Re: Chris Pirillo: Vista vs Mac OS X Leopard.

"C Lund" <clund@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:clund-104E6D.10040703092007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Better than what? Dragging the app from the disk and dropping it in
> the folder you want it in?
Exactly!

How could anything be better than that?

I believe I explained the main thing: The bundle approach
requires uses to understand *and practice* a disciplined
organization of their folders. Or at least practice it in this
case.

The computer shouldn't have to be told what folder applications
go in. It's being stupid if it does.

> No installer is better.
Outside of *.advocacy, it is well known that users don't
do systematic folder heirarchies well.

It is?

Yes. You can tell because companies with the resources to
do so ship installers. Including Apple.

They know it is better so.

[snip]
Or maybe because that way the user won't have to decompress the files
themselves. Mind you, most installations I do on OS X go like this:
Download .dmg file. Open .dmg file. Drag bundle from .dmg folder to
desired destination.

Certainly if the install process is actually more complicated than
'drag application to Applications folder', the installer becomes more
valuable. Having to manage the .dmg file makes installation a lot more
confusing for most users. It's a file, but it turns into a disk somehow.

It's a really weird way to open an archive; if MS did this they'd
be condemned for it.

[snip]
> No. What I lost in the intel transition was the Classic mode and the
> use of OS 9 apps that I no longer used anyway. Oh, and some games
> don't work very well under Rosetta. Others worked surprisingly well. -
> and so do all my non-game apps. Rosetta is seamless, btw.
You say "No", but the rest of your paragraph there says "Yes".

Really? What was so "harsh" about it?

The loss of OS 9 apps that I no longer use?

I think we can guess why you don't use them anymore.

Some games no longer working well?

Predictable, this.

I fail to see the "harshness".

Yet you describe it so well. Perhaps the only people
who use Macs are those who don't care about losing the
use of apps they paid good money for.

But consider: the XP->Vista shift was much less harsh than
what you describe, but still MS gets a whole lot of grief about it.

> IOW the transition was a lot smoother than I had expected.
I can't speak to your expectations. I will say it was not as
harsh as the OS X transition was. It was still gratuitously
harsh.

Care to give some specifics here?

Need I? Well, I suppose I can:

Apple dropped the Intel transition on developers with no
warning; they had been preparing for years but told no-one,
and when they went public developers got an innacurate
schedule: 1 year to the first Intel Mac, 1 more year until
PPC was gone from Apple's lineup. But this turned out to be
innacurate: they had even less time to convert over than Apple
had told them.

This was all very gratuitous and very harsh.

Of course, it was developers suffering, not you, and
you don't even care about your own problems (apparently),
so I don't expect you'll care. But it is true for all that.

[snip]
Perhaps not. 64-bit support is, maybe, wholly meaningless for
Apple anyway. Their "average user" is using iTunes and iPhoto
and such, after all.

Plus assorted internet browsers and such.

Naturally.

Just like the average Windows user. For most people, 64-bit probably
won't make much of a difference.

You are correct that the average Windows user also does not
need 64-bit, however. The actual applicaton usage is a little
different, mind.

>> Windows offers both superior backwards compatibility and
>> complete 64-bit support. It's clearly in the lead on this one.
> Yeah, you can still play the DOS version of DOOM. Good on ya.
Yeah!

So why does that make any difference?

If you have to ask, you wouldn't understand. :D

Though the DOS compatibility in Windows is much more
oriented towards line-of-business app. Playing DOOM for DOS
isn't important, but running those old Paradox applications is
vital.

This strikes me as odd...

It's true none the less.

You wintrolls keep bragging about all the apps that are available on
Windows and at the same time you keep repeating the "three apps and no
games for OS X" myth. Why are there no new apps that can replace those
old DOS apps so businesses no longer need to rely on compatibility
with apps designed to run on a dead OS?

These old DOS apps are custom-built line-of-business apps, not
shrinkwrap software. The only way they get replaced is if the
company using them hires a consultant or somebody like that, and
has a new version write. That's very expensive.

So they keep using the old apps as long as ever they can.

Are there no new Windows apps
that can read those old Paradox files? Why not? When Apple makes one
of it's transitions, we maccies simply move our stuff to the new
platform. Smoothly, painlessly, and often seamlessly.

Remember that databases are almost always used as storage for
an application (or applications); you can certainly write a new application
that uses the same storage, but you probably should not. As long as you are
going to pay for a new app, it's not a big deal to migrate to a new database
too.

Is all that bragging about the choice of apps on Windows just hot air?

No. There are *also* a very large number of line of business apps written
for Windows.

[snip]
Vista seems to catch flak from two sources:
Zealots for other OSes bash Vista for offering no improvements. This
is ill-conceived FUD. It's actually reassuring to many users, since it
implies that Vista will be more compatible than it actually is.

Real users bash Vista for not being compatible enough, especially
with the wide range of hardware XP supports. This is a fair cop,
though they would be even more unhappy with most other OSes.

And then there are guys like me who thinks the entire Vista circus is
absolutely hilarious. And yes, there is an element of schadenfreude
(sp?) involved here.

I am sure Microsoft is glad to have provided amusement for you. :D

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: [OT] "Pre-announcement" of Python-based "computing appliance" project.
    ... > into the right folder, and there it is, period. ... object to be in several or many branches of the tree -- the memory ... Presumably, the above mentioned apps, and Google, of course, ... > metadata is also a key part of this, I assume it's what you call the ...
    (comp.lang.python)
  • Re: Windows; its way or the highway. (Was Re: RISC OS 6 - no shadow modes?)
    ... cabinet, correspondence is in /that/ cabinet, and fingerprints are ... Or do you for example keep all R-Comp apps together? ... My "Programs" top-level folder is completely separate ... For example in my VRPC ...
    (comp.sys.acorn.advocacy)
  • Re: Windows XP & new motherboard
    ... But Windows 2000 and XP mostly just ... > buy or borrow a true installation XP CD. ... > some of the apps that came with the system. ... > 4) Enter "cd olddrive" to switch to the new folder ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: The problem with Macs ....
    ... that's why there's an App folder. ... Put apps where you will be able to find them again. ... Navigator or Communicator folder anywhere. ... open Finder, type in 'Navigator' and it gives me a hit, I click on it ...
    (uk.comp.sys.mac)
  • Re: Applescript deletion consequences
    ... the Applications folder so its organized in folders by type (ya gotta ... Having Apps organized by type is ... to the appropriate folder. ... If it is an Apple app, leave it in /Applications, ...
    (comp.sys.mac.system)
Loading