VisorCentral.com - Show off your desktop!

Pages (6): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- Show off your desktop! (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=20376)

Posted by Toby on 04-06-2002 10:38 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by chrisfoster
Who said my junk wasn't organized!

I see you missed my point.

quote:
I used to amaze my friends when I could read off all the name of the icons on my desktop when they'd cover it up.

Good for you. Now how exactly does that qualify you to judge how _others_ should get things done?

quote:
The desktop is an extension of a personalty.

That may be how _you_ see it, but some may just see it as a desktop, i.e. a place to get things done.

quote:
I'm not envious of anybody's desktop mostly because I feel their wasting tons of space given to them by the OS.

And some command line afficianados may consider it frivilous to waste all that screen real estate on pretty graphics or icons when text may convey more information. Who said anyone was more right about it than anyone else?

quote:
Personally, i like to use as much of it as possible and keep it manageable, same way with my physical desks.

And perhaps others prefer to keep things less cluttered and only have the things on the desktop that are actively in use. Different strokes...

quote:
Going though tons of directories take too long.

Who said anything about tons of directories? I'm talking about logically grouped files and folders usually no more than one or two levels deep. Incidentally, you'd think that with the logic you used earlier, that you'd _want_ to use those. After all, the OS gave you the capacity to have 'tons of space for directories'. Isn't it a 'waste' not to use them?

quote:
I'd rather use the desktop...or the command line I wish Apple would bring back spring loaded folders.

I'd prefer spring loaded chairs for zealots who think they know better than others how those others should operate.

Posted by dick-richardson on 04-06-2002 10:46 PM:

Toby, how can you be so wrong when I'm so right?

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by Toby on 04-06-2002 11:42 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
Toby, how can you be so wrong when I'm so right?

Simple newtonian physics. :�~~~

Posted by chrisfoster on 04-07-2002 01:21 AM:

um...ok

From now on I think i'll stay on the Treo boards...

__________________
-- This sig for hire

Posted by Toby on 04-07-2002 03:09 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by chrisfoster
um...ok

From now on I think i'll stay on the Treo boards...

No need for that ...just as there was no need to rant about others having 'anemic, iconless desktops'. If you like to have your desktop filled with icons, that's wonderful. My main point was that just because you like it, why rant against others that don't?

Posted by MvPulsts on 04-13-2002 05:39 AM:

My current Desktop

Here's a shot of my current desktop. Yes, it's across two monitors...

Posted by Toby on 05-28-2002 01:35 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
In retrospect, they appear to be about even. The new desktop will have to wait until it arrives.

I don't think I've posted one with the new computer yet. Here's what's currently on since I finally got around to installing the uxtheme.dll patch:

Posted by foo fighter on 05-28-2002 02:00 AM:

LOL! I thought you didn't like Macs, Toby?

__________________
My blog: Pocketfactory

Posted by Toby on 05-28-2002 02:17 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by foo fighter
LOL! I thought you didn't like Macs, Toby?

Not sure where you got that impression. I was even considering getting one of the iLamps (and will still wind up getting one eventually). The main thing that stopped me was not wanting to wait until they sorted out production issues (when I bought this one they were still digging out of the backlog) combined with the secondary issue of some less than positive reviews I'd read among the Mac community of OS X (main complaint was the sparse application support which will work itself out eventually). I figure by the time I'm ready to make my next computer purchase (well, it'll really be for my wife's desktop), the time will be right for an iMac.

Posted by foo fighter on 05-28-2002 02:54 AM:

Oops!

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
Not sure where you got that impression.

Hmm..maybe I'm thinking of someone else here. Sorry for the mistake.

quote:
The main thing that stopped me was not wanting to wait until they sorted out production issues

Yep, that was one reason why I held off as well. There were several reports of iMacs that wouldn't "wake up" from sleep mode. And there was an issue with some LCD's that were installed crooked. I've had my iMac for about a month now, and it is flawless.

Thankfully, I purchased mine before the price increase.

quote:
combined with the secondary issue of some less than positive reviews I'd read among the Mac community of OS X (main complaint was the sparse application support which will work itself out eventually).

The biggest problem I've had with OSX is speed. The OS still needs some fine tuning. Native apps are coming out everyday. Most of the top tier apps have already been ported, with the exception of Quark.

One piece of advice I can give you, if you do purchase a Mac, is to get as much RAM as possible. Get at least 512MB. You'll thank yourself later.

I chickened out on the "free" RAM upgrade offered by many Mac retailers becuase my friend received his unit from MacMall with a scratched up display. The person who installed the RAM card was a little careless with his iMac. That turned me off, so I decided to buy my unit unopened with the default specs. The bottom line is...I have only 128MB of RAM in my iMac...and it is ass slow! My friend has the same system with 512MB...and there is a dramatic improvement in system performance. There's just too much swapping (Virtual Memory) going on with my system.

Oh well, live and learn.

quote:
(well, it'll really be for my wife's desktop), the time will be right for an iMac.

Everyone is different, so I can't say how well you will like the Mac platform. But if you are the type of person who isn't glued to the Windows GUI, and you are willing to learn a new environment...you may end up falling in love with OSX. Windows XP is a great OS for what it offers. But OSX seems so far ahead of its time. This is really the first time (since the early Macintosh) that an Apple OS has outclassed Windows.

I'm still a PC guy at heart, but there are times I would love to move everthing over to the Mac platform as my primary system. It's that good!

__________________
My blog: Pocketfactory

Posted by Cerulean on 05-28-2002 06:44 AM:

I think OS X is quickly becoming the new geek platform .. Tons of things to like ..

1. CLI / Total Control
2. UNIX based
3. Stable

With Jaguar just around the corner with all the new technologies (a la Extreme Quartz) -- the operating system should get an appreciatable jump in performance (that will definitely be nice) and on an enterprise/IT level, the foray into servers with the xserve is definitely cool (unlimited client licenses, competitive pricing, etc..)

With OSX turning heads and Linux-on-the-desktop gaining momentum (KDE3 rocks), I think we might actually start seeing the beginnings of some OS wars again..

Hopefully Microsoft will continue on their quest to force people into using MS exclusive software (BSA audits, license changes on Office, you get the picture ..) and there will be explosive growth of both OSX and Linux in corporations (not to mention schools, governments, etc..etc..) seems like technology is starting to get exiciting again..

Posted by foo fighter on 05-28-2002 07:35 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Cerulean
I think OS X is quickly becoming the new geek platform .. Tons of things to like ..

Yes, there are "tons" of stuff to like. But as long as the Macintosh platform remains closed, and based on PowerPC, it will never grow beyond its current niche.

quote:
...and on an enterprise/IT level, the foray into servers with the xserve is definitely cool (unlimited client licenses, competitive pricing, etc..)

Enterprise will NEVER deploy xServe. IT managers avoid Apple like the plague. That's never going to change.

The xServe may do well in the creative market, but that's about it. There are cheaper, more configurable server solutions to be had, using standard components.

quote:
With OSX turning heads

OSX is turning heads, but it doesn't seem to be growing Apple's share of the PC market.

quote:
and Linux-on-the-desktop gaining momentum

In the minds of Linux fans, this may be true. But in reality the OS has made little progress at kicking Microsoft off the desktop.

quote:
(KDE3 rocks),

To each his own, I guess. KDE and Gnome have certainly improved, but they just don't measure up to Windows or Macintosh. Even XP looks more "modern" by comparison. Gnome/KDE reminds me of the early days of Windows 95. The UI is crude and unpolished. They lack the sophistication and grace of Aqua. Part of the flaw lays in the nature of open-source software...it's free. No one is paid to develop a good GUI. So you get what you pay for. Whereas Microsoft and Apple have teams of designers, usability experts and psychologists who work to develop a refined, well conceived Graphical Interface. KDE and Gnome are like a Church Pot-luck dinner....just a bunch of generic crap arranged on a table.

I see Linux on the desktop as one step forward, and five steps back....back to 1995.

quote:
I think we might actually start seeing the beginnings of some OS wars again..

I really wish that were true. Microsoft desperately needs a viable competitor to threaten its existence. Apple is squarely boxed into its little corner of the market. And Linux continues to hobble along like a jalopy, even though it's giving MS serious competition on the server

Personally, I believe the OS wars are over. Microsoft won. Anything new that comes along will just be anti-climactic.

quote:
Hopefully Microsoft will continue on their quest to force people into using MS exclusive software (BSA audits, license changes on Office, you get the picture ..) [/b]

Now there we agree on something. If Microsoft continues to nickel and dime its corporate clients to death, they're going to start looking at other...less costly solutions.

quote:
and there will be explosive growth of both OSX and Linux in corporations (not to mention schools, governments, etc..etc..) seems like technology is starting to get exiciting again..

Arg! You don't get it. There will NEVER be an explosive growth of OSX in corporations because it means replacing existing PCs with Macintosh systems. Read my lips...THIS IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN! NOT EVER. If it were possible to install and deploy OSX on existing PCs in a cost effective manor, then there could be some remote chance of this happening. The cost of retraining alone would be insurmountable. Linux would stand a better chance because it can run on existing hardware. No need to throw away those PCs...just install a different OS. That's not an option with Apple.

__________________
My blog: Pocketfactory

Posted by dick-richardson on 05-28-2002 03:12 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by foo fighter
Arg! You don't get it.

Considering everything you quoted was from one post, how could he 'get it' when the entirety of your response has been posted after his? There has not been a dialog between you two whereby he has been presented with information and is refusing to agree.

quote:
There will NEVER be an explosive growth of OSX in corporations because it means replacing existing PCs with Macintosh systems.

That is very easily done with OS X...one computer at a time. It plays nice with windows networks, plus it can serve windows networks nicely as well. With as little hassle as OS X is, a Mac could easily replace a windows based computer once it needed to be retired anyway.

quote:
Read my lips...THIS IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN! NOT EVER.

Not as you seem to envision it. There isn't a coporation in existence that is going to overhaul its entire IT department in order to replace every single computer at once. Hell, one of the reasons a serial connection was an acceptable option for the handera 330 is because of corporate users who are still using Win95 on old hardware.

quote:
If it were possible to install and deploy OSX on existing PCs in a cost effective manor, then there could be some remote chance of this happening. The cost of retraining alone would be insurmountable.

Not really. Replace existing PC's with Macs on request of the person using the machine - requiring previous knowledge with the OS.

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by Toby on 05-28-2002 03:16 PM:

Re: Oops!

quote:
Originally posted by foo fighter
Hmm..maybe I'm thinking of someone else here. Sorry for the mistake.

Not a problem. I'm sure I have been critical of Macs before (a thread where prices were compared comes to mind), but I'm certainly not anti-Mac.

quote:
Yep, that was one reason why I held off as well. There were several reports of iMacs that wouldn't "wake up" from sleep mode. And there was an issue with some LCD's that were installed crooked. I've had my iMac for about a month now, and it is flawless.

Thankfully, I purchased mine before the price increase.

heh...I was looking at them at that point also. My configuration would have put one at $2100 after the price increase. Even at a relatively expensive PC maker like Alienware, though, I still got more (relative to what I'm looking for) for my money.

quote:
The biggest problem I've had with OSX is speed. The OS still needs some fine tuning. Native apps are coming out everyday. Most of the top tier apps have already been ported, with the exception of Quark.

Quark isn't something I fool with. Other than my Palm stuff, the only major program I'd have added was Quicken.

quote:
One piece of advice I can give you, if you do purchase a Mac, is to get as much RAM as possible. Get at least 512MB. You'll thank yourself later.

Well, that was a given for me. I wouldn't buy a computer with less than 512, and I'm thinking that my Christmas present to myself is going to be to bump up my Alienware to 1 or 1.5GB (along with upgrading the processor).

quote:
I chickened out on the "free" RAM upgrade offered by many Mac retailers becuase my friend received his unit from MacMall with a scratched up display. The person who installed the RAM card was a little careless with his iMac. That turned me off, so I decided to buy my unit unopened with the default specs. The bottom line is...I have only 128MB of RAM in my iMac...and it is ass slow! My friend has the same system with 512MB...and there is a dramatic improvement in system performance. There's just too much swapping (Virtual Memory) going on with my system.

Oh well, live and learn.

Yep.

quote:
Everyone is different, so I can't say how well you will like the Mac platform. But if you are the type of person who isn't glued to the Windows GUI, and you are willing to learn a new environment...you may end up falling in love with OSX. Windows XP is a great OS for what it offers. But OSX seems so far ahead of its time. This is really the first time (since the early Macintosh) that an Apple OS has outclassed Windows.

Well, I finally got to play around with it in a store for a bit a weekend or two ago, and it doesn't seem to be anything offputting. OTOH, I'm not married to Windows and I've used all sorts of other GUIs on *nix stuff, so I don't think OSX will be hard for me to at least like. My wife definitely liked it.

quote:
I'm still a PC guy at heart, but there are times I would love to move everthing over to the Mac platform as my primary system. It's that good!

I'll let you know whenever we make the jump and whether I agree.

Posted by Toby on 05-28-2002 03:30 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
[...] That is very easily done with OS X...one computer at a time.

How many enterprise IT departments order 'one computer at a time'? We try not to, and we're relatively small. The economics are just so much more attractive in larger quantities. That doesn't even get into the support costs.

quote:
It plays nice with windows networks, plus it can serve windows networks nicely as well. With as little hassle as OS X is, a Mac could easily replace a windows based computer once it needed to be retired anyway.

What's the benefit, though (from a business perspective)?

quote:
Not as you seem to envision it. There isn't a coporation in existence that is going to overhaul its entire IT department in order to replace every single computer at once.

You've got that half right. I know of quite a few corporations which replace all (or nearly all) of the computers at once. It's an economic decision. One can get much better leverage with a vendor when ordering a couple hundred (or thousand) PCs on a fairly regular schedule. You also get support benefits from your staff only having to support _one_ platform regardless of who's calling. Some vendors will even take your applications and install them on one system, test it to ensure compatibility, and then image it to all of the other systems.

quote:
Hell, one of the reasons a serial connection was an acceptable option for the handera 330 is because of corporate users who are still using Win95 on old hardware.

Actually, NT plays a big part in that too.

quote:
Not really. Replace existing PC's with Macs on request of the person using the machine - requiring previous knowledge with the OS.

So, what good would that do? You'd still only have a small fraction of the users with Macs who'd be different than everybody else at the company.

Posted by Cerulean on 05-29-2002 12:19 AM:

hey foo .. thanks for the long reply

A few points..

I agree that the closed nature of the Macintosh platform is definitely an issue for wide deployment of OS X .. HOWEVER, that said, I feel that the added benefits of OS X over OS 9 is definitely providing a choice to those individuals who are tired of Windows (I actually know of several individuals who have switched simply due to virus related issues...) -- The macintosh as a platform over the past several years has definitely expanded to the point where it is a platform that people can switch over to fairly easly (integrate with their current PC based networks, open up all of their files on the Macintosh, etc..) -- so while it is a closed platform, I think it definitely has the potential of growing beyond its current niche (granted, it won't be a dominate OS, but definitely has the potential of growing..)

Enterprises deploying xServe -- hmm.. why not? Sure IT managers have disliked Apple in the past due to incompatibilities, but if they are successul in their launch of the xServe, I could very well see the xServe being used -- it is priced competitively, has features that satisfy the majority of departmental based tasks, can run UNIX applications/servers, has an easy to use front end, no per-seat licenses to worry about, etc... Granted, it won't be an over night success, but if Apple can remain price competitive and can show outstanding customer support, then i think enterprise quite possibly will deploy the xServe ...

Now as far as standard components comment .. what do you mean? PCI slots? IDE hard drives? DDR memory? ethernet? Seems like xServe uses lots of standard components..

Now on to Linux ...

Linux over the past few years has went from a hobbiest OS to a mainstream server OS with companies such as IBM investing billions into marketing/promotion/deployment of Linux solutions. My guess is Linux has been the most widely ported operating system ever. It most recently has been deployed in various devices such as the TiVO, cell phones, PDAs, cash registers, embedded devices, tablet PCs, laptops, mainframes, etc (not to mention all the various platforms .. PPC/x86/ARM/Alpha/Sparc/etc..)

So this gives businesses a huge advantage -- no matter what computing platform (hardware wise) is the best for the job, there is most likely a distro of Linux that will run on that platform and with little more than a recompile, all of their software will run on the new platform.. So in this regard, Linux is flexible enough to meet the companies needs.

Now as far as KDE/Gnome are concerned --- its continuous improvement that is the neat thing about the gooeys.. While it can be said that they don't measure up to Windows or Macintosh, I'll agree -- however, you make a very good point, Windows and OSX have a very strong reason to be successful -- it is the lively hood of two multi-billion dollar corporations. Both systems have been under development (in one form or another) for over 12 years. KDE and Gnome on the other hand are free interfaces that does not have a centralized development team and has only been available for basically the last 4 years.

So you look at it as a 4 year project and recognize the fact it has a very capable interface, development tools, advanced web browsers, tons of 3rd party software, full office suites, etc...etc.. and I dunno .. it just seems really impressive to me.

On top of that, if I recall correctly, Sun is standardizing on Gnome 2 as the default desktop for the Solaris operating system. This effectively puts two large players promoting open source solutions (Sun and IBM) -- So now there is definite incentive to polish the interfaces to go mainstream -- I think there is a lot of that in KDE 3.0 -- significantly less focus on the pretty pictures and a lot more focus on usability .. My guess is Gnome 2.0 will see much of the same..

To go with this idea further -- with more people interested in using KDE/Gnome as their desktop, more developers will be working on these ease of use features. As far as XP looking more modern -- I think this is a pure opinion .. I personally like showing off the various KDE themes in screen shots .. looks nice and pretty

quote:
I see Linux on the desktop as one step forward, and five steps back....back to 1995.

Well getting closer .. better than seeing Linux as a crude UNIX from 20 years ago ..

quote:
Now there we agree on something. If Microsoft continues to nickel and dime its corporate clients to death, they're going to start looking at other...less costly solutions.

Well umm.. thats my point... Not only is Microsoft nickel and diming its corporate clients to death (their goal of subscription based pricing .. forcing corporate customers to upgrade to the latest Office or be forced to pay full price at a later date, etc..) but at the same time, corporate customers are having to deal with a barage of viruses, hacks, etc..etc.. due to Microsoft's continual security problems (lets see .. they launched the Trustworthy Computing initiatve, had February be their month long bug squashing fest and has released security fixes that don't fix the problem .. yikes..)

Now as far as your reasons to not convert:

1. new hardware
2. retraining cost

Well companies are already replacing computers with new computers .. so a gradual shift to a different platform is not that outrageous ... Go department by department (or better yet, start with the servers, get all that converted, then end users..) -- not only will this cost be already assumed, but training costs would be spread over a period of time which would definitely be nice ..

Here are some reasons to convert:
1. Get rid of per-seat licenses as per the Microsoft model..
2. Avoid subscription based pricing completely
3. Provide protection against the significant amount of microsoft crap-code (read the transcripts from the DOJ case -- "we can't open up API's because there are security issues..") -- on a more down to earth note -- it will save from the myriad of viruses out there infecting all flavors of windows..
4. Not locked into a specific hardware platform (Linux)
5. Full source availability to allow companies to custom fit their systems for their objectives
6. Long term low deployment costs

There are lots of companies already deploying Linux in some fashion in their infrastructure -- and by the day, Linux plays a more important role ... Perhaps the interface is not the most elegant, but for a significant portion of the working population -- the OS is not that important (they only use one or two applications day in and day out.. so the OS is not a huge deal..) -- so it makes sense to have an OS that is less expensive and just as productive (makes business sense..)

Joe

Posted by Cerulean on 05-29-2002 12:23 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
Considering everything you quoted was from one post, how could he 'get it' when the entirety of your response has been posted after his? There has not been a dialog between you two whereby he has been presented with information and is refusing to agree.

Seems like I hit a sore spot for Foo .. I hope he didn't get too worked up over that post .. hehe ..

quote:
Not really. Replace existing PC's with Macs on request of the person using the machine - requiring previous knowledge with the OS.

I highly doubt any large or small company would do this --- its either an all-or-nothing proposition .. the support costs associated with having multiple platforms without a clear cut business advantage doesn't make sense --- I could see people requesting Mac OS 9 or Windows 3.1 systems and then complaining that they can't work because it "always crashes" -- not to mention having to cross train your in-house IT department to support multiple platforms.. or making sure custom applications work on the various platforms.. hmm... no thanks..

Posted by dick-richardson on 05-29-2002 07:43 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
How many enterprise IT departments order 'one computer at a time'? We try not to, and we're relatively small. The economics are just so much more attractive in larger quantities. That doesn't even get into the support costs.

Alright, as Cerulean pointed out, make it department by department - per request of that department. Regarding the stability and issues of IT training that Cerulean mentioned, with *nix under the hood, wouldn't most IT managers be 'trained' already on a system that is at least as stable as XP?

quote:
What's the benefit, though (from a business perspective)?

Not sure if those 'productivity tests' showing people get more done on the Mac OS applies to OS X, but that would be my guess. Not too much more money (in service/support in addition to purchasing costs) for an increase in employee feelings of 'ownership' plus the possibility for additional productivity due to system stability and [possible] higher per-hour output from users. Not trying to sound too much the Mac fanatic, but it doesn't seem to be that much more corporate effort, considering Apple price cuts at volume (yeah, one-by-one is a poor idea) plus the *nix underpinings.

quote:
...Some vendors will even take your applications and install them on one system, test it to ensure compatibility, and then image it to all of the other systems.

That probably wouldn't work so good - but it'll give them lazy IT managers something to do besides spending all their waking hours posting to discussion sites.

quote:
So, what good would that do? You'd still only have a small fraction of the users with Macs who'd be different than everybody else at the company.

The question with OS X is how different?

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by dick-richardson on 05-29-2002 07:45 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Cerulean
Seems like I hit a sore spot for Foo .. I hope he didn't get too worked up over that post .. hehe ..

Probably not, his cup is just half empty while mine is filled to overflowing (or some such).

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by Toby on 05-29-2002 12:33 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
Alright, as Cerulean pointed out, make it department by department - per request of that department.

That still isn't a very workable solution for most IT support. Most don't like even mixing brands from different PC makers.

quote:
Regarding the stability and issues of IT training that Cerulean mentioned, with *nix under the hood, wouldn't most IT managers be 'trained' already on a system that is at least as stable as XP?

The catch is that OS X is not necessarily the same thing. Most *nix experience would be at the server side. Supporting a *nix _desktop_ is a whole other ball of wax. When you bring in a new hardware platform and a new GUI and API layer, not as much of that knowledge is transferrable.

quote:
Not sure if those 'productivity tests' showing people get more done on the Mac OS applies to OS X, but that would be my guess.

Find some numbers, then we can talk.

quote:
Not too much more money (in service/support in addition to purchasing costs) for an increase in employee feelings of 'ownership' plus the possibility for additional productivity due to system stability and [possible] higher per-hour output from users.

Therein lies the rub. _Nobody_ is asking for it (well, 1 person in marketing), so even that doesn't make a case.

quote:
Not trying to sound too much the Mac fanatic, but it doesn't seem to be that much more corporate effort, considering Apple price cuts at volume (yeah, one-by-one is a poor idea) plus the *nix underpinings.

You try it first on a small business with a couple hundred computers, and let me know how it turns out.

quote:
That probably wouldn't work so good - but it'll give them lazy IT managers something to do besides spending all their waking hours posting to discussion sites.

No, they'd just have to post to Mac discussion sites.

quote:
The question with OS X is how different?

Think _very_ different.

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:19 PM.

Pages (6): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page