by Mandrake » Tue 02 Dec, 2003 4:32 pm
by Edward » Tue 02 Dec, 2003 5:47 pm
by Antony » Tue 02 Dec, 2003 6:07 pm
Mandrake wrote:Long file names? They were in Mac OS, but only to 25 characters, Microsoft implimented much longer file names in 95, and Apple waited until OS X before it included this feature.
by Mandrake » Tue 02 Dec, 2003 6:28 pm
Well, of course, Microsoft copied from other company, and had to make it better.
But still, file name in Mac OS is a lot more flexible. Unlike in Windows, heavily depended on the extension of file name. Need me to show you a picture of "Would the real file please stand up" screenshot?
by Antony » Tue 02 Dec, 2003 6:44 pm
NO, not exactly right. Mac OS can have file extensions, but applications and files are associated with resource link or fork. File extensions are optional, but helpful. Unlike Windows, depending on file extensions.Mandrake wrote:There are still file extensions in Mac OS X, just like in Windows XP. They are hidden in OS X, just like in XP.
by Mandrake » Wed 03 Dec, 2003 8:41 am
by Antony » Wed 03 Dec, 2003 9:02 am
The file and applicaiton association is stored in resource fork, that is part of Macintosh file system.Mandrake wrote:Of course Windows is dependant on file extensions, they are very useful. Without them, how would the machine know if a document merely called 'assets' was an Access Database or an Excel Spreadsheet? If it is called 'assets.xls' the OS automatically realizes that it is a spreadsheet and will open it in Excel, rather than trying to open it in Access or some other program.
by DJGM » Wed 03 Dec, 2003 9:35 am
Mandrake wrote:. . . Also, lets go back to those kernel panics that I talked about.
The version was OS X 10.5, the kernel panic was beneficial . . .
by Mandrake » Wed 03 Dec, 2003 10:04 am
by Mandrake » Thu 04 Dec, 2003 12:11 am
by Antony » Tue 09 Dec, 2003 1:16 am
apc technology awards 2003 wrote:Microsoft, stop your moaning. Linux fans, count to 10 and calm down. Panther is a clear leader in ease of use, technology, system stability and value. The elegant interface doesn't equate to the over-simplification of "computing for dummies". Far from it: Panther packs a powerful Unix core, but unlike other *nix distros, it has a mature and consistent inferface. Those same Unix underpinnings make Panther blissfully unaffected by the endless parade of viruses, worms and Trojan horses exploiting Windows vulnerabilities.
Mac OS X 10.3 also gains graphics capabilities that Microsoft is unlikely to match until Longhorn is released in 2006.
The entire UI taps into the power of 3D graphics cards, using OpenGL to provide transparency and smooth scaling for windows. This equips Panther with time-saving features such as the ExposÃ© window management system, which instantly shows all open windows in miniature form.
And, while Apple hardware costs more than the PC equivalent, OS X ships with a slick set of applications that are far more useful than Windowsâ€™ freebies.
by Mandrake » Tue 09 Dec, 2003 6:59 am
The Apple fanatics just can't stand it, but those G5 benchmarks are as bogus as a three dollar bill. As always, CNET's Michael Kanellos does get it, noting in a recent article the ways in which Apple's supposed "fastest personal computer in the world" is anything but. First, the scores Apple posted for the Intel competition are bogus. According to the Apple-sponsored tests, Dell Computer's Dimension 8300 with a single 3 GHz Pentium 4 scored 693 in the SPEC floating point test, below Apple's score of 840 (for a dual processor G5). However, previous (non-Apple) tests show the Intel 3 GHz Pentium 4 scoring 1213 on the floating-point test, while the 3.2GHz version hit 1252; both of these scores are roughly 50 percent faster than Apple's best dual processor score, and the Intel systems are both using a single processor, no less. Furthermore, floating point is supposedly the area in which PowerPC processors outdo the Intel competition. Heh. On the integer tests, the figures are even further off. Apple's tests show the dual-processor G5 machine scoring 800, while Dell's scored only "slightly higher" with 889; too bad Intel actually racked up scores of 1164 and 1221, respectively, for the 3 GHz and 3.2 GHz systems. Game over. Second, Apple did things to illegally tilt the test in the G5's favor. For example, the G5 was outfitted with faster Serial ATA technology, compared to the standard ATA hard drives used on the Dell. And then there's the infamous choice of a GCC compiler that Apple uses to develop Mac OS X; meanwhile, no one actually uses this compiler outside of Linux on PCs. Third, there is Apple's legacy: The company has been lying to its customers ever since Jobs took the company back. A few of the more infamous examples: The (400 MHz) G4 Cube was a "supercomputer" (it wasn't), the G4 was faster than any PC (remember the "Pentium toasting" commercials?), and virtually ever single promise about release dates ever uttered from Jobs' mouth proved to be false (the PowerBook 17 was coming in February 2003, remember? It was available in limited quantities in March, but in volume in April, in one recent example). In fact, Apple's bogus claims are so bald-faced, the company's been sued several times by shareholders.
When asked recently about OS X on the x86, Intel CEO Craig Barrett had had a few interesting (and, sadly, accurate things to say. "We keep trying, but frankly it gets less and less interesting each year. When they were 10 percent of the market it was a more interesting issue. But at 2 percent of the market ... our sales can blip 2 percent quarter on quarter, so we can shrink or grow by a couple of Apples. There are lots of interesting aspects in there. Steve [Jobs] is trying to appeal more to the Intel base. You might ask why he doesn't take his OS and try to compete in the other 98 percent of the market. But he doesn't choose to do that. The OS X kernel runs just fine on Intel. Just a matter of the app stack to stick on top of that. But you'll have to talk to Steve about that. We just try to get design wins with these guys."
by DJGM » Tue 09 Dec, 2003 7:39 am
Mandrake wrote:Then in 1998 apple releases the G3, which means when Apple
releases OS X you need a new processor, old one won't work.
by Mandrake » Tue 09 Dec, 2003 7:45 am
by Antony » Tue 09 Dec, 2003 7:54 am
Yeah, a copy of Mac OS interface with Windows style.Mandrake wrote:Standards? The Windows GUI has remained largely the same since Windows 95, with just refinements and enchancements that make it easier to use.
You are mixing hardward and software (operating systems) together.Mandrake wrote:As for the Mac, they have totally switched code bases, meaning people had to use Classic Mode emulation, much slower than normal apps. Then they changed from 68k to PPC processors, leaving 68k Macs useless when Apple releases new software that needs PPC. Then in 1998 apple releases the G3, which means when Apple releases OS X you need a new processor, old one won't work. Meanwhile, Windows has stuck with the 9x and NT codebases, which allow basically all programs to run on either codebase. The processors have always remaind the same - x86.
NOT the DRM, but information passing from QuickTime to sound device.Mandrake wrote:We saw how strong Apple security is, they released iTunes for Windows only recently, the DRM used in the songs downloaded off iTunes has already been cracked.
If you bought a PC 3 months before the release of Windows XP, it come with Windows 2000. You HAVE TO pay for Windows XP upgrade, which is NOT CHEAP.Mandrake wrote:Value? I only bought my Mac three months ago, do I really have to pay the full fee to use 10.3? Yes, you do! Then if you want the latest stuff in Mac OS, you WILL pay $129 every year! Not very good value to me. Compared to, if I bought a computer with WinXP Home in 2001, when it was released, I just pay the $99 USD upgrade fee and upgrade to Longhorn when it is released.
I am afraid, you are completely wrong in this account.Mandrake wrote:As for the new worthless visual effects in Panther, I congratulate Apple - they have succeded in creating a GUI with so many effects it makes Luna look FAST in comparison!
Not really, if there was no iPhoto, there would have Photoshop Album for Mac, from the long term relationship between Adobe and Apple.Mandrake wrote:Why didn't Adobe produce Photoshop Album for Mac? Probably because Mac software accounts for less than 5% of Adobe's sales, and they couldn't justify the ammount it would cost to port it to Mac OS.