What separates a Mac from a PC?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

Is this a joke?
If I can just look at something and see it, without having to click to see it, the thing that requires no clicking is more efficient...

I think we're talking about different things here.

I'm not sure that I did, perhaps you're using terms and you don't understand what they mean, which can be confusing?

Can't resist it can you?

Agathon, think about it. If you only have one menubar shared between all the windows, you need to click on a window, then move all the way up to the top of the screen to access the menu. In Windows, the menu (quite logically) is drawn on the window it controls. Not only does this save clicking time, it saves space. Not a single Windows user I've ever seen had problems locating the menu bar because it wasn't at the very top of the screen.

Fitt's law.

[QUOTE]I've foiled most of it.[QUOTE]

Jesus, you are a serial bull****ter. Half the stuff you accused X of not being able to do it can do, and you employed your usual strategy of not talking about the stuff your beat at. My favourite is the "two icons take up less space than one" argument.

Your roommate's a pretty bright guy.

I should say so, a lot brighter than you...

Your roommate probably doesn't realize that you can configure XP to look and behave exactly like Win2K, with added stability.

I'd be willing to bet that he knows more about it than you do.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Only if you give XP more credit than it deserves in the anti-aliasing-sub-rendering section and completely ignore the font quality-quantity and font previewing sections.

Huh??
What the end-user sees is after the anti-aliasing-sub-rendering is done. Why does he deduct marks before then? I don't understand why you think that's relevant or fair.

I also don't really get your font selection beef, because font install is painless on Windows and there's no shortage of .ttf files out on the 'net.

I would consider Apple's inability to anti-alias below size 8 font a big turnoff though, seeing as Windows handles it flawlessly.

[Drake Tungsten]

Don't crow too hard. That was on a G3/300 which is slower than my machine (which is getting pretty old now). If you try it on one of the new G4s the result is rather different.

Asher conveniently left out this disclaimer located right below the graphics he used:

"Keep in mind that these illustrations are generalizations. Both OSes do not behave as depicted above in all cases. For instance, my PowerBook G4 400Mhz was perfectly responsive when scrolling. And I have also witnessed XP being less responzive than depicted here. However in general the illustrations above accurately demonstrate a tendency in Mac OS X to be less responsive than Windows XP. "

[Drake Tungsten]

I would consider Apple's inability to anti-alias below size 8 font a big turnoff though, seeing as Windows handles it flawlessly.

There you go making stuff up again. It isn't that OS X can't anti-alias below size 8; on the default settings, the OS doesn't turn anti-aliasing at sizes that small. If you want the anti-aliasing on, you just adjust the minimum size cut-off.

Why don't you get your facts straight instead making up things?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
I think we're talking about different things here.

Only when it's convenient for you.

Fitt's law.

Oh, don't even try that. I know that you only know about Fitts' Law from what you read on that site (and it is Fitts' law, not Fitt's law, BTW)

And I don't understand why you think this illustrates your point. Fitts' law is a function of distance and size, and if you have to click on a window and then drag the mouse up to the top of the screen, the distance is going to be far greater. Fitts' law proves my point, not yours.

I'd be willing to bet that he knows more about it than you do.

That sounds like a challenge. Hook me up with his ICQ/MSN/AIM whatever, we'll have a little geekfest.

How much do you want to wager? You can paypal it to me.

[Zero]

My laptop has a problem with freezing up. But since XP technically "never freezes" up (well thats not true) it just runs realllllllly slow. (mouse pointer jumping to places and all). Ive never figure out if this is XP problem, vid card problem or CPU overheating or something. First I thoguht it was a vid card because the update in driver addressed a similar issue on the changes, but after uypdating the driver it still continued to freeze up randomly.

I just gave up on isolating the issue and just put my laptop on sleep mode and turn it back on. It happens very rarely (1~2 times a day) and takes about 10 seconds to fix the problem. (I close the laptop and open it backup so it can go into sleep mode and come back out )

If you guys can tell me if theres any issues related to XP that causes this problem itd be appreciated.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
There you go making stuff up again. It isn't that OS X can't anti-alias below size 8; on the default settings, the OS doesn't turn anti-aliasing at sizes that small. If you want the anti-aliasing on, you just adjust the minimum size cut-off.

Why don't you get your facts straight instead making up things?

Why do you think Apple disabled anti-aliasing below size 8, Drakey?

It's based on a primitive version of ClearType, it just looks like a blurry mess that small.

Try it yourself, take a screenshot & share with us.

[Drake Tungsten]

Why do you think Apple disabled anti-aliasing below size 8, Drakey?

It isn't disabled. You can turn it on anytime you want.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
It isn't disabled. You can turn it on anytime you want.

Disabled by default, silly. (That should have been painfully obvious that it's what I meant, since I told you in the same post to turn it on below size 8 and take a screenshot...but whatever )

And quit delaying, try it and take a screenshot.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

Why does it matter? Why would Apple force you to move all of the files (how long does that take, btw) into a folder, then delete the folder, to get sane delete times? This is perhaps the best quote by you yet in this thread.

This is why you are full of sh*t - You deliberately ignored the context and then claimed victory. The point is that the comparison is between the two systems doing something that you wouldn't want to do anyway, for reasons of efficiency.

I'll spell it out so everyone can see how you ignored the context (and you didn't bother seeing the caveat about doing it from the command line either - since X whipped XPs ass on this one).

FACT: X is slower than XP at deleting large numbers of files when these are selected as a group.

FACT: Moving the same number of files into a folder in X is instantaneous.

FACT: Deleting a single folder is, according to the report, instantaneous on both systems.

CONCLUSION: since any idiot will want to delete them as quickly as possible it makes sense on both systems to move them into a folder and delete that since it's instantaneous in both cases. So the speed difference doesn't have any practical value.

I don't know, GUI responsiveness and filesystem responsiveness are huge deals to me, why do you dismiss them as cheap shots?

It's a cheap shot because the comparison was done on a computer which is at the very low end of systems that can run X. If you were to run it on a G4 the performance would be much better due to the fact that the system takes advantage of the G4 only features. Older computers like mine can't take advantage of this stuff.

And how do you explain the lack of a disk defragmenter?

Apparently it doesn't need one. At least I haven't seen scores of X users foaming at the mouth to get hold of one, which would indicate such a need. The system does various cleanups when you leave it on. There are free apps to do this sort of stuff if you don't leave it on.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Don't crow too hard. That was on a G3/300 which is slower than my machine (which is getting pretty old now). If you try it on one of the new G4s the result is rather different.

Asher conveniently left out this disclaimer located right below the graphics he used:

"Keep in mind that these illustrations are generalizations. Both OSes do not behave as depicted above in all cases. For instance, my PowerBook G4 400Mhz was perfectly responsive when scrolling. And I have also witnessed XP being less responzive than depicted here. However in general the illustrations above accurately demonstrate a tendency in Mac OS X to be less responsive than Windows XP. "

Exactly.

[Drake Tungsten]

Why would I expend the effort to take a screenshot when you're the one who's wrong? You don't know what you're talking about and trying to score points by claiming I'm "delaying" because I won't post a screenshot won't change that.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
This is why you are full of sh*t

No, it's why you are. You once again swerved around the issue and blindly made other attacks.

CONCLUSION: since any idiot will want to delete them as quickly as possible it makes sense on both systems to move them into a folder and delete that since it's instantaneous in both cases. So the speed difference doesn't have any practical value.

CONCLUSION: You're avoiding it -- why is OS X so painfully slow at batch-deleting files and XP is not? Why don't you admit Apple has somw slow-ass code and save yourself, rather than finding excuses and ways to get around it?

I think it's ridiculous to force people to make a folder, move files, then delete the folder to get under 7 minute delete times when XP does the same operation in a matter of seconds.

It's a cheap shot because the comparison was done on a computer which is at the very low end of systems that can run X. If you were to run it on a G4 the performance would be much better due to the fact that the system takes advantage of the G4 only features. Older computers like mine can't take advantage of this stuff.

Bull****, the G4 is a G3 with AltiVec, and stuff like window scrolling and resizing doesn't use AltiVec because it can't be vectorized. The only advantage is the clockspeed, so if you do use a high-speed G4, you would get better responses, I suppose.

But I've noticed the responses very slow on my friend's iBook, although that's a G3 too. So I don't see why it's not relevant, since Apple still sells G3s...

Apparently it doesn't need one.

That's a huge crock of ****. Every filesystem needs defragmenters if you ever delete files or not.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

And I don't understand why you think this illustrates your point. Fitts' law is a function of distance and size, and if you have to click on a window and then drag the mouse up to the top of the screen, the distance is going to be far greater. Fitts' law proves my point, not yours.

No. It's easier to capture things that are at the edge of the screen. Go have a look at asktog.com. I did read somewhere a while back that having the menubar at the top was something that MS couldn't steal since the copyright was upheld.

That sounds like a challenge. Hook me up with his ICQ/MSN/AIM whatever, we'll have a little geekfest.

You think I'm going to set him up with you.

He's completed his degree with skyhigh marks, that at least is a prima facie case that he's better than you, Mr undergraduate.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Why would I expend the effort to take a screenshot when you're the one who's wrong? You don't know what you're talking about and trying to score points by claiming I'm "delaying" because I won't post a screenshot won't change that.

How am I wrong?

Apple disabled anti-aliasing below size 8 because it looks like ass with their version of ClearType.

Is that why you're refusing to take a screenshot, to prove me right?