PlastiC Mac
Feb 9th 2007 | 12:51 am
#121
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: PlastiC Mac
Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> but is it USD1500 faster?
>
> >Depends on your application. If it makes a $150/hr graphics
> >professional merely 1% more productive, it pays for itself in 6
> >months.
>
> True, but how many of them are bought for such applications.
Obviously, "enough" for the manufacturer to choose to make the
expensive high-end product available for sale. This basic principle
applies to both PC's and Porsches (analog: both a cheap Korean car
and an expensive European sedan both are adequate to satisfy a
'transportation' requirement).
> Sure, but I bet the majority don't need this performance.
Agreed, but only for today.
The baseline for expectations of a system's minimum performance level
invariably marches upwards, so it is only a matter of time until this
level (Intel Xeon Woodcrest) is considered the mainstream, and then
later on, the minimimum acceptable baseline.
This has already happened with 1GHz computers. They were cutting edge
in 2000, but most people reading this today probably already are using
more horsepower, and because so few people even consider buying a
"mere" 1GHz PC today, virtually no manufacturers even offer a 1GHz PC
for sale anymore...
-hh
>
> >> but is it USD1500 faster?
>
> >Depends on your application. If it makes a $150/hr graphics
> >professional merely 1% more productive, it pays for itself in 6
> >months.
>
> True, but how many of them are bought for such applications.
Obviously, "enough" for the manufacturer to choose to make the
expensive high-end product available for sale. This basic principle
applies to both PC's and Porsches (analog: both a cheap Korean car
and an expensive European sedan both are adequate to satisfy a
'transportation' requirement).
> Sure, but I bet the majority don't need this performance.
Agreed, but only for today.
The baseline for expectations of a system's minimum performance level
invariably marches upwards, so it is only a matter of time until this
level (Intel Xeon Woodcrest) is considered the mainstream, and then
later on, the minimimum acceptable baseline.
This has already happened with 1GHz computers. They were cutting edge
in 2000, but most people reading this today probably already are using
more horsepower, and because so few people even consider buying a
"mere" 1GHz PC today, virtually no manufacturers even offer a 1GHz PC
for sale anymore...
-hh
Feb 9th 2007 | 1:15 am
#122
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: PlastiC Mac
On 9 Feb 2007 05:51:10 -0800, "-hh" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> but is it USD1500 faster?
>>
>> >Depends on your application. If it makes a $150/hr graphics
>> >professional merely 1% more productive, it pays for itself in 6
>> >months.
>>
>> True, but how many of them are bought for such applications.
>
>Obviously, "enough" for the manufacturer to choose to make the
>expensive high-end product available for sale.
They are cashing in on the keeping up with the Jones mentality.
> This basic principle
>applies to both PC's and Porsches (analog: both a cheap Korean car
>and an expensive European sedan both are adequate to satisfy a
>'transportation' requirement).
A similar analogy is that my 11 year old Nissan is a more than adequate means of
transport.
>
>> Sure, but I bet the majority don't need this performance.
>
>Agreed, but only for today.
>
>The baseline for expectations of a system's minimum performance level
>invariably marches upwards, so it is only a matter of time until this
>level (Intel Xeon Woodcrest) is considered the mainstream, and then
>later on, the minimimum acceptable baseline.
>
>This has already happened with 1GHz computers. They were cutting edge
>in 2000,
>but most people reading this today probably already are using
>more horsepower, and because so few people even consider buying a
>"mere" 1GHz PC today, virtually no manufacturers even offer a 1GHz PC
>for sale anymore...
All the more reason not to rush out and buy state of the art, with your own
money, unless you really need it.
--
Martin
>Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> but is it USD1500 faster?
>>
>> >Depends on your application. If it makes a $150/hr graphics
>> >professional merely 1% more productive, it pays for itself in 6
>> >months.
>>
>> True, but how many of them are bought for such applications.
>
>Obviously, "enough" for the manufacturer to choose to make the
>expensive high-end product available for sale.
They are cashing in on the keeping up with the Jones mentality.
> This basic principle
>applies to both PC's and Porsches (analog: both a cheap Korean car
>and an expensive European sedan both are adequate to satisfy a
>'transportation' requirement).
A similar analogy is that my 11 year old Nissan is a more than adequate means of
transport.
>
>> Sure, but I bet the majority don't need this performance.
>
>Agreed, but only for today.
>
>The baseline for expectations of a system's minimum performance level
>invariably marches upwards, so it is only a matter of time until this
>level (Intel Xeon Woodcrest) is considered the mainstream, and then
>later on, the minimimum acceptable baseline.
>
>This has already happened with 1GHz computers. They were cutting edge
>in 2000,
>but most people reading this today probably already are using
>more horsepower, and because so few people even consider buying a
>"mere" 1GHz PC today, virtually no manufacturers even offer a 1GHz PC
>for sale anymore...
All the more reason not to rush out and buy state of the art, with your own
money, unless you really need it.
--
Martin
Feb 9th 2007 | 3:57 am
#123
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: PlastiC Mac
Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 9 Feb 2007 05:51:10 -0800, "-hh" <[email protected]> wrote:
[]
> >This has already happened with 1GHz computers. They were cutting edge
> >in 2000,
> >but most people reading this today probably already are using
> >more horsepower, and because so few people even consider buying a
> >"mere" 1GHz PC today, virtually no manufacturers even offer a 1GHz PC
> >for sale anymore...
>
> All the more reason not to rush out and buy state of the art, with your own
> money, unless you really need it.
I generally wait a while before buying the newest model of a computer.
(I was pretty quick buying the intel macbooks though, but that sort of
reversed my own trend.) I used my Lombard G4 400 on system 8 until 2004!
But, I don't necessarily think there's anything wrong with buying
something when you want it, not just when you really need it. This goes
for lots of things IMO, not just computers.
--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
(don't email yahoo address) usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
> On 9 Feb 2007 05:51:10 -0800, "-hh" <[email protected]> wrote:
[]
> >This has already happened with 1GHz computers. They were cutting edge
> >in 2000,
> >but most people reading this today probably already are using
> >more horsepower, and because so few people even consider buying a
> >"mere" 1GHz PC today, virtually no manufacturers even offer a 1GHz PC
> >for sale anymore...
>
> All the more reason not to rush out and buy state of the art, with your own
> money, unless you really need it.
I generally wait a while before buying the newest model of a computer.
(I was pretty quick buying the intel macbooks though, but that sort of
reversed my own trend.) I used my Lombard G4 400 on system 8 until 2004!
But, I don't necessarily think there's anything wrong with buying
something when you want it, not just when you really need it. This goes
for lots of things IMO, not just computers.
--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
(don't email yahoo address) usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
Feb 9th 2007 | 6:05 am
#124
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: PlastiC Mac
"Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Intel had a version of MS Dos which ran in their own microprocessor
> systems.
> They used to show it to customers and laugh. Who would have thought 15
> years ago
> that Intel's own operating system would disappear without trace and that
> MS
> would still be around today.
> --
>
> Martin
>
The interesting part is Gates bought a clone of Digital Research's BIO's and
operating system for $10k. Then licensed it as an option to IBM for a $1 a
copy. DR's OS was a couple of hundred dollars. For the $1 Gates supplied a
lable for the floppy disk that IBM generated. Was not a very good clone of
the OS either.
news:[email protected]...
>
> Intel had a version of MS Dos which ran in their own microprocessor
> systems.
> They used to show it to customers and laugh. Who would have thought 15
> years ago
> that Intel's own operating system would disappear without trace and that
> MS
> would still be around today.
> --
>
> Martin
>
The interesting part is Gates bought a clone of Digital Research's BIO's and
operating system for $10k. Then licensed it as an option to IBM for a $1 a
copy. DR's OS was a couple of hundred dollars. For the $1 Gates supplied a
lable for the floppy disk that IBM generated. Was not a very good clone of
the OS either.
Feb 9th 2007 | 6:07 am
#125
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: PlastiC Mac
"-hh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] oups.com...
> Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> but is it USD1500 faster?
>>
>> >Depends on your application. If it makes a $150/hr graphics
>> >professional merely 1% more productive, it pays for itself in 6
>> >months.
>>
>> True, but how many of them are bought for such applications.
>
> Obviously, "enough" for the manufacturer to choose to make the
> expensive high-end product available for sale. This basic principle
> applies to both PC's and Porsches (analog: both a cheap Korean car
> and an expensive European sedan both are adequate to satisfy a
> 'transportation' requirement).
>
>
>> Sure, but I bet the majority don't need this performance.
>
> Agreed, but only for today.
>
> The baseline for expectations of a system's minimum performance level
> invariably marches upwards, so it is only a matter of time until this
> level (Intel Xeon Woodcrest) is considered the mainstream, and then
> later on, the minimimum acceptable baseline.
>
> This has already happened with 1GHz computers. They were cutting edge
> in 2000, but most people reading this today probably already are using
> more horsepower, and because so few people even consider buying a
> "mere" 1GHz PC today, virtually no manufacturers even offer a 1GHz PC
> for sale anymore...
>
>
> -hh
>
Graphic artists are not the driving force for better graphics and faster
rendering. Game players! They want the fastest, and the best and will pay
for it. And lots of them. When I designed disk drives, the driving force
for more storage on home PC's was porn. All those pictures took up lots of
storage.
news:[email protected] oups.com...
> Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> but is it USD1500 faster?
>>
>> >Depends on your application. If it makes a $150/hr graphics
>> >professional merely 1% more productive, it pays for itself in 6
>> >months.
>>
>> True, but how many of them are bought for such applications.
>
> Obviously, "enough" for the manufacturer to choose to make the
> expensive high-end product available for sale. This basic principle
> applies to both PC's and Porsches (analog: both a cheap Korean car
> and an expensive European sedan both are adequate to satisfy a
> 'transportation' requirement).
>
>
>> Sure, but I bet the majority don't need this performance.
>
> Agreed, but only for today.
>
> The baseline for expectations of a system's minimum performance level
> invariably marches upwards, so it is only a matter of time until this
> level (Intel Xeon Woodcrest) is considered the mainstream, and then
> later on, the minimimum acceptable baseline.
>
> This has already happened with 1GHz computers. They were cutting edge
> in 2000, but most people reading this today probably already are using
> more horsepower, and because so few people even consider buying a
> "mere" 1GHz PC today, virtually no manufacturers even offer a 1GHz PC
> for sale anymore...
>
>
> -hh
>
Graphic artists are not the driving force for better graphics and faster
rendering. Game players! They want the fastest, and the best and will pay
for it. And lots of them. When I designed disk drives, the driving force
for more storage on home PC's was porn. All those pictures took up lots of
storage.
Feb 9th 2007 | 10:42 am
#126
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: PlastiC Mac
> But, I don't necessarily think there's anything wrong with buying
> something when you want it, not just when you really need it. This goes
> for lots of things IMO, not just computers.
>
Including breakfasts ? :-)
> something when you want it, not just when you really need it. This goes
> for lots of things IMO, not just computers.
>
Including breakfasts ? :-)
Feb 10th 2007 | 12:51 pm
#127
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: PlastiC Mac
In article <1ht6d43.m95vkm1yiqyzxN%[email protected]>,
[email protected] (David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:
> I
> actually don't find the ads funny either.
You can view the US ads at apple.com.
Some are pretty amusing. The PC guy is John Hodgman, a humorist who
does some segments on the celebrated The Daily Show.
Turns out he's the Mac-phile in real life.
[email protected] (David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:
> I
> actually don't find the ads funny either.
You can view the US ads at apple.com.
Some are pretty amusing. The PC guy is John Hodgman, a humorist who
does some segments on the celebrated The Daily Show.
Turns out he's the Mac-phile in real life.
Feb 10th 2007 | 1:03 pm
#128
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: PlastiC Mac
In article <[email protected]>,
B Vaughan<[email protected]> wrote:
> I also liked Unix a lot, but now I'm sort of constrained to use a PC
> for my work because everybody I work with does. However, I think I
> would draw the line at a MAC. At least with a PC, I can find some hack
> to do almost anything I might want to do.
Mac OS X is based on Unix, specifically BSD.
You can bring up a command line interface if you want.
Yeah I remember the DOS days, when people looked down at GUI.
But the fact is, computing wouldn't be as pervasive nor would the web
have become the widely-used communications medium if not for the fact
that computers became more accessible to more people -- you know,
grandparents emailing their grandchildren, sharing pics of them on
photo-sharing web sites and the like.
Should you have to memorize some set of Unix commands before being able
to use a computer? If that's the case, it would have kept computers
from a lot of people who now make productive use of them.
Imagine having to learn vi to compose emails. There's no reason
computing should be so opaque. For one thing, vi was developed decades
ago when computer displays (even CRTs) weren't common.
B Vaughan<[email protected]> wrote:
> I also liked Unix a lot, but now I'm sort of constrained to use a PC
> for my work because everybody I work with does. However, I think I
> would draw the line at a MAC. At least with a PC, I can find some hack
> to do almost anything I might want to do.
Mac OS X is based on Unix, specifically BSD.
You can bring up a command line interface if you want.
Yeah I remember the DOS days, when people looked down at GUI.
But the fact is, computing wouldn't be as pervasive nor would the web
have become the widely-used communications medium if not for the fact
that computers became more accessible to more people -- you know,
grandparents emailing their grandchildren, sharing pics of them on
photo-sharing web sites and the like.
Should you have to memorize some set of Unix commands before being able
to use a computer? If that's the case, it would have kept computers
from a lot of people who now make productive use of them.
Imagine having to learn vi to compose emails. There's no reason
computing should be so opaque. For one thing, vi was developed decades
ago when computer displays (even CRTs) weren't common.
Feb 10th 2007 | 1:26 pm
#129
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: PlastiC Mac
In article <[email protected]>,
Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Mac Pro
> >> 2 GHz processor
> >> 1 GB RAM
> >> 250 GB hard drive
> >> NVIDIA Graphics
> >> 20" monitor
> >> 16x dual layer DVD
> >> Airport XTheme Wifi
> >>
> >> PRICE $2948
> >>
> >> From Dell computer web site:
> >>
> >> Dell Dimension E521
> >> Windows Vista Home Premium OS
> >> 2.13 GHz Intel Duo E6400 processor
> >> 1 GB RAM
> >> 250 GB hard drive
> >> 20" monitor
> >> similar DVD read/write
> >> NVIDIA graphics, similar capacities
> >> Netgear Wireless Broadband Router
> >>
> >> PRICE $1377"
> >>
> >> As far as I can tell 2,13 GHz is usually faster than 2 Hz. And a Duo
> >> E6400 implies two processors.
> >>
> >> Now what didn't I see?
> >
> >Google "Intel Duo E6400 processor"
> >
> >then look at:
> >http://tinyurl.com/wr9yb
> >and particularly the bit that says:
> >"Every Mac Pro offers the incredible power of two 64-bit Dual-Core
> >Intel Xeon �Woodcrest�microprocessors."
>
> but is it USD1500 faster?
>
> What is the effective improvement in performance of applications.
>
> How many people really need or use this incredible power?
>
> 20 years ago I had the fastest PC in a department, an incredibly powerful 20
> MHz
> Compaq that had a list price of about EUR 9000.
> --
It may not be $1500 cheaper but you have to compare apples to apples (no
pun intended).
Here is another set of configurations, where the Apple and the Dell both
have two dual-core (4 cores total, in two discrete chips) CPUs, both
2.66 Ghz Xeon Woodcrests, which are each more expensive than the Core 2
Duo E6400 chips:
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/61024000/
wo/FF42H9nlZaoV2CAS55gR4D5XecG/2.?p=0
http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs&kc=6W300&len&oc=bwcw4tv&s=bsd
I couldn't get both configs exactly the same. They have different video
cards and the one in the Dell is probably more expensive and the Dell
does come with a basic 17-inch LCD monitor (if you're spending this kind
of money, you would want at least a 21-inch monitor).
So maybe the price is about a wash.
But why try to price the high-end computers? These towers are for
people who are doing development or heavy video editing. For most
everyday tasks like surfing and some multimedia (photos, home video
editing, music), you can get both Mac desktops and laptops under $1500
(at least in the US, the prices in Europe tend to be more).
Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Mac Pro
> >> 2 GHz processor
> >> 1 GB RAM
> >> 250 GB hard drive
> >> NVIDIA Graphics
> >> 20" monitor
> >> 16x dual layer DVD
> >> Airport XTheme Wifi
> >>
> >> PRICE $2948
> >>
> >> From Dell computer web site:
> >>
> >> Dell Dimension E521
> >> Windows Vista Home Premium OS
> >> 2.13 GHz Intel Duo E6400 processor
> >> 1 GB RAM
> >> 250 GB hard drive
> >> 20" monitor
> >> similar DVD read/write
> >> NVIDIA graphics, similar capacities
> >> Netgear Wireless Broadband Router
> >>
> >> PRICE $1377"
> >>
> >> As far as I can tell 2,13 GHz is usually faster than 2 Hz. And a Duo
> >> E6400 implies two processors.
> >>
> >> Now what didn't I see?
> >
> >Google "Intel Duo E6400 processor"
> >
> >then look at:
> >http://tinyurl.com/wr9yb
> >and particularly the bit that says:
> >"Every Mac Pro offers the incredible power of two 64-bit Dual-Core
> >Intel Xeon �Woodcrest�microprocessors."
>
> but is it USD1500 faster?
>
> What is the effective improvement in performance of applications.
>
> How many people really need or use this incredible power?
>
> 20 years ago I had the fastest PC in a department, an incredibly powerful 20
> MHz
> Compaq that had a list price of about EUR 9000.
> --
It may not be $1500 cheaper but you have to compare apples to apples (no
pun intended).
Here is another set of configurations, where the Apple and the Dell both
have two dual-core (4 cores total, in two discrete chips) CPUs, both
2.66 Ghz Xeon Woodcrests, which are each more expensive than the Core 2
Duo E6400 chips:
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/61024000/
wo/FF42H9nlZaoV2CAS55gR4D5XecG/2.?p=0
http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs&kc=6W300&len&oc=bwcw4tv&s=bsd
I couldn't get both configs exactly the same. They have different video
cards and the one in the Dell is probably more expensive and the Dell
does come with a basic 17-inch LCD monitor (if you're spending this kind
of money, you would want at least a 21-inch monitor).
So maybe the price is about a wash.
But why try to price the high-end computers? These towers are for
people who are doing development or heavy video editing. For most
everyday tasks like surfing and some multimedia (photos, home video
editing, music), you can get both Mac desktops and laptops under $1500
(at least in the US, the prices in Europe tend to be more).
Feb 10th 2007 | 1:33 pm
#130
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Europeans to force iTunes to be compatible with rivals' digital music players WAS
In article <[email protected]>,
Deeply Filled Mortician <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu>
wrote:
> Let is be knownst that on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 08:19:19 -0800, Go Fig
> <[email protected]> writted:
>
> >Good Grief Norway, build your own iTunes... better yet how bout an OS
> >or EVEN a media player... pathetic !!!!!!
>
> Better yet, download the music illegally, and give some money direct
> to the artists.
How do you send money directly to the artist?
BTW, most of the illegally downloaded music are the usual hits so you'd
be sending money to millionaires.
It wouldn't be surprising if the contracts the artists have with the
record companies forced them to share whatever proceeds they receive
directly from illegal downloaders with their record companies.
Deeply Filled Mortician <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu>
wrote:
> Let is be knownst that on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 08:19:19 -0800, Go Fig
> <[email protected]> writted:
>
> >Good Grief Norway, build your own iTunes... better yet how bout an OS
> >or EVEN a media player... pathetic !!!!!!
>
> Better yet, download the music illegally, and give some money direct
> to the artists.
How do you send money directly to the artist?
BTW, most of the illegally downloaded music are the usual hits so you'd
be sending money to millionaires.
It wouldn't be surprising if the contracts the artists have with the
record companies forced them to share whatever proceeds they receive
directly from illegal downloaders with their record companies.
Feb 10th 2007 | 1:42 pm
#131
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: PlastiC Mac
In article <[email protected]>,
Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> The overall performance depends on how effectively the two processors are
> used.
True but reading and posting to newsgroups aren't processor-intensive.
What might typical consumers use which requires processing power?
Maybe editing some photos, perhaps converting CDs to MP3s, maybe editing
travel videos and then burning them on a DVD.
If you do heavy Photoshop rendering, development of big projects, do
professional NLE of TV or film, then you're going to want every ounce of
performance.
Also if you want the highest frames per second of performance for the
latest shooter games.
But for most leisurely computing (surfing, listening to music, importing
some photos) most computers are plenty fast enough, as long as it wasn't
some bargain-basement, $500 Wal Mart special.
Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> The overall performance depends on how effectively the two processors are
> used.
True but reading and posting to newsgroups aren't processor-intensive.
What might typical consumers use which requires processing power?
Maybe editing some photos, perhaps converting CDs to MP3s, maybe editing
travel videos and then burning them on a DVD.
If you do heavy Photoshop rendering, development of big projects, do
professional NLE of TV or film, then you're going to want every ounce of
performance.
Also if you want the highest frames per second of performance for the
latest shooter games.
But for most leisurely computing (surfing, listening to music, importing
some photos) most computers are plenty fast enough, as long as it wasn't
some bargain-basement, $500 Wal Mart special.
Feb 10th 2007 | 1:45 pm
#132
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: PlastiC Mac
In article <[email protected]>,
Deeply Filled Mortician <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu>
wrote:
> >
> >Which is David and which is gRunge?
> >http://www.apple.com/getamac/
>
> This marketing strategy for Macintosh is really pathetic.
Those ads have been running for a long time over here. Apple has been
reporting the highest sales of Macs in its history during this time.
That's not to say the sales are due to those ads but Apple must be
satisfied enough (there have been dozens in the series featuring these
characters) to keep airing them, usually during the most popular shows.
Deeply Filled Mortician <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu>
wrote:
> >
> >Which is David and which is gRunge?
> >http://www.apple.com/getamac/
>
> This marketing strategy for Macintosh is really pathetic.
Those ads have been running for a long time over here. Apple has been
reporting the highest sales of Macs in its history during this time.
That's not to say the sales are due to those ads but Apple must be
satisfied enough (there have been dozens in the series featuring these
characters) to keep airing them, usually during the most popular shows.
Feb 10th 2007 | 1:48 pm
#133
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: PlastiC Mac
In article <1ht3jux.m8tztzj45q9zN%[email protected]>,
[email protected] (David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:
> > > You know what my number one wish is? A keyboard with four simple
> > > buttons down the left hand side: Cut, Copy, Paste, Undo. Give me this
> > > on a Mac, and I might just convert.
> []
> > 2 button combos. Cut Ctrl+x, Copy Ctrl+C paste Ctrl+v undo Ctrl+z
> > redo Ctrl+y
>
> If it really has to be one button, you could just remap F1-4 I suppose,
> or programming the mouse to do it might be an option, though that puts
> it all into one hand.
That's what I was going to say. The F keys at the top could be
programmed and also, most third-party after-market mice like those from
Logitech come with several buttons on the sides and top. Anything
beyond the left and right buttons can be programmed with the utility
software which comes with the mice. This is for both Windows and Mac.
[email protected] (David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:
> > > You know what my number one wish is? A keyboard with four simple
> > > buttons down the left hand side: Cut, Copy, Paste, Undo. Give me this
> > > on a Mac, and I might just convert.
> []
> > 2 button combos. Cut Ctrl+x, Copy Ctrl+C paste Ctrl+v undo Ctrl+z
> > redo Ctrl+y
>
> If it really has to be one button, you could just remap F1-4 I suppose,
> or programming the mouse to do it might be an option, though that puts
> it all into one hand.
That's what I was going to say. The F keys at the top could be
programmed and also, most third-party after-market mice like those from
Logitech come with several buttons on the sides and top. Anything
beyond the left and right buttons can be programmed with the utility
software which comes with the mice. This is for both Windows and Mac.
Feb 10th 2007 | 1:50 pm
#134
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: PlastiC Mac
In article <060220071004125730%[email protected]>, Go Fig <[email protected]>
wrote:
> What is the task ?
>
> For PS, benchmarks show Macs faster, After Effects, the PC is getting
> much closer.
I'm not so sure.
For one thing, I don't think Photoshop for Mac is yet a universal binary
yet.
Now if you're talking about the G5 Macs, that may have been the case but
G5 came out almost 2 years ago.
wrote:
> What is the task ?
>
> For PS, benchmarks show Macs faster, After Effects, the PC is getting
> much closer.
I'm not so sure.
For one thing, I don't think Photoshop for Mac is yet a universal binary
yet.
Now if you're talking about the G5 Macs, that may have been the case but
G5 came out almost 2 years ago.
Feb 10th 2007 | 8:42 pm
#135
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: PlastiC Mac
poldy <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <1ht3jux.m8tztzj45q9zN%[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:
>
> > > > You know what my number one wish is? A keyboard with four simple
> > > > buttons down the left hand side: Cut, Copy, Paste, Undo. Give me this
> > > > on a Mac, and I might just convert.
> > []
> > > 2 button combos. Cut Ctrl+x, Copy Ctrl+C paste Ctrl+v undo Ctrl+z
> > > redo Ctrl+y
> >
> > If it really has to be one button, you could just remap F1-4 I suppose,
> > or programming the mouse to do it might be an option, though that puts
> > it all into one hand.
>
> That's what I was going to say. The F keys at the top could be
> programmed and also, most third-party after-market mice like those from
> Logitech come with several buttons on the sides and top. Anything
> beyond the left and right buttons can be programmed with the utility
> software which comes with the mice. This is for both Windows and Mac.
Slightly related - on a Mac you can disable the Caps Lock key without
prising it off with a screwdriver, or using some registry hack. How do
you do that on a PC?
B;
--
Encrypted e-mail address. Click to mail me:
<http://cerbermail.com/?nKYh3qN4YG>
> In article <1ht3jux.m8tztzj45q9zN%[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:
>
> > > > You know what my number one wish is? A keyboard with four simple
> > > > buttons down the left hand side: Cut, Copy, Paste, Undo. Give me this
> > > > on a Mac, and I might just convert.
> > []
> > > 2 button combos. Cut Ctrl+x, Copy Ctrl+C paste Ctrl+v undo Ctrl+z
> > > redo Ctrl+y
> >
> > If it really has to be one button, you could just remap F1-4 I suppose,
> > or programming the mouse to do it might be an option, though that puts
> > it all into one hand.
>
> That's what I was going to say. The F keys at the top could be
> programmed and also, most third-party after-market mice like those from
> Logitech come with several buttons on the sides and top. Anything
> beyond the left and right buttons can be programmed with the utility
> software which comes with the mice. This is for both Windows and Mac.
Slightly related - on a Mac you can disable the Caps Lock key without
prising it off with a screwdriver, or using some registry hack. How do
you do that on a PC?
B;
--
Encrypted e-mail address. Click to mail me:
<http://cerbermail.com/?nKYh3qN4YG>
