|
If you can tell me how to do that on Windows, I'll trade. Set up a single folder, tools menu, Folder options, View tab, push 'like current folder' button. Done. Edit: Cheers, ottster - that looks the business! .gif) Edited by Blerk at 15:14:21 14-04-2005 |
Tiger has been announced • Page 2
-
-
ssuellid 19,142 posts
Seen 7 days ago
Registered 20 years agowasp wrote:
If you can tell me how to do that on Windows, I'll trade.
The same way you have done for years. From file manager, select tools and the 'View' tab and set which files you want to see. Then click on the 'Like Current Folder' Button. -
You know that is one of my biggest gripes about the Finder too. In fact, go over to most Mac forums and you'll find lots of people moaning about the Finder, it seems to be one of the biggest complaints people have.
Oh balls - don't tell me you can't do it!
Actually I think I'd be a lot more forgiving of OS X's other quirks if it had a decent Finder. That's the bit I end up using most and it's coincidentally the bit that has me spitting dummies furthest and most often. -
Doesn't seem to work on NT. Does it work on the 'my computer' view in XP?
It's worked in every version of Windows I've ever used, including NT. Are you using the Explorer? I've no idea if it works in the simplified 'My Computer' view. -
Gnng. Why does everything for the Mac require money? All that stuff should be in the OS by default, surely? If this was Windows someone would've done a freebie by now. .gif)
-
ssuellid 19,142 posts
Seen 7 days ago
Registered 20 years agowasp wrote:
Doesn't seem to work on NT. Does it work on the 'my computer' view in XP?
?
Worked fine on NT from 3.51 at least for me and all windows since including 2k and XP.
edit as Blerk says.
Edited by ssuellid at 15:34:21 14-04-2005 -
TennesseeStiff 372 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 20 years agoI gotta say I'm quite surprised that people feel that Tiger is a sort of a warmed over update to Panther.
To my mind, there is clearly more of a change between Tiger and Panther than there was between W2K and XP, and that was a pretty good improvement in my opinion!
I think what's throwing people is the fact that there isn't a theme change like there was between W2K and XP. Ok so Tiger looks the same as Panther, but give me a list of the feature changes between W2K and XP and I'll match them and raise you with the ones between Tiger and Panther.
Now the question of a price is a different one and I have a lot of sympathy with people's view that the upgrade costs too much. Lets be clear, it is intact an upgrade charge we are talking about here. The fact that it will install without checking for a previous version is irrelevant when for all intense and purposes, every customer of Tiger will have a previous version of OSX.
However, don't mix the two issues together. Tiger has a significant new enduser features and even more under the hood changes for developers that will become apparent as the apps. start rolling out. Whether these changes are worth the money to you is a worthwhile discussion but they are as significant and often more so than those offered by other vendors between their major OS versions. -
ssuellid 19,142 posts
Seen 7 days ago
Registered 20 years agoWin95 to WinXP was the general consumer OS upgrade path. And the differences are quite significant. -
TennesseeStiff 372 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 20 years agossuellid wrote:
Win95 to WinXP was the general consumer OS upgrade path. And the differences are quite significant.
Actually WindowsME to WindowsXP was the consumer upgrade path. That doesn't quite invalidate your point but even comparing ME to XP, as far as the user was concerned the vast majority of changes were under the hood. Don't make me brake out details of new Core Image, Core Video, Quartz 2D Extreme, ext. ext. to prove my point about significant under the hood changes to Tiger.
The fact that Apple managed to dump its crap legacy OS faster than MS is not a point against them. Frankly if you were using 95, 98, 98SE or ME when an excellent drop in replacement was available in the form of W2K, you deserved everything you got!
Edited by TennesseeStiff at 14:14:31 15-04-2005 -
Nemesis 20,312 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years agoAlternatively, go buy some new hardware and get Tiger for free.
Perfect excuse IMO.
/notices stares
Alright. Alright. Jus' trying to help.
/will probably get it for free anyhow!
/runs away -
ssuellid 19,142 posts
Seen 7 days ago
Registered 20 years agowasp wrote:
Win95 to WinXP?
What about 98, 98SE, Me?
Same family, same core. I didn't bother to mention it.
And there was a significant jump from Win95 to XP.
As seems to have now been glossed over by some 'my OS is better than your OS' wanking. -
Nemesis 20,312 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years agossuellid wrote:
wasp wrote:
Win95 to WinXP?
What about 98, 98SE, Me?
Same family, same core. I didn't bother to mention it.
And there was a significant jump from Win95 to XP.
As seems to have now been glossed over by some 'my OS is better than your OS' wanking.
Welcome to the new style forums.
/watches it all go to shit. -
ssuellid 19,142 posts
Seen 7 days ago
Registered 20 years agowasp wrote:
There was a significant jump from 9 to X as well, what's your point?
FFS read the thread. Or are you just trolling?
It was a simple correction that the upgrade was from the consumer os to another consumer OS - not from win2k to XP: -
"To my mind, there is clearly more of a change between Tiger and Panther than there was between W2K and XP, and that was a pretty good improvement in my opinion!" -
ssuellid 19,142 posts
Seen 7 days ago
Registered 20 years agowasp wrote:
Most PC's shipped with Win2k instead of WinMe at the time though, the price difference was so insignificant. Anyone with any clue would have picked 2k every time.
And your point is?
So consumer PCs shipped with Win2k did they? First I have ever heard of it. And the price difference was about £100 IIRC. -
ssuellid 19,142 posts
Seen 7 days ago
Registered 20 years agoYes its great fun. You point out a simple correction and the trolls come out. -
sam_spade 15,745 posts
Seen 7 hours ago
Registered 20 years agoNobody I knew got Win2k for their PCs, everyone wanted to play computer games on them. Or bought them from retail stores that didn't give you the option.
NAKED TWISTER!!!!!
/chugs beer. -
ssuellid 19,142 posts
Seen 7 days ago
Registered 20 years agowasp wrote:
ssuellid wrote:
Just trying to argue the semantics of your pedantics
Yes its great fun. You point out a simple correction and the trolls come out.
Well try arguing with some facts rather than making up stuff like Win2k was the popular consumer choice. Because it was not.
The occasional enthusiast may have used it or professional on a consumer pc. -
Shivoa 6,314 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 20 years ago>Nobody I knew got Win2k for their PCs, everyone wanted to play computer games on them.
One word: SP2
OS Wars: A New Dope!
/runs screaming from thread back to mutli-OS environment. -
ssuellid 19,142 posts
Seen 7 days ago
Registered 20 years agowasp wrote:
We're discussing upgrades, there is no-one who could seriously have upgraded from '95 to XP, so the point is moot.
I did, my dad did, my boss did etc. Bet quite a few forumites did as well.
I had win2k on a second partition and never saw the point of 98 or ME. -
ssuellid 19,142 posts
Seen 7 days ago
Registered 20 years agowasp wrote:
I doubt that 95 level hardware could support XP, memory and processor requirements and all that? Sorry, but I just don't believe that it's feasible to upgrade a 95 era box to XP.
lol. Umm but surely that would be true for ME and 98 machines as well?
The min specs were: -
"233-MHz processor, 64MB of RAM, and 1.5GB of available disk space
Microsoft recommends at least a 300-MHz processor and 128MB of RAM"
Edited by ssuellid at 15:06:27 15-04-2005 -
sam_spade 15,745 posts
Seen 7 hours ago
Registered 20 years agoIt's not anymore. Anyway most people would have upgraded via a new hardware purchase, like the Mac method. Most consumers don't upgrade their OS because they don't know:
a) About upgrades
b) How to do it
c) Anyone to do it for them. -
ssuellid 19,142 posts
Seen 7 days ago
Registered 20 years agowasp wrote:
The requirements for 98 were higher than 95, and ME was closer to XP than 95...
XP min specs were: -
"233-MHz processor, 64MB of RAM, and 1.5GB of available disk space
Microsoft recommends at least a 300-MHz processor and 128MB of RAM"
My PC was an Athlon 1Ghz and something running Win95. -
TennesseeStiff 372 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 20 years agoI'm sorry ssuellid, I don't agree.
The discussion started by people pointing out that there wasn't a significant difference between Tiger and Panther. The equivalent comparison to the Windows I put forward was between XP and 2K and this is the correct comparisons. Both XP and 2K are developments of the same family as are Tiger and Panther.
If you want to be pedantic, I am talking about W2KPro and WinXP Pro (not home).
There is no point comparing XP to ME as they are a different thing and of course there will be a massive (under the hood) difference between them. As has been pointed out, there is an equally huge difference between OS9 and OSX, but that's not really that relevant.
If you really want to go that way, XP to ME .... architecturally completely different but in terms of end user features, what do we have? New theme, a simple video editing app, bundled MSN messenger and version upgrades to the bundled apps. (Outlook Express, IE, ext. none of which were a big deal). Everything else, the real meat and potatoes (the NT core, Windows File Protection, new driver model, NTFS, ext. ext.) are transparent to the user (pretty much) as they should be (to MS' credit).
What I am saying is that if you aren't a geek and don't care about OS kernals, file systems and so on, the transition from ME to XP will look like nothing more than a new theme, a simple video editor and not having to download MSN.
On that bases, you still get more from the Tiger to Panther transition than from the ME to XP transition. -
ssuellid 19,142 posts
Seen 7 days ago
Registered 20 years agowasp wrote:
Bully for you!
Doesn't change that prosumers (Mac owners are not scrimping bargain basement users) would have been upgrading from 2k to XP.
Not XP Pro?
What is does prove is that you had no clue about what you were actually stating as fact. Some Win95 machines were capable of running XP.
Edited by ssuellid at 15:16:54 15-04-2005 -
ssuellid 19,142 posts
Seen 7 days ago
Registered 20 years agowasp wrote:
Maybe, unless you can show me a level of 2k below 2k pro
There isn't a 2k pro. -
ssuellid 19,142 posts
Seen 7 days ago
Registered 20 years agoYes your right wasp. And I use it everyday .gif)
At the end of the day tho I don't really care about the OS or the built in applications. I use Word, web browse, do video work, some dev work and play games. As long as the OS does not get in the way or crash then I'm happy. -
ssuellid 19,142 posts
Seen 7 days ago
Registered 20 years agootto wrote:
It was cheaper and less hassle to switch to OSX frankly.
But think how much money you would not have spent on all the extra Apple toys now they have you hooked How much money do you reckon you have given to Apple over the years? -
Nemesis 20,312 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years agoYeah, but it was money well spent Otto-san.
If MS could release an operating system update every 2 years and charge for it, they would.
Tiger does seem to be more of an update. It just seems they've integrated the core audio and video into the OS; used the GPU for Aqua stuff and updated most of the apps.
I think also better use of the dual CPU with the transition to 64 bit....but we'll see what the practical upshot of that lot is in time.
/can't wait for 64bit WoW -
TennesseeStiff 372 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 20 years agootto wrote:
Don't agree with you there Tennessee. Me to XP may not have had a huge amount of bells and whistles (though the graphical update has a big impact on consumers and shouldn't be discounted) but MS marketing made sure everyone understood that we were talking about much much more than a few new features. On that score I'm sorry but Win9x to WinXP was a far bigger upgrade than OS 10.x to OS 10.x+1...
Oh of course it was huge upgrade quite regardless of MS maketting .... any sane person would say it was a huge one and for the better.
But I don't agree that MS marketing could have made any change to the way people actually used their computer. Even if most people understood about those changes, which I find debatable (I think the extent of it can be summarised "Its new init").
But like I said, even if you understood ..... in end user terms ..... in terms of how you and I used our computer .... what changed?
I still lunched my applications the same way, close, minimise all worked the same, the menus behaved the same. The Control Panel was reorganised but had all the same option, and you can still toggle to the old layout. You installed software in the same way, uninstalled them the same, switched between applications the same way.
The changes were:
Theme and layout
MSN Messenger (you didn't have to download it. The rest of us had to find a way of getting rid of it)
The video app.
A Dog which appeared when you searched for files (but otherwise didn't change the way you searched for files)
Movie Maker
That's it.
Oh and Remote Desktop. That really is quite a big thing.
What I'm saying is that people looking at the Panther to Tiger transition from this perspective of end user 'what I can touch, what I can feel' will find as many changes to the way they actually use their computer as they did with Me-XP.
Note I said ME to XP and not 95 to XP. ME for all its horrors had a LOT of XP's end users features and actually that was part of the problem. It just couldn't hack Explorer trying to generate all those video and image previews and so on and routinely fell on its ass.
But hey, if you are still wanting to compare Win95-98 going to XP, then I am sure there are people still running OS9 in which case, should Tiger run on their machine, I expect their heads will explode.
That is unless they are Blerk in which case, without wishing to be disrespectful, I think his head my already have experienced some trauma if he really prefers OS9 over OSX. -
Nemesis wrote:
Yeah, but it was money well spent Otto-san.
If MS could release an operating system update every 2 years and charge for it, they would.
Tiger does seem to be more of an update. It just seems they've integrated the core audio and video into the OS; used the GPU for Aqua stuff and updated most of the apps.
I think also better use of the dual CPU with the transition to 64 bit....but we'll see what the practical upshot of that lot is in time.
/can't wait for 64bit WoW
Well let me just be clear that I am (personally) talking about the Panther to Tiger upgrade and NOT previous upgrade to OSX. I suspect the reason for some of the 'its just a little upgrade' feelings is that the previous updates weren't really as comprehensive as this one is. I don't know though; I'm not as familiar with anything before Jaguar (and I wasn't knocked over by Jaguar).
As for MS being able to put out an upgrade every 18 months, when you have 90% of the market, and customers deploying your OS by the thousand (as opposed to the 5 guys with black turtle necks designing the annual report) then bringing out a new version every 18 months will result in a lynching! They can't even get people to deploy a service pack six months after its been released!
It also has to do with the fact the MS customer base is mealy complacent as opposed to having a large contingent, who are in a state of KoolAid induced trance otherwise known as the RDF. So its not so much a case of what MS can get away with but what Apple can get away with, which is a lot.
.gif)
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
