Fanboi's lament - falling out of love with the iPad
in [Wireless Internet]
|
Prev: Linksys 54G wireless Problem
Next: Newsgroups demise
From: nospam on 11 Jun 2010 00:19 In article <jk5316tp95sibreof6mgv679mahr6b4m3a(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >> Mac OS X has always supported two-button mice. Some earlier versions of > >> Mac OS also supported them as well. > > > >Any Mac could probably support a two / multi-button mouse if the company > >selling the device wanted to write driver software ... but the point is > >that the Mac doesn't need a two button mouse. Personally I very rarely had > >any need for more than one button. > > "It's not a limitation, it's a feature!" :) actually it is. the mac os is designed around one button, whereas windows is designed around two buttons. apple had multi-button support for a *long* time but few people cared. it wasn't until all the windows switchers started buying macs and thinking that they really need a two button mouse.
From: nospam on 11 Jun 2010 00:21 In article <michelle-4953BF.18563210062010(a)reserved-multicast-range-not-delegated.e xample.com>, Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> wrote: > Macs have supported three button mice (left right, and scroll buttons) with > scroll wheel or ball for more than a decade, and have shipped with them for > almost as long. (But now, they're shipping with two-button and > touch-surface mice.) 8 buttons since the early 90s (before that it was custom drivers), all usb macs (1998 on) support l/r/scroll, and the 4 button mighty mouse (now apple mouse) started shipping about five years ago. as i said, very few really cared about having more buttons until very recently.
From: SMS on 11 Jun 2010 02:08 On 10/06/10 9:18 PM, nospam wrote: \ > nonsense. mac os was very different than lisa os and lisa os was very > different than the xerox alto and star. apple made dramatic > improvements to what xerox had (and i used to use a xerox star too). The whole Mac/Lisa philosophy, a closed system with the OS, GUI, and the hardware so tightly coupled, came directly from Xerox. But yes, the OS was different. Apple was smart enough to realize the technical and business advantages of a closed, proprietary system. Good article about that whole deal at "http://library.stanford.edu/mac/primary/docs/starmac.html". I worked for Xerox at that time. We had a lot of the Star workstations around. I remember Xerox coming out with Xerox 820 as a competitor to the Lisa, rather than trying to do a lower cost Star (which was very much like the Lisa only more expensive). They tried to get employees to buy the Xerox 820 but it was just a very expensive Z80 CP/M machine with a re-done Digital Research Ferguson board.
From: nospam on 11 Jun 2010 02:19 In article <4c11d2c6$0$1664$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: > > nonsense. mac os was very different than lisa os and lisa os was very > > different than the xerox alto and star. apple made dramatic > > improvements to what xerox had (and i used to use a xerox star too). > > The whole Mac/Lisa philosophy, a closed system with the OS, GUI, and the > hardware so tightly coupled, came directly from Xerox. But yes, the OS > was different. Apple was smart enough to realize the technical and > business advantages of a closed, proprietary system. the main problem with the star was it was nearly impossible to write software for it. the mac on the other hand, was very easy to write software. initially it required a lisa but mac native tools appeared very quickly. some of the were amazing for their time, such as lightspeed pascal and lightspeed c. the documentation for the mac was sold in ordinary bookstores, followed by numerous other books and magazine articles on how to write mac software. the inside macintosh volumes were outstanding, much better than other platforms back then and even better than mac documentation now. it was anything but closed.
From: Your Name on 11 Jun 2010 02:44
"John Navas" <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:hu4316p4boi82uc6cbk2p6t83n9cu3a37v(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 09:24:43 +1200, in <hu19b9$jps$1(a)lust.ihug.co.nz>, > "Your Name" <your.name(a)isp.com> wrote: > >"Jolly Roger" <jollyroger(a)pobox.com> wrote in message > >news:jollyroger-D7353F.09244231052010(a)news.individual.net... > >> In article <HIHMn.56618$HG1.4676(a)newsfe21.iad>, > >> Todd Allcock <elecconnec(a)AnoOspamL.com> wrote: > >> > >> > Every one of my > >> > Windows machines is protected, and I can count on one hand the number of > >> > detected threats I've hit in the last couple of years. > >> > >> Meanwhile, I don't have to count at all with my Mac, because there have > >> been exactly ZERO for the past 12 years. > > > >In all my Mac usage since the very first model, a virus has been detected > >exactly once ... and that was on a floppy disk from a Windows user. :-) > > Makes no sense -- Windows virus won't infect Mac (and vice versa). ;) It wouldn't have infected my Mac (although technically some MS Word macro "viruses" can), but I only said the virus was detected. :-) > >> In contrast, I have lost count (it's around 6, 7, 8, 9, was it 10? Hmmm, > >> maybe I need another hand to count!) how many times the corporate > >> Windows network of my employer has been attacked by Windows-only > >> viruses, worms and so on in that same period of time. > > > >This clapped out Windows 2000 computer gets something almost every week, and > >that's with a so-called "anti-virus" program running ... and even when you > >run scan from various software the malware isn't spotted or removed. > > Then something is wrong with your computer. > Mine haven't gotten anything is years. Yep, there's definitely something wrong with this computer ... it's running a Microsoft operating systm. :-p > >In fact, the only product I've found so far that actually does what it says on > >the tin, find and remove malware, is called "Unhackme". > > I use and recommend Microsoft Security Essentials. This is a Windows 2000 machine, so I don't know if that will even run, but Microsoft's other malware cleaner doesn't do any better than any of the other "security" software I've tried. |