Computer Science Canada :: View topic - 22 Mac minis + 22 LCDs = Awesome

Computer Science Canada

22 Mac minis + 22 LCDs = Awesome

Author:	wtd [ Mon Sep 19, 2005 11:38 pm ]
Post subject:	22 Mac minis + 22 LCDs = Awesome
http://www.squarebox.co.uk/threshold.html

Author:	Boo-chan [ Tue Sep 20, 2005 12:43 am ]
Post subject:
<Insert anti-mac diatribe here> I just discovered that iTunes is the factory default music player on my new laptop.... needless to say I hate all things that start with i... including this sentence.

Author:	wtd [ Tue Sep 20, 2005 1:18 am ]
Post subject:
Wow. That was so insightful. Thank you for making me see the light. Apple has never done anything interesting and there certainly has never been anything interesting done with Apple software and hardware by third parties.

Author:	Boo-chan [ Tue Sep 20, 2005 2:08 am ]
Post subject:
I am glad to be of service. I feel it is my duty to assist others in understanding the complex issues that surround this topic and help them avoid the various traps and pitfalls that can ensnare the naive user. Clearly, if god had ment for us to use one button mice, he wouldn't have given us fingers, or alternatively if we were ment to use one button mice we wouldn't have evolved fingers.(just trying to avoid offending anyone here) Ok, without the sarcasm.... Apple has a certain design philosophy that focuses on a certain section of the user population. Even thought I believe this subset of the users is the majority, I know that I am not in it. So clearly, in my opinion Apple software/hardware is fundamentaly flawed from a design perspective.I understand that others might belive it is equal/superior to other systems and they are right from their personal perspective, but just as clearly wrong when viewed from mine..

Author:	Hikaru79 [ Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:20 am ]
Post subject:
Boo-chan wrote: Ok, without the sarcasm.... Apple has a certain design philosophy that focuses on a certain section of the user population. Even thought I believe this subset of the users is the majority, I know that I am not in it. I'm not sure which subset of the population you are reffering to here? Many, many different people love Apple products, including but not limited to: 1) Multimedia designers (graphic designers, video editors, audio editors) (Macs are traditionally the strongest platform in this area) 2) Programmers (With its strong UNIX background and powerful tools, its a favorite of most interested software tinkerers. Just ask wtd ) 3) Regular home users (With security being a no-brainer and its very simple and beautiful interface) So what segment of the population do you fall under, exactly, if you're not anywhere in there? =/

Author:	Tony [ Tue Sep 20, 2005 7:37 am ]
Post subject:
sweet setup Way to start another OSX vs. others flamechat Matthew

Author:	Mazer [ Tue Sep 20, 2005 8:02 am ]
Post subject:
Hikaru79 wrote: So what segment of the population do you fall under, exactly, if you're not anywhere in there? =/ Ultra-leet.

Author:	Andy [ Tue Sep 20, 2005 11:07 am ]
Post subject:
I used to dislike macs too.. but they're just so damn pretty and nice.... must save up for a mini...

Author:	wtd [ Tue Sep 20, 2005 11:31 am ]
Post subject:
Coutsos wrote: Hikaru79 wrote: So what segment of the population do you fall under, exactly, if you're not anywhere in there? =/ Ultra-leet. Yeah. It'd be a shame to buy a Mac and not be able to work with bleeding-edge software. Oh wait... you can? Hmmm.

Author:	Mazer [ Tue Sep 20, 2005 11:47 am ]
Post subject:
I hope you haven't confused this definition of "Ultra-leet" with being elite in any way... they're like antonym's to me.

Author:	rizzix [ Tue Sep 20, 2005 11:48 am ]
Post subject:
Boo-chan wrote: Iif god had ment for us to use one button mice, he wouldn't have given us fingers... what a terrible argument but nevertheless have you seen Apple's Might Mouse it's a two button mouse with a 1-button feel.. geez get ur facts straight... you don't need a 1-button mouse to use a mac.. a 2-button works just as good..

Author:	wtd [ Tue Sep 20, 2005 11:56 am ]
Post subject:
rizzix wrote: Boo-chan wrote: Iif god had ment for us to use one button mice, he wouldn't have given us fingers... what a terrible argument but nevertheless have you seen Apple's Might Mouse it's a two button mouse with a 1-button feel.. geez get ur facts straight... you don't need a 1-button mouse to use a mac.. a 2-button works just as good.. And, you know... you can plug any old uSB multi-button mouse into a Mac and it just works. Often more easily than it does with Winders.

Author:	Tony [ Tue Sep 20, 2005 12:01 pm ]
Post subject:
my 18 button wireless remote mouse plug&plays with my Mini. Score also I know I've said the following somewhere before, but just for kicks: Connecting an HP printer to various computers. Windows XP -> connect wires, attempt to install drivers, fail, reboot, install on startup, reboot again, print. Linux (Red Hat AS I think) -> connect wires, install drivers, print OSX -> connect wires, print

Author:	Boo-chan [ Tue Sep 20, 2005 12:02 pm ]
Post subject:
rizzix wrote: what a terrible argument but nevertheless have you seen Apple's Might Mouse it's a two button mouse with a 1-button feel.. geez get ur facts straight... you don't need a 1-button mouse to use a mac.. a 2-button works just as good.. I think your having problems understanding my use of sarcasm here. Yes, it is a terrible argument. I will concede that point. However, a one-button mouse is the perfect symbol of the Apple philosophy; that was why it was designed that way in the first place. The switch to a new style of mouse ( and intel based chip systems) seem to suggest that Apple is trying to shift its design style to encapsulate a larger section of the available consumer supply, as well as correct some of its glaring weaknesses. The fact that Apple feels the necessity to change would suggest that possibly its previous products weren't as perfect as some people would wish to believe. And yes, there are several distinct market groups whose system requirements are not met through Apple products, either through market forces or a clash in their basic philosophy on how computers and the user should interact.

Author:	rizzix [ Tue Sep 20, 2005 12:08 pm ]
Post subject:
Boo-chan wrote: The fact that Apple feels the necessity to change would suggest that possibly its previous products weren't as perfect as some people would wish to believe. Depends on your definition of perfect.. If perfect means flawless, then it was perfect.. It had no design flaws.. But some folks "prefered" to use a 2-button.. simple as that. Boo-chan wrote: And yes, there are several distinct market groups whose system requirements are not met through Apple products, either through market forces or a clash in their basic philosophy on how computers and the user should interact. Yes like microsoft zombies and windows drones..

Author:	Boo-chan [ Tue Sep 20, 2005 12:19 pm ]
Post subject:
rizzix wrote: Depends on your definition of perfect.. If perfect means flawless, then it was perfect.. It had no design flaws.. But some folks "prefered" to use a 2-button.. simple as that. Simply not having design flaws does not make a design perfect, well depending on how you define a design flaw I guess. For example, look at your ordinary every day chair. It has no design flaws(for my definition of the word), but it is not perfect. This is simply due to several factors: differences in different people's body type, economics, transportation requirements etc. So in effect you have a design that is sufficient to net the company a profit through its sale, but you don't have a design that is perfect for you. Hence, as certain conditions change( the price of materials, the average height of human beings) the design changes as well. And yes, not meeting the demands of the consumer could be considered a design flaw. rizzix wrote: Yes like microsoft zombies and windows drones.. I'm glad that your willing to debate this topic which such openmindness and without any antagonism. I'm certain that you are aware that Apple products don't meet the demands of certain groups, other that the ones that you named. However, accepting your statements as fact; "microsoft zombies and windows drones" are a market segment and obviously a large one.

Author:	rizzix [ Tue Sep 20, 2005 12:25 pm ]
Post subject:
Boo-chan wrote: I'm certain that you are aware that Apple products don't meet the demands of certain groups, other that the ones that you named. I wonder... which ones.. other than those i;ve mentioned of course.. could you fill me in.. you seem soo enlightened!

Author:	rizzix [ Tue Sep 20, 2005 12:28 pm ]
Post subject:
Boo-chan wrote: [And yes, not meeting the demands of the consumer could be considered a design flaw. Ha? It's nor like Mac OS X has no support what so ever for a multi-buttoned mouse.

Author:	Boo-chan [ Tue Sep 20, 2005 12:46 pm ]
Post subject:
Your failing to see my point here. I'm not using Apple's previous reliance on a one button mouse to expose a flaw in the design of the system. I'm using it to reveal the underlying precepts to its architecture. Whenever, a product is designed it is designed to meet certain requirements and design goals. Design requirements are ussually straight forward, but design goals are where it begins to get complicated. Design goals govern how you meet your requirements as well as the tradeoffs that are made during the design. So its great that Apple supports multiple button mice, but it is still designed in a 1 button mindset.

Author:	rizzix [ Tue Sep 20, 2005 1:08 pm ]
Post subject:
Boo-chan wrote: So its great that Apple supports multiple button mice, but it is still designed in a 1 button mindset. No it isin't. The OS was desinged with two-button support right from the beginning (ver 1.0). Once again get your facts straight.

Author:	Boo-chan [ Tue Sep 20, 2005 1:16 pm ]
Post subject:
Your failing to see the difference between supporting something and integrating it. The OS was designed for a 1 button mouse, you can still use a 2 button mouse, but not to its fullest potention. Think of it as designing an OS for only keyboard input. Even if you add support for a mouse later, your OS will still be inferior to a system which was designed with mouse and keyboard input in mind. That is an oversimplification of the issue here, but it has sufficient detail to show where the problems arise when you merely offer support for a device.

Author:	rizzix [ Tue Sep 20, 2005 1:28 pm ]
Post subject:
sigh obviously you know nothign about the Mac.. It's not a mere intergration.. infact NeXT was originally designed from the ground-up with 2 button support (actually 3 if i'm not mistaken). Oh please... i've had enough of ur miss-informed and completely WRONG BS.

Author:	Tony [ Tue Sep 20, 2005 1:45 pm ]
Post subject:
Boo-chan wrote: The fact that Apple feels the necessity to change would suggest that possibly its previous products weren't as perfect as some people would wish to believe. The flaws lie elsewhere. First of all, the "one button mouse" comes from Apple's idea for devices that are simple to use, yet exceptionally effective (due to that simplicity). Right-click? Right-click for a left handed person?(Approximately 10-13% of the population is left-handed -- Wikipedia) Well wouldn't that make it a left click? You can see where it starts to get complicated. Apple's mouse gets the job done perfectly well, but since it's difficult to break into a market where the majority give the same stupid argument about the mouse (Derek for example failed to argue anything other than lack of "right-click" and Battlefield 2.. totally ignoring every other usb mouse out there and alternative game titles, such as Unreal Tournament). As for the intel chipset.. well that has to due to IBM being too busy making chips for next-gen consoles instead.

Author:	wtd [ Tue Sep 20, 2005 2:18 pm ]
Post subject:
rizzix wrote: Boo-chan wrote: So its great that Apple supports multiple button mice, but it is still designed in a 1 button mindset. No it isin't. The OS was desinged with two-button support right from the beginning (ver 1.0). Once again get your facts straight. I believe it has support for 65536 mouse buttons.

Author:	wtd [ Tue Sep 20, 2005 2:19 pm ]
Post subject:
Boo-Chan: did you ever stop to think maybe there was a good reason Apple ships a one-button mouse standard? There is, and this is it: it forces developers to assume a one-button mouse? How many things in Windows are hidden behind layers of right-clicks? Mac OS X doesn't suffer that same problem because developers can't assume users will have a second (third, fourth, fifth etc.) mouse button. Yes, those developers can add conveniences via those buttons... if you have them, but they have to make sure the basic functionality is available with a single mouse button. It makes programs better.

Author:	Boo-chan [ Tue Sep 20, 2005 3:23 pm ]
Post subject:
See, that's my problem with the mac OS, I like the right click interface that is used in windows. Since the mac os has to contain an interface that will work for 1 button mice, it doesn't utilize the right mouse button to the extent that is available through windows.

Author:	rizzix [ Tue Sep 20, 2005 3:32 pm ]
Post subject:
cuz you don't need to... things are done faster on the mac without the right-button. eitherway you are still wrong. the mac os's right-click context menu (in the Finder) is extensible.. you can create ur own plugins and add functionality to it.. although the standard set of features provided is usually sufficient for day-to-day use.. (copy/paste/duplicate) etc..

Author:	1of42 [ Tue Sep 20, 2005 3:43 pm ]
Post subject:
rizzix wrote: Yes like microsoft zombies and windows drones.. Don't be such a bigot rizzix. What about people who game a lot? AFAIK (and this is pretty far), nowhere near as many games are available for Macs as for Windows. And AFAIK (and this is less far) there is no emulator available for Macs to emulate Windows. Now, I hope I really just over-estimated your comment, and that you're being sarcastic, because if I didn't, my respect for yuo just plunged through the floor. edit And, everybody, at the end of the day, it (msotly) comes down to personal choice. Having used Macs for 5 years every day at school, and using PCs concurrently (and for 3 years after exclusively when I switched schools), my personal preference is to use a PC. Whether that be Windows or Linux. I cannot tell you why, I can't give any specific reasons, but Macs simply feel wrong to me. I know that sounds like a stupid argument, but at the end of the day, if I'm just as effective on a PC, and don't find it as distasteful as I do a mac, what is the issue with that?

Author:	Martin [ Tue Sep 20, 2005 3:46 pm ]
Post subject:
I didn't read this and this is totally off topic, but I have to share my insight with Apple's advertising with you. The iPod Shuffle is very small. Not that people noticed this though - if you looked at any of the ads that Apple put out, there was nothing to compare it with except a mishapen pack of gum sometimes. The new iPod Nano ads have hands. And damn, that thing is small. The only real thing that I've missed using Apple mice is not having a scroll wheel (although I haven't tried the Mighty Mouse). The one button thing doesn't really bug me though. I'll bet this post suprised you eh wtd?

Author:	wtd [ Tue Sep 20, 2005 3:47 pm ]
Post subject:
1of42 wrote: rizzix wrote: Yes like microsoft zombies and windows drones.. Don't be such a bigot rizzix. What about people who game a lot? AFAIK (and this is pretty far), nowhere near as many games are available for Macs as for Windows. And AFAIK (and this is less far) there is no emulator available for Macs toe mulate Windows. Microsoft itself produces VirtualPC, which emulates a complete x86 machine on a Mac. And there's a diff3erence between someone who occassionally uses Windows for gaming, knowing full well that there are good reasons not to use it for much else, and people who use Windows for everything purely out of ignorance.

Author:	1of42 [ Tue Sep 20, 2005 3:52 pm ]
Post subject:
wtd wrote: 1of42 wrote: rizzix wrote: Yes like microsoft zombies and windows drones.. Don't be such a bigot rizzix. What about people who game a lot? AFAIK (and this is pretty far), nowhere near as many games are available for Macs as for Windows. And AFAIK (and this is less far) there is no emulator available for Macs toe mulate Windows. Microsoft itself produces VirtualPC, which emulates a complete x86 machine on a Mac. And there's a diff3erence between someone who occassionally uses Windows for gaming, knowing full well that there are good reasons not to use it for much else, and people who use Windows for everything purely out of ignorance. Well that'll be why I said my knowledge of emulators like that didn't go too far. Here's the problem with your difference argument: I game at least 2-3 hours a day, not necessarily in a block. Being a member of competitive gaming teams in 2 different games - and competing in cash tourneys in one of them - requires me to keep my skill going. So I use Windows exclusively. This is so, when I have 10 minutes, I can quickly hop into a game, play a bit, then hop out. No reboot required. Would you call me ignorant for that? For using Windows, an OS that (in your estimation) is inferior, simply because it affords me greater convenience?

Author:	rizzix [ Tue Sep 20, 2005 3:53 pm ]
Post subject:
Have you ever considered why there are games created for windows alone? Seriously: Think before you talk. Windows is a niche in the OS market. The only reason games are created (first) for windows (and then ported to the mac) is because: #1) companies need new developers or they need to educate their current developers to program for multiple OSs. (this costs time and $$$) #2) if they stick to just one OS (like most of them do) they have the larger share of the market anyhow, and thus a low opertunity cost. #3) they have to sell their game ASAP, since it's the new and unique ideas that drives the gamming market (actually any market) crazy. If they don't sell it quick.. someone else will and they loose profit. The gamer will buy a windows-pc only cuz of the multitude of games available. Thus he only supports the niche. A few individuals like myself are ready to break the niche so as to help better technologies grow (like the mighty Mac OS X). But alas the there are infact a few "Microsoft zombies and windows drones.." who actually try to prevent something better from taking off.

Author:	rizzix [ Tue Sep 20, 2005 4:11 pm ]
Post subject:
1of42 wrote: I cannot tell you why, I can't give any specific reasons, but Macs simply feel wrong to me. I know that sounds like a stupid argument, but at the end of the day, if I'm just as effective on a PC, and don't find it as distasteful as I do a mac, what is the issue with that? Nothing but you just happen to fall under my disastrous category of a windows drone. Have you every bothered to try and get accustomed to the mac feel? No. You are too hooked up with the windows feel and brainwashed by m$ it believe it is the best thing there is on earth! You disagree? ha.. i beg to differ, but you're just being stubborn.

Author:	1of42 [ Wed Sep 21, 2005 4:21 pm ]
Post subject:
rizzix wrote: 1of42 wrote: I cannot tell you why, I can't give any specific reasons, but Macs simply feel wrong to me. I know that sounds like a stupid argument, but at the end of the day, if I'm just as effective on a PC, and don't find it as distasteful as I do a mac, what is the issue with that? Nothing but you just happen to fall under my disastrous category of a windows drone. Have you every bothered to try and get accustomed to the mac feel? No. You are too hooked up with the windows feel and brainwashed by m$ it believe it is the best thing there is on earth! You disagree? ha.. i beg to differ, but you're just being stubborn. Given how I was forced to use Macs for 5 years for everything at school (and this was BEFORE I used PCs a lot), refusing to get used to the "mac feel" would have been tantamount to purposely reducing my productivity. I hope that post was sarcastic, because if it wasn't, you'd fall under my category "Idiot who worships even the ground that a Mac stands on" - it works both ways, no?

Author:	wtd [ Wed Sep 21, 2005 4:28 pm ]
Post subject:
1of42 wrote: Given how I was forced to use Macs for 5 years for everything at school Classic MacOS, or Mac OS X? Maybe if you told us some of the specific things you found objectionable, rather than generic "MACs suck!" kind of comments we hear all too often from trolls.

Author:	rizzix [ Wed Sep 21, 2005 4:46 pm ]
Post subject:
1of42 wrote: I hope that post was sarcastic, because if it wasn't, you'd fall under my category "Idiot who worships even the ground that a Mac stands on" - it works both ways, no? Oh like can you prove that..? Please don't BS me.. As far as a windows drone goes.. here's your proof: 1of42 wrote: "I cannot tell you why, I can't give any specific reasons, but Macs simply feel wrong to me." Just dosen't feel right eh? Funny reason to bash a mac.

Author:	[Gandalf] [ Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:06 pm ]
Post subject:
Is this one of those things... "Fight for our cause or die being against it"? edit No fair, you changed your post .

Author:	rizzix [ Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:08 pm ]
Post subject:
yea yea ... hmm... btw new iTunes out.. they fixed the slowness bug.. its super responsive now.

Author:	1of42 [ Wed Sep 21, 2005 7:26 pm ]
Post subject:
rizzix wrote: 1of42 wrote: I hope that post was sarcastic, because if it wasn't, you'd fall under my category "Idiot who worships even the ground that a Mac stands on" - it works both ways, no? Oh like can you prove that..? Please don't BS me.. As far as a windows drone goes.. here's your proof: 1of42 wrote: "I cannot tell you why, I can't give any specific reasons, but Macs simply feel wrong to me." Just dosen't feel right eh? Funny reason to bash a mac. wtd: MacOS, and then MacOSX for 2 years after 5 of the previous. and rizzix: are you stupid? i never once bashed Macs in this thread. I didn't say they were bad, I simply said I didn't like them. an example of specific reasons I don't like them are those stupid 2-paned file dialogs. whose idea was that? they are irritating as hell (to me), and slow ME down. now, I'm not going to tell you your opinion of Macs as awesome is wrong, because it is your opinion. personally, for my own use, I feel that I'm more productive on a PC. and once and for all, let me say something: STOP CALLING ME A GODDAMNED WINDOWS DRONE! I COULD USE LINUX, AND MY STATEMENTS ABOUT MACS WOULD ALL STILL BE EXACTLY THE SAME the line you are taking frankly makes you look more like a Mac drone than it makes me look like a Windows drone.

Author:	wtd [ Wed Sep 21, 2005 8:04 pm ]
Post subject:
1of42 wrote: an example of specific reasons I don't like them are those stupid 2-paned file dialogs. whose idea was that? they are irritating as hell (to me), and slow ME down. They're an example of a Miller column browser, and were in NeXTSTEP and OpenStep for many many years before NeXT was bought by Apple and OpenStep begat Rhapsody begat Mac OS X Server begat Mac OS X. You should keep an open mind and learn to really appreciate this means of viewing a directory structure. Each column symbolizes a level in the directory structure. Clicking on a folder in the rightmost column displays its contents in a new column. It's fantastically easy to drill down into heavily nested directory structures with this kind of browser, and equally easy to go back by scrolling horizontally. For more information, try Googling "miller column browser".

Author:	rizzix [ Wed Sep 21, 2005 9:03 pm ]
Post subject:
wtd wrote: You should keep an open mind and learn to really appreciate this means of viewing a directory structure. That's the trouble with the windows... ehm oh should i say pc drone? 1of42 wrote: AND MY STATEMENTS ABOUT MACS WOULD ALL STILL BE EXACTLY THE SAME no they wouldn't... every single one of the Desktop environments available for Linux is by far too inferior in comparison to Mac OS X's Aqua. Maybe sometime in the future they might improve, but as for now.. it's just not even comparable.

Author:	wtd [ Wed Sep 21, 2005 9:16 pm ]
Post subject:
rizzix wrote: 1of42 wrote: AND MY STATEMENTS ABOUT MACS WOULD ALL STILL BE EXACTLY THE SAME no they wouldn't... every single one of the Desktop environments available for Linux is by far too inferior in comparison to Mac OS X's Aqua. Maybe sometime in the future they might improve, but as for now.. it's just not even comparable. In some ways Gnome is actually better.

Author:	rizzix [ Wed Sep 21, 2005 9:19 pm ]
Post subject:
i can't see how.. i find it too cumbersome.. simply put it's just too cluttered... if not cluttered the icons are a pain in the neck.. they're either too huge or the font is just gigantic.. etc.. etc.. i've had far too many problems with it.. i couldn't get it to look & feel as i wanted... lastly it's slow... zippier than kde.. but slower than Aqua.

Author:	wtd [ Wed Sep 21, 2005 9:26 pm ]
Post subject:
Two words: spatial browsing.

Author:	rizzix [ Wed Sep 21, 2005 9:30 pm ]
Post subject:
did that.. except for the gigantic toobar icons.. and mamoth size System font.. which when i try to fix it by altering the dpi actually affects my OpenOffice.org's font size as well.. as you can see.. this is just too troublesome.. the other thing.. spring loaded folders.. something about that can't quite remember right now.. hmm get back to you later.. (does it even have that feature?... i know i had an issue related to it.. but can't quite remember right now)

Author:	wtd [ Wed Sep 21, 2005 9:54 pm ]
Post subject:
There have been spring-loaded folder patches submitted, but they were turned down due to legal issues. Apple owns that idea.

Author:	rizzix [ Wed Sep 21, 2005 10:17 pm ]
Post subject:
ouch.

Author:	wtd [ Wed Sep 21, 2005 10:40 pm ]
Post subject:
Indeed. I'd really like a Miller column browsing extension for Nautilus.

Author:	rizzix [ Thu Sep 22, 2005 11:20 am ]
Post subject:
take a look at this... http://www.big-boys.com/articles/gatesconan.html pwnt!

Author:	[Gandalf] [ Thu Sep 22, 2005 2:56 pm ]
Post subject:
This has actually happened quite a few times. Quote: There have been spring-loaded folder patches submitted, but they were turned down due to legal issues. Apple owns that idea. Hmm...

Author:	Paul [ Thu Sep 22, 2005 3:40 pm ]
Post subject:
Whats wrong with windows?... I'm sure anyone can point out plenty of things wrong with it, but to me there is nothing wrong, because for the purposes of my usage of the computer, there is nothing wrong. "The best thing in the world" is also objective, you can point all all the shortcomings of windows and microsoft compared to mac and osx, and I could still think windows is the best thing in the world. I've acknowledged that to you, it's inferior compared to the mac along with your reasons for thinking so. But for my purposes, there is nothing wrong with windows. Am I ignorant for that? What is wrong with a "windows drone"? So call me a "windows drone" or whatever, there is nothing wrong with that, if that is what I am. I don't mind it, as that is also a matter of opinion. Don't let your ego push you to place your own opinions above that of others, if you want someone to be -omigosh- enlightened of the total awesomeness of macs, just tell them to try it. No need to go "DUDE! You're a totally misinformed ignorant jackass", because alot of things on this thread are matters of opinion, just like this post.

Author:	wtd [ Thu Sep 22, 2005 4:07 pm ]
Post subject:
Paul wrote: Am I ignorant for that? Yes. But that's not bad, so long as you're willing to work on not being ignorant.

Author:	rizzix [ Thu Sep 22, 2005 4:31 pm ]
Post subject:
Paul: couldn't have said it better my self. also i don't think there's anything wrong with me dissing windows just to show people the coolness of the mac.. (well in comparison anyways) agree? (trying to break a niche here remember)

Author:	[Gandalf] [ Thu Sep 22, 2005 5:24 pm ]
Post subject:
Can you compare how 'good' an apple and an orange are? Well, I think that's the case here. On another note, why are macs known for desgining multimedia? The only thing I can think of to give them an advantage is the software, but couldn't that be replicated for Windows, Linux, etc?

Author:	wtd [ Thu Sep 22, 2005 5:36 pm ]
Post subject:
[Gandalf] wrote: On another note, why are macs known for desgining multimedia? The only thing I can think of to give them an advantage is the software, but couldn't that be replicated for Windows, Linux, etc? You might be able to, but then the environment (the OS) would still be in the way. More specifically, for audio work... ever wondered why Apple designs PowerMacs to be excruciatingly quiet?

Author:	[Gandalf] [ Thu Sep 22, 2005 5:42 pm ]
Post subject:
Interesting, but Quote: You might be able to, but then the environment (the OS) would still be in the way. Why?

Author:	wtd [ Thu Sep 22, 2005 5:52 pm ]
Post subject:
You'd be moving plenty of files around and dealing with multiple applications. To do that, you have to interact with the OS. You may think Windows is just peachy, but a lot of very smart people who depends on their computers for their livelihood believe differently.

Author:	Paul [ Thu Sep 22, 2005 6:13 pm ]
Post subject:
But! Oranges are CLEARLY designed for easy sharing, the efficiency! Yet... you don't have to peel an apple. Oh, this is a toughie.

Author:	wtd [ Thu Sep 22, 2005 6:18 pm ]
Post subject:
Paul wrote: But! Oranges are CLEARLY designed for easy sharing, the efficiency! Yet... you don't have to peel an apple. Oh, this is a toughie. And a bunch of oranges in a bag make for good self-defense.

Author:	beard0 [ Thu Sep 22, 2005 7:00 pm ]
Post subject:
Better yet is comming at someone with a banana!

Author:	Mazer [ Thu Sep 22, 2005 7:45 pm ]
Post subject:
I'd be more worried about the maniac weilding pineapples!

Author:	Tony [ Fri Sep 23, 2005 8:15 am ]
Post subject:
this thread is starting to sound fruity

Author:	Martin [ Sat Sep 24, 2005 12:27 pm ]
Post subject:
wtd wrote: rizzix wrote: Boo-chan wrote: So its great that Apple supports multiple button mice, but it is still designed in a 1 button mindset. No it isin't. The OS was desinged with two-button support right from the beginning (ver 1.0). Once again get your facts straight. I believe it has support for 65536 mouse buttons. I think if they're using 16 bit integers, it'd only support 16 buttons. Mmm, 16 button mice. Double leftish click on the icon to continue.

Author:

wtd [ Sat Sep 24, 2005 2:12 pm ]

Post subject:

Martin wrote:

I think if they're using 16 bit integers, it'd only support 16 buttons.

code:

insaneones@ubuntu:~ $ irb
irb(main):001:0> 2 ** 16
=> 65536
irb(main):002:0>

Author:	Martin [ Sat Sep 24, 2005 5:13 pm ]
Post subject:
Ahh, but Mr. wtd, then you can't register simultaneous mouse clicks (left and right etc).

Author:	wtd [ Sat Sep 24, 2005 6:41 pm ]
Post subject:
Martin wrote: Ahh, but Mr. wtd, then you can't register simultaneous mouse clicks (left and right etc). I see where you're coming from (each button represents a bit, and they get or-ed together to form a 16-bit integer sent to the firmware), though I know for a fact that Mac OS X can handle 65536 mouse buttons.

Author:	Martin [ Sun Sep 25, 2005 7:39 am ]
Post subject:
Oh. I digress.

Author:	wtd [ Sun Sep 25, 2005 11:20 am ]
Post subject:
That is to say, I have no idea how they manage it.

Author:	lyam_kaskade [ Sun Sep 25, 2005 2:45 pm ]
Post subject:
A 65536 button mouse,,, I'm seeing a giant sphere, floating, rotating sphere with buttons on every centimetre of the surface. Or perhaps a pair of gloves, where every hand movement is treated as a different button.

Author:	wtd [ Sun Sep 25, 2005 4:26 pm ]
Post subject:
Truth is stranger than fiction.

Author:	Notoroge [ Sun Sep 25, 2005 4:44 pm ]
Post subject:
lyam_kaskade wrote: Or perhaps a pair of gloves, where every hand movement is treated as a different button. Don't watch pr0n while wearing that glove or you'll get a lot of BSOD's.

Author:	md [ Sun Sep 25, 2005 5:27 pm ]
Post subject:
and that's forgetting about cleaning them... pron and gloves would be a bad combination

You can syndicate this boards posts using the file backend.php or view the topic map using sitemap.php.

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy