Re: What do you dislike about OSX?

Snit wrote: 
"TheLetterK" <theletterk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
HDnof.9713$kP5.6314@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 12/15/05 5:15 PM:


Snit wrote:

"TheLetterK" <theletterk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
M95of.1903$64.563@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 12/14/05 8:14 PM:



May I ask why you prefer GIMP?  Is it only because you do not have access
to
PhotoShop itself?



There's nothing in Photoshop that I would actually use, that isn't in
Elements. But no, that's not the reason. I'm simply more comfortable
with the GIMP. Probably because it was what I first used.



Fair enough... though having played with GIMP I find it hard to understand
the appeal of it over PhotoShop... then again, I tend to push PhotoShop well
past the point of where Elements would take me.



No, but I have read no technical documentation that even indicates a
substantial change to XNU, let alone a change to something as basic as
how it handles memory.


You did not read enough technical documentation to even understand that OS
X
is based in part of FreeBSD.


When you can demonstrate that it's possible that something could be
partially based on another product, when we'll talk about the technical
aspects. 


Why would something *not* be able to be based in part on more than one
thing?


Because the term 'based on' *is absolute*. Something is either based on
something else, or it's not based on something else. There are no
'degrees of basing'.


You even based your attempt at support, in part, on different
definitions...


No, those various definitions made up the whole of the definition of the
term.


I, on the other hand, have based my support on multiple
things as well, mostly showing how others have used the term (you refer to
them as idiots).


It's just as inaccurate when spoken by IBM's marketing department, as it
is is when you claim that OS X is derivative of FreeBSD.


I can easily base my support on more things - the fact
that it is relatively common to talk about something being "partially based
on" or "based in part" on something else, etc.


And it's *still* an improper set of terms. Wide usage does not make it
any more correct.


You have been playing an
extremely silly semantic game and when I did not bow down to your silliness
you started spewing straw men (such as your claim about forks)


That's what you said. When you claim that OS X is based on FreeBSD, you
are also making the claim that OS X is a fork of FreeBSD. That's
*exactly what being 'based on' another project means*, in this context.


, making grade
school put downs (calling me names)


You don't bother with reason, so why should I bother with decency?


and attributing your own quotes to me.

I'm attributing your own words to you, idiot.


As I have repeatedly said: you have made your *opinion* very, very clear.
You do not believe OS X is based in part of FreeBSD. You base your claim
not on any disagreement with the meaning of what I am saying but on a silly
semantic game based on a definition you further base, in part, on multiple
definitions.
It's based on one definitions. But you've decided to follow the path of hypocrisy and build a straw man after complaining of how others do the same. What 'multiple definitions' did I use? I simply pointed out that none of the possible definitions for the word you used would allow for a non-absolute term.


When I do not accept your silly game and cave in to your *opinion* and
declare you the mighty word master, you degraded yourself to attributing
your own words to me,
I've constantly been attributing your own words to you, ***. Just because you refuse to accept that does not change the facts.

denying such even though the Google record clearly
shows is,

Clearly when you look at it through rose-tinted glasses, perhaps.

and sinking to name calling.
Yes, I've 'sunk' to name calling. Of course, I've been insulting you for almost a month now, even before the overt name calling started.

 So be it, I certainly cannot stop
you from doing such.

Obviously not, else you would have done so before now.

 Good to see, however, that at least you admit you do
not bother with being decent.  You likely will continue in the same vane
thinking that your actions reflect poorly on someone other than yourself.
You will continue to be mistaken.
As you have repeatedly made clear, opinions are not fact. It's up to those that read, to determine where the poor reflection originates.


While you will repeat your BS over and over I will simply copy the above
paragraphs... at least until you give me a reason to say anything else on
the topic.

Perhaps I should just start snipping then.



Why should I have to move the windows to get Exposé to work correctly?


I'm wondering why you would open multiple windows then not move them.
Has nothing to do with Expose.


Because by default, they all open at the same coordinates. Why would I
move them?


Because you'd like to make the most of your screen real estate?


I like to make the most of my screen real estate - that is why I maximize
my Safari windows...

Why? 

Because you'd like to make the most of your screen real estate.  Heck, this
is common enough where there is a product out called "Full Screen Safari".



Making best use of Safari would mean zooming the window to fit the
content of the page being viewed. Running it maximized just reduces
productivity and wastes screen space in most instances.



Many pages work best when I have them set full screen.  I have two screens
so this works well for me.  Clearly it works well for a number of others.  I
base this claim on multiple reasons: the fact that there are at least
products to push Safari full screen, other browsers have it as a built in
feature, there are discussions on how to best do this at macosxrumors.com
and other sites, and personal experience.
Most of the other browsers come from systems that do not support a zoom mode, so maximizing holds a valid function. As for why such a hack exists, it probably comes from all these switchers who got used to running fullscreen browsers.


Saft also offers the feature: <http://haoli.dnsalias.com/Saft/>

If you do not like using Safari that way and use your screen real estate in
some other way so be it.  I use prefer it full screen and so do many others.


It's not the most effective use of screen real-estate.


In your opinion.
No opinion to it. There's absolutely no point in expanding the size of the window past the size of the content being viewed.

 Even if it were not, however, it is my preferred way to
work and the preferred way of many.
Fine, just don't claim it's the most effective use of screen real-estate. Say you prefer it, say you favor it, just don't say it's a good idea.

Remember: that was what the discussion
was about - so when I open a new windows it is the same size and there is no
reason I would want to move it.


Assuming your display is above 800x600 resolution, then there are few
instances where web sites will actually make use of the additional space. It's
better to zoom to the size of the content...



In your opinion.  There are many sites, however, that work best with it set
to full screen - at least on my 1024 x 768 display.
Hence the 'there are few instances'. Of course, the zoom function will put the window at full size should the content require such.

 One example is my
college forums where I often post messages to my students.  It is designed
for 1024 x 768 and anything less is much harder to use.  But even if I only
wanted it full screen so I would have to scroll less - which is a big part
of my reason for liking it full screen.  Please note I just based my claim
on two things: sites designed for 1024 x 768 and lowering the need for
scrolling on other sites.
The zoom function accomplishes this without the wasted space in the remaining instances.


All of this, however, is a side issue from the topic at hand: the fact that
Safari creates new windows in the same spot as the old (a fine feature for
those of us who prefer full screen) but that Exposé does not work optimally
in that situation.
Safari spawns windows diagonally, by default. Unless that behavior changed in Tiger?

Come to think of it, Safari doesn't even suffer from this flaw in the first place by default. I just spawned several windows and used expose--worked fine.


and do not mind layers even if they are not visible at all
times.  Strange how you, someone who pushed the CLI, would be so worked up
about *other people* not needing to have all windows visible at all times.


And guess what? Being able to have multiple terminal windows visible at
the same time is one of the best reasons to actually use a GUI on a *nix
box.

Great - I have no problem with that. And when I use Terminal I do not have
it full screen, since there is no benefit other than making the text larger,
at least not for me. If you did use it full screen, however, I would not
stress over it. 


It's silly to run anything fullscreen, unless it takes up more of the
screen than you have available to actually display the content.



As is the case on many websites.  Heck, I have Google News open and it
scrolls off my screen.  For that matter, who are you to decide how others
should best use their computers?
I don't. I'm just saying that productivity could be improved though the consideration of other methods.


Because most people move the windows to points where they are most
visible.


Why should they be forced to?>> 

No one is forcing them to. They *choose* to do so in most instances.


This may be a nit, but at first you claim *no one* is forced, then you
admit that it is only in most instances that they choose.


I've consistently made the claim that 'most people move the windows'.
It's not an incongruous statement.


It is also a claim you have never supported.  I would love to see your
support - assuming you have some.  Do you?  This seems like it is another
case of your "support" boiling down to "I say so".

Why can't OS X be based in part on FreeBSD - because you say so! 

A simple answer would be that:
OS X does not follow FreeBSD conventions
OS X does not use a BSD kernel (though one that has substantial
influence from BSD)
OS X does not use FreeBSD APIs
OS X was derived from Nextstep, not FreeBSD

Really, the only thing it *does* take from FreeBSD are some aspects of
the kernel, and the FreeBSD toolset. Both of those were also found in
Nextstep, but were updated for OS X.

A *far more accurate* description of the FreeBSD->OS X link would be 'OS
X is heavily influenced by FreeBSD', or 'OS X derives many features from
analogous features on FreeBSD'. Claiming that OS X is based on FreeBSD
indicates a stronger link than is actually present. It wouldn't be an
issue if we weren't talking about something as convoluted as the
genealogy of *nix systems.


As I have repeatedly said: you have made your *opinion* very, very clear. 
">>A simple answer would be that:
>>OS X does not follow FreeBSD conventions
>>OS X does not use a BSD kernel (though one that has substantial
>>influence from BSD)
>>OS X does not use FreeBSD APIs
>>OS X was derived from Nextstep, not FreeBSD"

This is not opinion. All of those are *facts*.


How do we know most people move Safari windows - because you say so!  I do
not buy that... not for a second. Do a few Google searches and your eyes may
be opened.  Try these search terms:
* full screen safari
* "partially based on"
* "based in part"
Let me know what you find. :)


Again I'll point out that wide usage does not make something correct. 


Nor, of course, does your *opinion* make in incorrect.  People use computers
differently than you do.  Get over it.
I'm perfectly aware of that, and I'll continue to point out how people could use their systems better than they presently do.


The reality is few people if any are *forced* to use a computer at all.  If
one wants to make the most of Exposé, however, one must move windows in
ways that they might otherwise not.


The situation that causes the bug is not terribly common--want more
proof? Most end users don't even know the bug exists.

I was aware of it. How do you know how many people are or are not? 


I know a fairly large number of Mac users locally (well, relative to the
number of Mac users), and quite a few more online. I've never heard any
of them discuss the issue before, and when it's brought up many people
ask "What are you talking about?".



You have never heard them bring it up but when they do you can tell me how
they act?  Um, ok.  I will let you figure out the flaws in your comments
there.  :)
Fine. I rarely hear any of them discuss it. As I'm sure you are aware, Usenet posts are arranged as a train of thought.


In any case, I have run into it and I have seen others run into it.
But probably rarely. I didn't even realize it was a problem until someone brought it up. The same seems to be true for the vast majority of Mac users I run across.


For that matter, just because people are not aware they run into something
on a level where they can immediately talk about it does not mean it does
not hurt their productivity.
For a bug like this? I would think that they would notice it if it impacted their productivity.

 Let me give you an example: on Windows when
people go to a menu they almost always over-shoot it because it is not at
the top of the screen like it is on a Mac.  They mouse has to "home in" on
the menu.  Watch for it - unless someone moves the mouse real, real slow it
is almost a given they will do this.  Yet when you talk to Windows users
they rarely are aware they do this.
I am perfectly aware of how Fitt's law relates to the inefficiencies of menus not aligned against one screen boundary. That is a design flaw, not a bug (bugs are unintentional, that particular design flaw arises from poor original design and a desire to retain backwards consistency in the UI).


For that matter, how many people need to understand the bug to be affected by
it?



I said 'know about', not 'understand'. Someone can run across it
accidentally (something that would be quite common were it widely
applicable), and still know about it.



The fact is you have no idea how many people know of the bug - all you have
is your opinions.  I am quickly learning that your opinions generally are
not very interesting to me.
Let me ask you--what did you expect when you come to a newsgroup dedicated to people's opinions on a platform?

For that matter, you don't have a particularly good track record of providing verified or relevant evidence to support your positions either. Really, what kind of evidence is a bunch of blog postings and marketing BS?


If this were the big issue that 'macsucks' makes of it, then don't you think
more people would actually be complaining about it?


You are making a bigger issue of it than macsucks it would seem.  It is a
bug that annoys him - and it is one that others, including me, have run
into.  I do not believe he is saying OS X is evil, useless, or fattening
based on the bug.


It's still a fairly minor bug. 


Compared to some others, sure.  So?

That is about as close to "forced" as you can get in context. So yes, in
that context, the OS X bug does "forces" people at least some people to
modify habits if they wish to make the most of Exposé.  The "fix" for this
would be easy - in concept if not in code.


It'd be easy to fix in code as well. Just have new windows spawn in a
random field, rather than along the z-axis.

That would *add* to the problem. When I open a new Safari window I do not
want it to be anything other than how I have set Safari to be - full screen.
If new windows came up moved, as you suggest, I would then end up spending
time to resize the window... and the bug would *still* be there. No
thanks. 


So you would actually care if a series of windows were randomly offset
by 10 pixels or so? It's not like you would actually notice with the
fullscreen hack enabled anyway.



I prefer to make better use of my screen.  No, I do not want to give up 10
pixels each time I open a window...
You don't 'give up' 10 pixels. The window would be the same size, just offset along the Z axis.


The whole point of Exposé is to make them visible. Why can't you just
admit this is a bug in OS X? (Oh yeah, I forgot -- Maccies can never see
any faults in their beloved operating system.)


A) I explicitly said it was a bug. And I quote: "It's a bug, yes, but
not one that should be particularly common"

What would make it uncommon? You have yet to state that. 


The fact that the situation that causes the bug rarely occurs. Most
people do not leave new windows in the same positions as where they spawn.


Why... oh yes, because you say so.  Do you *ever* support your beliefs with
anything other than that?



I don't believe anyone has ever done a study about this, so yes I would
have to go with years of personal observation.



I have no problem with you having your opinion... but keep in mind you are
not the only one with personal experience.  I would hazard to guess, if you
want to pull out that card, that I have experience with far more users than
you do.  I do not know your background, so there is the potential I am
wrong, but in general I have worked with more users of varied skills and
abilities - and done so in professional and educations settings - than just
about anyone I know, either in real life or online.

It is beginning to appear that you do not understand the concept of
supporting your beliefs... but when they are questioned you sink to juvenile
insults, dishonest attributions, and pushing straw men.  Please rise above
that!


Thank you for demonstrating your extreme dishonesty, ***.


Again you sink to juvenile insults and name calling.
You say that as if it's some sort of surprise. I've told you repeatedly that I will continue to call you *** until you admit that you were mistaken in your claim that OS X is based on FreeBSD.

 It is that habit of
yours (and the others that I mention) that I was referencing.
It's only a 'habit', when I respond to unreasonable people. People like you, ***.

 It speaks
poorly of you... poorly enough where I will likely stop responding to your
nonsense soon.

Praise be to the nondenominational omnipotent entity!

 We are going round and round ... you have sunk to multiple
lies, dishonest attributions, semantic games, and pushing straw men.

I think you've confused me with that mirror in the corner, ***.

 Do you
have anything of value to offer?

Plenty, I simply refrain from sharing it with trash like you.


B) I don't see why this is a serious bug, since the circumstances that
have to come about to cause the bug are relatively uncommon.

What do you think it is "relatively uncommon". Relative compared to what?


Other bugs--say, for example, the old audio preview bug. 


What makes you think the audio preview bug - whatever that is - is any more
commonly hit upon?



Because it occurred any time someone tried to select something while
previewing a media file in the Finder? That's a *lot* more common than a
bug in Expose that affects only a series of windows set straight along
the Z axis.



What is the "audio preview bug"?  What does it do?  I do not listen to many
files in the Finder but when I have I cannot think of any significant bugs.
Nor have I heard of others struggling with this.
In earlier versions of OS X, if you attempted to preview a media file in Finder, then your selection reticle would be offset (I.E, if you were previewing something, you couldn't drag select anything with accuracy).


Seems you have your pet bugs that bother you... as does macsucks. 


It didn't bother me, I'm just pointing out that it was more common than
this bug, simply because most people do actually move windows after they
have been spawned.



You state this as though it were based on something other than your
*opinion*.  Get over the fact that I will not accept your opinion as fact,
esp. when I have reason to believe the exact opposite of what you say.
Get over the fact that people will state opinions in a newsgroup for people to state opinions.



They don't even have to move them very far to solve the problem. Hell, most
people don't even spawn multiple application windows at all.



See above... you have shown me you are not capable of supporting your
opinions with reason.
This is the sort of dishonesty I've come to expect from you, ***. It's also part of the reason I call you that.


You should be supporting each other in your similarities but you opt to claim
your pet bug is more important than his pet bug.


No, I said it was more common, not more important. 


But you have shown neither.  You have stated your *opinion*.  One I am
caring less and less about.

Opinion? No, that's a neutral statement.



Both bugs were completely irrelevant--but you decided it best to exercise
hypocrisy (since you *obviously* hate straw men so much, why would you keep
pushing your own?).


What straw man do you think I am pushing?
You keep assuming that I have a 'pet bug', and that I was favoring my pet bug over his pet bug. It's 'straw man', because I was merely pointing out a more common bug (as you asked).


I would like to see both of your pets squished (assuming you are in reference
to a real bug... I find no reference to it on Google, at least using the term
you gave it).


Here's a reference to it:
http://forums.macosxhints.com/archive/index.php/t-24273.html



Wow - you finally got around to at least showing a link to describe what it
is and even support its existence.  Now can you support your claim it is
more common?
It was rather well known for a long while. It was also 'squished' awhile back.


For that matter, this bug has an easy work around it seems... not that I
would not like to see it squished, but all you have to do is minimize the
window or play the file in a player.  This bug in some ways is less of a
nuisance, assuming you are using the preview function as a preview and not
as a player.  Again, though, this does not imply I would not like to see it
squished... nor does it mean I want to watch you compare your *opinion*
about this bug vs. the Exposé bug.

This, by the way, has nothing to do with UI consistency.

Haha!!

Excuse me? 

I cannot speak for others, but I will *not* excuse your poor behavior, esp.
in the absence of an apology from you.


Was I responding to you, 'Snit'? 


No.  Hence the reason I made it clear I was not speaking for others.  I
*still* do not excuse your your poor behavior, esp. in the absence of an
apology from you.

Why would I apologize for holding you accountable for your own words? 


And with that lie from you I think I am done reading this post... it has
gotten too long and boring to be worth it.  Really, TLK, your lies are
tiresome.

Yes, please do killfile me. I tire of your stench, ***.


--
"There is nothing I understand." - ***
.