Didn't bother logging in, but I wanted to watch the responses, if any.
*Dreadfully slow graph rendering in Excel 2007 if you do anything other than default axis settings. (On operations that are instantaneous in 2003)
*After 2 decades, you'd think they'd figure out that if a "-" is followed by unparsable text, it is "text" and not a "formula". They could, you know, use the same algorithm they already use for all other cell input to determine this.
*A real clipboard behavior for simple copy/paste in Excel. Again, you'd think they'd figure out how to keep one copy of something in a buffer while you edit something else. Clarisworks 2.0 from 1990 does this correctly. It's the only program I know that doesn't have this most basic of features.
*get rid of the stupid window-in-a-window scheme they had since windows 3.1 (or earlier?). It never made sense to me and makes working with multiple programs a bitch.
Always thought "jelly" is fruit with pectin as a solidifying agent. If it has gelatin, then it had various names.
Well, if Apple "won",
We would be running some horribly beefed-up version of the M68000. I would consider that an improvement over the abortion that is the x86.
We would also be running some beefed-up version of SCSI rather than the kludged upon kludged upon kludged descendant of IDE. I think this would also have been an improvement.
We would be using some beefed-up descendant of ADB, rather than USB. This one is not so good.
We would have had decent multi-monitor support about a decade earlier. Good.
One button mouse would still be default. Multi-button mice would exist but there would be no standard on the 2nd+ buttons. Bad.
We would be allowed to use < > / \ in our file names, or at least have sane folder delimiters in or file paths. Good.
We wouldn't be stuck with anachronisms like drive letters. Good.
We would have real aliases/symlinks rather than the kludge that is the shortcut. Good.
We wouldn't have control characters commandeered for application shortcuts. Good.
As much as I like Apple gear, I think the ideal market share/influence for them is about 20%. Any greater than that, and they start pulling stuff like they're doing now in the portable devices market. They work best when they are kept the underdog; not powerful enough to impose their power trips on anyone else, but not so powerless that they disappear and fail to push the rest of the market.
Unless you got one of these in your living room (and have their test vectors to run on them), you don't really know whether the chips meet spec.
My understanding was that they skipped 5 to sync up version numbering between Mac and Windows versions. Word for Mac was already at version 5 (many swear this was/is the best version of Word for Mac, ever.) when they released version 6. They made the Windows version 6 as well. It was also supposed to emphasize tighter compatibility between the two (they started using the same file format from version 6.)
Unfortunately, Word 6 for Mac was a steaming pile of bloated code. Computers that would run Word 5 snappily would choke on Word 6. PowerMacs, which were still considered "fast" at the time would slow to a crawl running Word 6. Microsoft redeemed themselves with Office 98 for Mac, which was much better software.
"The salad and soup were mediocre, but the owl was superb!"
"What do you mean it's endangered?"
"Meh... it probably tasted like chicken anyways."
Indeed. This is the way things are done in the consumer PC industry. Come up with a crappy standard that doesn't quite do what you want, but is dirt cheap to implement, so that it will get adopted en masse. Then, slowly, over time, kludge in features on top of it so that customers will have to buy into each new version to get what they want, and in the end, finally get something that performs somewhat adequately and is basically equivalent to what was always available in a different standard, but is a lot kludgier underneath. Happened with IDE vs. SCSI, x86 vs. RISC machines, and happening again with USB vs. Firewire. It seems so inefficient to me...