Classic Shell


J

Jukka Lahtinen

Ken Springer said:
Linux, OTOH, is a different story. There, it makes a huge difference,
IMO, in which version of Linux you try. You can get a Linux "distro" that
looks like XP, or OS X, or some other flavor. I hear the current Ubuntu
I think it's not much about which distro you use, but which X11 desktop
you use with it (KDE, Gnome, something else..).
 
Ad

Advertisements

K

Ken Springer

I think it's not much about which distro you use, but which X11 desktop
you use with it (KDE, Gnome, something else..).
Agreed, I just didn't want to go into how Linux works for this thread.


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.4
Firefox 22.0
Thunderbird 17.0.7
LibreOffice 4.0.4.2
 
Z

Zaphod Beeblebrox

My desktop is not a fondleslab nor will it ever be!
Do I detect a fellow El Reg reader?

--
Zaphod

Adventurer, ex-hippie, good-timer (crook? quite possibly),
manic self-publicist, terrible bad at personal relationships,
often thought to be completely out to lunch.
 
K

Ken Blake

On 7/14/13 5:42 PM, Ken Blake wrote:

I think it would be a mistake to judge today's Macs with what you saw 10
years ago. Sort of like comparing XP to 8.

OK, thanks for the info. I didn't realize how much it had changed (and
that shows how little I know about it).
 
W

Wildman

Do I detect a fellow El Reg reader?
I do occasionally but I first heard the term
"fondleslab" from Big Bad Bob over in alt.hacker.
It is a white hat group and I highly recommend
it.
 
K

Ken Springer

OK, thanks for the info. I didn't realize how much it had changed (and
that shows how little I know about it).
I first saw OS X as 10.2 Jaguar on a system my mother bought, wasn't
terribly impressed. 10.8 Mountain Lion has a lot more features.

One thing that Apple hasn't done, which may lead people to think there
isn't much difference between each OS version, is change the UI design
like MS has. So to that casual observer, they may not notice much
difference between Jaguar and Mountain Lion. And the same UI design is
the same for the upcoming Mavericks.

But the more I play with XP, Vista, Win 7, and Win 8, the more I notice
that the big changes aren't as big as the hype suggests to me. I think
much of that change is in the UI, but each new version has added a few
things. And some of the hype is, IMO, bordering on fraud. Libraries,
for instance. When I saw them, and read the "soundbites", I thought
"This is really something!" Then I got into it, figured it out, and
discovered that 1) it just gave you a different way of viewing your HD
contents, 2) it certainly doesn't work like a genuine library down the
street which I expected, and 3) you can create the libraries' functions
using folders and shortcuts all the way back to W4WG. Not as elegantly
as the different "views" in a folder don't exist, but the basic
functions can be done.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying OS X is the best thing since sliced
bread. Win 7 wins easily in speech recognition, IMO, and I sorely miss
the tree view in Windows Explorer's Navigation Pane.


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.4
Firefox 22.0
Thunderbird 17.0.7
LibreOffice 4.0.4.2
 
Ad

Advertisements

K

Ken Blake

I first saw OS X as 10.2 Jaguar on a system my mother bought, wasn't
terribly impressed. 10.8 Mountain Lion has a lot more features.

One thing that Apple hasn't done, which may lead people to think there
isn't much difference between each OS version, is change the UI design
like MS has.

I'm confused now. Ten years ago I couldn't do anything with it, but
you say that today I could? And the UI hasn't changed much? Or am I
misunderstanding you?

So to that casual observer, they may not notice much
difference between Jaguar and Mountain Lion. And the same UI design is
the same for the upcoming Mavericks.

But the more I play with XP, Vista, Win 7, and Win 8, the more I notice
that the big changes aren't as big as the hype suggests to me. I think
much of that change is in the UI, but each new version has added a few
things. And some of the hype is, IMO, bordering on fraud.

I don't think I would call it fraud, but I agree that it's certainly
extreme hype. I don't like hype in any company, but it particularly
bothers me in Microsoft.


Libraries,
for instance. When I saw them, and read the "soundbites", I thought
"This is really something!" Then I got into it, figured it out, and
discovered that 1) it just gave you a different way of viewing your HD
contents, 2) it certainly doesn't work like a genuine library down the
street which I expected, and 3) you can create the libraries' functions
using folders and shortcuts all the way back to W4WG. Not as elegantly
as the different "views" in a folder don't exist, but the basic
functions can be done.

Yes, yep, and yep!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying OS X is the best thing since sliced
bread. Win 7 wins easily in speech recognition, IMO, and I sorely miss
the tree view in Windows Explorer's Navigation Pane.

No comment. I know nowhere near enough about the Macintosh to compare
them.
 
W

Wolf K

On 2013-07-15 4:33 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
[...]
No comment. I know nowhere near enough about the Macintosh to compare
them.
The "I couldn't/can't fix it" syndrome is the Apple way. They don't want
the customer messing with the machines.

The main differences between Windows and OS-X
are:
a) it's difficult to get under the hood of OS-X;
b) there is very little 3rd party software in OS-X, so that very few of
the deficiencies can be fixed by installing something a fellow sufferer
has written;

If you detect a bias, you're right. I owned a G-4 PowerBook some years
ago. I now have an iPad loaned me for my work on a board. Both machines
are underpowered and overpriced.

Have a good day.
 
K

Ken Springer

I'm confused now. Ten years ago I couldn't do anything with it, but
you say that today I could? And the UI hasn't changed much? Or am I
misunderstanding you?
I think you could do it if you sat down with the attitude that you can
do it. And that you will do it or die trying. LOL A lot of people
just don't seem too interested in keeping at it (it being anything
unfamiliar to them, even though it's similar to what they know) until
things start to dawn on them. It kind of goes back to your first
computer, how much did you know then? And once you start getting a
handle on the terminology, I.E. a shortcut in Windows is the alias in OS
X, most things fall into place. The sidebar in the Finder is the
Navigation Pane in Windows Explorer.

Take a hard drive, for instance. The tech end of how the data is stored
on the HD is different, but the reality is the data is still stored in a
hierarchical manner. OS X just displays it visually in a manner that is
different from Windows. I wish this was a binary newsgroup, then I
could include a screen shots of Win 7 and OS X displaying the same HD
contents.

I can read and write to a FAT formatted drive natively. I can format a
FAT drive. I can read NTFS natively. Can you read HFS+ formatted
drives? With 3rd party software, which I've installed, I can read,
write, and format NTFS. I have an NTFS USB drive attached right now I
read and write to regularly.

Common keyboard shortcuts are eerily the same. Switch CTRL key to
Command key (used to be called Open Apple key) and common things like
Save, Open, Copy, etc. are the exact same steps.
I don't think I would call it fraud, but I agree that it's certainly
extreme hype. I don't like hype in any company, but it particularly
bothers me in Microsoft.
I think Apple is just as bad. :-( Their website claims Mountain Lion
is the most powerful OS in the world. And, it may be if you are the
command line level. But at the GUI/UI level, I'd say no. For instance,
using the UI, there is no Move command like you find in Windows. But
the command does exist. A file management program I have uses that
command. But Apple doesn't like that (clearly stated on the program's
website), so you won't find it in the Apple Store. I'm still looking,
but it seems that the truly powerful apps for OS X aren't likely to be
found on the App Store.

And I fear MS will do the same thing, so their OS can be used
identically on the desktop and tablet/smartphone at the same time, and
take computing power away from the desktop user.
Yes, yep, and yep!




No comment. I know nowhere near enough about the Macintosh to compare
them.
Apple is very into the cloud. I prefer to be ground based! LOL
Anyway...

Apple's system is called dictation. Downside is, you can only read in X
number of words, and the system then stops accepting more speech, you
send your speech (yes, you have to manually send it, of all the dumba$$
things) to an Apple server, when returns the text to your computer into
the active window. Win7 does everything on the computer. Keep reading,
and after the system is trained to your voice, it just keeps typing. In
my testing Win 7 was faster in my virtual machine that OS X was natively.

As for the tree view, adding that display is the second most requested
feature of the file management software I mentioned above. I have hopes
they will include it.


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.4
Firefox 22.0
Thunderbird 17.0.7
LibreOffice 4.0.4.2
 
P

(PeteCresswell)

Per Wolf K:
a) it's difficult to get under the hood of OS-X;
b) there is very little 3rd party software in OS-X, so that very few of
the deficiencies can be fixed by installing something a fellow sufferer
has written;
c) There's only one way to size a window under OS-X. There are
several under Windows.
 
K

Ken Springer

On 2013-07-15 4:33 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
[...]
No comment. I know nowhere near enough about the Macintosh to compare
them.
The "I couldn't/can't fix it" syndrome is the Apple way. They don't want
the customer messing with the machines.

The main differences between Windows and OS-X
are:
a) it's difficult to get under the hood of OS-X;
Maybe not. According to the programming types in my Mac Group
(assembly, Drupal, Python, Unix that I know of), if you know your Unix,
and use Terminal, it's not that hard. From the GUI/UI, I agree.
b) there is very little 3rd party software in OS-X, so that very few of
the deficiencies can be fixed by installing something a fellow sufferer
has written;
Agreed, there's less 3rd party software. On the flip side, just how
many DVD players do you need? LOL

On the serious side, I think Apple's avoidance of the business markets
have hurt the system. When you mention CAD software, you tend to think
of AutoCAD. Did you know there are versions for the Mac? And since
there are fewer Mac users, less demand for the 3rd party software.
If you detect a bias, you're right. I owned a G-4 PowerBook some years
ago. I now have an iPad loaned me for my work on a board. Both machines
are underpowered and overpriced.
I think anyone who expects a tablet and/or smartphone to have the power
of a computer also would buy beach front property in Arizona, USA! LOL

When you say underpowered for the iPad, what about Windows based
netbooks? They are no barnburners, that's for sure. But I've heard
that if you put a Linux distro built for a netbook on a netbook, it will
scream. So, is the power situation one of hardware, the OS
requirements, or both? I would lean to both.

Overpriced... Maybe, maybe not. What frustrates me is when I read a
thread that discusses that aspect, without providing detailed
comparative proof. Elsewhere, I've seen where John Doe makes that
claim, but when you take the systems apart, you find the Windows machine
has lower quality and/or lower capacity components. Things like a 500Gb
HD for the Windows example, where the Apple example has a 1 TB drive.
Or drives with lower MTBF numbers, etc. Which makes for an unfair
comparison. In some posts, the poster actually priced equivalent
hardware components for the Windows machine, and that huge price
difference wasn't so huge. You can't get exact matches due to
proprietary Apple components. Which makes it hard, I think, to build
the Hackintosh.

What about the cost of the OS itself? Apple doesn't have multiple
levels of the OS like MS. But, Mountain Lion from Apple is $20. Win 8
starts at $120. Same for Win 7.
Have a good day.

--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.4
Firefox 22.0
Thunderbird 17.0.7
LibreOffice 4.0.4.2
 
Ad

Advertisements

K

Ken Springer

Per Wolf K:

c) There's only one way to size a window under OS-X. There are
several under Windows.
Not with Mountain Lion. You can grab all 3 corners and the 4 sides.
The 4th corner gives you the full screen view of a properly written app
for Mountain Lion.


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.4
Firefox 22.0
Thunderbird 17.0.7
LibreOffice 4.0.4.2
 
P

Paul

Wolf said:
On 2013-07-15 4:33 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
[...]
No comment. I know nowhere near enough about the Macintosh to compare
them.
The "I couldn't/can't fix it" syndrome is the Apple way. They don't want
the customer messing with the machines.

The main differences between Windows and OS-X
are:
a) it's difficult to get under the hood of OS-X;
This is... Untrue.

Have you heard of the Terminal application in MacOSX ?
That's how you "get under the hood".

What's underneath the hood, is partially exposed in this article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system)

Mach 3 microkernel, various elements of BSD
(including the process model, network stack, and virtual file system)

So in many ways, it's like a BSD OS. And there are a whole
set of Unix-like commands you can use in the terminal.
/bin/ls is there. You can use the usual process status calls.
I even use the Terminal to issue "kill -9 <pid>" to pick out
and remove running processes.

You can run "top" to give you the equivalent of Task Manager.

This is one of the OSes best features, is its dual nature.
The GUI for people who want it. The command line, for those
who don't.

The bad parts of it, would be the choice of file system,
but that's only because I don't have good tools for working
with the file system, from my other OSes. Just the other day
though, I was able to take an image of the machine (Sector by
sector copy of two 40GB hard drives) over to my PC, and
successfully extract files from them, using Linux. So I did
figure it out.

As another example, you can use "Fink ports" to bring ported
programs into MacOSX. I have a Fink tree on my machine (haven't
used it, for a long time).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fink

The environment is a lot richer than you think.

Here, a user in the terminal, looks at some Fink options.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fink-MacOSX-Terminal.png

*******

The original MacOS (up to version 9.x or so), is monolithic.
But even for that one, we used MacsBug to do minor surgery
when things broke. That's what made the older machines
tolerable to use at work. The older OS would crash about
once a day, back then.

The older OS, on a black and white machine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apple_Macintosh_Desktop.png

And MacsBug, for when the cooperative multitasking fails. When
a program crashed, you'd try things like "g finder" to get
away from the crashed app, and get back to the Finder. Then
save your open files, and reboot. Macsbug has a very nice
manual, built into the interface.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d8/MacsBug_6.6.3_Screenshot.png

The new OS, version 10, is a complete rewrite, and internally,
shares next to nothing with the old OS. It has menus at the
top, like the old OS, but also has icons at the bottom. For
launching, or for monitoring purposes (you can tell what is
running, by looking down there).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mac_OS_X_Screenshot.png

It uses pre-emptive multitasking, just like Windows/Linux/BSD.
An application can crash, and have no impact on the rest of
the OS. While debuggers are available, I don't think I've
ever used one there.

Once you get into the Terminal, you'll find all the usual
Unix commands. And the ability to build out the Unix side
if you want. There are even ways to run XWindows programs
on the machine. Even if you don't read the text of this
article, the icon in the top right corner tells you
all you need to know. This isn't the old MacOS.

http://www.nbcs.rutgers.edu/newdocs/mac004/mac004.php3

Using Connectix VirtualPC, I've even run Windows on that
Mac (Win2K). Just about anything is possible over there. The
only thing my particular Mac doesn't have, is a
fast processor.

And that's where the attraction of my PCs comes in...

Paul
 
K

Ken Blake

On 7/15/13 2:33 PM, Ken Blake wrote:

I think you could do it if you sat down with the attitude that you can
do it.

Could I if I worked hard enough at it? Yes, I'm sure I could. I have a
lot of confidence in my abilities with these things. My point was that
I start out knowing next to nothing and I would have to learn a lot
(or experience a lot) before I could do anything.

It's not really any different from the first PC I owned (in 1987). It
took a week or two before I learned enough about DOS to be able to do
what I wanted.

But I had a good teacher--my son, who had a year or so's experience
with PCs. It was wonderful to have this backwards teacher-student
relationship with him. I learned a lot from him and our relationship
improved dramatically.

And that you will do it or die trying.

An overstatement, but I understand what you mean.

LOL A lot of people
just don't seem too interested in keeping at it (it being anything
unfamiliar to them, even though it's similar to what they know) until
things start to dawn on them.

I'm one of those who isn't interested. It has nothing to do with its
being anything unfamiliar to me. Rather, I've never had any real
interested in any of Apple's products. If there were no Windows and
the Macintosh were my only choice, it would be a different situation.
Or if I had learned Apple first rather than the PC, I might be a
Macintosh user today, rather than a Windows one.

It kind of goes back to your first
computer, how much did you know then?

Actually much more than you think (assuming that you are talking about
the first computer I worked on, rather than the first one I owned). It
was an IBM 1401, in 1962, and my first job in the computer field was
as a programmer on it. I knew a lot, since I had just finished a
course on programming it.

And once you start getting a
handle on the terminology, I.E. a shortcut in Windows is the alias in OS
X, most things fall into place. The sidebar in the Finder is the
Navigation Pane in Windows Explorer.

Good points, thanks.

Take a hard drive, for instance. The tech end of how the data is stored
on the HD is different, but the reality is the data is still stored in a
hierarchical manner. OS X just displays it visually in a manner that is
different from Windows. I wish this was a binary newsgroup, then I
could include a screen shots of Win 7 and OS X displaying the same HD
contents.

Not necessary. I understand and appreciate your points.

I think Apple is just as bad. :-(

Perhaps so. But since I have no interest in Apple and don't deal with
them in any way, it doesn't bother me nearly as much.

There are probably lots of other companies (not necessarily computer
companies) that are also just as bad. But I don't know a lot about
most of them; the ones that bother me the most are the ones I deal
with all the time.
 
W

Wolf K

Wolf said:
On 2013-07-15 4:33 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
[...]
No comment. I know nowhere near enough about the Macintosh to compare
them.
The "I couldn't/can't fix it" syndrome is the Apple way. They don't
want the customer messing with the machines.

The main differences between Windows and OS-X
are:
a) it's difficult to get under the hood of OS-X;
This is... Untrue.
[snip lengthy lesson in how to do it]

True, Terminal is how you get under the hood. I know that. And you can
use your Unix knowledge to figure out how fix OS-X so it behaves how you
want it. I know that, too.

That's why I said it was difficult.
 
W

Wolf K

I think anyone who expects a tablet and/or smartphone to have the power
of a computer also would buy beach front property in Arizona, USA! LOL
But I do expect a tablet to have the power of a laptop. And I expect it
will happen within a couple of years. Or less. A tablet already has more
power than the average PC/Mac of around 10 years ago.
When you say underpowered for the iPad, what about Windows based
netbooks? They are no barnburners, that's for sure. But I've heard
that if you put a Linux distro built for a netbook on a netbook, it will
scream. So, is the power situation one of hardware, the OS
requirements, or both? I would lean to both.
Agreed.
 
Ad

Advertisements

K

Ken Springer

But I do expect a tablet to have the power of a laptop. And I expect it
will happen within a couple of years. Or less. A tablet already has more
power than the average PC/Mac of around 10 years ago.
And what kind of power could a desktop have by then? <BG> I don't care
for laptops, hate the #$^%@%&$#*& keyboards! But am considering a
tablet of some type, more as an ereader than anything else. Leaning
towards an iPad Mini, not because it's Apple, but due to the size plus
high screen resolution.

--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.4
Firefox 22.0
Thunderbird 17.0.7
LibreOffice 4.0.4.2
 
X

XS11E

Ken Springer said:
The Win 8 Metro UI, or whatever they are calling it now, is
something that doesn't seem to fit anywhere unless you have
tablet/smartphone experience.
I have tablet/smartphone experience so I'll tell you my experiences
with the Metro UI. I got an HTC HD2, probably the most flexible
smartphone ever made IMHO. It came with Windows Mobile 6.5, a
perfectly usable OS but I was always willing to experiment so I went to
XDA Developers <http://forum.xda-developers.com/forumdisplay.php?f=531>
and found someone had set up a Windows Phone 7 ROM for it. I tried it
and really didn't like it at all so I flashed it back to WinMobile 6.5
and then flashed it to Android (see why I say it's the most flexible
phone EVER? It'll also run Ubuntu and Meego, just pick the one you
like!)

The phone remained Android or WinMobile 6.5 for as long as I used it.
Windows Phone 7 was the first to experiment with the so-called Metro
interface and I found it clumsy, awkward, generally annoying and non-
intuitive, a huge deprovement over WinMobile 6.5 which worked very
nicely.

The above pretty much covers my feelings for Windows 8 w/o Classic
Shell.
 
X

XS11E

Ken Springer said:
I've seen screenshots of Start8, but I'm not a big fan of Win 7's
Start Menu.
I won't use Win7's Start Menu, I use Classic Shell on Win7 as well.
 
Ad

Advertisements

X

XS11E

Ken Springer said:
I think anyone who expects a tablet and/or smartphone to have the
power of a computer also would buy beach front property in
Arizona, USA! LOL
Don't laugh, we're waiting for the San Andreas fault to slip!
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top