false is that macosx does not support virtual desktops.. and youre saying that for this reason using macosx is completely uncomprehensible? ok right..
stop and think.. do you really have a point here or are you just arguing for the sake of it?
ok so you had some problems with macosx and you voiced them and i can respect that but when it turns out that youre wrong on so many key issues maybe its time to admit that you just dont know what youre talking about and go and really learn macosx...

 

[thecombatwombat]

Combatwombat:
"Can't get any feedback when an app crashes? Can't run multiple instances?
From my terminal."

I don't want to have to open up a term just to run two of the same programs.

"it seems to me he doesn't know that much about the core of OS X, or of UNIX in general."

You're missing my points. If OSX is so User friendly, why do you need to use the terminal to do all these simple things? Yes, I know all about gdb. I'm well aware how to use the terminal. But why should you need those things just to figure out why your program crashed?

You don't have to, it's possible from Finder even. You're missing my point -- OS X comes with gdb! If RMS was less selective about picking his battles, we'd call it GNU/Mac OS X. This thread's too big to cover everything, but you don't realize how similar OS X and "linux" are. Did you know you can use konq in OS X? You mentioned you can easily copy cds in linux, well mkisofs and cdrecord both work with OS X (command line utilities for something so simple as cd burning?!?!?)

Check out the fink project, http://fink.sourceforge.net.

Look, hate OS X if you want, but really don't claim it should be relegated to a niche and such because of all this stuff it can't do. Did you know it comes with apache and samba by default? I've used supermount -- trust me, OS X's facilities for the same are far better. Oh, and you mentioned CUPS, guess what OS X's printing facilities are? That video compatibility you mentioned, MPlayer and vlc, yeah, both available for OS X. Hell, I use apt to update my powerbook.

There's no point debating that you came into this EXTREMELY ignorant to what OS X can do, not to mention how it does it. It's similarities to other unixes (and don't gripe at me about what unix is, I'm sure K & R will probably agree with me in the modern sense, and it's just senseless) go way beyond the mach kernel. Give OS X a real look and a fair try (no media labs) and I think you'll like it.

 

[ChrisH3677]

is that macosx does not support virtual desktops

hey mateybob, even that's contentious as there are virtual desktop managers available for OSX (Desktop Manager being the best). Admittedly virtual desktops isn't inbuilt in OSX but in the realms of this discussion, emulation, add-ons and hacks have been granted acceptable by intx13 (otherwise we'd say the gui is an optional add-on for Linux)

the author of Desktop Manager says...
To implement virtual desktops, I've had to delve into the internals of OS X and reverse-engineer some functionality. There is no official way to implement virtual desktops (other programs have to do equally devious tricks)

here's a link for DM... http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/12682

It's the best virtual desktop app I've ever seen for any platform.

 

[ChrisH3677]

I think inx13 also misunderstood a statement of mine and others way earlier about error logs. The error logs can be easily viewed in the Console utility. Console is not Terminal. Console is a GUI app for viewing system logs, including application crash logs. Logs are listed in a tree structure in the left window and displayed in the right window when selected. It's a very easy to use utility.

I do agree tho the name (Console) is misleading.

 

[thecombatwombat]

hey mateybob, even that's contentious as there are virtual desktop managers available for OSX

The real point should be that "Linux" doesn't support expose. Use OS X for a while, menubar, dock and all, and you probably won't miss your multiple desktops. I don't.

Oh and hey, I remember compiling expocity into metacity the first day I heard of it -- it's not the same.

 

[ChrisH3677]

The real point should be that "Linux" doesn't support expose. Use OS X for a while, menubar, dock and all, and you probably won't miss your multiple desktops. I don't.

Oh and hey, I remember compiling expocity into metacity the first day I heard of it -- it's not the same.

Expose is a matter of taste. I rarely use it. I've never use it for application switching because with many apps it's quite slow to spot the one you want - the dock is much easier. I have used it occasionally to show all open images in an app to compare them or switch, but mostly i use it to get quick access to the desktop - and even Windows has had that ability for years. So personally, I haven't found Expose to have any real impact on my productivity.

Virtual Desktops don't improve productivity much either mind you, but they do allow a tidier desktop environment - and if you'd see Desktop Manager with its really cool transitions between desktops; transparent pager; and comprehensive keyboard shortcuts; you'd be impressed i reckon. (the cube is my fave transition - very OSX).

I run a Windows Terminal Services client full screen in one desktop, and my OSX apps in another. I find this much easier to use than a single desktop with Expose.