While light on Gates-baiting at this year’s confab, Steve Jobs still gets his digs in: “Microsoft is copying us again, and it’s fun!“
A Microsoft-Friendlier Macworld
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
They know that their OS is far more advanced and well, just better than windows. Having experienced both WinXP and Windows 2000, Mac OS X is light years ahead as far as the UI is concerned and it’s also more stable. The only reason Mac OS X could be thought of as inferior is because it doesn’t have as many games and it doesn’t support as much hardware.
I always thought they were bitter enemies. Nice of Jobs giving Bill a $200 gift certificate, but I think Gates wants his music in WMA 😉
If they are bitter enemies why does microsoft have so many stocks in apple?
If they are bitter enemies why does microsoft have so many stocks in apple?
They don’t.
actually microsoft awhile back did buy stock for apple to appear like they were supporting competition. as far as the apple versus windows rivalry that was huge back in the day. This being before Linux was really popular. I have noticed the toned down retoric over the past 6 or 5 years when the imac came in place and ms office for mac came out.
because last I heard that had quite a bit invested in them.
i believe it was non-voting stock… and i think that they indeed sold it a long time ago…
anyone remember?
getting slightly OT, hp and apple teamed up to bundle itunes on hp/compaq and apple will make hp branded ipod…
http://news.com.com/2100-7354-5137473.html
I don’t think the Redmond boys are enemies to the Fruit guys.
1) Microsoft needs Apple to copy their OS and needs them for not having to explain why they are the only company in the OS world (I didn’t say OS in general, but company, M$ can’t compete with the company called Linux, because Linux is OpenSource)
2) Microsoft still makes nice toys for the Mac. RDC, Virtual PC, Office X, … Apple isn’t even competing in that area, otherwise, they would support OpenOffice.
3) Microsoft has a financial interest in Apple (stock)
/**********************************************************
*
* 3) Microsoft has a financial interest in Apple (stock)
*
***********************************************************/
as i and several other people have pointed, m$ no longer has apple stock
MS did indeed have a good deal of stock in Apple. But affter the iMac did so well (the first one) Steve made sure that Apple bought back all the stock MS had. For a time MS did have a lot of money in them, but that is no longer the case.
I’m not trolling. Just stating something.
I have no need for MS. OpenOffice is more than good enough for me on my iMac and in Lindows. And those (Mac OS X and Lindows 4.0 – soon to have 4.5) have everything that I want or need.
I don’t need EVERY game. I got enough games I really like. Plus with iLIfe ’04 I’ll be able to hook up my electric guitar and MIDI keyboard and make music on it. Plus the other apps.
My wife wants a Windows laptop. “Fine with me. Just come looking for me when you have problems. If you want help, get a PowerBook.” But then she won’t need help. And she could get virtual PC for any Windows apps she HAS to have.
I like the way he talks about LongHorn.
” “Their biggest challenge is just to get it out. Things have been known to slip.”
SWEET!!! I think that will basically solidify the iPod market with Apple branding the iPod and I assume iTunes for other OEMs.
I plan on getting the student edition of Office X…I mean hell, I will get a free upgrade to Office 2004.
the 150 Million was to ensure that Apple made MSIE the default webbrowser.. Netscape was hot back then…
QUESTION: Why do MS apps seem to work better on the MacOS (preOSX included) than MS’s own Windows? Every app that I used on both platforms. I prefered the way it operated on the Mac.
Just an observation
Jb
grapegraphics: It’s probably just a matter of the differences in UI concepts, I’d say you just prefer the Mac way of doing things.
dr_gonzo: Just because you like the UI, or because the UI is pretty does not make the UI better than Windows. Now if you want to argue whether or not Apple’s compositing engine is better than GDI+, then I could see where you have a point there, as it’s no contest.
because the MacOS does certain nice things with interface design that Windows does not yet do, and because the MacOS has a strict HIG where Windows has a much loser one.
I personably think that it depends on what you like more. OS X is more of a relaxing user experience ( the OS does what I say, not guide me like windows) for me so I enjoy using programs in it.
I thought he was talking about the technologies in Mac OS X not the interface.
well, that could be true. Mac developers are a bit more anal about the products they create. the MBU at MS has the most Mac developers in one place outside Apple and it is an independent unit from the rest of MS, so I assume they operate like a large Mac company.
“I thought he was talking about the technologies in Mac OS X not the interface.”
Not really… I’m not trying to flame MS, it’s just that they ‘seem’ to write good code on ANY Mac OS… I’ve always believed this. MSOffice works like a charm on my ol’System 8.6 Mac, on my OSX machine too… but when I go use Office2000 on my XP machine (day job) or Office97 on my Win98 machine… they just don’t compare. UI aside.
Jb
Also recall that Apple has the distinct advantage of knowing the hardware they write for as well. That and the fact that they tend to not support backwards compatability the way MS does. I would imagine then that you would have less driver and hardware conflicts in a Mac than in a windows machine that has to deal with uncontrollable configs.
true, but anybody wanna explain why MS office sucks more on windows than on macs??? shouldn’t ms know more about their own OS???
<dammit ressev… now look what you did… i feel a flamewar about to start in 5… 4… 3… 2… 1… (duck!!!)>
Well try the combo Windows 2000 and MS Office. It’s “almost” bug free. On OS X we have funky errors that pop up from time to time from corrupt fonts in Word.
/************************************
* Well try the combo Windows 2000 and MS Office. It’s “almost” bug free.
* On OS X we have funky errors that pop up from time to time from
* corrupt fonts in Word.
*************************************/
ok, so a little bit of M$’s black thumb seeped in… 😉
i hope that goes away with MS Office 2004 for mac… i hope that is a lot better than MS Office v.X has been. i mean, its ok, but it could be a lot better… still 10 times better than the windows version barring possibly office 2003 (seeing as i never tried but want to if for nothing else but OneNote)
for the record…when Mac OS became mature, it supported machines from 1991 through 2001…that is 10 years of backwards compatibility, I expect perhaps not such an extreme, but I suspect that OS X at this point on will support all the current G4 systems and up for a long while.
the 150 Million was to ensure that Apple made MSIE the default webbrowser.. Netscape was hot back then…
QUESTION: Why do MS apps seem to work better on the MacOS (preOSX included) than MS’s own Windows? Every app that I used on both platforms. I prefered the way it operated on the Mac.
Just an observation
/me agrees. Every M$ app on the Apple runs like 1000% better.
>I have noticed the toned down retoric over the
>past 6 or 5 years when the imac came in place
>and ms office for mac came out
Uhm…. MS Office has ALWAYS been on the Mac. Word/Excel were actually Macintosh products FIRST – long before MS released Windows.
Whats the old saying, “keep your friends close, but your enemies even closer”, what do you thing MS and Apple are doing?
Now that was a good comeback……
> Uhm…. MS Office has ALWAYS been on the Mac. Word/Excel
>were actually Macintosh products FIRST – long before MS
>released Windows.
So back when word/excel were only for mac who was making them? Were they still made by MS back then?
Yeah, but it’s cool because we can afford it.
Please understand, I’m not trolling, this is my opinion, and should not be taken for Gospel. Investigate it for yourself, and form your own opinions.
I dunno ’bout you, but the MS applications seem to be very robust on some fronts, and exceedingly flaky on others. I have Office v.X for OS X, and there’s a definite love/hate relationship w/ it. It chokes on classic fonts, and flips out on some simple things. (Don’t ask me to name specific things, I don’t use it THAT often, only when none other will do.) However, it is not lacking in feature completeness, and the interface is great once you set it up. The formatting palette contains all you would ever need in the toolbars, without all of the junk. Too bad Office is a vector for viruses. Try as I may, I can’t disable macros on the application level. But, otherwise, it’s a quality suite.
Don’t touch Windows Media Player 9 for Mac. What a dog.
MSN Messenger for Mac is better than WMP for Mac, but it’s no prize itself.
Office 2000 for Windows feels more solid, but I’m addicted to v.X’s formatting palette. I don’t care for IE for mac, MSN messenger on either platform, and WMP for Mac. (I wouldn’t touch it with a thirty-nine and a half foot pole.)
IE for windows is great in some areas, and really icky in others, but IE for Mac is just all-around an abomination.
Overall, IMHO, the quality of the MS applications varies between both platforms on a per-application basis. I don’t use what I don’t like on either platform. I don’t use IE on either platform, nor do I use MSN Messenger. I like WMP on Windows, however, and use that.
Don’t think that it’s all rosy on the Mac, however. Some of the Apple applications make me spit blood, but at least I’m pleased with the underlying OS, and can swap out what I don’t like a lot easier than I can w/ Windows.
Actually, I think Word came for MS-DOS first. But you’re right saying that the Mac version came before the Windows version.
>So back when word/excel were only for mac
>who was making them? Were they still made
>by MS back then?
Yes, they were still developed by Microsoft. I used to run MS Word and Excel on my MacPlus, a machine with an 8mhz processor and one whole megabyte of RAM.
The MS apps are certainly DIFFERENT between the Windows version and the MacOS version. The Mac OS versions tend to lack a lot of the nagging extra crap that I never use on the Windows version (yet which gets in my way, such as automatic this, automatic that). However, I do not think that the MacOS versions of MS software are actually all that “better.” Just different. IE on MacOS tends to be a particularly stinky example. I wouldn’t use it at all if it weren’t for the two annoying behaviors of Safari that I hate:
1. Safari mounts as network volumes any FTP link I click on. It takes forever and sometimes fails. End result: inconsistency that leaves me, the user, wondering what happened if anything at all.
2. ALL phpBB sites will freeze Safari on my system. I don’t know why or how to fix it but I do know that no one else has ever admitted suffering the same problem (I’ve been bashed to pieces on this site for mentioning I have the problem at all).
I think MS Word in Office X on MacOS is mighty nice and slim compared to the Windows version. The installation process is an absolute dream (all MS apps on MacOS make the installation process of their Windows counterparts look like insane retardation, which is what it really is). I do have problems, though: Recently, my girl noticed that Japanese text will not paste into Word from TextEdit correctly (most of it was okay but certain Kanji characters came up as empty character blocks, requiring her to manually reenter them in Word) and the obvious “not really an OSX app, just a converted OS9 app” isms throughout (like the file naming problems: no more than 31 characters, no Japanese characters) and other things.
Which do I prefer? I almost prefer the MacOS version of Word to the Windows version. I prefer the Windows version of IE, though. By a long shot. I concur with the person who said that Windows Media Player on MacOS is trash. But then, Quicktime on Windows tends to be trash too. Hell, both tend to be trash at times on any operating system…
Agreed. The reason that the MS apps sometimes drive me batty is that they are not workflow friendly if your workflow involves non-Microsoft applications. Couldn’t agree with you more about the “not really an OSX app, just a converted OS9 app” comment. The legacy code in Office is painfully obvious.
The inoperability of Office with other applications, coupled with the unnecessary legacy restrictions makes me avoid it for production use, but it’s not like I can dump it, I mean, it’s OFFICE.
Don’t get me stated on the Apple applications that are poorly designed. (Preview, iChat, QuickTime Player et al.) Or those that suck underneath (iPhoto, iMovie, Finder- though getting better) (Haven’t tried the ’04 versions of the iApps.)
Here’s hoping to cleanups of apps w/ potential, but some fatal flaws. (Mail has one fatal flaw- the DRAWER, but that is easily remedied compared to the flaws in the others.)
Some one liked it so much they made it for the wintels. To bad it isn’t built in, cost $9.95
http://www.winexpose.com/
“because the MacOS has a strict HIG where Windows has a much loser one. ”
It used to, but now the HIG seems to be low on Apples list of priorities.
dr_gonzo: They know that their OS is far more advanced and well, just better than windows. Having experienced both WinXP and Windows 2000, Mac OS X is light years ahead as far as the UI is concerned and it’s also more stable. The only reason Mac OS X could be thought of as inferior is because it doesn’t have as many games and it doesn’t support as much hardware.
They know that their OS is far more advanced and well, just better than Mac OS. Having experienced both OS X and OS 9, Windows XP is light years ahead as far as the UI is concerned and it’s also more stable.
See how stupidly subjective your comments were? Yes, OS X UI is ahead of Microsoft’s, but “lightyears”? Hardly, Apple dropped the ball with OS X. There is UI inconsistency between Apple’s apps, for example. Microsoft on the other hand is improving their UI. The gap is closing. As for stability, I have yet to see Windows XP crash more than once (and that once was a hardware problem when I was upgrading – how often do you do that on a Mac?). OS X, on the other hand, I’ve seen crashing. Kernel panics and all.
And going to Apple’s own forums, the problem isn’t isolated cases. So is OS X more stable than Win XP? Hardly.
grapegraphics: QUESTION: Why do MS apps seem to work better on the MacOS (preOSX included) than MS’s own Windows? Every app that I used on both platforms. I prefered the way it operated on the Mac.
Mac editions normally come out some few months after the Windows editions, and come with features created in the R&D between the period. Personally, I think Office 2003 is loads better than Office v. X, but then again, I would be suprised if Office 2004 isn’t better than Office 2003. Office for Mac isn’t just a port. Probably it also have to do with the fact that Office started out as a Mac product, ported later to Windows.
Windows Media Player for Mac, for example, while technically very different from WMP on Windows, but IMHO WMP on Windows is loads better. The same goes to IE, on Windows, it is loads better and faster. And MSN.
because the MacOS does certain nice things with interface design that Windows does not yet do, and because the MacOS has a strict HIG where Windows has a much loser one.
You mean that strict HIG Apple themselves frequently flaunts and changes? At the rate things are going, OS X is going to be as inconsistent as Windows.
grapegraphis: Not really… I’m not trying to flame MS, it’s just that they ‘seem’ to write good code on ANY Mac OS… I’ve always believed this. MSOffice works like a charm on my ol’System 8.6 Mac, on my OSX machine too… but when I go use Office2000 on my XP machine (day job) or Office97 on my Win98 machine… they just don’t compare. UI aside.
Unless you are using Classic, you are probably using Office v. X, which is much better than Office 2000 for the reasons stated above. And IIRC the only Office that works in System 8 was Office 98, better than 97 for the same reasons.
:-): true, but anybody wanna explain why MS office sucks more on windows than on macs??? shouldn’t ms know more about their own OS???
Suck? That is pretty subjective no? I find I do work much faster on Office XP (and Office 2003, I’m sure…) than on Office v. X because it is easier to call out the features I use.
i hope that goes away with MS Office 2004 for mac… i hope that is a lot better than MS Office v.X has been. i mean, its ok, but it could be a lot better… still 10 times better than the windows version barring possibly office 2003 (seeing as i never tried but want to if for nothing else but OneNote)
Since I bought Office XP, I won’t be buying Office 2003 (I want, but don’t need). But OneNote isn’t the only thing new – Outlook has completely changed. I haven’t used it extensively yet, but it looks cool. There’s subtle differences in other applications where you have to use it to realize it.
for the record…when Mac OS became mature, it supported machines from 1991 through 2001…that is 10 years of backwards compatibility, I expect perhaps not such an extreme, but I suspect that OS X at this point on will support all the current G4 systems and up for a long while.
I don’t think that’s what he was talking about. Does Panther run all OS X 10.0 apps perfectly without any hitches? What about 10.1 apps? Or 10.2 apps? Software backwards compatiblity in OS X is extremely poor, considering Apple’s trackrecord with OS 9 and below.
Quattro: Apple makes really great products that no one wants.
If that’s the case, I wonder why they are posting profits larger than any other company its size in the computer sector.
Ruahine: So back when word/excel were only for mac who was making them? Were they still made by MS back then?
Yes, Microsoft made them. They were one of the first to support the Mac platform. When Apple bithced them, Microsoft created Windows 1.0, which was pathetic. But later on… oh well, you would know.
Charles: IE for windows is great in some areas, and really icky in others, but IE for Mac is just all-around an abomination.
Actually, during OS 9 years, it was pretty much the most stable and fastest browser around.
Charles: The legacy code in Office is painfully obvious.
Well, that legacy dates back almost 2 decades, it is hard to port it over to a completely new platform.
—
On the article, Jobs seems to be deluding himself that Microsoft won’t release a interim version before Longhorn containing most of the features OS X has currently. Why shouldn’t they? They have done that for years now (releasing a new version every other time. He seem to think that under 2006/7, Windows would be a stationary target… which would be quite unlikely.
Either that, or he is trying to delude his fellow disciples in the cult of Mac.
really…and why is that? point out an application that does not conform to the HIG. then quote the portion of the HIG that proves it does not.
Can anyone comment on what Macs use in place of the registry in Windows? If they use something radically different and more stable, I will look into them for my next machine. Most Windows-related problems are registry-related and I am really looking for alternatives now.
I don’t think that’s what he was talking about. Does Panther run all OS X 10.0 apps perfectly without any hitches? What about 10.1 apps? Or 10.2 apps? Software backwards compatiblity in OS X is extremely poor, considering Apple’s trackrecord with OS 9 and below.
Speak for yourself, i’m running Dreamweaver, freehand, flash, fireworks, illustrator, photoshop, toonboom, painter and i’ve had ZERO problems with 10.3. as a matter of fact, i’m still running Typestyler 2.0 on Classic, that ‘s a 1991 Broderbund product.
list the applications that are inconsistent with the Mac HIG, then quote the part of the HIG that they are in conflict with, taking care to note any other parts of the HIG that might cover the thing you consider inconsistent.
yeah, they use a radically new thing called the flat text file. </sarcasim>
Eugenia…I know that you do not want to make a name registration system because you want the forums open, but I think that a this point you should. this troll keeps going around and using peoples handles making them look like fools.
you can always have “anonymous” be a default handle since many of the trolls enjoy using that.
that is the biggest lie I have ever read.
Can anyone comment on what Macs use in place of the registry in Windows? If they use something radically different and more stable, I will look into them for my next machine. Most Windows-related problems are registry-related and I am really looking for alternatives now.
Most (~90%) applications on OS X installs two things on your system. The application itself (which itself contains all the application-specific data) and a preference file [in the preferences folder]. That’s it! When you uninstall, it’s seriously as easy as dump application icon in the trash, and if you’re super anal (like myself) you “search” for the preference file in the finder, and trash that. THAT’S IT!
I know that OS X is technically more advanced than Windows XP. However, what I really wonder is if it is really better or necessary at this point. While I agree that rendered and 3d driven GUIs are the future, I don’t know if they are exactly needed right now. I never really used OS X until very recently, but having just started using it I have formed some initial opinions. I think that OS X’s gui is definely slower to respond and generally more sluggish than XP’s. Sure, OS X looks great and has nice effects, but when you are trying to get work done, and quick, it seems to me that stuff like this just gets in your way. Personally, I think that by the time Longhorn is released, computers will probably be powerful enough to handle these types of effects effortlessly. When that is true, then I will want them built into the operating system.
badtz and blah:
Thanks. That sounds very clean. I also assume that the bootup time and startup ram use will not increase with MacOS’s Preferences method when you install more & more applications?
no, it is just a regular file! Also, if for any reason the app ever just messes up, delete the preference file and you are good to go again (at least if it’s the same as it was in OS9
Most (~90%) applications on OS X installs two things on your system. The application itself (which itself contains all the application-specific data) and a preference file [in the preferences folder]. That’s it! When you uninstall, it’s seriously as easy as dump application icon in the trash, and if you’re super anal (like myself) you “search” for the preference file in the finder, and trash that. THAT’S IT!
Yes. And according to my (former Linux & *BSD user, OS X user for about a month now) observations, every single application I’ve came across that hasn’t followed this policy has coincidentally sucked exceedingly, and as a result I won’t touch them with a seven-meter pole anymore.
This is much closer to the traditional *nix style of placing the configurations in users’ home directories as dot files, except that typical GUI app config files in OS X are located in ~/Library/Preferences and formatted as xml. Of course normal console programs still place their configs at ~/.
Cringer & Wing:
that’s awesome. Thanks for the clarification. Makes me wonder why MS chose the registry route, which I regard as one of the overwhelming weak points of their OSs. I’m already more interested in OS X.
That’s a very interesting perspective. I totally agree, and I say that because, as a Mac user, when I’m looking for a new app to fulfill a specific function, I always look for the MOST Mac OS X-like app. By that, I mean, if it can’t be installed by either copying the “.app” construct to my “Applications” folder or by double-clicking an icon which launches the Mac OS X installer applications and places each file where it should be on it’s own, then I’m not interested.
>> I always look for the MOST Mac OS X-like app.
A tell-tale sign of when an application is NOT completely Mac OS X-like, is when its installer asks you to quit all other applications before installing (Windoze!)
Lotus Notes does this and IBM might try to reason that it’s for “security purposes”.
Note that most (but not all) apps store Prefs in a standardized XML format, so they can still be edited by a common program. There is one GUI program and a set of commandline apps for this included with the OS (but not installed by default).
I think that OS X’s gui is definely slower to respond and generally more sluggish than XP’s. Sure, OS X looks great and has nice effects, but when you are trying to get work done, and quick, it seems to me that stuff like this just gets in your way.
What system were you using? I’m on a 667mhz Powerbook DVI (512 RAM), and it only slows down when I have a lot of Applications open. If I’m just doing GUI navigation, that’s very instant (in Panther).
IMO, OS X’s GUI is much more “fluid” feeling, and more initially intuitive, then having to clobber through the Luna Interface.
no, it is just a regular file! Also, if for any reason the app ever just messes up, delete the preference file and you are good to go again (at least if it’s the same as it was in OS9
That’s the great thing about using XML preference files in OSX ….. if the applications just happens to not work properly, you trash the preference file and voila! your application is working as default again, and no need to go uninstall/re-install the application. You only lose your preferences, which in most cases, isn’t so bad.
It was good to know that Steve and Bill are still buddies personally. Yes, that’s the way it should be.. They may still fight professionally, but when it comes to being human, they are still very human and put aside all professional differences to be good buddies.
If all the people on planet Earth realised and followed this philosophy, then Earth would be a far better place to live than what it is now.
the apparent sluggishness is designed in.
use this command
defaults write NSGlobalDomain NSWindowResizeTime <time from .001 to 5>
this will speed up or slow down the GUI effects.
I have found that a .145 setting makes it pretty snappy for most things, but you might want a faster response.
the sluggishness is designed in for a fluid user experience. you will find that in OS X you don’t get the annoying hangs in the UI that you get in windows, and to me that is better even if the UI is slightly slower.
The Windows registry was designed to be very fast to access. Instead of having to do file I/O operations and parseing the text file, all the elements in the registrys hierachy are mapped into memory and can be accessed within a couple of API calls.
This speed was needed because the registry stores all the COM componant registrations. It was very important to be able to locate the file for each com interface very quickly. Most windows applications are built from several com componants linked together.
Now the registry is overused, it grows too fast and its binary format has made it a single point of faliure for the entire OS. Its used to store everything from hardware configuration, hardware and software state state to user profiles, application settings, file type associations and com registrations.
Thats not to say it wasn’t a good idea at the time it was introduced.
To get some idea of how much the registry is used run the regmon tool from http://www.sysinternals.com. On my system its reading from about 500 keys a second. The performance of reading the equivalent data from text or xml files would have been terrible back in 1995.
In the future the registry will be less important. .Net apps don’t need to be installed before they are used. They keep application config and user preferences in xml files. .Net componants can be stored in the GAC so they don’t need to have thier location stored in the registry.
“the apparent sluggishness is designed in.
use this command
defaults write NSGlobalDomain NSWindowResizeTime <time from .001 to 5>
this will speed up or slow down the GUI effects.”
THANK YOU! THANK YOU!
Wow, I never knew this one, it makes a huge difference in speed. I feel like I went from 10.2 to 10.3 all over again.
Apple should speed up the setting just a bit, overall OSX Rocks!!
That is not so true. There are some features of the registry that Mac OS X seriously lacks. User-customizable Application-File Type mappings DATABASE for example (and I know about manipulating it through File/Info on a per-file type base). It is in there (LaunchServices) just there is no way for the user to manipulate it.
“it supported machines from 1991 through 2001”
I was talking about software, not hardware. You generally cannot run the same software from one version to another. Now, that may have changed with OSX, but it happens to have been one reason why I did not purchase a Mac while I do prefere Mac over IBM clones.
I was using a G4 PowerPC that probably had a (I’m guessing) 867 Mhz processor and may have been a duel processor box. Of course, this computer was running OS X 10.2.8 so and upgrade to Panther on these boxes may help, but that I cannot say for sure.
Why does MS make software for mac?
Why does “APPLE” quiketime work on windows?
Why is their a windows version of the Ipod?
Doesn’t Bill realize Mac OS X is build ontop of unix?
Does he care?
If not, why does he push linux away (a os that came from unix) & not Mac OS X (a os built ontop of “UNIX”)?
the apparent sluggishness is designed in.
use this command
defaults write NSGlobalDomain NSWindowResizeTime <time from .001 to 5>
this will speed up or slow down the GUI effects.
I would try that command, but the Macs that I use aren’t mine to play with, so I probably won’t get a chance to test that. Maybe I’ll have to take a trip to an Apple Store and try it out
play with it…I have not tried .001 but at .01 the dialogues just appear as does the menu bar and panel.
it is really funny to add time over .15, talk about SLOOOWWWW
BTW, I got that tip from another OS X user, it might be in one of the O’Reily books or some other Mac book, no sure.
Cause it seems Billy boy only has problems with non-commercial software. Linux has to possibility of pushing his OS into the expensive POS category if it wasn’t already considered that.