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.
why is apple so far behind?
- Thread starter thorshammer88
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
tech4all said:I'm a bit baffled by that. How can the Dock not be quick enough? All you do is click an icon and it opens the app up? That seems fast enough to me. Can you please explain that a bit more?
Sure, like when I have 8 million safari windows. Sure it pops up safari but not necessarily the window I want. Usually, regardless of the os, I use multiple tabs and multiple windows. And with the dock, I've gotta hold down on the mouse button (if I had a 2 button mouse it wouldn't be so bad) and let it show me what windows I've got to choose from. It's pretty, but slower whan the two clicks it takes in windows. That's all.
It's not a big deal, but it does slow me down a little.
jayscheuerle
macrumors 68020
EvilCrabMonkey said:
You know that a) Double click on the open Safari window and it goes down into the dock (complete with frontmost tab's name) and b) You can use whatever mouse you want on a mac? And if you're working with Safari, you can use Expose to see all your open windows at once?
EvilCrabMonkey said:
Sounds like you prefer the Windows approach. Great. I'm not gonna try and stop you.
And everyone else needs to realize that there are always going to be some people who prefer how a different OS does things. Mac OS X is not the solution for everyone. We should be glad that we have somewhat of a choice and are not forced to have Windows or Mac OS X or something else everywhere that is not everything to everyone. Choice is freedom and freedom is good.
Yes, am aware of all the different methods. It's not like you guys need to convince me of anything at this point. I'm just saying what works best for me. And for the most part, I pick windows. But that's my personal preference. In no way am I saying "macs suck, windows all the way" as a blanket, everyone should stop using macs and get a pc, flame war inducing troll post. I was just posting my experience as having been subject to both operating systems.
And I'll say it again, windows = better for ME.
Although, when I said "windows, it just works" I was kinda making fun of how people say that about os x and macs in general. My windows machine just works, just as I suspect my mac mini will when I get it, even though the compenents it's based on are antiques compared to what I've got running in my windows box :-D. Gotta outrun the snowstorm tomorrow morning, get up early and get mine from the apple store though.
And I'll say it again, windows = better for ME.
Although, when I said "windows, it just works" I was kinda making fun of how people say that about os x and macs in general. My windows machine just works, just as I suspect my mac mini will when I get it, even though the compenents it's based on are antiques compared to what I've got running in my windows box :-D. Gotta outrun the snowstorm tomorrow morning, get up early and get mine from the apple store though.
I thought Expose lets you see all the windows in a specific app, so wouldn't it be easier to use that (default: F10) than the Windows approach?
Whenever I'm on XP, I wish I had those features. Alt-Tab is nice when you only have 4-6 applications, but if you have multiple windows for multiple applications, that's when Expose really shines.
When you press F10, I'm assuming it shows you the open windows for the app that is CURRENTLY open correct?
Whenever I'm on XP, I wish I had those features. Alt-Tab is nice when you only have 4-6 applications, but if you have multiple windows for multiple applications, that's when Expose really shines.
When you press F10, I'm assuming it shows you the open windows for the app that is CURRENTLY open correct?
Congrats Thor on your decision to go with the iBook and iMac combo. I have a PB G4 that about a year and a quarter old, and really had I had the options that you have today, I would do the same. I really think that is a very smart and informed decision. I hope you love it as much as all of us here love the Mac.
Mav451 said:
I don't really like expose to be honesst with you. It's not that it doesn't work, but I dunno, it's that whole preference thing again. Just not a big fan. The filesystem however, big fan. And the way windows installs software really is the worst part of the os imo. But they've been doing it that way for a long long long long time now and will probably never change.
thorshammer88 said:
so if I this straight you dont bother running updates because you think it safe to run you computer with out it. The issue I had I knew who was doing it and I was in the middle of a few system restores to track down something and to correct something so I jump back to before I installed the update. That or it was a program that was installed earily that day on my computer with out my knowleged I knew a few ways to disable it and I know my setting where change. I was to lazy to bother going around it so I system restored back a few days to jump back before because I am to lazy to bother wanting ot see what other setting where changed. But considering the update was less than a week old (falls in the range of 2 weeks) it mostly just a bothersome thing but not a big deal.
The remote access only effect WinXP pro because of remote desktop. Something that apple lacks out of the box and you have to get a program to do it. I use remote desktop every now and they could of sent them selves a remote help request to there computer for mine so I end up seeing my mouse randomly move and click on a few things
I still dont understand why you refuse to update you OS. I always get a kick out of how when something goes wrong that was fix several months ago they blame M$ and oh yeah the patch is a few month old hmmmm..... Reall you should go SP2 and install it in safemode.
You are trying to justify how it is ok not update your computer I am pointing out that a lot of people have problems that was fixed in a patch is several month old.
I can say apple needs to add a few things to there OS namely something that is as powerful and handy as system restore (which basicly allows you to return you comptuer ot an earily time in what is installed and all setting back to then) Make there fast user switching better because right now windows Fast user switching is better.
On the question of Start Menu vs Dock, I must admit that I simply dragged my Apps folder to the Dock and now just right-click on it for a very 'Start Menu' sort of list of applications. Works for me, and more importantly, it helps those who aren't familiar with MacOS in the office get applications running if they need to. And since I can do the same with my Docs folder, it makes it very easy to navigate around the system without really having to open anything.
On the wider issue of Macs vs PCs and which is or isn't faster or more advanced, the answer isn't anything to do with specifications and can't be all that readily explained by analogies. It's interesting to watch the task list on a fast PC, and realize that the process that runs most frequently (by far) is the 'System Idle' process - which is the process that is run when the PC hasn't got anything else to do. Personally, I can't see the need to splash out on a real fast computer that is going to spend the vast majority of it's running time doing nothing because it's waiting for it's user, or waiting for data, or waiting for the HD, or waiting for the next clock cycle, etc.
And even if these systems really did run flat out all the time, what exactly would we do with that collection of nanoseconds we'd be saving over an above a cheaper system that isn't so capable of idling around so quickly?!
High performance levels are really only significant in intensive applications - which the majority of users never really run. Hence the ramping up of processor speeds wasn't really, at least for the public, an issue of gaining access to greater power and performance to allow more sophisicated applications to work with more data, but was a way for manufacturers to market systems such that consumers could be urged to abandon otherwise perfectly acceptable equipment in favor or 'the new thing'.
So where does Apple fit into all that - after all, they've done the same thing, trying to encourage buyers to continually update their systems (otherwise their market share would be around zero by now). The answer is that Apple took a slightly different approach to power. Instead of pushing clock speeds so the system could move small lumps of data around more quickly, they pushed for systems that could move larger lumps of data around, even if not as quickly.
The advantage (in my view) of Apple's approach is that it tends to mean that system performance isn't as critically dependent on hardware components (think of a disc that spins at half the speed but allows more than twice the data to be moved in one go as a crude example), and that the user experience can be made better - even if only in an illusiory way, because what happens on the screen seems somehow rather more fluid and integrated. It also tends to allow something else: for complex data to be moved with less system demand, which many percieve as creating a far better system to work with.
To accomplish the same sort of result that a relatively 'low powered' Mac can achieve, a PC has to have more 'power'.... which brings us back to spending good money on a system that idles more!
OK, that's me done - I've going so you can shoot at me all you want!
On the wider issue of Macs vs PCs and which is or isn't faster or more advanced, the answer isn't anything to do with specifications and can't be all that readily explained by analogies. It's interesting to watch the task list on a fast PC, and realize that the process that runs most frequently (by far) is the 'System Idle' process - which is the process that is run when the PC hasn't got anything else to do. Personally, I can't see the need to splash out on a real fast computer that is going to spend the vast majority of it's running time doing nothing because it's waiting for it's user, or waiting for data, or waiting for the HD, or waiting for the next clock cycle, etc.
And even if these systems really did run flat out all the time, what exactly would we do with that collection of nanoseconds we'd be saving over an above a cheaper system that isn't so capable of idling around so quickly?!
High performance levels are really only significant in intensive applications - which the majority of users never really run. Hence the ramping up of processor speeds wasn't really, at least for the public, an issue of gaining access to greater power and performance to allow more sophisicated applications to work with more data, but was a way for manufacturers to market systems such that consumers could be urged to abandon otherwise perfectly acceptable equipment in favor or 'the new thing'.
So where does Apple fit into all that - after all, they've done the same thing, trying to encourage buyers to continually update their systems (otherwise their market share would be around zero by now). The answer is that Apple took a slightly different approach to power. Instead of pushing clock speeds so the system could move small lumps of data around more quickly, they pushed for systems that could move larger lumps of data around, even if not as quickly.
The advantage (in my view) of Apple's approach is that it tends to mean that system performance isn't as critically dependent on hardware components (think of a disc that spins at half the speed but allows more than twice the data to be moved in one go as a crude example), and that the user experience can be made better - even if only in an illusiory way, because what happens on the screen seems somehow rather more fluid and integrated. It also tends to allow something else: for complex data to be moved with less system demand, which many percieve as creating a far better system to work with.
To accomplish the same sort of result that a relatively 'low powered' Mac can achieve, a PC has to have more 'power'.... which brings us back to spending good money on a system that idles more!
OK, that's me done - I've going so you can shoot at me all you want!
FWIW, I used various versions of Windows, since 1996. I have been using my first Mac for the last 2½ years and I still don't really know how to troubleshoot it. Non of that nonsense of uninstalling drivers, reinstalling the OS every month. No crashes while surfing the net, ctrl+alt+del, etc.
In essence the daily occurrences in Windows, become very odd, explainable once in a blue moon events on OS X.
A Dual 867mhz Powermac, is the best computer purchase I ever made and it is still editing videos and making DVDs like the first day I had it. Again, For What it's Worth.
In essence the daily occurrences in Windows, become very odd, explainable once in a blue moon events on OS X.
A Dual 867mhz Powermac, is the best computer purchase I ever made and it is still editing videos and making DVDs like the first day I had it. Again, For What it's Worth.
Please share with us what could be improved in the Mac OS X implementation of Fast User Switching. I'd like to know!Timelessblur said:
And just to add... system restore is a bag of crap. For one, _RESTORE is where the nastiest of viruses chooses to hide out, because it's very well hidden. I've never, ever found a use for system restore, because when Windows b0rks, it b0rks good, and system restore won't help you one little bit. Last time was a couple of weeks ago, it just decided to hang at boot (directly after our good friend mup.sys).Timelessblur said:
I thought f**k this, I'll reinstall. I've never, ever had to reinstall OS X. I have better things to do with my life than sit around installing Windows -- I don't, I use Norton Ghost, but that's irrelevant.
Of course, this, and all the other reasons given above won't make a blind bit of difference. Your Athlon box is soooo much better, and we're all stupid for not realising it -- right?
Look system Restore is very handy. If you have even had to deal with little kids messing with the computer or if something goes wrong in something you where doing it is extermly nice. Mainly when it comes to kids messing with the computer because they hit buttons and click on things not knowing what they are doing or rename stuff unknownly it really nice when it comes just undoing it and going back to a point in time you know it was fixed
As for fast user switching OSX has a few glitches in it when it comes to dealing some program. I need it have problems with networking and more of a dail up like internet (Dail up and PPPoe set ups). It system works well but it could use work in separting out system apps from user apps. Networking is an area it could use its impovment so when I switch users I dont loose my internet connection, It would say oh User A is on the internet so User B should have access 2. And then there just are a few programs that seem to glitch with it
Plus something I know MS final goal with fast user switching the apple could work on as well. It deals with remote desktop and remote log in. I could log into the computer from off site while another user is currenlty using the computer. do what I need to do with out ever effecting them. currently I know you can not do this in windows and not in OSX either.
I will never get how people here have so much troulbe with windows and have to reinstall so offen considering that bettween 3 diffent computer running XP none of htem have had a reinstall in 2 years and all are doing just fine. Plus I know of some that have been up and running for over 4 years. The people who have reinstalled it knew what went wrong and knew they where the ones who made it happen. that or they had a Hard drive failure.
As for fast user switching OSX has a few glitches in it when it comes to dealing some program. I need it have problems with networking and more of a dail up like internet (Dail up and PPPoe set ups). It system works well but it could use work in separting out system apps from user apps. Networking is an area it could use its impovment so when I switch users I dont loose my internet connection, It would say oh User A is on the internet so User B should have access 2. And then there just are a few programs that seem to glitch with it
Plus something I know MS final goal with fast user switching the apple could work on as well. It deals with remote desktop and remote log in. I could log into the computer from off site while another user is currenlty using the computer. do what I need to do with out ever effecting them. currently I know you can not do this in windows and not in OSX either.
I will never get how people here have so much troulbe with windows and have to reinstall so offen considering that bettween 3 diffent computer running XP none of htem have had a reinstall in 2 years and all are doing just fine. Plus I know of some that have been up and running for over 4 years. The people who have reinstalled it knew what went wrong and knew they where the ones who made it happen. that or they had a Hard drive failure.
Glad you're interested in switching:
as for your problem with figuring out which one has more "bang for your buck", I suggest checking out this link:
http://osviews.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=3243
as well as:
http://osviews.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2350
they should help answer your questions
David
as for your problem with figuring out which one has more "bang for your buck", I suggest checking out this link:
http://osviews.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=3243
as well as:
http://osviews.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2350
they should help answer your questions
David
Fair enough.Timelessblur said:
This particular complaint can be leveled against Windows too, so no advantage for either side here.Timelessblur said:
I'll tell you this - unlike Windows, UNIX was designed with this type of use in mind. This makes implementation on Mac OS X easier than it would otherwise be. However, Microsoft has already put most of the subsystems needed to achieve this in Windows XP, so it ends in a draw.Timelessblur said:
I reinstall Windows (and Mac OS X) just because I feel like it sometimesTimelessblur said:
Lol, osViews is that close to being the O'Reily Factor of PC hardware.
*bottom line? Don't expect to learn anything about PC hardware from that site. Go to the legitimate hardware sites, who actually use/build/review these systems every day.*
Putting a Pentium 4 @ 2.0Ghz, on a chipset from 2001 (we are in the year 2005 folks), takes the cake. You literally save money by buying newer hardware (2.4C on 875 chipset).
Tell me if you would use 2.0Ghz (400FSB), or for $15 more 2.4Ghz (800FSB) on hardware from 2003.
*bottom line? Don't expect to learn anything about PC hardware from that site. Go to the legitimate hardware sites, who actually use/build/review these systems every day.*
Putting a Pentium 4 @ 2.0Ghz, on a chipset from 2001 (we are in the year 2005 folks), takes the cake. You literally save money by buying newer hardware (2.4C on 875 chipset).
Tell me if you would use 2.0Ghz (400FSB), or for $15 more 2.4Ghz (800FSB) on hardware from 2003.
What I do is buy a computer, make a plan for replacing it, and stick to that plan. If an update comes out just after (or even just before) I buy and I get the older model, so be it - this is exactly what happened when I purchased my PowerBook G4 667, and I was fine with that.gost8go said:
When comparing Macs to PCs it is also good to think about the time difference when performing every day tasks like installing software, connecting peripherals, and burning CDs/DVDs. It is also good to think about the ease of upgrading if you plan to add RAM or pther hardware upgrades. The iMac is supposed to be very easy to work on and the G5 towers are as beautiful on the inside as they are on the outside.
MikeLaRiviere said:
I think Windows has become the indefensible position at that point, owing to its prevalence in reverse relation to its inferiority to both Linux and OSX. Windows is a pain in the ass, though, and so for a hobby a kind of electronic puzzle-making, its fine. But, for work and for fun getting something else done, it's really an awful choice, IMHO.
But, even liking Windows doesn't make one a jerk; saying Windows is so much better than OSX for ? (fit in your favorite Dvorak reason) and that OSX sucks, does make one a jerk.
And just sad.