As a user of OS X since 10.0.0, IMHO, The Finder, even at it's shittiest, is head and shoulders above any "explorer" version out of Redmond.
And at least Spotlight frickin' WORKS...
You make it sound like multi-monitor and multi workspace are options of which only one can be chosen. Using two monitors and eight workspaces here!
Oh, you mean like this?
Yes. Yes it is.
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.
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..."
Fuck you Apple and iDiot phones you prooduce
You mean like that new HTC phone with the CURVED BACK?!?
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.
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?
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.
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?
This post is an interesting case in wrongness density.
I was simply pointing out that neither side is actually "right".
... 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!