Topic: My Mac is a better PC than my PC...

[KDR_11k]

3. Ten pixels is pretty difficult to cross, sometimes I try and move my mouse this far but die of exaustion halfway.

Not everything is run in fullscreen.

4. Did you ever try right clicking?

With one button.

5.What is Apple+O meant to be? I can't think of any other function beginning with O.

That's not his problem, he's complaining about enter being rename instead of open.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

I associate Apple with Quicktime.

The "AutoFail" box is checked, and nope, you can't un-check it.

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11kDo what you want to do. I'm not saying Windows is perfect but it's not as bad as people make it out to be either. Most likely those Macs have an included firewall (these days all OSes come with one, including WinXP) because whatever happens you just don't want to connect to the web without a firewall. Even if you are 100% sure that your OS is without bugs you don't do that.

OSX does have a built-in firewall, yes.

Quote
With one button.

This actually ties into the shortcut argument because the mouse features many ways to set up macros to execute commands just by squeezing the damn thing.

If you don't want this one, do what everyone else does: buy a 2 button scroll wheel mouse for $15. I'm honestly not sure why they didn't integrate dual (or quadruple) button setup sooner, as OSX is built from the ground up to take advantage of the 2nd button and scroll wheel.

Quote
That's not his problem, he's complaining about enter being rename instead of open.

This is personal preference and what you "grew up with", I suppose. For me, enter will always be rename, command+Alt+esc brings up the menu to quit programs by force (like Stepmania when I click it by accident), etc.

[KDR_11k]

This is personal preference and what you "grew up with", I suppose. For me, enter will always be rename, command+Alt+esc brings up the menu to quit programs by force

Enter is easy to hit so it should be a common function. I'd wager you open more files than you rename.

[UltimatePartyBear]

Hitting Enter to launch stuff probably comes from command line interfaces.  Those of us who are used to them simply expect Enter to be the "do something" key.  Without that background, it probably seems as random as using it to rename (which seems very random to me).

[Smash_Brother]

I just double-click, personally. It's seldom that I'm navigating with the arrow keys instead of the mouse.

Also, whose idea was it to have specific folders which, when opened, require you to click a link that says "Display contents of folder"?

[Sir_Stabbalot]

Someone coding for the lowest common denominator so that idiots don't end up deleting Windows?

[KDR_11k]

You can set your folder display settings, click "apply to all" and that message is gone IIRC. Or was that unchecking "Display web content"? Either way I'm no longer getting that message.

Hitting enter to launch stuff makes sense since enter means "do that". If you select a file, "do that" means open it. Keyboard driven menus are activated with enter.

One thing I found interesting about Windows is that MS made sure all of their applications work without a mouse (yes even MS Paint). I don't think BeOS or the Linux GUIs allow that fully.

[Smash_Brother]

It does that for the Program Files folder as well.

Besides, there are vastly better ways to prevent people from deleting vital system files, like not allowing them to be moved, deleted or anything without making the user input a password first.

People generally get the idea that they're doing something important if it's asking for authentication.

[KDR_11k]

Well, usually it tells you "get the administrator, that's none of your business" but of course most people run Windows as an administrator and you can't stop the admin from doing something without making the OS useless for many tasks. The recommended security practice is to use a standard user account for normal actions and only use the root account when necessary. All unixes (which includes OSX) do that by default. Vista apparently will take the same route.

I think I could prevent my father from screwing up his PC (or our router) if I could take away his admin rights but he gets angry when I suggest that because he thinks he knows what he's doing.

As a sig on slashdot put it: Letting a normal user run as root is like putting a driver with a class 3 license into the pilot seat of a 747.

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k All unixes (which includes OSX) do that by default.

Actually, OSX creates the first user as an administrator, but like I said, it demands a password every time you're doing something which you might not realize you're doing.

That's another thing I dislike about Windows: its tendency to tell you to "Contact your system administrator" when something goes wrong but at the same time gives you absolutely no hints regarding what it might be.

[KDR_11k]

Linux creates the first user as root but usually sets up another user account which is the one you'll use. For using root powers you can use su. That causes the password prompt you see in OSX. I think some GUIs do that automatically as well so you just click on something that requires root access and a prompt will show asking for the root password.

What is the difference between an OSX admin and a normal user? Will the user just not get the password prompt and get told to bugger off instead?

[Smash_Brother]

It asks for the admin password. Not the password for the user, but the admin password.

This assumes that the account password and admin password are different passwords.

[KDR_11k]

So does Linux, the admin password is the password for the root account, not the current user account (wouldn't make any sense otherwise). But you said the first user is an admin account, what's the difference between an admin account and a regular user account if an admin still has to use SU to use root privileges?

[Ceric]

Different Security models.  In the Windows world is more like a business.  Once you access a certian level thats it.  Your in and you can go anywhere you want.  The *nixes (Yes that includes OS X and most POSIX standard OS's) are more like a military base.  Sure you go through the gate and yeah I might see you everday of the week but I'm still going to have to see your credentials and authenticate you before anything gets done.  There are advantages and disadvantages to both.  Windows use to allow people with the appropriate rights to go whereever with no warning because it was assumed that if they had the rights they knew what they were doing.  The whole OS was built around this.  Well as time went on it was proven that this model was more flawed then the *nix model.  Though on the flipside MS just released a program that allowed you to password protect folders again.  That lasted a day.  The program worked great but all the windows administrators in the world tended not to like it.  Different models for different people.  Vista is going with the idea of LPU (Least Privileged User).  Like the *nixes.  People want that now.  Now I'm going to be able to have in my program when something is required a higher level of privilege to run it gets the little defender sheild on its button indicating this.  At that point you'll have to authenticate with an account that has those rights.  
Why not something like root?  Welp I'm glad you asked.  Programmers are great but dense people at times.  Just because you could write the OS from scratched doesn't mean you know whats best for it.  They mean administrator privilege for lets say Visual Studio but they do not need the privilege to change their system configuration manually.  At that point you could give their user a policy that says they can authenticate for administrator Visual Studio but not system settings.  That is more in line to how the Windows model was originally suppose to work.  With LPU it can actually work like that.  Though, if I as the administrator need to quickly fix something and their logged in then I can just use my authentication when the prompt shows up and get the thing done.
I'm sort of excited about the switch.  Though I'm more excited about all the graphic rendering for the GUI being shifted to the Video Card so it stops eating my processor.

[KDR_11k]

Well, technically you can log into most unixes as root and it won't complain no matter what you do. Of course it's discouraged but if you do it you get the same result as in Windows.

At that point you could give their user a policy that says they can authenticate for administrator Visual Studio but not system settings.

In Unix that's what the setuser flag in a file is for, you could tell Visual Studio to be run as root no matter who runs it (of course that's dangerous as you could have it create a file and execute it and your program would have root level privileges). AFAIK that's missing in 2k and XP which makes LPU accounts annoying to manage as some applications require admin privileges for normal operation (e.g. because of low level hardware access). On the upside you can give file access permissions in much more detail under Windows, not just user, group and rest, you can define e.g. groups A and B can read only except for user x who can write as well while accound y which is used for some webserver program can only write into the folder.

[Ceric]

Yes that's what I'm getting at.  In pre-Vista Windows land the whole LPU idea didn't work.  That's why the new Vista model will hopefully blend the best parts of the *nix LPU model, which is better, and the "flexibility" you get with the current windows model.

[Smash_Brother]

Any time you install new software or make system changes, it demands your password first.

That way, if you leave your computer on, you don't have to worry about little Timmy showing up and installing his AIM client on it without your permission.

[Ceric]

You know that sort of seems out of the blue.  The point on that one?  I mean that's how OSX incorporates the *nix part of it into the GUI.  *shrug*  Vista's going to be doing similar because it seems to work well.  

[Smash_Brother]

You mean the point of password protecting the OS beyond the login screen? I'm not sure I follow you.

[Ceric]

No, I get the point of password protecting.  It just seem like that statement was suppose to go with something else.

[KDR_11k]

I think that was his reply to my question "what is the difference between an admin account and a regular user account under OSX". But it doesn't answer my question, I know OSX asks for the root password when you use your admin powers but as you said the first account is an admin account I assume there must be a difference between a regular and an admin user. What is it?

[Smash_Brother]

Oh, sorry. Missing the discussion...

The admin account can set permissions for the subordinate user accounts, including what applications they can run, who they can email, who they can chat with, what sites they can access, etc.

You can lock down these accounts like crazy.

[Ceric]

But couldn't you do that from any account with the Admin password?

[Smash_Brother]

No, you'd need to be logged in as the administrator in order to manage the permissions of the subordinate accounts.