MacsimumNews - Your Leading Apple News Alternative

Neo Says:

An Update is on the way, stay tuned.

Posted on November 03, 2005

IT guy Says:

This could be huge!  I guess, if you are going to have two operating systems installed, you could simply use the Windows Applications, without having to re-boot the system.  I think it will simply work in the Mac Environment; but it will be slower.  This will totally avoid the need for a Virtual PC product.

That’s just my guess.

Posted on November 03, 2005

ken2 Says:

It appears that Apple is bringing in lawyers to word things so hackers won’t be able to understand what is going on.  Might not be a bad idea!

Magic word:  idea!

Posted on November 03, 2005

Mr Skills Says:

Er… it all looks very exciting but can someone explain to me what this all means? :-)

Posted on November 03, 2005

Al Says:

I agree IT guy. It could be huge. Is this about servers or desktops? If it’s a desktop, then it looks like there’s a way to run up to 3 environments. Could this take advantage of Intel’s Virtualization? The lines blurred, this could really sway switchers. For work, I wouldn’t mind that myself.

Posted on November 03, 2005

Rick Says:

In one instance it looks like a way to keep out OS X hackers on alternative Intel Hardware.

IN thsi instance: “the system comprises a processor and a memory unit coupled with the processor.” sounds like U3, where MS flash based apps could run natively on a Mac. Look up U3 for more on these MS apps coming. San Disk also states that it will work with Macs in the future. See this macsimum report: http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.php/archive/move_over_u2_u3_is_coming_to_the_mac_via_sandisk/

Posted on November 03, 2005

Clarus T. Dogcow Says:

IT Guy, are you crazy? In today’s market, if Apple made a Mac/Windows system it would be the end of the Mac OS.

The OS is only the interface between software and hardware with the limited abiity to perform relatively minor things like keeping track of time. What’s important is what Monkey-boy jumped around yelling: Developers, Developers. Developers.

Without applications, computers are worthless anchors. Remember Be? Remember OS/2? No applications = death.

Let people run both Mac OS and Windows on a computer and developers would have absolutely no reason to develop for the Mac OS.

“Oh, you gotta Mac? Of course our software runs on it. Just run it on your computer under the Windows environment.”

Be THANKFUL that the Mac OS will only run on Apple software.  Until it makes up 30%-60% of the market, running both OSes on Apple computers will destroy the Mac. And since most developers are more familiar with Windows, chances are if the Mac had 90% of the market they’d still only develop for Windows.

Posted on November 03, 2005

eli Says:

Not so fast, Clarus.  There ALREADY EXISTS a huge number of software applications and group of developers for the Mac (well, relative to Be and OS/2 anyway). 

The Mac OS is established and it’s perceived to be MUCH better.  Why use clunky Windows software when you can have a beautiful Mac interface (OpenOffice is a good example- it looks TERRIBLE, on the hand, it is free: I only use it to avoid supporting Micro$oft and because there’s no native Mac alternative).

Most people, when allowed to choose, would pick the Mac OS and just use Windows for those applications not yet available on the Mac (well, _I_ would anyway ;-).

Finally, Apple’s gone from 2% of the market to 4.6% in a very short time.  If they can hit 6% or 7% by the time the Macintels are released, you’ll actually see a FLOOD of developers rushing to cash in on this “new” and expanding market.  It just might have the opposite effect than you think…

Posted on November 04, 2005

Jason NSSG Says:

This is rather interesting, though a bit hard to make sense of. I’d probably need to look at it few more hours to really have a really good guess as to what it really means.... but I’m not sure that this is something that is really intended or necessary for running Windows apps on OSX X86, since there is already plenty of work being done on Wine for OSX X86 which makes actually having Windows unnecessary (for all apps currently supported by Wine, anyway). This actually could be interpreted as a way the system might handle a tri-platform fat binary (or quad if you include OSX PPC). Or it could be taken just as a new programming technique to be revealed in further detail later on.

Regarding OSX and Windows compatibility, I’m not so sure that that would have a negative impact on sales of OSX. For instance, applications that make use of things like CoreImage and other new 10.4 APIs would perform much faster on OSX X86 than they would perform as a Windows binary even if they could bypass all of the Virtual PC virtualization overhead by running the OS natively. So, if a shop had the option, they would go for the faster binary, which would probably be the OSX one.

But anyway, if you’ll recall Apple’s long-rumored licensing of Transitive’s technology that allows multiple OSs/architectures to be run under one host/architecture, this could just be a way of allowing OSX to have Windows transparently running in the background using Transitive’s software, and being able to have a Windows program invoked on the OSX side but then executed within the Windows partition. Or this could be Apple’s own technology allowing independent OS partitions (similar to on Sun Solaris) which would allow the same functionality while again avoiding the performance penalty of hardware virtualization.

Just one comment on OS2. It didn’t really die for lack of applications (it didn’t really ever have many apps even at it’s peak), but for lack of support from IBM. Due to IBM’s need to have good relations with Microsoft for licensing purposes at their PC (hardware) division, once Microsoft abandoned OS/2 IBM was somewhat obliged to follow, or in this case to allow it to wither on the vine. I know of plenty of places that were buying OS/2 only to run Windows software on top of it because they felt (rightly, at the time) that it was the superior OS. So long as Apple can convince Joe User that OSX is intrinsically better than Windows, Joe User won’t particulary care that much if the app he’s running is a native OSX app or a Linux or Windows app. In fact, it’s more often the case that Joe user buys a Mac and is mad that he can’t use all of his old Windows apps (a hurdle that prevents most would-be switchers from switching).

Posted on November 04, 2005

Peter Alcibiades Says:

As long as Apple spends its energy on preventing the customer from buying what he wants, its market share is never going to rise significantly.  And we should be very glad of that.  What the customer wants is not to be locked into one supplier for hardware and software.  And he is right.

The problem with it as a marketing strategy is, if successful it leads to monopoly.  But monopolies are very hard to come by, and harder to defend, so if the market takes off as you hope, you end up with insignificant market share.  This is what happened with the Mac.  Apple basically drove the PC buyer into the arms of Wintel through unwillingness to allow unbundling, and inability to supply demand with their own bundled stuff. 

My bet is the same thing will happen to them in the music market.

Posted on November 04, 2005

Pieter De Becker Says:

The protection of the platform is good for apple AND for it’s users.
They have to code for a limited range of computer models which they know good, this leads to less bugs and better reliability for the user.

Posted on November 04, 2005

eff Says:

when will apple turn sour...?
some of this is already showing its ugly head.. ok / its still not that bad, so lets make sure that this is not escalating.
I am referring to:
iChat / that is only supporting firewire cameras.. ok, the iSight is a marvel, but a bit pricey.. why not let iChat users use cheapo USB cams for a couple of bucks.. // good to know that someone did write a small app to stop this .. thanks
http://www.ecamm.com/mac/ichatusbcam/

and why did apple hide the multi monitor settings on an ibook?
so that we fork out a bit more for a powerbook g4? // no thanks.. I love the ibook design.. the silver block is not what I want…
well at least there is someone that could read between the code and write a small unlocker for the rest of us..
ScreenSpanningDoctor
http://macparts.de/ibook/

question now is .. what is happening to this cool company? is this a trend to be watched in the future.. please apple guys / stay cool.

Posted on November 04, 2005

thelovin Says:

On that Transitive note made by Jason NSSG, you can’t translate Windows to OS X calls, it’s not how Transitive/Rosetta works. It only works across similar unix style OS’s. It basically translates code and redirects system calls. Unix and Windows system calls are too different from each other for it to work.

Posted on November 04, 2005

Apple's virtualization integrity! Says:

This application seems to prevent system that works at a lower level to not be able to access the higher level system’s data or code. The lower level system could be the processor or a virtual machine like Xen. I suspect it is a safety issues. Perhaps, if commercial companies want to allow their OS to run ontop of another virtual machine, they want to be able to guarantee that the lower-level OS doesn’t mess with the code or data. Their customers would be more happy about it that the can get this guarantee.

The hidden agenda means that it enforces a commercial system to be to lower-level system. It has to be commercial or the patent doesn’t apply. Apple in turn could say, “we guarantee our OS to be data safe with XYZ commercial package.”

Posted on November 04, 2005

Scout Zen Says:

Yeah, but MACs ####, so who really cares?

Posted on November 04, 2005

Nate Says:

I agree, scout. Ethernet addresses ####. Macs, on the other hand…

Posted on November 04, 2005

Cats Says:

Hmm, wayne-spam is what you go by. Nice to see PC people having to come to a Mac site to check things out. Get use to it wayne...I mean scout MS...I mean Zen: Ohmmmm, zen sucks....Ohmmm; meditate on that!  :-)

Posted on November 04, 2005

Scout Zen Says:

Oh, you’ve got me there! MAC != Mac. (I just spell it like that to annoy the true Mac fanatics… :)

I agree though, Macintosh computers made by Apple, inc. have a really unfortunate interface and overall suckitude.

I sold my mini-Mac after owning for a mere 3 months. I wanted to find out what all the hype was about… You CAN’T EVEN CUT and PASTE files you have to drag them all over the place like it’s some kind of video game.

The DELETE KEY on your keyboard doesn’t even delete files OR send them to the trash.

Also, have a good time operating it with just a keyboard...it’s IMPOSSIBLE :)

I’m just doing my duty here to try and turn people away from the Mac and choose a better OS like Windows XP.

Get out of the Steve Jobs reality distortion field!!! He said the PowerPC processors were da bomb and now he’s goin Intel. What a crank!! Boohoo.

Posted on November 04, 2005

Ryan Azar Says:

Do not listen to Zen. You CAN do all the things he says you cannot do. You have to be stupid to think every OS works exactly like windows.

The delete key on the keyboard DOES work. It’s just not the shortcut, it’s cmd + delete to delete files. Copying and pasting works also! Its not control + c and control + v, you use cmd + c and cmd + v.

He is just a dumbass and can’t figure out how to use something other that windows. I could go on and on about the advantages of Mac OS X, but I don’t think it would convince anyone otherwise. Basically use whatever makes you happy. But if you are unhappy with windows, viruses, spyware, crashes, etc like I was, you NEED to switch to mac. It’s definately worth it.

Posted on November 04, 2005

Julia Says:

Tampax resistant code?  What? Now OS has PMS too???

Maybe that is why Windows XP does not work well some days of the month.

Why would anybody want to patent this?

Posted on November 04, 2005

Cats Says:

Hey Wayne (zen guy),

I’ve never read anything so stupid in my life. the word “un-believable” comes to mind with your hilarious false testimony. Even as an MS employee, you should laugh at your own assesment.

I use both OS X and Windows. I haven’t had Windows crash or get a virus in 5 years, so I don’t bash them like most in this community. But your view of the Mac is typical ignorance of a PC’er. Did I say hilarious! Repeating things to MS users is required as they can’t understand the simpliest of instructinons. :-)

I’m glad that you eat up Steve Jobs quotes, as it kept MS (your employer) in the dark: Being the copy cat that he sadly is. Anyways, thanks for the entertainment this morning Wayne or Zen or whoever/ whatever you go by these days! Zen, you definitely win the “troller of the year” award hands down. :-)

Yawn (that’s “see ya” to zenites)

Posted on November 05, 2005

Scout Zen Says:

Oh, so I have to use a 2 KEY keyboard combination just to delete some files? That’s real efficient (not).

Also cmd + c COPIES the files it does not cut them. Obviously Mac users lack an attention to detail or I wouldn’t have had to explain that to you.

That being said, I don’t want to use the 2 key shortcut to cut/paste files anyway. I want it on a context menu (a right-click menu). Windows gives me a CHOICE (a word Mac users are not familiar with).

Where’s the context menu item to cut files on OS X eh? Ya just can’t do it sillies :)

(Didn’t have much to say about the Intel/PowerPC comment did you...hehe, you hate it when S. Jobs is wrong :)

BTW, I don’t work for Microsoft, I just like to wrangle with Jobs followers who think they’re better than everyone else.

Posted on November 07, 2005

Juanxer Says:

I am not sure about this, but doesn’t it look like talking about sort of encrypted multiOS binaries, such as, say, an unhackable Win&Mac;/Mactel iTunes app binary? The system tells its memory subsystem to decipher the code, protect the results from tampering, and determine if it relates to the installed OS and is executable so, I think.

Posted on November 08, 2005

King TJ Says:

This whole “secure code” thing is interesting.  I’ve wondered for a while now if it’s possible to load in pgp encrypted code off the CD or DVD installation disc, which the authentic computer (in this case, a real Apple Mac, as opposed to a standard PC like a Dell or HP) would be able to decrypt and run “on the fly” since the keys are embedded into a chipset on the motherboard.

Even if such an arrangement were made though, it would seem someone owning a Mac could get it to decrypt the content and then they could dump the decrypted version of the code to the hard drive, and burn back to a new install CD or DVD - breaking the protection.  But it would certainly put a halt to “casual piracy” of something like OS X by people just trying to load the original installation media on an “unauthorized computer”, after Intel-based Macs are released.

As for the totally “off topic” Mac bashing comments, you gotta use whatever gets the job done best for you.  I own both Windows XP and Mac systems here.  I have my gripes about OS X (such as only having the ability to drag a window from tone corner!).  That one’s really fun when you borrow a higher-res display for a while and then go back to your normal one, and find you have windows opening off the edge of your display that you can’t possibly drag back onto the desktop!

But that said, OS X is a teriffic operating system.  There’s actually quite a bit of support for people who prefer using the keyboard (not the mouse) as often as possible.  One important thing is to go into System Preferences and check-mark the “All contols” option for keyboard access under “Mouse & Keyboard” --> “Keyboard Shortcuts”!  Also, if you use StuffIt, you’ll notice it can automatically compress or uncompress an archive simply by renaming a file with or without the .sit extension.  Try *that* in Windows.

Posted on November 09, 2005

Mario Says:

You can use a two-button mouse on the mac, just plug it in. Any USB mouse will do. There you will have the context menus you want. Also, you can option+click an item and you will get a context menu.

Posted on November 09, 2005

Wiggles Says:

Eventually people will use a REAL OS, like any of the many Unix flavors out there. Mac’s lack developer support, and windows xp is a breeding ground for virii because of the assinine way microsoft insists on integrating everything into everything else.

Kill the GUI on a mac, and you have a locked up box. Kill the GUI on a windows box, and you have a locked up box. Kill the GUI on a linux box? Type startx.

Honestly though, apple is going to dreadfully harm its market share simply because of the geek factor. Most of the people I know who would be interested in running MacOS on a pc have their own custom built machines. To cut out people like that is idiotic marketing. After all, installing and getting an OS up and running is hardly simple when you consider 99% of the population can’t tell the difference between ram and hard drive space. Not to tout geek superiority, but the computer business was made on the backs of geeks, and geeks like things to be open (unless they’re into networking).

Posted on November 09, 2005

x Says:

All interface elements are accessible from the keyboard in OS versions greater than 10.4. You can do most everything from the keyboard, even down to moving the mouse with the keyboard.

Almost every menu item has a short cut, and you can always add additional shortcuts if they do not exist.

Macs Work.

Posted on November 09, 2005

AgentFade2Black Says:

To Wiggles:

You claim that killing the GUI on a Windows system is a locked-up box?
Not so.

It depends on if you have XP or not. If you have XP, just hit CRTL-ALT-DEL, Open new Task, then type C:\Windows\explorer.exe

If it’s 98, then you’re screwed.

Posted on November 09, 2005

Fluttter Vertigo Says:

Per KingTJ:
Decrypt (PGP, or otherwise; for some reason, people seem to think PGP is the only method any more) on the fly…

... in order to execute is nothing more than a type of code execution DRM which we see in media in various forms.

The shortcoming in it (media DRM) is this:  “if you can hear it or you can see it, it can be cracked.”

Execution DRM is obviously many, many, many, many, many, many, many ad nauseum cases more complex, but there are always shortcomings. The key to unraveling this will be running it as a virtual machine They may not show up until someone has something tangible to twiddle bits with.  If it were five years down the road and details were to leak albeit a trickle, you’d see people working harder on paper for theoretical attack methods.

If nothing else, I see it as a pre-emptive move on Apple’s part to deal with rootkits, something Microsoft will not get rid of until|unless they rewrite a fresh code base, just as they won’t fix buffer overruns until they create a new code base.  <yawn>This is why the “everyone’s quiting work for a month to fix security bugs” per Gates</yawn> Until the Promethean flaw is corrected, you’ll forever see “Patch Tuesdays”.  And if they think they’re going to fix it on the fly (as they’ve claimed to do), it’ll be like trying to push shit back into the horse.

Posted on November 09, 2005

Boditch Says:

Who gives a toss?  Just use what you like.  I am heartily fed up with religious MacOS vs Windows vs Linux/MS vs OSS squabbles.  If you’re a developer, you’d be stupid to develop what’s “nice” - develop for the biggest market.  And if that’s Windows, then so be it.

Posted on November 10, 2005

all4macs Says:

Well… i was a windoz user all my life… thought it was the greatest thing ever. never thought i’d even look at a mac… to make a long story short, i’ll never go back to windoz, my efficiency has probably tripled while working, it looks much nicer, and it’s a very easy interface. why wouldn’t you want it? i have yet to find anything i could do in windows that i can’t do on a mac, except crash of course ;).. windoz tends to do that alot (and for those who will say “not if you set it up properly” i’ll respond, “at least you don’t have to do this at all on a mac, it comes stable")

anyways, as the joke goes “The box said windows XP or better.... so i bought a Mac”
and yes, i do know how to spell, but as the linux guru’s say: I love to BASH windows

Posted on November 10, 2005

DrZ Says:

Kill the GUI on a Mac and what happens?

It restarts again.  No user intervention or juju required.

Posted on November 10, 2005

Bovineone Says:

I believe the patent is basically just saying that their Rosetta (PPC-to-x86) code translator could have the ability to insert hardware-specific checks into the translated code.  This is similar to polymorphic code generation used by some advanced viruses when infecting executables.

Suppose a hacker/cracker (with only x86 assembly knowledge) is trying to bypass something like a license-check in a Rosetta-translated application.  Any crack/patch she creates for the resulting x86 code will not necessarily work on another computer, since the same PPC binary will get translated slightly differently on another computer.

She will instead need to create a very tolerant x86 patching engine (to accomodate the various ways Rosetta might perform the polymorphic trasnlation; or she must learn PPC assembly and apply her patch to the original PPC binary before it gets translated.

Posted on November 10, 2005

Konqueror Says:

bunch of damn hippie lovers.. MACs need to burn in the firey pits of hell i say.. deal with it..

PS: m$ can take the same path.. they are in bed with eachother anyway.. you dont honestly believe that m$ didnt know about this before it was even filed ?

Posted on November 10, 2005

Walt Sellers Says:

Won’t “more difficult to change” (ie tamper with) also mean:
- more difficult to debug (for OS developers, driver developers and application developers, not to mention admins and users)
- more difficult to optimize (if code is being changed on the fly, then instruction ordering and pipelining is messed up)
- more reliance on Apple to fix or upgrade anything
- probaby impossible to for individuals or 3rd parties to upgrade the hardware or software (forget those mods)
- finally, if someone actually does figure out how to tamper with it, would we be able to fix it? Or even find out?

Posted on November 10, 2005

ConstableBrew Says:

Walt is the first one to say anything sensible. Those are very good questions, just the questions that will make or break the OSX port to x86.

Posted on November 10, 2005

Tony Lewis Says:

Really, the sky is not falling....  Having Windows on a Mac or OSX on a PC won’t kill Apple’s business.

Apple makes its money selling hardware.  As a mostly PC user, I don’t care what hardware I am running as long as it fits into my three requirements of hardware.

1) It must be stable
2) The company that makes it cannot be a “fly-by-night” operation
3) The quality of the hardware must be beyond reproach.

Now if I could run Windows on a Mac, perhaps I would, just because I am used to it.  I definitely would run OSX as an alternative OS on my intel machine though.

Now if Apple could provide me with some kickass hardware and software at a comparable price, then hell yeah I’d use it.  So that’s one sale of OSX for Intel.  Now just think of all the other PC users out there that would buy it just to try it.  If PC users are 98% of the computer market, and only 2 percent buy it… well, Apple just more than doubled it’s software revenues.  Though I would imagine closer to 10% of PC users would try it during that first year.

Where apple is failing, is not in making machines people want to use, it’s in making machines people want to sell, not to mention making products that are actually available.  They don’t give themselves enough credit either, it’s as though they are afraid to try new things.  Either that, or they are positioning themselves quietly for the day when they’ll kill Microsoft by simultaneously releasing an Intel OS and all the productivity software that comes with it.

Intel OSX servers for every business, and OSX on the desktop… imagine it!

As a computer tech, I have to say that the profit margin on Apple’s hardware is nil.  Off a dual-core G5 tower, we might make 20 bucks.  Why sell and support something that, in the long run will cost us money.  I know Apple wants to do sales themselves, but they can’t even ship parts in a reasonable time… let alone systems.  Would you be willing to wait six months for a machine while they built it?

Posted on November 10, 2005

Kindwar Says:

Ummm…

Did any of you read the patent application??  It’s about encrypting multimedia to prevent redistribution by the use of a lightweight realtime partial key decryption OS that lays on top of either the MacOS, Windows or Lynux.

I’m not thrilled with this—I think it’s evil.

Posted on November 10, 2005

hkmaly Says:

to DrZ:
What ? I can’t type startx to run X.org on Mac OS X ? I hoped Mac will finally be usable with that BSD-based kernel ... is it at least some bash-compatible shell on Mac ?

Posted on November 11, 2005

Esquilax Says:

“Also cmd + c COPIES the files it does not cut them. Obviously Mac users lack an attention to detail or I wouldn’t have had to explain that to you.”

Which is exactly what the original poster said it would do.  Obviously you lack an attention to detail or I wouldn’t have had to explain that to you.

Cut is cmd+x, obviously.

“That being said, I don’t want to use the 2 key shortcut to cut/paste files anyway. I want it on a context menu (a right-click menu). Windows gives me a CHOICE (a word Mac users are not familiar with).”

First you complain (incorrectly) that one cannot navigate OS X with just a keyboard.  Now you complain that you have to use the keyboard to cut/paste (there’s gotta be a file out there that you can drop in the ContextMenu folder to give you that functionality, but no it is not built into the OS (which, ironically, gives the user MORE choice - if we don’t want it in the context menu, it doesn’t have to be there to clutter it up)).  You also complain about efficiency, even though using a keyboard shortcut is faster than using a context menu item.  Make up your mind.

And do you need to be able to operate your computer one-handed so badly that you can’t even perform a simple command-keystroke?

“(Didn’t have much to say about the Intel/PowerPC comment did you...hehe, you hate it when S. Jobs is wrong”

PPC is the superior architecture.  Unfortunately, IBM and Freescale/Motorola have not been able to increase its clock speeds at the same rate.

Posted on November 14, 2005

Scout Zen Says:

“Which is exactly what the original poster said it would do.”

I asked for CUT and PASTE and he said COPY and PASTE. What don’t you understand?

“First you complain (incorrectly) that one cannot navigate OS X with just a keyboard.”

You canNOT navigate the entire OS with JUST a keyboard. This is patently UNTRUE. You sir, are either ignorant or a liar.

“(there’s gotta be a file out there that you can drop in the ContextMenu folder to give you that functionality, but no it is not built into the OS (which, ironically, gives the user MORE choice...”

More choice than...? I can add context menu items in Windows too bud :)

“Make up your mind.”

Sometimes I want to do it one way, sometimes the other. Whichever one is more convenient. Windows lets me do that, OSuX doesn’t.

“And do you need to be able to operate your computer one-handed so badly that you can’t even perform a simple command-keystroke?”

Yes.

“PPC is the superior architecture.  Unfortunately, IBM and Freescale/Motorola have not been able to increase its clock speeds at the same rate.”

So in other words, it’s a great idea but they just can’t implement it properly. Sounds like bull-pucky to me. Even with the same clock speeds though, x86 blew PPC away. Take a look at some benchmarks that Apple /didn’t/ fund.

Posted on November 14, 2005

pseudo Says:

I think that Apple’s adoption/move to Intel chips will increase their market share by allowing all of those windows users that really do want to be free from their daily deluge of viruses and spyware, while being able to continue using their software while running on a more stable platform.

The average windows user in the office or at home plays video games, chats and uses office apps, all of which can be be done with easier with OSX.

The only challenge I see for Apple will be to make this wintel machine as cheap as those Dell boxes and the like.

Posted on November 21, 2005

chrisb Says:

“You canNOT navigate the entire OS with JUST a keyboard. This is patently UNTRUE. You sir, are either ignorant or a liar. “

Sorry but you can. BUT you do have to change some settings under system preferences: Under “keyboard and Mouse” --> “Keyboard shorcuts” make sure all the keyboard navigation shortcuts are ticked and at the bottom of the pane select the “All Controls” option for the tab button behaviour.

Now to move around the items on the current window, menu bar, dock, desktop or expose screen just use the tab and arrow buttons just like on windows and the enter button to select.

To switch between open windows press F9 and use the arrow keys to select the window you want to bring to the front.

To focus on the menu bar press Ctrl + F2

To focus on the dock press Ctrl + F3

There are heaps and heaps of other keyboard shortcuts for various things but the above is all you need to navigate the OS.

Now I’m not saying that OS X is easier to navigate by the keyboard I’m just saying it can be done.

About the CUT thing:, despite what all the Mac fans say you cannot CUT files and folders in the finder, that option is ALWAYS greyed out in the Edit menu, why it is even there if you cannot ever use it is beyond me. And NO if its greyed out in the Edit menu then the keyboard shortcut is also unavailable.

About the PPC architecture: Although clock for clock an AMD Athlon64 is faster than a G5 in many cases, clock for clock a G5 is faster than a pentium 4 in almost all cases (ie clock for clock its performance is somewhere between an Athlon and a P4). And PPC has not nearly had as much money and development time thrown at it as x86.

Posted on December 01, 2005

dasda Says:

The cut command is dangerous for the unexperienced user.

Take a look at windows xp:
when i “cut” a folder and paste on another disk… if some file is been using by the OS, i got a error message. the moving operation failed, and my files rest on two different targets folders....

Posted on February 02, 2006