I hate sodding Windows XP and I hate PCs
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Trooper on 21 May 2010 10:00 TOG(a)Toil wrote: > On 21 May, 10:07, thewildro...(a)me.com (Andy Hewitt) wrote: > >> So, you like the 'ribbons' then? ;-) >> > > Huh? The what? > > Bear in mind that for the last 16 years I have been 100% Mac at home > and work. I have hardly ever used a PC in all that time. So to say I'm > unfamiliar with the Windows way of doing things is an understatement. > And now I've been thrown in at the deep end, and while some of my > dislike is due to sheer unfamiliarity, there is *so much* about it > that is counter-intuitive. To be fair though, I felt exactly the same when I first used OSX. It's just what you are used to... These days i'm perfectly happy in either Windows or OSX. T.
From: Woody on 21 May 2010 10:01 On 21/05/2010 14:15, Chris Ridd wrote: > On 2010-05-21 14:04:14 +0100, Andy Hewitt said: > >> Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> On 21/05/2010 11:12, Andy Hewitt wrote: >>>> Jim<jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: >> [..] >>>> Yeah, it's one of those things that just didn't need fixing, IMHO. >>> >>> I am in the unique 'I don't mind it' catagory. >>> >>> But then I don't use office much, and when I do I use the 10% that is >>> easy enough to get from the ribbon! >> >> I find I either use the 2% that was in the old toolbar, or I need >> something obscure that's not in any of the toolbars/ribbons. > > I'm baffled that people need toolbar buttons to do things like > copy/paste, or even save/print. The keyboard shortcuts for these have > been pretty standard for 20 or so years, haven't they? Do you mean paste or 'paste special' I like the styles section, the colour sections and the breaking and margins, which is all I use. -- Woody
From: T i m on 21 May 2010 11:20 On Fri, 21 May 2010 14:19:30 +0100, chris <ithinkiam(a)gmail.com> wrote: >I'm surprised I haven't seen T I M in this thread? Hmmm.... <waves> You haven't because I sense TOG's pain and in spite of what you may have misunderstood otherwise, I'm no Windows advocate ('it works for *me*' yada yada). However, I do know how frustrating it is / was when just trying to go from Windows to Mac and that's with me dealing with them on and off over many years and with no real workload as such. As he says, the difficulty of not being able to do tasks simply and easily (even if it's just because it's not what you know) is bad enough, having that forced on you at work (rather than joining a company knowing how it was) is even worse. And I've never been a typist hence have no knowledge of this 'Word' of which he speaks. ;-) The final fly in the ointment is that whilst this change from Macs may make sense from a Corporate POV (I know, bizarre or what?) in many cases there no real reason why these small pockets of very productive, low cost of ownership people can't simply carry on doing what they have been doing efficiently for years. Cheers, T i m
From: Paul Grayson on 21 May 2010 17:44 On May 21, 1:29 pm, Bruce Horrocks <07....(a)scorecrow.com> wrote: > I had the joy, once, of spending about 3 weeks trying to see if it was > possible to program a GUI interface to the relational database that we > were using at the time. The machine was a Compaq stuffed with *2MBytes* > of extended memory, which was 'awesome' for the time. Needless to say it > never worked - something to do with the RDBMS drivers expecting to be in > High Memory and Windows shifting the drivers out of there into extended > memory and then failing to emulate it properly, or some such. Oh the > pleasures of developing under DOS. The problem we had was that many of these DOS drivers used up large portions of real memory, and if too much was in use Windows simply wouldn't function. Some Windows hardware drivers also used up real memory, making things worse, in particular HP's printer drivers. (Real memory was first 640K of RAM used by DOS). Using memory managers to move TSRs and the like did sometimes help, but as posted elsewhere this wasn't always practical with some big drivers.
From: Jaimie Vandenbergh on 21 May 2010 21:05
On Fri, 21 May 2010 14:44:43 -0700 (PDT), Paul Grayson <1810paulg(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >On May 21, 1:29�pm, Bruce Horrocks <07....(a)scorecrow.com> wrote: > >> I had the joy, once, of spending about 3 weeks trying to see if it was >> possible to program a GUI interface to the relational database that we >> were using at the time. The machine was a Compaq stuffed with *2MBytes* >> of extended memory, which was 'awesome' for the time. Needless to say it >> never worked - something to do with the RDBMS drivers expecting to be in >> High Memory and Windows shifting the drivers out of there into extended >> memory and then failing to emulate it properly, or some such. Oh the >> pleasures of developing under DOS. > >The problem we had was that many of these DOS drivers used up large >portions of real memory, and if too much was in use Windows simply >wouldn't function. Some Windows hardware drivers also used up real >memory, making things worse, in particular HP's printer drivers. (Real >memory was first 640K of RAM used by DOS). Using memory managers to >move TSRs and the like did sometimes help, but as posted elsewhere >this wasn't always practical with some big drivers. To knock this around the other way, the old MacOS trouble of experimentally resolving extension conflicts was pretty similar (though less text based) to twiddling with the entries in config.sys and autoexec.bat. I disliked MacOS. Horrid single-user system with lousy memory management, and crashy with it. Cheers - Jaimie -- I hope I live long enough to vindicate my pessimism -- http://www.boasas.com/?c=1108 |