and on par with discussions that we have on this list.
Thanks again Jim and Rob.
- Original Message -
From: Jim Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:20:34 -0400
Subject: RE: WWOT: OS X for Intel?
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I still say that overall they seem about the same
I think a lot of people go too far in giving Apple's UI such high
scores. Personally, I think that no OS deserves a near perfect score
for it. A UI is far more than pretty buttons and smooth gradients that
look cool. Apple has a huge problem with UI in the sense that when
installing varying
--
- Original Message -
From: Mike Kelp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 10:45:37 -0500
Subject: Re: WWOT: OS X for Intel?
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think a lot of people go too far in giving Apple's UI such high
scores. Personally, I think that no OS deserves a near perfect score
Thanks for the great reply.
My remarks were intended to urge us as programmers to do a better job
as a whole in the UI area and make that same point that all UI systems
that I have experienced have great flaws in UI as of right now (as you
mentioned), but that I feel apple's OS X is held way
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 12:19 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: WWOT: OS X for Intel?
Mike,
I disagree with you. Just because we have learned how to deal with the
way that Windows GUI functions does not mean that that is the best way
that it should of been done. If fact I
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 19:42:11 -0400, Jim Davis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a professional human factors person my personal opinion is that both OX X
and XP score about even (overall) on usability.
I think that mac osx is a bit higher scoring on the UI because things
seem to be more readily
and that's a shame.
Jim Davis
From: Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 8:05 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: WWOT: OS X for Intel?
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 19:42:11 -0400, Jim Davis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a professional human factors person my personal opinion is that both
...back from the land of .NET training...
There's an open source project called PearPC that aims to emulate the
PowerPC architecture, they've got some builds readily available.
Looks like people have had some success getting OS X up and running
under windows, but it's probably pretty slow.
On Friday 10 Sep 2004 05:11 am, Dave Watts wrote:
pretty crappy Windows application. The only reason I use it is because it
syncs easily with the iPod.
So does WinAmp :-)
--
Tom Chiverton
Advanced ColdFusion Programmer
Tel: +44(0)1749 834997
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BlueFinger Limited
Yes, with a little different emphasis -- they (Apple) are an
experience company that sells the bundle (hardware and
software) that delivers the desired experience
I am no expert, but I suspect that the typical PC comes with
reasonably standard hardware that could deliver a pretty
good
joke
I was playing with my PocketPC on the train the other day,
and I realized the most robust and stable applications on
windows is Solitaire and Notepad - neither have froze a
system or had a buffer overflow exploit - perhaps the
Solitaire team should write the OS :-D /joke
You might
Apologies in advance for the WOT,but there is more knowledge
practical brainpower on this list than , well anywhere I know of.
When OSX was just a gleam in Apple's OS team, there was a project underway to develop a version of the Mac OS for intel systems in the early 90's - this was when Apple
On Sep 10, 2004, at 8:08 AM, Larry Lyons wrote:
Apologies in advance for the WOT, but there is more knowledge
practical brainpower on this list than , well anywhere I know of.
When OSX was just a gleam in Apple's OS team, there was a project
underway to develop a version of the Mac OS for
On Sep 10, 2004, at 7:57 AM, Dave Watts wrote:
I am no expert, but I suspect that the typical PC comes with
reasonably standard hardware that could deliver a pretty
good experience on any current hardware -- maybe not as good
as an integrated hw/sw solution, but close enough.
With the
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 11:01:57 -0400, Dave Watts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
joke
I was playing with my PocketPC on the train the other day,
and I realized the most robust and stable applications on
windows is Solitaire and Notepad - neither have froze a
system or had a buffer overflow
Apologies in advance for the WOT,but there is more knowledge
practical brainpower on this list than , well anywhere I know of.
MS has devolved delayed Longhorn into Shorthorn -- Preview sometime
2006 said to be a major conversion effort..
The Linux community is trying desperately to provide
Could Apple make a dent in the windows desktop?
Is this the time and place?
Should they?
Right now they have an interesting opportunity.Consumers normally
have to pass through six buyer-readiness stages before they make a
purchase:
1. Awareness
I'm aware of the brand
2. Knowledge
I know
There have been rumors that Apple has an OS X that runs onIntel CPUs.
Not a rumor - http://www.opendarwin.org/
I have installed it a couple times to play around with it. Pretty
impressive. The Apple GUI is *not* included (you'll need to get
xwindows and gnome or kde or ...), but most servers
Big omission is a robust db -- but there are several open-source
options.
I think Oracle has got a pretty robust db for linux.
-Adam
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
[Donations and Support]
On Sep 9, 2004, at 8:02 PM, Rob wrote:
There have been rumors that Apple has an OS X that runs on Intel
CPUs.
Not a rumor - http://www.opendarwin.org/
I have installed it a couple times to play around with it. Pretty
impressive. The Apple GUI is *not* included (you'll need to get
xwindows
On Sep 9, 2004, at 8:10 PM, Adrocknaphobia wrote:
Big omission is a robust db -- but there are several open-source
options.
I think Oracle has got a pretty robust db for linux.
You are right -- I was thinking more about the freebe versions of Jet
SQL-Server available with winXP
You can
On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 20:14:44 -0700, Dick Applebaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 9, 2004, at 8:02 PM, Rob wrote:
There have been rumors that Apple has an OS X that runs onIntel
CPUs.
Not a rumor - http://www.opendarwin.org/
Nah, I meant all of OS X -- including the GUI (more
But - now millions of people have iPods, and maybe are running iTunes
on Windows and thinking, man, this works a lot better than any other
piece of software on this crummy ugly machine on my desktop, I'm
feeling pretty favourably disposed to Apple right now.
The only problem with this
There have been rumors that Apple has an OS X that runs on Intel CPUs.
...
OS X Sells for $99 whereas a winXp upgrade sells for upgrade for $249.
...
OS X comes With all the 'Nix goodness, XWindows, + Java, Perl, PHP,
Apache, etc.
What would be the acceptance if Apple released OS X
On Sep 9, 2004, at 8:50 PM, Rob wrote:
On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 20:14:44 -0700, Dick Applebaum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sep 9, 2004, at 8:02 PM, Rob wrote:
There have been rumors that Apple has an OS X that runs
on Intel
CPUs.
Not a rumor - http://www.opendarwin.org/
Nah, I meant
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 00:11:58 -0400, Dave Watts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But - now millions of people have iPods, and maybe are running iTunes
on Windows and thinking, man, this works a lot better than any other
piece of software on this crummy ugly machine on my desktop, I'm
feeling pretty
lol
the sad part is thats really not even a joke!
they must bought those games from a 3rd party
-- Original Message --
From: Rob [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date:Thu, 9 Sep 2004 21:24:03 -0700
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 00:11:58 -0400, Dave
On Sep 9, 2004, at 9:19 PM, Dave Watts wrote:
There have been rumors that Apple has an OS X that runs on Intel
CPUs.
...
OS X Sells for $99 whereas a winXp upgrade sells for upgrade for
$249.
...
OS X comes With all the 'Nix goodness, XWindows, + Java, Perl, PHP,
Apache, etc.
I first downloaded Darwin because I thought it came with the GUI -
when I found out it didn't I bought a Mac - so I think people would
buy it. I would've bought OSX for x86 instead of the G4 - so that one
sale would have sucked for apple (99vs 1,200). For it to work I
think they need volume -
29 matches
Mail list logo
