I has Windows 7

[Righ]

is there any genuine reason why there is no full-screen maximize button on Macs? 

No.

The green button seems to only maximize to what it wants.  Annoyance!

Yes that's fucked up.

http://www.blazingtools.com/mac/RightZoom.zip

[Trippy]

Combining an application's windows into one taskbar button fills me with rage, though - for me, knowing the position of an icon on the bar is more important than being able to read its text. Same reason new Firefox tabs always have to be placed at the end of the bar, not next to the current tab. I guess this is less universal than I thought.

Spatiality is very important (something Mac OS X violates constantly) but you can still have that with grouped windows if you have a way of rearranging them. I.e. I have multiple browser windows open cause I have so many tabs open at once I can't fit them all without them scrolling (Firefox) or being too small (Opera). But I always have the "f13" browser window as the bottom window on my list of browser windows. Next up the list is my "news" window, and so on. So I can see all my browser window titles in the list and they are all arranged in the order I prefer them in.

[ezrast]

Heh, I will have two full rows of favicon-width tabs rather than open up a new Firefox window (Tab Mix Plus lets excess tabs form a second row instead of scrolling). I guess I just have an aversion to things requiring more than one click to focus (even though at that point it often takes me a couple tries to find the right tab anyway), or maybe I just need to see individual icons for everything I have open, all the time.

Or it might be because that's how I've always done it, and change is discomforting.

edit: Attempting to rerail; have you looked much at the control panel, services manager, and other administrative tools stuff? Any significant changes?

[Engels]

I had  herad on Security Now that there's a Tree Style gadget for Vista. Do I have this mixed up with Firefox Tree Style tab?

[Kitsune]

I can't find anything for giving Vista a tree layout, so I'm guessing that's probably the firefox addon you're remembering.

7's control panel is essentially the same as Vista's.  They've streamlined a bit, but you're still better off summoning the control panel and typing what you're looking for (the cursor's already in the search box when the control panel comes up) than trying to wade through the nested links.  Apple definitely beats Microsoft in control panel elegance, no question.

Services, task manager, computer management, all pretty identical to Vista's.  Have yet to spot any differences.

[Sky]

In XP, I started most programs off the desktop.  Wading into the start menu was obnoxious, and fuck that quick launch thing on the taskbar; it took up space I needed for the buttons of the programs I was running.

I like to alias folders to the quicklaunch, drop shortcuts into the folder. Click the folder mouse up to the app's shortcut and bam. I use short folder names and it's pretty clean. OSX is decent with this, though they changed the functionality a bit it still works well. I really like a more dock-like setup, there's such a disconnect between work and home for me (osx and xp).

I disagree with most of that list of why the dock sucks. I love the dock, on a widescreen monitor I have it set to the perfect size and I use custom icons. The thing where 10.5 shows you the first icon in the folder? Right click: Display as Folder (instead of Stack), shows the folder icon instead. Kitsune, my supervisor loves to load up his dock, he also runs so much shareware and every app gadget in the world, I basically can't use his computer. Functionally, mine runs pretty stock as do the macs of everyone but that one guy, just some tweaks to tame the dock (and that's less work than setting up Windows to behave properly).

Full-screen maximize, I'll give you that one. That'd be nice. Green button does have a logic to it, though. It will fill out the screen, less the dock and menu bar, unless the document is smaller than the screen (say, a Word page), then it will size to the document.

[Kitsune]

I like OS X.  I just bought a Vostro A90 netbook a few minutes ago, and the first thing I'm doing after I double its RAM and quadruple its storage space is set the little fucker up to dual-boot Windows 7 and OS 10.  I think Apple as a company is sleazy, but I do like their products.  A lot of customers are surprised that I support macs, figuring that I'm obligated to be all 'Raargh, Hulk SMASH puny macintosh!' for being a Microsoft partner, but that would be retarded.  It's in my best interest as a consultant to be able to support as wide a range of software and hardware as possible, so I keep in practice on macs to be sure I won't look like an idiot if someone has a broken mac and wants me to fix it.

[stray]

Sometimes they're sleazy, sometimes not. I don't know.. I like that Snow Leopard will only be $30, for example. While Microsoft, with all of their free bundled software, would probably try to pull some move and charge up the ass, and not only that, but come out with 5 different editions that confuse the hell out of everyone.

[Engels]

The irony is that if Apple just removed the hardware restriction on their OS, and let folks with 'ordinary' PCs install, they would probably wipe the floor with MS, at least with the younger crowd. But Apple has never been very far sighted.

[Trippy]

The irony is that if Apple just removed the hardware restriction on their OS, and let folks with 'ordinary' PCs install, they would probably wipe the floor with MS, at least with the younger crowd. But Apple has never been very far sighted.

Not going to happen anytime soon while Steve Jobs is still in control. He's the ultimate control freak. And yet, despite still selling only a minuscule number of PCs each year compared to the total PC market Apple's market cap is only ~25% less than Microsoft's (~$150 billion to ~$200 billion) so investors, at least, don't think Apple needs to massively grow its OS business.

Sometimes they're sleazy, sometimes not. I don't know.. I like that Snow Leopard will only be $30, for example. While Microsoft, with all of their free bundled software, would probably try to pull some move and charge up the ass, and not only that, but come out with 5 different editions that confuse the hell out of everyone.

The $29 upgrade price for Snow Leopard for Leopard users is an exception for Apple. Normally Apple doesn't even sell separate upgrade versions of its OS. Snow Leopard from the start, though, as its name implies was meant to be more of a "plumbing" upgrade to Leopard rather than having lots of new features as is normally the case for a major OS X release.

[stray]

Ah fair enough.

Although it should be said that they're pretty decent about Mac OS prices in general. Under $100 for Leopard, and I believe they've never went higher than $130 for any OS X release. That's a still a far cry from what Microsoft has ever done.

But like I said, both have their good and sleazy points.

[Kitsune]

They're never voluntarily going to give up control of the hardware because the hardware is where all their profit comes from, which is why they sue the fuck out of people trying to market mac clones.  Apple can afford to be great guys who only charge $100 for the OS, because they've already gotten $500 in profit when you bought the computer.  Microsoft gets $0.00 in profit from the hardware sale, so they charge more for their software.

For a month or so, Microsoft had a deal where the upgrade to 7 Home was $50.  The deal's gone now, but there's a strong rumor that they'll be bringing it back on the eve of the release date to try to stir up some excitement and tip some of the less-enthused into sales.

[Trippy]

Ah fair enough.

Although it should be said that they're pretty decent about Mac OS prices in general. Under $100 for Leopard, and I believe they've never went higher than $130 for any OS X release. That's a still a far cry from what Microsoft has ever done.

Mac OS X has been priced at $129 since at least 10.2, maybe even since the beginning. Apple also sells a 5-user "family pack" SKU that significantly lowers the per-computer price for the OS if you have more than one Mac. And unlike Microsoft there's always only one consumer version (there's a separate Server product).

Snow Leopard is a little weird in that its non-upgrade price is $169 but that's cause it includes iLife 09 and iWork 09, neither of which will run on Tiger or earlier versions (so there are no Tiger users that have iLife 09 and/or iWork 09 and would be "eating" that extra cost if they upgraded).

[stray]

Hey, that's a pretty damn good price too (the bundle, I mean).

[Tebonas]

You also forget the compatibility issues Apple would have to deal with once they let their OS roam free. A big part of it being stable is the fact that they don't have to make it run on every POS hardware.

[Big Gulp]

They're never voluntarily going to give up control of the hardware because the hardware is where all their profit comes from, which is why they sue the fuck out of people trying to market mac clones.

This is where Apple lacks vision.  If ever there was a moment to shake things up in their computer division, now's the time.  Considering that they're not so much a computer company anymore as they are an ipod/iphone company they finally have the cushion to experiment with releasing the OS into the wild.  As was said before, though, you've got Steve Jobs cockblocking it.

[Big Gulp]

A big part of it being stable is the fact that they don't have to make it run on every POS hardware.

That's kind of a damning statement about Apple's competence.  Microsoft has managed to keep their OS stable since Win2K.  Why couldn't Apple?

[Tebonas]

Maybe they could, but it would require work. Meaning more manpower. I suspect Apples resources are already spread quite thin. And they seem to have decided that would be more headache than its worth. Maybe their bean counters told them that the money invested and the perceived loss of stability isn't worth the earnings from the additionally sold copies of the OS.

If you ever worked in Customer support you know most critical errors in Windows are due to faulty drivers, most of the time by third party developers. And people will bitch at Microsoft if it happens, even if its not their fault. If they had the choice, they would love to only let the people use cerified drivers, leading to a much more stable OS.

[Sky]

Although it should be said that they're pretty decent about Mac OS prices in general. Under $100 for Leopard, and I believe they've never went higher than $130 for any OS X release. That's a still a far cry from what Microsoft has ever done.

But like I said, both have their good and sleazy points.

On the other hand, MS makes low-cost versions available to non-profits. I pay $20 for Office and $10 for XP Pro and Vista. Each point upgrade of OSX is $100 or so. See pet peeve thread about not being able to afford upgrades for 10.3 now that Firefox and Flash don't support that browser.

I love OSX, but I don't get why people love Steve Jobs and hate Bill Gates.

[Numtini]

On the other hand, MS makes low-cost versions available to non-profits. I pay $20 for Office and $10 for XP Pro and Vista. Each point upgrade of OSX is $100 or so. See pet peeve thread about not being able to afford upgrades for 10.3 now that Firefox and Flash don't support that browser.

I don't even want to think of how many times at a hearing I have had someone ask me why we don't get free or $10 software from microsoft or free internet from the cable company and have had to explain that while the school and library may be a charity in the world's eyes, government itself is considered a cash cow.

[Lantyssa]

I love OSX, but I don't get why people love Steve Jobs and hate Bill Gates.

Jobs looks better in a turtleneck.

[Sky]

Before techsoup.org, we paid full price (or at least state contract pricing, same as you). Most vendors wouldn't recognize libraries as an educational institution, because our non-profit status is legally in the same category as animal rights groups   And I'm only talking about software for our public computers, the staff computers don't qualify for techsoup donations, which between that and the generous Gates Foundation (granted public computer $$) is the reason the public are using machines about five years newer than the staff.

Anyway. How 'bout that Windows 7?

[Numtini]

Anyone having problems with Eve and aero themes? I close out eve and my entire screen was greyed out. Everything worked, it was just a graphic bug. Works fine with Champ Online and EQ2. And works fine with Win7 basic.

[Ookii]

Just threw it on my work computer, so far so good!

[stray]

Although it should be said that they're pretty decent about Mac OS prices in general. Under $100 for Leopard, and I believe they've never went higher than $130 for any OS X release. That's a still a far cry from what Microsoft has ever done.

But like I said, both have their good and sleazy points.

On the other hand, MS makes low-cost versions available to non-profits. I pay $20 for Office and $10 for XP Pro and Vista. Each point upgrade of OSX is $100 or so. See pet peeve thread about not being able to afford upgrades for 10.3 now that Firefox and Flash don't support that browser.

I love OSX, but I don't get why people love Steve Jobs and hate Bill Gates.

I don't mind jobs, but Bill Gates is a lot more interesting to listen to. Jobs is a good spokesman and marketer/enthusiast for his company, but Gates always has some big picture scheme/trends in technology schtick in his language.. He's constantly talking about the "future". Makes him more fun to listen to. And while he's a cutthroat businessman just like jobs, and a helluva of lot more nerdy, I'd probably rather drink a beer with him.

[Big Gulp]

And while he's a cutthroat businessman just like jobs, and a helluva of lot more nerdy, I'd probably rather drink a beer with him.

Not to mention the whole spending his fortune on curing malaria thing.  What's Jobs spent his fortune on?  Best I can tell, it's a seat on the Disney board of directors and a black market liver.

[Ookii]

And while he's a cutthroat businessman just like jobs, and a helluva of lot more nerdy, I'd probably rather drink a beer with him.

Not to mention the whole spending his fortune on curing malaria thing.  What's Jobs spent his fortune on?  Best I can tell, it's a seat on the Disney board of directors and a black market liver.

Won't you look silly when the original Jobs dies and they reveal his new CLONE.

[Tebonas]

Bill Gates really seems to be a nice guy. Only problem in your comparasation is that Gates isn't the CEO of Microsoft anymore. Have fun letting Ballmer look like a nice guy.

[Tale]

Bill Gates really seems to be a nice guy.

With a trampoline room with 20ft ceilings in his $53m house.

[Reg]

Well a trampoline room wouldn't be much good with 10' ceilings now would it? I wouldn't pay 53 million for a house with a trampoline room like that - certainly not in this housing market.

[Surlyboi]

The irony is that if Apple just removed the hardware restriction on their OS, and let folks with 'ordinary' PCs install, they would probably wipe the floor with MS, at least with the younger crowd. But Apple has never been very far sighted.

[schild]

The irony is that if Apple just removed the hardware restriction on their OS, and let folks with 'ordinary' PCs install, they would probably wipe the floor with MS, at least with the younger crowd. But Apple has never been very far sighted.

Doesn't really strike me as tin-foil hatty. Apple hardware costs too fucking much. If they let people install the OS on any hardware and dropped all this "we need control" bullshit, they'd get a lot further with the desktop crowd. It's a pretty common thing to hear, really - even if not altogether true (i.e. - I still wouldn't switch solely over to Mac, but I may be willing to build a second machine better than anything Apple makes for a third the cost).

[Jeff Kelly]

Repeat after me: Apple is not a software company. The are an integrated Hardware/Software company and they makle their mobney by selling hardware/software packages.

20 years ago nobody would have complained that AmigaOS wouldn't run on an Atari ST so why is this an issue at all?

Without the bundling of OS and hardware Apple would go belly up. They make all of their profits from the sales of hardware and it works. Apple has 95% of the high-end market share, they can sustain a 25% to 30% profit margin on their systems and are the only company with apparently growing profit and market share in a shitcanned economy.

Why should they unbundle their OS? They would need driver support from a huge number of hardware companies. They'd need to support everything from high end hardware to 3rd rate china whiteware. To avoid or alleviate the same problems microsoft has with all of that hardware crap they'd need a huge testing department and logo infrastructure (works with MacOS) they'd basically need to replicate everything microsoft does in order to minimize fallout from crappy drivers.

Then they'd compete with Linux and Windows for the mid to low-end market where profit margins are razor thin and they would sell less systems than before.

Again, why should they?

[Trippy]

Windows 7 Wallpapers vs. Snow Leopard Wallpapers (download links for images included in articles)

Ready, set, fight!

[Hindenburg]

20 years ago nobody would have complained that AmigaOS wouldn't run on an Atari ST so why is this an issue at all?

Because that was 20 years ago?