Some people are still making VB6 COM DLLs though. Likewise VC++ DLLs for legacy apps.

.NET is great for handling DLL Hell.

 

getting rid of the registry might help as well

tiger rocks!

 

Ken, what the fuck are you talking about?

DLL hell has NOT been solved. It has lessened a TAD for developers with .NET, sure, assuming that your userbase has the, what, 20mb .NET library installed?

Which, you can't rely on, which forces you to include the .NET library in your installs... thus greatening the bloat.

There is still plenty of sys dependency problems in Windows XP. Dumb comment.

 

Soopa

My comments = Sarcasm

On you = lost

Me =

 

and Dashboard is a SMALL and INSIGNIFICANT piece of OSX. it's a value added feature. that's it. how do you use that as the focal point of your GUI evaluation in osx?

 

It is a mere example. For me, it adds extreme value of not wasting time with needless clicks for useful information.

Anyhow, the dock is an awesome idea. The graphics are obviously a hell of a lot better along with the smoothness of everything.

The fact that I haven't had the damn OS crash or do a memory dump is a testiment to its stability. All the software included is a plus too. We can go on and on.

 

To me its the perfect example of OSX. Cutesy eyecandy that occasionally is useful (I like the weather, Wikipedia and UPS and FedEx widgets myself) I have no idea if its a resource hog, just seems like it would be to me.

I dunno, I TRY to like OSX, I try to like it over Windows and especially Linux. But in the end something about OSX just bothers me, I dunno if its the interface or what.

 

scottie.... agree completely on all points.

i was simply saying that to write of osx, or to even suggest in shit sarcasm, that the GUI is too cutesy because of Dashboard (which you dont even need to ever see let alone use if you don't want) is stupid.

 

If you put your applications folder in the dock you effectively have a start menu. Anyway the interface looks a hell of a lot better to me. Pretty easy to use IMO.

 

 

wow. that's an intelligent argument.

 

I dunno guys, I've been using Windows since the 80's so I guess I'm just stuck on what I like. I admit its a crappy and inferior product but it has what I need.

 

Its not my realm of expertise, I wont try and argue on this. Its just about preferences.

 

i wish i can have more than 1 dock

 

Good, then just say that and stfu... describing OSX as no more than "cutesy eyecandy" then calling Windows inferior in the same breath makes you sound really dumb.

 

Dumb? Perhaps but its what I think of OSX.

Its just my opinion.

 

well i dont know too much...I'm not really experienced with OSX, but I have friends that work on teh shell for vista, core file systems, etc etc, and I'm excited

 

Did they not rescind the *new* file system they've been hyping for the last 2 years?

 

WinFS wont come out until the NEXT OS (Blackcomb)

 

That's what I thought. Thanks.

 

damn ken knows way more than me

 

yea i misspoke...my friend works for core file systems for ws03

 

Alright so help educate me. When I look at OS X I see a refined version of *nix with a kick-ass Window manager. From a purely technical perspective, does OS X offer anything that couldn't be done with *nix if you had enough development resources at your disposal? In my mind Apple did not invent anything revolutionary with OS X. What they did was take the power of UNIX and put it in the hands of the common user. Don't get me wrong, I think that's extremely commendable.

 

Thats basically it. Ever fiddled with Darwin OS? That'll give you a better idea.

If I had my way, I'd just slap KDE on it.

But I dare not mention such "heresy" or else I'll get

 

OK, first, I'll say... what's wrong with a strong focus on a rock solid GUI? The GUI is what modern operating systems and even THE WEB is about.

You could be whoring AZ on some old NNS system the same way you do here. The only difference is the GUI.

With the same asssumptions you've made here, it could be said Windows is just a DOS gui.

One of the best bits is indeed the GUI and that's how it should be. It is revolutionary and if it were the GUI alone on top of Unix it would be enough to take it over Windows.


But OSX also has very revolutionary features such as Core Video, Core Image, and Quartz (which is basically all Microsoft is trying to replicate with Vista). Then you've Bonjour, Cocoa and Carbon. Then you've HFS+ (Which Microsoft is trying to replicate with WinFS) in which Spotlight is tightly binded (Which Microsoft is trying to replicate with Vista).

On top of that you've dozens more innovations, applications, and utilities that come bundled with OSX.

It fails me to see how any of this is less than whats been accomplished with Windows.


As for KDE, Ken, I don't see anything stopping you from "having your way" ... so have at it.

 

Very well put.

Ken I've not used KDE, but Gnome is bloated as hell. It gets an A for effort though.

 

First off,

Windows NT/2000/XP and the new Vista are NOT based on DOS. It has DOS emulation. You're thinking of 95/98/ME which is a 16 bit / 32 - bit hybrid. And XP x64 doesnt even have 16 bit emulation, therefore NO DOS support of any kind. You have to use DosBox if you want to use old games/apps.

Windows NT based is all 32 bit with 16 bit emulation.


I'm not even arguing about this though, the core components of OSX are wonderful. Have you ever used Darwin OS? Its amazing. Solid, fast and has a long life ahead of it. Windows blows in comparison. Windows comes stripped down with no apps. Yet another cashcow for M$. Apple beats them on that as well.

I'm arguing about the user interface which rather than fact, is about preferences. So in the end, I dont see why there is an argument to begin with. I dont like the dock or how Apple's interface works. Its just foreign to me and Windows sadly is more intuitive. Is it? I dont know for sure, I'm just comfortable with what I've been using since I could type.

 

Try it. Its my preference. I dont like Gnome either.

 

Nobody said Windows NT/XP is DOS Ken. What was said is the same ignorant statements you make about OSX can be made about Windows. It's all in the same vein.

You're entitled to your GUI preferences, opinions, etc. So like I said, state them and shut the fuck up. Don't get up on your podium and start making stupid, uninformed, and unintelligent statements that go way beyond the realm of "preference".

You can't seem to recite anything that isn't simply opinion beyond the "facts" you gleam from the highlights at the top of each environments web page.

Have you actually developed applications within any of these environments? Have you ever actually had to interact with the filesystem? If so, can you show us some examples? Or would they be yet more "top secret" government sanctioned projects?

Last I checked, and last you stated in this thread, this is not your expertise and as far as I can gleam you've no experience with any of these operating systems BEYOND the GUI, so I can understand basing your opinions strictly on your comfort levels with a given GUI... so again... why make silly statements beyond that?

 

No i've never developed any apps except for DOS when I was a kid. Its not my thing. I know its yours and thats fine. I'm not arguing with you on anything to do with OS architecture.

I'm simply stating my preferences and opinions but for some reason I hit a nerve when I pointed out my dislike for OSX's interface. You've gone off on technical tangents which are obviously beyond my realm and in the end made me look like an idiot. If thats what makes your day, then so be it. Me, I'm just your average guy who has been using Windows/DOS for 20 years and offered an opinion on alternative OS's. But you seem to like having the last word on each subject using the site as your bully pulpit.

Anyway, I'm through.

 

omg ken! you locked this so others couldn't chime in and let you know what a you're being?

that's really weak.

 

Yeah, it's my bully pulpit... but you're the one locking the thread.

The only reason you "hit a nerve" is because this is at least the 10th fucking thread in as many days where I've seen you voice your "expert" opinion while being quite certainly anything but.

If you prefer the Windows GUI, fine. That does not in ANYWAY make the OSX GUI merely "eye candy" as just about every single operation in OSX is backed up by years of careful consideration and long windy reports and stats by true experts in the OSX documentation.

 

<------

 

I'll end that with - what you're comfortable with and what the new user or even the hardcore user who needs maximum efficiency from their OS needs are all very different things. you are a casual computer user who grew up on Windows... I don't blame you at all for preferring it in that respect.

 

Ok, well we agree on that. Anyway, back on topic.

 

oh shit... come on guys lets not fight, it makes me

 

that was interesting.. i almost don't want to chime in anymore

i love me anything thats not ASM

 

wasn't vista trademarked, dont they need a new name?

 

I've been using IE7 for a couple of hours now and it seems pretty good. They included tabbed browsing which is cool. No popups yet

I'm downloading windows now. 2.4 gig ISO

 

The IE7 team seems to be doing a great job. They've made what sounds to be a great browser rather rapidly.

The one serious flaw that will continue to remain however is crappy old aliased text. Hopefully ClearType in Vista is trully clear type and not the crappy aliased crap we have in XP now.

Web browsing is much more pleasent when you've nice smooth fonts.

This though, really isn't at all an IE deficiency as it is a Windows one. It just hurts so much in the case of web browsing specifically.