life after Windows....

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 02:23:51 +0100, Roger Hunt wrote:

Unkdown

?

--
You gotta fight, for your right, to party...
The best of the best in Freeware
http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/
Registered Linux User #485718

In article , John Stubbings
writes
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 02:23:51 +0100, Roger Hunt wrote:

Unkdown

?

That's the problem.
What other sites are there out there like utube?
--
Roger Hunt

nospam writes:

most don't, but some do.

But most don't. "Some" isn't going to help non-Windows operating systems.

which means not being able to run mac or unix software.

Hardly anyone has any Mac or UNIX software to run.

because they don't like it, especially vista.

The great majority of users neither like nor dislike--they simply don't care.
They use their computers for a specific purpose, and that's it. They don't
care about which operating system they run any more than they care about which
brand of toothbrush they use.

dual booting is as native as it gets ...

But it's more trouble than having just one boot. Why should you have to
reboot just to run a different application?

... and virtualization is slightly
less native, but with substantial advantages (i.e., not having to
reboot).

If all you run is Windows, you don't have to reboot, and you don't have to
"virtualize."

point is, that for most tasks, mac and windows solutions exist. if you
want to get into niche software, there are windows only apps, just as
there are mac only apps. in other words, a typical user can use either
platform for nearly any purpose.

That's not true. The number of Windows applications dramatically exceeds the
number of Mac applications. There are thus many things that you can do with
Windows that you cannot do with a Mac, but very few things that you can do
with a Mac that you cannot do with Windows.

And the contrast is a hundred times greater when you compare Windows with
Linux.

except that just about everyone *doesn't* do that. most people walk
into a store and leave with a computer, ready to go.

Yes. And it runs Windows.

David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) writes:

I use Macs alone for my personal and professional work, but in order to
access the college student database, I need to run windows- so I run XP
in emulation for that. It's perfectly logical, given that I want to use
a Mac personally, that I choose this option. Maybe if you were
gainfully employed, you'd realise that this is not so illogical. What
would be illogical would be for me to abandon the OS I prefer just
because work 'requires' it about 0.01% of the time.

My current employer, and all of my past employers, have used PCs, not Macs,
except for one company that briefly had Macs for secretaries.

Preference is a matter of emotion and sometimes religion. Most people have no
preference when it comes to computers. They simply do not care.

In article , Mxsmanic
wrote:

most don't, but some do.

But most don't. "Some" isn't going to help non-Windows operating systems.

except that apple's sales are outpacing the market as a whole, so it is
helping.

which means not being able to run mac or unix software.

Hardly anyone has any Mac or UNIX software to run.

see above.

The great majority of users neither like nor dislike--they simply don't care.
They use their computers for a specific purpose, and that's it. They don't
care about which operating system they run any more than they care about which
brand of toothbrush they use.

there are quite a few users who buy a mac specifically for certain
software such as final cut pro.

dual booting is as native as it gets ...

But it's more trouble than having just one boot. Why should you have to
reboot just to run a different application?

because rebooting has some advantages, such as having full hardware
access. for instance, you can't update the firmware of some devices
over usb when virtualized, but you can do that when rebooted directly
in windows. games can often get higher frame rates when booted into
windows.

for most apps, it's not needed, and being able to run mac, windows and
unix software, all side by side, with being able to copy/paste between
them as well as access the same files is *very* useful.

... and virtualization is slightly
less native, but with substantial advantages (i.e., not having to
reboot).

If all you run is Windows, you don't have to reboot, and you don't have to
"virtualize."

if all you run is windows, sure, but why limit oneself? there are a
lot of apps that don't exist on windows that *do* exist on mac or unix
which a mac can run and windows can't.

point is, that for most tasks, mac and windows solutions exist. if you
want to get into niche software, there are windows only apps, just as
there are mac only apps. in other words, a typical user can use either
platform for nearly any purpose.

That's not true. The number of Windows applications dramatically exceeds the
number of Mac applications. There are thus many things that you can do with
Windows that you cannot do with a Mac, but very few things that you can do
with a Mac that you cannot do with Windows.

actually no. there are some vertical market apps that don't exist on
macs and probably never will but for the vast majority of users, either
system will work fine. mainstream software exists on both.

And the contrast is a hundred times greater when you compare Windows with
Linux.

that's true. linux has the least amount of software available and a key
reason why linux will never be a dominant desktop system.

except that just about everyone *doesn't* do that. most people walk
into a store and leave with a computer, ready to go.

Yes. And it runs Windows.

not as many as it used to be.

aracari to e-mail me wrote:
'nospam' wrote this:
wrote:

the point is that the original mac os did not have a command line.

Fine, I have no problem with that.
Nevertheless, the GUI will have been created after writing the
program function code itself (or normally would be).

there's no reason for one to be before the other. it all depends on
what the app does and how the developers wish to implement it.

The normal cycle is to design the program you want to create
and then set about writing/testing it. That is often an iterative
process which might take some time.
When you've finished and you've got the program doing exactly
what you want, you might then create a GUI for it.

Hmmm. With a great many commercial applications the UI is an integral
part of the program and is included as part of the overall design.
Grafting on a UI afterward typically results in crap.

This will include deciding what program functions you want the
user to have access to. Those which are not made available through
the GUI can often be accessed on the commandline used to start
the program.

But if you don't know what you're going to allow the user to do
then how do you know what program functions to develop?

--
Ray Fischer

nospam wrote:
Ray Fischer

Command line execution is not part of the OS. As with Unix and
Windows, command line processing is done by shells/programs.

not internal to the original mac os.

Command line processing isn't "internal" to ANY OS that I'm aware of.
Whether it's Mac's MPW, Unix's Bourne (or C or Korn or ...) shell, or
Windows command line, they're all programs that execute commands by
parsing command text and then loading and executing programs.

--
Ray Fischer

Mxsmanic wrote:
Ray Fischer writes:

On a Mac you can run Windows, Mac OS, and Linux, and even all three at
the same time. Can't do that with a PC.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear: Why bother to go to all this trouble, if
the application you want to run is a Windows application? Just run Windows.

And then what if I want to run a Mac application?

It's not "emulation". It's either dual-boot or it's virtualization.

Virtualization is emulation.

It most certainly is not. They're two completely different things.

But in any case, see above. You're suggesting something ridiculously
complicated and utterly useless when a simpler and more useful solution
exists: just run Windows.

A "simpler" solution which doesn't work.

Nobody cares about running Mac OS, Linux, Windows,
MVS, UNIX, CP/M, OS/2, and MS-DOS all at the same time.

I think we've pretty established that you don't know what you're
talking about. In reality there are companies like MIcrosoft, Citrix,
and VMWare which make a lot of money from virtualization. It's
becoming more common for corporations to use small PCs which just
connect to a server running many copies of Windows Vista and XP at the
same time, one for each connected user.

For example, my Mac is set up to boot into either Mac OS 10.5 or into
Windows Vista. When it's runing Windows it is standard out-of-the-box
Windows with no Mac OS involved.

My computer runs Windows only,

You get what you pay for.

and it runs Windows applications just as well
as your complicated configuration, and with much less hassle.

And it runs Mac applications not at all.

--
Ray Fischer

Mxsmanic wrote:
David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) writes:

I use Macs alone for my personal and professional work, but in order to
access the college student database, I need to run windows- so I run XP
in emulation for that. It's perfectly logical, given that I want to use
a Mac personally, that I choose this option. Maybe if you were
gainfully employed, you'd realise that this is not so illogical. What
would be illogical would be for me to abandon the OS I prefer just
because work 'requires' it about 0.01% of the time.

My current employer, and all of my past employers, have used PCs, not Macs,
except for one company that briefly had Macs for secretaries.

Preference is a matter of emotion and sometimes religion. Most people have no
preference when it comes to computers. They simply do not care.

A lot of people DO care.

--
Ray Fischer

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) writes:

I use Macs alone for my personal and professional work, but in order to
access the college student database, I need to run windows- so I run XP
in emulation for that. It's perfectly logical, given that I want to use
a Mac personally, that I choose this option. Maybe if you were
gainfully employed, you'd realise that this is not so illogical. What
would be illogical would be for me to abandon the OS I prefer just
because work 'requires' it about 0.01% of the time.

My current employer, and all of my past employers, have used PCs, not Macs,
except for one company that briefly had Macs for secretaries.

Preference is a matter of emotion and sometimes religion. Most people have no
preference when it comes to computers. They simply do not care.

"Most People", having used only one sort of computer in their entire
lives, are simply not qualified to have an opinion on what constitutes
"better" or "worse"; they have no background for making a comparison.

IOW, they "prefer" the only thing they've ever known. By comparison, if
the only automobile you've ever seen, ridden in, or driven, was a Yugo,
you'd think it was a pretty nifty thing, certainly "preferable" to
walking. If somebody took you for a spin in a BMW, though...

Isaac