that they do, because there isn't much else to choose from thats universal.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Things you HATE about Macs...
- Thread starter joefinan
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
that they do, because there isn't much else to choose from thats universal.
98% of people in Russia use iCQ though
ICQ s@cks, btw
i remember using that, how bad it was.
I never saw the point to ICQ, why would ANYONE think it's a good idea to have people remember which number represents who?98% of people in Russia use iCQ though
ICQ s@cks, btw
Doesn't always work. Like TextEdit open up a RTF document window and zoom it to something above 150%. Then click the green button, and it won't resize the window properly.
(Works when Wrap to Window is on, though.)
Yeah, that's true. I suppose it's because AOL was only for America. It's generally the most popular here. I probably only used AIM because I had that POS AOL for way too long. I was so happy the day we got cable.
I never thought of MSNs popularity that way before though for some reason. I guess it's because I used AIM for so long without having AOL.
God that thing was horrible. I never even learned my own number, and I know PI to over 10 digits just from seeing it on calculators when I was in high school. I just copied and pasted my ICQ number when I needed it. It had so many digits too—at least we did. I don't remember seeing anyone with only a few digits, but apparently it happened. It was pretty popular, probably because the market was smaller then. It amazes me—and not in a good way—that people still use it.
Only a few people I knew were on it, so it wasn't hard to keep the numbers straight, but geez, it was still horrible. WTF was up with that whole flower thing too? Horrible information architecture, horrible design, and horrible service too. It definitely was a triple threat—to all of my senses.
With OS X, when I encounter a bug I know it's a bug and that annoys me. In Windows, I never know what's going on; the bugs are cleverly concealed by means of obfuscation.
Phew! It took me 4 days but I finally got through this whole thread... errrm, interesting debate about all sorts of things - I'll stay out of the green button fray except to say that I never use it
About the only thing that really bothers me about Macs is the lack of documentation that comes with the products. I know that everything is available on line or in PDF format, but I'm a book kind of gal. With both my MBP and my iPhone I feel as though I am missing tons of shortcuts and knowledge because I don't have a book that I can flip through in my spare time.
Other than that, I have been very happy since I made the switch 4 years ago (though I did have a Performa WAAAAAAY back in the day) after 1-too-many .DLL errors on my PC laptops that I couldn't figure out and usually ended up permanently screwing up my computer.
About the only thing that really bothers me about Macs is the lack of documentation that comes with the products. I know that everything is available on line or in PDF format, but I'm a book kind of gal. With both my MBP and my iPhone I feel as though I am missing tons of shortcuts and knowledge because I don't have a book that I can flip through in my spare time.
Other than that, I have been very happy since I made the switch 4 years ago (though I did have a Performa WAAAAAAY back in the day
) after 1-too-many .DLL errors on my PC laptops that I couldn't figure out and usually ended up permanently screwing up my computer.You... uh... you don't code much, do ya?
I didn't say that they were the same. I realize that they are all very different. But, code is definitely more portable among UNIX systems than it is from UNIX to Windows.
Basically my point is that it can be more easily compiled for a POSIX compliant system and that is why it would be unwise to bother writing virii for systems close to your own. It's not likely that you'd accidentally compile a program for Red Hat instead of Suse and run it or something—especially without a backdoor of some sort—but my point is really why tempt fate?
I have a Mac. If I coded viruses I wouldn't be coding them for Linux. I'd write them for Windows. It's nothing like my system, it's got a bunch of documented exploits, and they take longer than anyone else to patch them. Plus, I'd want them to hate Windows so that they'd pick a better computer and become a more educated user—not that I'd expect that to occur, but then again I'm not a virus programmer.
Of course you could also have some script kiddie passing off shell scripts to erase hard drives and what not. And that would certainly affect a number of similar POSIX systems running that shell.
I suppose a good number of them are written in VB. I'm not very familiar with it, but I've heard that one can gain access to the registry through it.
I am a new user, and I really liked my copy/paste shortcuts in windows(ctrl + c/ctrl +v).
I dislike how there aren't similar shortcuts(that I know of) on OS X...
I dislike how there aren't similar shortcuts(that I know of) on OS X...
Almost all Windows shortcuts have a Mac counterpart.
You just need 2 simple rules.
Command (also called the "cloverleaf thing," or the apple key if you still have one on your keyboard...it looks like a square with a circle on each corner) is generally equal to Control. You'll see it written like Cmd+c generally.
Option = Alt (most Apple keyboards also say alt on the key).
So copy is Cmd+c and paste is Cmd+v, just like on Windows.
I believe there's a document somewhere in Finder's help that explains what keys the symbols in the menus are. Command is the same thing as is on the key. Option used to be on the key. It looks like a serif X without the lower left portion. Shift is an arrow and Control looks like ^.
Not sure why you'd avoid writing for your own system, but I see your point. Glad you clarified -- I thought you were one of those people under the impression that Mac OS X and Linux were closely related or derived from the same OS.
I was under the impression that most professional-level viruses (the kind that zombie machines and add 'em to botnets) are written in a mix of C/C++ and ASM. I know that there is some malicious VB floating around, but given what a joke VB is, I can't imagine anything really insidious being written using it.
No I just meant that they're all related, but not copies of each other. I know that Mac OS was derived from Berkley's variant of UNIX. And it uses xdarwin (or at least it used to prior to 10.5 apparently), which can be run in other POSIX systems.
VB is a joke but if it can easily access the registry it can do some damage easily. I'm sure "good" virii are a mix of C/++ and ASM. I'd imagine your code would have to be pretty low level so that it could actually damage things like boot records and what not.
Kinda. Mac OS X is essentially the evolution of Rhapsody, which was in turn the evolution of Nextstep. It wasn't really derived from BSD though -- most of the BSD code is just userspace things grafted on top. The kernel, drivers, and most of the low-level stuff is all pretty unique.
That's not what I was thinking of, but yeah. I was thinking more from the efficiency standpoint -- if I'm taking over a machine for nefarious purposes, I want to ensure that my code is as high performance and stealthy as possible, thus I'm interested in writing code with the lowest resource usage profile that I can. I *could* write a damaging virus/bot/etc. in C#, but requiring users to have a 30+MB framework installed just to run my malware seems like a pretty bad business decision.
I was mostly simplifying as I'm not sure what Next did with it. I knew it came out of their development of Nextstep though. Thanks for filling in the blanks!
That's not what I was thinking of, but yeah. I was thinking more from the efficiency standpoint -- if I'm taking over a machine for nefarious purposes, I want to ensure that my code is as high performance and stealthy as possible, thus I'm interested in writing code with the lowest resource usage profile that I can. I *could* write a damaging virus/bot/etc. in C#, but requiring users to have a 30+MB framework installed just to run my malware seems like a pretty bad business decision.
Well, yes, I was thinking that in addition to what I said, but I was typing on my iPhone so I forgot about it. I meant that you'd want it to be low level so that you could affect things that are low level and so that no one would notice until it's already happened.
Replying to something on macrumors on an iPhone is annoying because you can only see like two-three lines at a time, and it scrolls left and right. And since it's bigger than the screen, it's also hard to navigate once you've already typed something. I should use the mobile version or macrumors I guess, but it's way underfeatured and that's kind of why I bought an iPhone in the first place—to avoid mobile sites. But, making an iPhone sized version of macrumors would be nice—and somewhat expected. *hint hint*—unless there is one and I'm an idiot.
Anyway, you definitely don't want a virus taking up like 10% of someone's processor. Unless you want to call attention to it for some weird reason. Anyway, I actually loled at the C# framework thing!
Ok...i'm not going to read through all 80 pages of this topic now...maybe someday when I have more time...just not now So this may have been posted already...
But what is the logic of assigning the 'enter' key to rename files?? I mean...like...really?
Usually enter would be for the default/most common function...so how many times does one rename files...vs how many times do you open files??? Not exactly rocket science is it?
Oh well...I'll survive! I have discovered that 'command + down arrow' acts like a normal 'enter' and opens files. But would just hitting the enter key be simpler?
So this may have been posted already...But what is the logic of assigning the 'enter' key to rename files??
I mean...like...really?Usually enter would be for the default/most common function...so how many times does one rename files...vs how many times do you open files??? Not exactly rocket science is it?
Oh well...I'll survive! I have discovered that 'command + down arrow' acts like a normal 'enter' and opens files. But would just hitting the enter key be simpler?
Ok...i'm not going to read through all 80 pages of this topic now...maybe someday when I have more time...just not now
But what is the logic of assigning the 'enter' key to rename files??
Usually enter would be for the default/most common function...so how many times does one rename files...vs how many times do you open files??? Not exactly rocket science is it?
Oh well...I'll survive! I have discovered that 'command + down arrow' acts like a normal 'enter' and opens files. But would just hitting the enter key be simpler?
If you think so, change the shortcut. System Prefs>Keyboard & Mouse>Keyboard Shortcuts. A really nice feature of Mac OS is that nearly everything—N.B. nearly—can have a user assigned keyboard shortcut, even in programs that don't allow user assigned shortcuts. All you need to know is the title of the command in a menu.
By the way, Cmd+O also opens things in finder. Also, Cmd+up goes up a directory. Cmd+[ goes back and Cmd+] goes forward.
The main thing is expensiveness on ALL products except iWork.
There are also a few other things like
well I guess there is nothing but expensive.
There are also a few other things like
well I guess there is nothing but expensive.
Well if it's low level stuff (like screwing with the kernel) that you're after, pretty much anything that can write arbitrary binary data to a file pointer will work provided it's run with sufficient privileges. Hell, you *could* do it in PHP if you really, really, really, really wanted to.
- Status