Forgot your password?

Comment: Re: Make the server version look like a server. (Score 2) 458

by macs4all (#47923121) Attached to: What To Expect With Windows 9

But Server 2012 is unusable. R2 improved it, but they clearly hate their customers.

1. Why does a Server install have boxes called "this PC" to click on. Just bring back "My Briefcase" and get it over with you lazy pieces of crap.

2. Why does it have a snazzy new front end that then puts back up screens we had in Windows 3.1?

That was my exact feeling. In fact, I have said multiple times about now it looks like Window 3.1... Only worse!

I have to deal with that POS GUI every single day at work. Makes me ever so glad to get home to my Mac, where I can have multiple overlapping windows, multiple desktops and real window-management.

Comment: Re:The protruding lens was a mistake (Score 3, Funny) 370

by macs4all (#47920853) Attached to: Apple Edits iPhone 6's Protruding Camera Out of Official Photos

I don't know how their design people allowed a protruding lens in the first place. It really runs contrary to Apple's design sensibility, but I guess we're seeing the first evidence of what happens to Apple without Jobs. The protrusion is ugly, and it mars the flat, smooth design.

And for what? Assuming that they can't make the camera any thinner, make the phone slightly fatter, and make use of the extra space. It's not as though the iPhone 5 was obscenely thick and needed to be made thinner. Hell, just fill the rest of the thing out with additional battery, and give us more battery life.

Well, you know what they say:

"You can never be too rich, or too thin; or have too much protruding bulge..."

Comment: Re:Parallax. (Score 1) 370

by macs4all (#47920739) Attached to: Apple Edits iPhone 6's Protruding Camera Out of Official Photos

No, the phone is shown at exactly right angles, and they're right, the lens is photoshopped out. Meanwhile, it's 1 mm. What is that, the thickness of 2 business cards?

How can you tell that it is shown at exactly right angles? All they have to do is offset the angle by the tiniest fraction and "boom", the lens bulge is obscured by the case.

As you said, it is 1mm, and they are shooting it from the other side of the phone in every photo/rendering I have seen.

I submit that you have to be able to see the back of the phone, or perhaps be "dead-on" to the side to see a "bulge" of such diminutive proportions.

That's not really "parallax" by the way.

Comment: Re: Requirements ? (Score 0) 129

by macs4all (#47906119) Attached to: Chrome For Mac Drops 32-bit Build

But there is also the corner case of machines like I have with a 64 bit capable CPU but only 32 bit EFI for which I am endlessly trapped on Lion (10.7). Which probably doesn't count in this case, but is always a source of endless bitching for me.

How are you "Endlessly trapped on Lion?"

Apple released the OS X 10.9 "Mavericks" for FREE over a year ago. One of the design criteria for Mavericks was that it would install on any Mac on which Snow Leopard would install. Since you said you were "stuck on Lion" (10.7), which is already 64-bit only, why would this be of concern to you?

Comment: Re: Good decision? (Score 1) 352

by macs4all (#47896929) Attached to: Microsoft Killing Off Windows Phone Brand Name In Favor of Just Windows

Every argument is not about defending at attacking windows UI. This one is against your misconception about GPUs being sentient beings.

So you've still not read, or understood the statement I repeated in my last post. GPU doesn't do anything on its own. It needs a driver. Lacking a driver, you cannot find a GPU, any class, that can draw a single triangle.

No fooling? With over 30 years of embedded dev. experience, I never would have thought of that! (rolls eyes)

But what I have been trying to get through everyone's collectively addled brains is this:

The excuse that "Windows' 'Moderrn UI' has to be "simple", because they have to work with a wider-range of (Desktop-Class) GPU hardware" is patently absurd, due to the fact that the Windows' software engineers (OS and Driver Devs.) should be able to code an interface with as much "UI-finesse" as what is available in OS X (which is undeniably more "advanced" than the Windows 'Modern UI'), using any reasonable "Desktop-Class" GPU.

I do believe, however, that the main reason that MS decided to make "Metro" so bog-simple (no "shading", no "textures" and no "overlapping windows"), was because they wanted (which is way different than "had to" ) come up with an interface that wouldn't tax the capabilities of Phone and Tablet-Class GPU hardware.

IOW, whereas Apple wisely matched the UI of OS X and iOS more closely to the TYPICAL "Class of Devices" that they were running on (Desktop vx. Mobile), MS just "raced to the bottom" with "Metro", and forced all their "Desktop" users to unnecessarily suffer from a "Lowest-Common-Denominator" UI.

In short: Microsoft took the lazy way out, and then tried to pass it off as a "Unified" UI design.

Comment: Re: Good decision? (Score 1) 352

by macs4all (#47895693) Attached to: Microsoft Killing Off Windows Phone Brand Name In Favor of Just Windows

OK, so

1. Microsoft made a decision - to use "primitive" graphics.

2. They have a business model where they need to support a wide variety of graphics chips.

You are saying 1 was surely not caused by the driver insanity resulting from 2. Based on what?

Jeebus! Are you just TRYING to be obtuse; or do you REALLY have a mental defect?

Based on the fact that you can't FIND a "desktop"-Class GPU, that couldn't do stuff like Apple is doing with Mission Control and Spaces, and even at least support for two monitors.

And are you REALLY here to DEFEND Windows "Modern UI", or just argue against me?

Comment: Re: What about other devices? (Score 1) 418

by macs4all (#47894565) Attached to: Windows Tax Shot Down In Italy

I am an embedded Developer with over three decades of paid experience. Do these people really think someone like me (or me) doesn't realize that technically, these devices could be considered a "computing device"?

But, the less fanatical among us nerds, you know, the ones that don't have to prove that they are "smart enough" to get Linux to run on their toaster, just because they can say they did it (woohoo), realize that these are still, at the end of the day, Appliances with an Embedded microcontroller, or System-on-Chip, inside.

So, with that in mind, is a device with a mask-programmed microcontroller a "computer"? You can't run arbitrary code on it. Isn't the microcontroller just another form of ASIC at that point? You can't install Linux on it, any more than you can do so on your Cat. Yet inside that MCU, it's the same CPU core, same RAM, same peripherals, running the same instruction set. The only difference is that it has been built with a last-mask that happens to have a printed pattern on it that causes the part to act as a particular state-machine. But is it a "computer". No, it is not.

So please quit trying to Impress yourselves by declaring just any-old-thing that happens to have an MCU in it a "computer". Because, in just a very few decades (when it will be even harder to find anything that isn't an Embedded System), people will simply look at you like you're daft, punks.

Comment: Re:No vendor should be allowed to cram any kind of (Score 1) 418

by macs4all (#47890761) Attached to: Windows Tax Shot Down In Italy

... software down the users throat.

I don't care if it's free or not. If it's annoying or unnecessary, I don't want to have to spend two hours to rid my newly bought computer of crapware I don't want.

Then buy a Mac. Not one whit of "crapware". Macs used to come with "trial versions" of MS Office; but I don't think that has been true since they developed the iWork suite. They also had a "trial" version of that, too; but then started simply including the suite for "free" with new Macs.

Help! I'm trapped in a PDP 11/70!