I said:
Or, more importantly, PPPoE is not natively supported by MacOS 8 or 9. The TCP Control Panel is set to Ethernet and a separate driver + dialer software combination is used to start PPPoE.
Which, of course, is a factor of what HE chose when he installed Windows. One can have Windows install EVERYTHING the very first time… but doing this will most likely mean you’ll have a lot of unnecessary software clogging up your hard drive.
It can. Just recently, I got new drivers for my GeForce 2 video card. The drivers sucked. Glitchy, slower… just plain bad. I reinstalled my old ones.
Yes, this is a pain in the ass. To be fair, however, Windows used to require you to restart after changing ANYTHING… like color depth or screen resolution. Nowadays, most of the time I have to restart the computer is when I just finished installing third-party software.
Hopefully, Microsoft will be able to set up their programs so that you can change a system-crucial setting without having to restart.
either hardware platform. Provided they are running under Linux, of course. 
None of this pussy Crapple or Microslop shit for this little black duck!
Flames to /dev/null. Or possibly the Pit.
I return from my brief hiatus only to find that I’ve been misattributed and misinterpreted.
JoeyBlades:
It involves the GUI, not the mouse driver. While you’re tracking a menu, the OS is busy following the mouse pointer instead of task switching, so background apps like MP3 players will stop. Windows multitasks preemptively, so it switches tasks no matter what you’re doing.
Shortcuts vs. symbolic links: A true (Unix) symbolic link won’t work if you move the target either, that’s what symbolic means. Mac aliases are like Unix hard links, in that they store an internal pointer that’s valid no matter where the target is in the directory structure.
However, Windows shortcuts are even worse than symbolic links. They basically only work in the shell, they can’t be used from DOS or as part of a path.
More coming later.
I’m going out on a limb and guessing that you like Star Trek and cappucino… 
On Unix, of course, symbolic links are a feature of the file system, so a link to a directory works just like a real directory. I’ve come across “folder shortcuts” on NT that work just like these links, but I’m not sure how to create them.
JoeyBlades:
Windows executables do have “resource forks”, but they’re not separate filesystem elements like they are on the Mac. They’re most commonly used for icons and version descriptors, but any kind of data can be stored as a resource.
It doesn’t make sense to compare the registry to file resources. Certainly some tasks can be performed both ways - a Mac app might store its preferences in a resource, whereas a Windows app might store them in the registry. But resources are typically used for information relevant to a single file, while the registry is used for information about packages or subsystems.
For example, a Windows application might look in the registry to find the path where it was installed. Doing that with resources would be pointless, since you have to know where the file is first.
I have yet to see an example of this “antiquated architecture”, unless you’re claiming that a hierarchical file system with named paths and single-fork files is somehow obsolete.
This is actually not true. A hard link is simply a filesystem entry which points to the same file blocks as another filesystem entry. A mac alias, for better or for worse, is a special file which refers to another file, just like a symbolic link. The difference between a mac alias and a unix symbolic link is the way in which it refers to the other file. It keeps a big list of attributes, such as the filename, type/creator, size, datestamps, etc. All in all, I believe it keeps 13 vital pieces of data about the file. If it ever can’t find the file it points at, it will search around for other files which resemble the original file, based on all this data it has stored, in an attempt to fix the broken link.
It’s a pretty impressive system, and it’s very good at fixing broken links, but it’s of questionable utility to someone who is diligent about managing their symbolic links. I’ve gotten by in unix for a long time using links which break easily, and I hate it on the mac when I make a link to, say, my system folder, then if I rename my system folder and put a new one in its place, it “helps” me by fixing the link that just broke. What I really want is a link to a folder on the root of my hard drive named “System Folder”, whatever happens to be there at that moment. I can definitely do this in Windows.
It’s “help” like this which people complain about when they talk about the mac not letting you get at what’s really going on. A lot of you will think this is crazy, but I don’t have a use for links which attempt to fix themselves, and I do have a use for links which don’t attempt to fix themselves.
Tejota:
[quote]
Ah, now I see where your polling confusion comes from. Allow me to clear it up: The PC Keyboard and PC Mouse are both intelligent devices. Not some of them all of them. Each has an on-board microprocessor and talks via a bi-directional serial protocol to the computer.
[quote]
Amazing! I just opened three different mice from three different manufacturers and these on-board microproccessors are incredibly tiny. So tiny, in fact, as to be invisible. While I’m sure that SOME mice DO have on-board microprocessors, not ALL of them do, as you state. Most keyboards have microprocessors, but this is to support buffereing and key rollover, plus special functions. In spite of this, my keyboard routinely drops keys when my computer is busy.
The controller for the mouse and keyboard on the Mac is dedicated and operating at maximum performance. Are you suggesting that it would give me more expert control of my system if I could slow this down? I can’t change what’s happening in the hardware, but I can, through the mouse and keyboard control panels, effectively tell the system to ignone some fraction of these events to change the responsiveness.
I agree, it’s unanswerable. I just don’t agree with your reasonaing of why it’s unanswerable.
Hunter:
I don’t think this is the norm.
I saw one of my sys admins change these settings without requiring a reboot. There were a lot of steps in the process and I’m not entirely convinced that it wouldn’t have been faster to restart… but apparently it is possible, though certainly not as quick and easy as on the Mac.
Actually, Tom could have simply created a new hardware profile for your home. I have several hardware profiles for various environments (one for the office, one for my LAN at home, one for a Mac to PC direct connect [from before my LAN was up and running], one for modem connect, and one for no network). I simply select the one I want at startup.
Of course, because of this, I routinely shut down my computer when I’m moving between environments. When my laptop was a Mac I almost never shut it down. It was very stable and I could go for months without a crash or restart, simply putting it to sleep and waking it up. I spend a lot of time waiting for my Dell to start up (and shut down), but it gives me time to go to the toilet, trim my nails, fix myself a sandwich, read the TV guide, etc…
Mr2001:
I know you were not saying that the mouse driver was the problem, I was saying that the mouse driver is why it’s not a problem… The OS doesn’t track the mouse, it simply receives interrupts and instructions from the mouse controller.
Well, it doesn’t seem to work very well for me. When the computer is busy doing it’s own thing it often seems to ignore my attempts to interract with it. The mouse doesn’t track, button clicks are ignored, keystrokes are lost, etc… Not that this doesn’t occasionally happen on my Mac, but it happens a lot more frequently under Windows. Under Windows’ flavor of preemptive multitasking it is possible to flood the scheduler with activity from one process, effectively locking out other processes - see it happen all the time (at least with NT). This is what is so funny (to me) about the constant harping I hear on Windows preemptive multitasking. It’s biggest flaw is that programmers tend to take the preemptiveness for granted and develop code that is incapable of playing ‘nice’.
The point is that links, be they ‘symbolic’ or ‘hard’ are a lot more useful in unix and the MacOS than Shortcuts are in Windows. BTW, I’ve been unixing for about 20 years or more and we’ve always called both links ‘symbolic’ and we distinguish them as either ‘hard’ or ‘soft’. I realize that this is contrary to what the man pages say today. Therefore, rightly or wrongly, when I say “symbolic link” in unix, I mean any link created by the ln command… (so sue me)
Ah… but you make my point so much more cleanly than I obviously did. The Windows OS forces you to think about applications and file associations as distributed packages and subsystems, which is more restrictive.
Don’t get me started… Well, just to name a few.
- Symbolic links (as previously highlighted)
- DOS naming conventions (that still persist)
- FAT32, based on FAT16, based on FAT12 (causes problems with fragmentation, partitioning, and more)
- Total path length limited to 255 characters
- Extension based file typing
- Drive letters (the names have no ‘real’ impact to disk IDs)
- Text files require both a Carriage Return and Line Feed (throwback to teletype machines)
- The BIOS (need I say more???)
galt:
Good point. Mac power users could use a ‘soft’ link facility. I question your point about Windows being able to do it, however. Yes, you can do this with a Shortcut if the only access you expect is via the desktop interface, Explorer, or a file browser but if you have a program that tries to access the folder in question through the Shortcut it will not be able to traverse the file path… Though, maybe I don’t understand your point or what you’re trying to accomplish…
-
-
- OS Comparison Short Version: No significant differences.
-
- General Comparison: Macs don’t have as much software available and cost more than a comparable PC. Mac would have their own CD-ROM standard if they could afford it.
- “User Interface” Comparison: Macs are a bit nicer, but the differences aren’t critical. There are GUI’s similar to Macs available for Linux nowadays. In fact, a PC runing Linux is rather like a poor-man’s Mac: better GUI, but less hardware and software to choose from. - MC
Well, I’m sorry, but I don’t see how BIOS is “antiquated”, and why you’re listing it with other features of Windows. BIOS is in no way related to Windows. BIOS is a way to set up the hardware functions of your computer, and I find it extremely effective. Want to overclock? Want to assign a specific IRQ for the modem or VGA or USB? You can do it all in BIOS (Well, only recent jumperless motherboards support overclocking without having to set any jumpers). So how is it antiquated? Because it’s basic format was developed a long time ago?
MC:
It’s not quantity that matters. I have all the applications that I need. There are not that many PC applications that don’t have a Mac counterpart (except for some games). While there certainly are some PC-only applications, there are Mac-only applications, as well.
This is debatable. For low in PCs, I agree. For midrange and high end PCs I disagree. The key word here is comparable. For the last three years running I’ve been trying to convince my IT department that they made a huge mistake when they switched from Macs to PCs. What I do is take the configuration that they typically purchase and compare it’s price to an equivalent Mac. The Mac is usually about 5-10% lower cost and actually, typically has more features (bigger hard disk, DVD, etc.).
I have no idea what this means. Microsoft seems to live by the philosophy that it’s a good idea to have lots of variant standards so that there’s plenty yo choose from…
Monster:
I’m not saying that the BIOS is antiquated, though that argument could possibly be made. What I’m saying is that the file system is antiquated because it is based on standards and requirements of the original DOS BIOS. I’m in a hurry right now, but if you’re still not clear, I can probably say more tomorrow.
galt:
Hmm. Well, you can’t have two mutually exclusive default behaviors, and most of us like it that an alias continues to refer to a specific file or folder, and not a different one that may come to have the same name and location as the original.
But you can have the behavior that you want (or at least a useful subset of it) via AppleScript, which DOES use file paths.
tell the application “Finder”
activate
select “Galt’s HD:System Folder”
open selection
end tell
or, for that matter
tell the application "Finder:
activate
select contents of "Galt’s World:Desktop:System Folder:
move contents to “Galt’s HD:System Folder”
end tell
(attach that one as a folder action to the Desktop version of "System Folder).
I have never seen this. Not once. And I compare the prices of Macs to the prices of PC’s for fun. Maybe you’d like to provide some examples of when a Mac costs less than a PC with similar or greater options?
JoeyBlades:
I’m not talking about tracking at the hardware level. I’m no Mac programmer, but from what I’ve read, my understanding is that the application calls an OS routine to track menus when it detects a mouse click in the menu bar, and that routine doesn’t return until a menu item is selected.
The OS routine doesn’t need to concern itself with hardware details, but it does need to watch the current mouse position to highlight menu items when the mouse moves over them, display submenus, etc. Because of cooperative multitasking and/or various other issues, no other tasks get to run until the routine returns.
Therefore, applications are unresponsive while the user is tracking menus - MP3 players can’t play new data, IRC clients can’t display new text from the server, etc.
This has been true in my experience. Perhaps things have changed since the last time I used a Mac.
I agree… but as mentioned, NTFS apparently does support real links.
A matter of opinion. As a programmer, I enjoy having a global database that stays the same regardless of where the user moves his files.
Shortcuts are bad because they were implemented poorly, not because a good implementation is impossible with the current filesystem.
The typical user will never have to know that his long-named files also have internal 8.3 names.
I believe these both exist on Unix. Extension-based file typing isn’t unique to DOS… in fact, MacOS and BeOS are the only operating systems I know where extensions don’t determine file type.
Another matter of opinion. You like to say “open the disk I called Pictures 1,” I like to say “open the disk I put in the zip drive.”
I know my brother addressed it, but I wanted to see this again for two reasons… 1. Because I can’t believe that someone would claim this, and 2. Because it’s blatantly false. That’s like saying a Mercedes is cheaper than a Honda.
I have heard this, and I got the impression it was mainly on high-end machines, with specific hardware stats. It’s all very vague in my memory now, of course. But from what I recall, the Mac often has so many things built-in (Ethernet, Firewire) that PCs often get as add-ons, that cost extra. In some cases, when comparing specific models, it might end up that the Mac actually comes up ahead, when you finish adding on the extras onto the PC. In what instances, I have no idea. I really cannot get in on this hardware pissing contest, I tell you!
All I know, as I have rambled on before, is that whatever extra cost there is in owning a Mac, it is WORTH it to me. “You get what you pay for”, in this case.
Monster:
I love a challenge. I usually do things the other way around (starting with a Dell configuration and finding a competitive Mac system. However, this time I thought I’d start with a Mac system as a benchmark and try to find a comparable Wintel computer. I did this for three reasons, (1) I really like the sexy new G4 Titanium and wanted to see if there was anything competitive, (2) if I were going to buy a new Mac, this is probably the one I’d go for today, and (3) this gives you the flexibility to try and match or beat this price.
So my benchmark is the Macintosh Titanium, top of the line. I could get this from the Apple Store, but for the same price, MacWarehouse will give me a free 128MB memory upgrade, so that’s where I’ll do my virtual shopping. I know you’re going to want to hunt around for something comparable at a lower price, so let me set a few ground rules for “comparability”. The primary specs and requirements are below. I’ve pulled out a couple that are not doable (as far as I know) on the Wintel platform. You are invited to match the bonus specs for extra credit. Also, I don’t want to get into a CPU performance war. Independent benchmarking efforts have shown that the 500MHz G4, with a 100MHz bus and 250MHz backside cache is 30% faster than a 850MHz Pentium III. I’m willing to call them equal - you may not be, but for the sake of moving forward let’s compare state-of-the-art against state-of-the-art…
So here are the minimum configuration requirements:
Notebook form factor
Low profile (1 to 1.5 inch thick)
500MHz G4 or 850MHz PIII CPU
15" TFT display
384MB RAM
8MB video RAM
3D graphics accelerator
30GB hard disk
DVD ROM
USB
56K modem
10/100 Base-T ethernet
IrDA
2 batteries
2 AC adapters
Extra credit configuration features:
2nd USB
FireWire
1152 x 768 video resolution (as opposed to 1024 x 768)
The quote I have from MacWarehouse on this configuration is $3997
I had a difficult time finding Wintel notebook systems that could compete, technically. The key limiters seemed to be the 15 inch display and 3D graphics acceleration. Maybe you’ll have more luck. Here’s what I did find that seems to come the closest (from outpost.com).
Hewlett Packard Omnibook 6000
850MHz Pentium III CPU
15" TFT display (1024 x 768)
384MB RAM (upgrade)
8MB video RAM
3D graphics accelerator
30GB hard disk (upgrade)
DVD ROM
USB
56K modem
10/100 Base-T ethernet
IrDA
2 batteries (upgrade)
2 AC adapters (upgrade)
Total system price: $5039 (as quoted from outpost.com)
There are a couple of other things worth mentioning about the differences between these two systems. The Mac weight with battery is 5.3 lbs.; the Omnibook weight with battery is 6.3 lbs… The Mac rated battery life is 5 hours; the Omnibook rated battery life is 4 hours. The Mac still has a PCMCIA slot free; the Omnibook has used them up for modem and networking.
This came out a lot worse than I expected, but as I said before, I’m sure you can find a better deal than this Omnibook, but you need to tell me where so that I can confirm it. The ball is now in your court.
Mr2001:
I use NTFS and am not aware of this capability. If someone will show me how to use this supposed feature, not only will I concede this point, I will be eternally grateful!!!
Perhaps not, but the power user might want to know what “hcllpr.dll” is and whether or not he still needs to have it hanging around.
Extensions yes. Pathname limit 1024 characters under NFS. However, surely you’re not holding up NFS as a “modern” file system??? The issue was that I was asked how the Windows files systems are antiquated…
Both fairly modern operating systems…
And I like my computer to know the DIFFERENCE between the two Zip disks that I might be swapping in and out of the Zip drive… On the Mac I can copy between two Zip disks with only one drive and without first copying the data to my hard disk. I don’t think Windows can do that, can it?
-
-
- Another Mac problem is that the sub-frames they use are made partly from Turkish Boarwood, and so attract boll weevils. PC’s use metal, and you can attach skateboard trucks and do 360’s with it, but in temperate rainforests it tends to rust. -And of course, the package wrapping of many PC’s contains mica, and is great for polishing ivory and jade statues. - MC
-