Ford: Quality equal to Toyota

[Noah Harbinger]

Ford Quality on par with Toyota - check out the video link

http://youtube.com/watch?v=H1FaJ9P2vXo

 

I'd rather spend 30 seconds scanning a press release than 10 minutes watching a video saying exactly the same thing. kthxbye

 

/mmm creme brulee

[NickF1011]

But why should car owners be brand-loyal? There are a lot of other consumables that people aren't brand loyal with.

 

Do you only buy cereal from General Mills?

 

Are all of your electronics from Sony?

 

Is every shoe you buy a Nike?

 

Do you only drink beverages from Coca-Cola?

 

Has every computer you've owned been a Dell?

 

There's hardly anyone these days that could be considered "brand loyal" across the board. I don't really see why so many people expect people to be brand loyal with cars.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

But why should car owners be brand-loyal? There are a lot of other consumables that people aren't brand loyal with.

 

Do you only buy cereal from General Mills?

 

Are all of your electronics from Sony?

 

Is every shoe you buy a Nike?

 

Do you only drink beverages from Coca-Cola?

 

Has every computer you've owned been a Dell?

 

There's hardly anyone these days that could be considered "brand loyal" across the board. I don't really see why so many people expect people to be brand loyal with cars.

 

The French, Germans and Japanese are brand loyal Nick, they still have a strong Car industry still in tact

[NickF1011]

The French, Germans and Japanese are brand loyal Nick, they still have a strong Car industry still in tact

 

"Strong" is relative. The US auto industry is still larger than that in any other country and last I saw, none of them have gone down the tubes yet, so they are still quite "in tact". I'm speaking more about BRAND loyalty though, not patriotism. You are confusing the two. People on this board want people to buy FORDS (well, except you, you just want anything that isn't "Nipponese" ), and no other brands, including other domestics. I'm just saying...nobody in consumer-driven markets is the least bit brand-loyal anymore. Does everyone in Japan, France, or Germany only drink one type of soda, buy one brand of computer, wear one type of shoe? Of course not. Why do people expect them to only stick to one brand of car?

Edited April 25, 2007 by NickF1011

[Ford Jellymoulds]

"Strong" is relative. The US auto industry is still larger than that in any other country and last I saw, none of them have gone down the tubes yet, so they are still quite "in tact". I'm speaking more about BRAND loyalty though, not patriotism. You are confusing the two. People on this board want people to buy FORDS (well, except you, you just want anything that isn't "Nipponese" ), and no other brands, including other domestics. I'm just saying...nobody in consumer-driven markets is the least bit brand-loyal anymore. Does everyone in Japan, France, or Germany only drink one type of soda, buy one brand of computer, wear one type of shoe? Of course not. Why do people expect them to only stick to one brand of car?

 

I do think you are being a bit unfair Nick, me not buy Nipponese. I cant see many Folk in a Nippon Sushi Bar, French Cafe or a German Beer Festival warming to you much Nick, if you said "anybody for a Soda" ,

Most shoes are one brand Chinese.

 

But would you swap your Ford branded car for one of these Nick

 

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2007/01/toyota_settles_.html

 

3.5 Million happy brand buyers

Edited April 25, 2007 by Ford Jellymoulds

[NickF1011]

Most shoes are one brand Chinese.

 

I've never seen "China" brand shoes on the shelves next to Nike or Reebok. Are they made in China? Sure. But that's a point of assembly, not a brand. By your logic, a lot of Fords are Mexican brand.

 

But would you swap your Ford branded car for one of these Nick

 

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2007/01/toyota_settles_.html

 

3.5 Million happy brand buyers

 

If Toyota built anything that really struck my fancy, I'd check it out. At this point they don't make anything I'm interested in. Then again, neither does Ford.

Edited April 25, 2007 by NickF1011

[goinbroke2]

But why should car owners be brand-loyal? There are a lot of other consumables that people aren't brand loyal with.

 

Do you only buy cereal from General Mills?

 

Are all of your electronics from Sony?

 

Is every shoe you buy a Nike?

 

Do you only drink beverages from Coca-Cola?

 

Has every computer you've owned been a Dell?

 

There's hardly anyone these days that could be considered "brand loyal" across the board. I don't really see why so many people expect people to be brand loyal with cars.

 

 

I had to rewrite this three times to make it "polite".

 

If you honestly can't comprehend why there is a difference between brand loyalty of vehicles and shoes, than no one will be able to explain it to you. I grew up on a farm and had ONLY ford trucks/tractors etc. We always competed with the farms in the area with bigger loads, friendly jabs when going to help a fellow farmers chev truck when it was stuck/broke, etc. Some guys drove internationals,dodges, whatever. They were all good trucks, but we had passion about our own brand. When we went truck/tractor pulling, then onto stockcar and now years later dragracing, it was ford only. We are a ford family and proud of it. I am impressed by what ol henry did back then, and agree with most of his philosifies on life.

 

To compare that to shoes? SHOES??? Are you on crack??? (crap sorry, it started to get away again)

As a matter of fact yes I do drink coke not pepsi, and I eat Lay's chips not Humpty dumpty, I buy Canadian whenever possible and if not, then I certainly buy American and then Mexican. (which rules out wal-(china)-mart.

I can't believe you have been in any motorsports or any competition if you compare cars to shoes or pop.

 

You sound like my wife who bought (speaking of which) SHOES made in whereever, and I growled about it. When they fell apart a short time later the low price tag didn't seem like such a good deal. Now she has shoes from Canada and Mexico. Yes they cost more but they last better and aren't made by a 6 year old in a sweatshop.

 

Oh, my foot wear? Combat boots made right freaking here in Canada!

[NickF1011]

I had to rewrite this three times to make it "polite".

 

If you honestly can't comprehend why there is a difference between brand loyalty of vehicles and shoes, than no one will be able to explain it to you. I grew up on a farm and had ONLY ford trucks/tractors etc. We always competed with the farms in the area with bigger loads, friendly jabs when going to help a fellow farmers chev truck when it was stuck/broke, etc. Some guys drove internationals,dodges, whatever. They were all good trucks, but we had passion about our own brand. When we went truck/tractor pulling, then onto stockcar and now years later dragracing, it was ford only. We are a ford family and proud of it. I am impressed by what ol henry did back then, and agree with most of his philosifies on life.

 

To compare that to shoes? SHOES??? Are you on crack??? (crap sorry, it started to get away again)

As a matter of fact yes I do drink coke not pepsi, and I eat Lay's chips not Humpty dumpty, I buy Canadian whenever possible and if not, then I certainly buy American and then Mexican. (which rules out wal-(china)-mart.

I can't believe you have been in any motorsports or any competition if you compare cars to shoes or pop.

 

You sound like my wife who bought (speaking of which) SHOES made in whereever, and I growled about it. When they fell apart a short time later the low price tag didn't seem like such a good deal. Now she has shoes from Canada and Mexico. Yes they cost more but they last better and aren't made by a 6 year old in a sweatshop.

 

Oh, my foot wear? Combat boots made right freaking here in Canada!

 

Looks like I struck a nerve.

 

I just don't see any difference at all between shoes and cars except the price. People buy high end shoes for the image. People buy high end cars for the image. They're all consumer goods just the same. How about other expensive goods? Do people only buy houses built by a particular homebuilder?

 

The fact of the matter is, in a consumer-driven market, price is the major factor for most consumers. Patriotism is secondary to saving a few dollars. That's how capitalism works. If Ford offered a car I liked and charged $5000 more for it than a Japanese car I liked, where would I be spending my money? It wouldn't have a blue oval on it (unless it was a Subaru). Call me unpatriotic, call me whatever you like. But I'll have $5000 more in my bank account than you.

[suv_guy_19]

Looks like I struck a nerve.

 

I just don't see any difference at all between shoes and cars except the price. People buy high end shoes for the image. People buy high end cars for the image. They're all consumer goods just the same. How about other expensive goods? Do people only buy houses built by a particular homebuilder?

 

The fact of the matter is, in a consumer-driven market, price is the major factor for most consumers. Patriotism is secondary to saving a few dollars. That's how capitalism works. If Ford offered a car I liked and charged $5000 more for it than a Japanese car I liked, where would I be spending my money? It wouldn't have a blue oval on it (unless it was a Subaru). Call me unpatriotic, call me whatever you like. But I'll have $5000 more in my bank account than you.

 

 

For bigger purchases, people do seem to be somewhat more brand loyal. For electrionics, ften people will have the same brand tv and sound system, for appliances, often most will be of the same brand. I don't really see cars as that different. There are people that are loyal and people that arent. What I agree with is the post that sarted this. If I had a good car from one company I would feel compelled to go back to them, at least consider them. A great number of disloyal people do not even do that.

[Noah Harbinger]

But why should car owners be brand-loyal? There are a lot of other consumables that people aren't brand loyal with.

 

...

 

Are all of your electronics from Sony?

 

...

 

One word: Apple. They've built incredible brand loyalty, and that kept them afloat through their darkest hours.

[NickF1011]

One word: Apple. They've built incredible brand loyalty, and that kept them afloat through their darkest hours.

 

Even Apple had to expand to survive. Where would they be now without iPod? Their share of the computer market is miniscule at best. Apple has almost zero presence in the large business community.

[Edstock]

Try guitars. For American-made electrics, you can spend $2,000 USD in the blink of an eye, and keep going. Acoustics like Martin and Taylor and Larrivée rapidly get to $3,000 and up. Hand-carved arch-tops can go to $15,000 or more.

 

The Asian competition rule the roost in volume, with something like 80% or so of sales less than $400. For any classic American guitar model, like a Les Paul or a Strat, there are a range of replicas in a variety of quality levels, from brutal ($150 or less) to as good as or better (around $800 and up).

 

To compete, US manufacturers import their own Asian-made designs (when CBS sold Fender, the physical plant wasn't worth keeping, and it took the new owners about 18 months to get a new US factory up and running; during that time, all Fenders came from Japan). As well, Mexico has become an important player in assembly for the bottom of the domestic market.

 

Yet, at the same time, quality sells better than ever, as there are more small-scale North American builders than ever. An exciting innovation at the high end is using CAD/CAM to "carve" an arch-top out of solid spruce, doing in minutes what takes a craftsman many hours of tedious labor. Pioneered by PRS.

 

Then there's the vintage market, which abounds with craziness, greed and counterfeiting. God help the unwary.

[SVT_MAN]

One word: Apple. They've built incredible brand loyalty, and that kept them afloat through their darkest hours.

 

I say this with care, and my intent is not to offend Apple users --- but what Apple has essentially built is a cult of devoted followers. A lot of Apple users are more loyal to Apple than devoted Ford fans. Yes, you read that right. It's pretty crazy. There are some Mac users I've met at college that act like Macs are the best thing that has ever happened to the United States. They also act like Apple is some philanthropic savior for our country. Pretty ridiculous if you ask me.

 

I know some people just like Apple's products because they have a nice design, but others go a little overboard in my opinion. As for me? I will never own a Mac because I think they are overrated and overdesigned. Why pay double for a computer with less power? Apple's marketing team called their G4s "super-computers" .. that was such a joke. PCs have always held the edge on Macs in terms of power. But the funny thing is, that advertising pitch sold Macs.

 

Apple has almost zero presence in the large business community.

 

Bingo. But Apple's market has always been consumer-focused anyway. They've made a great business case .. basically they've always made computers for people too stupid to use PCs. Don't be offended if you're a Mac user. My girlfriend is a Mac user and she agrees. Heck, I even like MacOS. I have it installed on my PC. It has its place. But, the truth is, PCs geenrate a LOT more revenue cranknig out spreadsheets for businesses than Macs ever will making movies or whatever other artsy stuff there is to do on them. Macs are good at making movies, working with audio, and doing graphics work. That's about it.

 

I do freelance web development .. let me tell you: Mac is NOT required.

Edited April 26, 2007 by SVT_MAN

[suv_guy_19]

I say this with care, and my intent is not to offend Apple users --- but what Apple has essentially built is a cult of devoted followers. A lot of Apple users are more loyal to Apple than devoted Ford fans. Yes, you read that right. It's pretty crazy. There are some Mac users I've met at college that act like Macs are the best thing that has ever happened to the United States. They also act like Apple is some philanthropic savior for our country. Pretty ridiculous if you ask me.

 

I know some people just like Apple's products because they have a nice design, but others go a little overboard in my opinion. As for me? I will never own a Mac because I think they are overrated and overdesigned. Why pay double for a computer with less power? Apple's marketing team called their G4s "super-computers" .. that was such a joke. PCs have always held the edge on Macs in terms of power. But the funny thing is, that advertising pitch sold Macs.

Bingo. But Apple's market has always been consumer-focused anyway. They've made a great business case .. basically they've always made computers for people too stupid to use PCs. Don't be offended if you're a Mac user. My girlfriend is a Mac user and she agrees. Heck, I even like MacOS. I have it installed on my PC. It has its place. But, the truth is, PCs geenrate a LOT more revenue cranknig out spreadsheets for businesses than Macs ever will making movies or whatever other artsy stuff there is to do on them. Macs are good at making movies, working with audio, and doing graphics work. That's about it.

 

I do freelance web development .. let me tell you: Mac is NOT required.

 

 

Though most people do find it easier....i hate mac os....my brother has a 24 inch imac...I hate going for vista to tiger....tiger, though hethinks its better, is so archaic in my opinion....but then he hates my vista...or so he says.

[retro-man]

Heh heh. I went all Mac (because I like the design - and I hate monopolies) when I started my business - and you know what I have found? I have listened to my son's anguished cries through the wall just before midnight as he's trying to submit an online exam and his PC crashes. He has had to re-format his hard-drive 3 times during the couple years I've been using my Macs, due to viruses. I've had days delays while people that I do business with straighten out some computer problem or other on their PCs - lost work, failing e-mail, etc. I have never had a virus, rarely have unexplained crashes (when I do, invariably it's with Vectorworks, a CAD program), never lost more than 10 minutes worth of work. I don't know about the new Intel-based Macs. I was in an office that was running Windows on one of those machines, and sure enough - the IS guy was over at the AA's desk a couple times a week scratching his head over one glitch or another - but only when she was running Windows. You just take all that stuff for granted, and you don't see it, until you step outside and look back in.

 

As for the Mac operating system being for people too dumb to use PCs - I remember the days before Windows, when there were Macs, and then there were PCs, which all ran straight DOS. If you remember that, you will also remember what a ripoff of the original Mac user interface Windows was when it first appeared.

 

As far as spreadsheets and such goes: It's called "Microsoft Office for Mac". One of the biggest Mac enthusiasts I know works at Microsoft. I was on a flight next to another guy using an i-book, and it turns out he worked for Microsoft, and was on his way to some conference in Japan. He said that, inside Microsoft, it was common for about 3/4 of the people to show up at some meetings with their Mac laptops.

 

Take all that for what it's worth, and use whatever works for you.

 

 

signed,

 

Retro-man

 

from the heart of Microsoft country

Edited April 26, 2007 by retro-man

[RichardJensen]

I have a Mac and a PC of similar vintage and similar performance.

 

I grew up using PCs, and have used Windows since 3.1 came out.

 

I have also worked in a call center dealing with Windows 95 and 98, plug and play drivers, USB, and networking.

 

Without a doubt, I find OS X (I have my doubts about the non X-based Mac OSes) is without a doubt, faster, easier to use, and more trouble free than Windows XP.

 

Switching back and forth has reinforced only one thing to me: that Windows XP is a poorly designed operating system. Its GUI is light years behind Apple's, (just compare font rendering for starters), that Apple's interface is not just 'over designed', it's more intuitive. Security is another huge difference, so is software installation and removal (want to uninstall an app in OS X? Drag it to the trash can. Yes, it's that simple). Stability is another huge difference. I can let the Mac run for months on end (with resource hogs like Fireworks, Dreamweaver, and Freehand open) without problems.

 

There are things about Apple (I HATE QUICK TIME) that I don't like. I don't like Steve Jobs, and I can't stand his cult followers. I think his dissembling over DRM is disingenuous and not entirely above board, I consider a number of products from the iPod to the iPhone to be essentially useless and overpriced trinkets, and there are aspects of OS X that I do not care for.

 

However, it is hands down, IMO a superior operating system. It is more secure, more reliable, more you name it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and before you drag out the "OS X is only more secure because fewer people use it" line of reasoning, spare me.

 

Microsoft has finally (about 30 years after it was introduced on Unix) brought the concept of kernel level file ownership to Windows Vista.

 

Vulnerabilities that riddle every release of Windows up to Vista simply do not exist on OS X (or ANY variety of Unix) simply because there are commands that cannot be executed and there are files that cannot be viewed or edited unless you not only gain access to the system, but obtain root or administrator access as well.

 

You want ONE thing to nail Microsoft for? That's it. File ownership. For 28 years Microsoft left the basic "one owner" structure of QDOS in place.

 

Once more, I haven't used Vista, but I will tell you that in just about every comparison imaginable, XP falls short of OS X.

Edited April 26, 2007 by RichardJensen

[suv_guy_19]

I have a Mac and a PC of similar vintage and similar performance.

 

I grew up using PCs, and have used Windows since 3.1 came out.

 

I have also worked in a call center dealing with Windows 95 and 98, plug and play drivers, USB, and networking.

 

Without a doubt, I find OS X (I have my doubts about the non X-based Mac OSes) is without a doubt, faster, easier to use, and more trouble free than Windows XP.

 

Switching back and forth has reinforced only one thing to me: that Windows XP is a poorly designed operating system. Its GUI is light years behind Apple's, (just compare font rendering for starters), that Apple's interface is not just 'over designed', it's more intuitive. Security is another huge difference, so is software installation and removal (want to uninstall an app in OS X? Drag it to the trash can. Yes, it's that simple). Stability is another huge difference. I can let the Mac run for months on end (with resource hogs like Fireworks, Dreamweaver, and Freehand open) without problems.

 

There are things about Apple (I HATE QUICK TIME) that I don't like. I don't like Steve Jobs, and I can't stand his cult followers. I think his dissembling over DRM is disingenuous and not entirely above board, I consider a number of products from the iPod to the iPhone to be essentially useless and overpriced trinkets, and there are aspects of OS X that I do not care for.

 

However, it is hands down, IMO a superior operating system. It is more secure, more reliable, more you name it.

Oh, and before you drag out the "OS X is only more secure because fewer people use it" line of reasoning, spare me.

 

Microsoft has finally (about 30 years after it was introduced on Unix) brought the concept of kernel level file ownership to Windows Vista.

 

Vulnerabilities that riddle every release of Windows up to Vista simply do not exist on OS X (or ANY variety of Unix) simply because there are commands that cannot be executed and there are files that cannot be viewed or edited unless you not only gain access to the system, but obtain root or administrator access as well.

 

You want ONE thing to nail Microsoft for? That's it. File ownership. For 28 years Microsoft left the basic "one owner" structure of QDOS in place.

 

Once more, I haven't used Vista, but I will tell you that in just about every comparison imaginable, XP falls short of OS X.

 

 

The reason taht windows is more vulnerable is the same reason tht there is so much software available for it...it was made that way...so that people could design things the way they want...as long as you have a pc cleaner, use disc cleanup often and scan for spyware (the same should be done for spyware with mac) then your pc has no problems...I have never ever had my pc crash (ok maybe once). I used mac growing up and thats why I hate it....I hate the things that most people like about it...i find it clumsy, things are laid out oddly, and closing a program is a lengthy procedure....and even though you want me to spare you part of the eason that there are lessviruses for mac is because people do not use them...its just like cars...do you go after the smaller or larger market....easy choice....and as they grow somewhat in popularity, here begin to be more problems for them....they are different approaches....some like one better than the other....i perfer pc's and i like vista...I'll like it even more when I get around to increasing my ram....

Edited April 26, 2007 by suv_guy_19

[RichardJensen]

it was made that way...so that people could design things the way they want

That is only partially true.

 

If there was something inherently inferior about kernel level file ownership, Microsoft wouldn't be adopting it.

 

Also, you can insist to high heaven that nobody targets OS X, and that's why there's no viruses, but the reality is that the above mentioned kernel level file ownership system prevents virus from wreaking havoc on your hard drive.

 

I mean look at how you temporize:

 

as long as you have a pc cleaner, use disc cleanup often and scan for spyware (the same should be done for spyware with mac) then your pc has no problems

 

There isn't spyware for Macs--there is no Internet Explorer on OS X opening all sorts of back doors for monitoring internet traffic, and the superior BSD infrastructure in OS X eliminates the need to run PC Cleaner, Disc Cleanup, etc. The combination of a smaller user base AND a much more secure OS makes spyware a largely theoretical problem at this point in time. As near as I can tell, spyware has only appeared in 'proof of concept form': http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2064221,00.asp

 

I'll grant you, Macs in the 80s and 90s were nothing to write home about. I used early-mid 90s vintage Macs in college and found them to be not superior to Windows 3.1, but frustratingly different (frankly, Windows 3.1 was the apex of Microsoft GUI design).

 

However, OS X has been an eye-opener.

Edited April 26, 2007 by RichardJensen

[suv_guy_19]

That is only partially true.

 

If there was something inherently inferior about kernel level file ownership, Microsoft wouldn't be adopting it.

 

Also, you can insist to high heaven that nobody targets OS X, and that's why there's no viruses, but the reality is that the above mentioned kernel level file ownership system prevents virus from wreaking havoc on your hard drive.

 

I mean look at how you temporize:

There isn't spyware for Macs--there is no Internet Explorer on OS X opening all sorts of back doors for monitoring internet traffic, and the superior BSD infrastructure in OS X eliminates the need to run PC Cleaner, Disc Cleanup, etc. The combination of a smaller user base AND a much more secure OS makes spyware a largely theoretical problem at this point in time. As near as I can tell, spyware has only appeared in 'proof of concept form': http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2064221,00.asp

 

I'll grant you, Macs in the 80s and 90s were nothing to write home about. I used early-mid 90s vintage Macs in college and found them to be not superior to Windows 3.1, but frustratingly different (frankly, Windows 3.1 was the apex of Microsoft GUI design).

 

However, OS X has been an eye-opener.

 

Richard, I would say this is the first time we have disagreed lol...one of my main complaints about ac is the internet browser...which must download almost all of a page before starting on the next no matter if you click or not...another is the inability to open multiple windows quickly, you need to used the tabs or the bar at the top and it is inconvienent, also, there are 3 different places that a program can be put off screen on a mac, a pc is simplified to one. on top of this, the programs are in a better place in m view. Quick launch bar is much better than macs doc, and there are just so many things that I find lacking that are present on a pc. on a pc everything can be found in the start menu, but there are many places that things seem to be scattered on a mac.

[SVT_MAN]

I didn't have time to read the long rants, but here is what I think:

 

Macs and PCs both have their place. I have found uses for both operating systems, and I frequently use both. I wouldn't say that one has a clear-cut advantage over the other. People hate Microsoft just because they're big and powerful.

[suv_guy_19]

I didn't have time to read the long rants, but here is what I think:

 

Macs and PCs both have their place. I have found uses for both operating systems, and I frequently use both. I wouldn't say that one has a clear-cut advantage over the other. People hate Microsoft just because they're big and powerful.

 

 

Actually I agree with that.. think I said in one of my posts that some people perfer one over the other...I like the strengths of PC's....some people like mac...I just personally find PC's better.

[RichardJensen]

Richard, I would say this is the first time we have disagreed lol...one of my main complaints about ac is the internet browser...which must download almost all of a page before starting on the next no matter if you click or not...another is the inability to open multiple windows quickly, you need to used the tabs or the bar at the top and it is inconvienent, also, there are 3 different places that a program can be put off screen on a mac, a pc is simplified to one. on top of this, the programs are in a better place in m view. Quick launch bar is much better than macs doc, and there are just so many things that I find lacking that are present on a pc. on a pc everything can be found in the start menu, but there are many places that things seem to be scattered on a mac.

I don't use Safari. It's a piece of non-standard non-compliant junk. It's Apple's answer to IE, and I mean every negative connotation that comparison implies. In Firefox, Command-N opens a new window just like it does on the PC (substitute ctrl, of course).

 

Also, I don't put apps off screen. Generally any app I'm using is visible, and by clicking on it, you activate it. Going back to Windows (which, thanks to its CRAPPY font rendering must be run at 1024x768 on my 17" monitor--the Mac is running 1280x1024) I have to run things full screen, and using the taskbar to switch suddenly seems so inconvenient. With the Mac, no app, by default, occupies the full screen, so you see the next program you want, you just click on it. When I could run the PC at 1280x1024 (back in the 'good old' Windows 98 days--amazing how upgrading Windows, you get WORSE font rendering) this was not as much of a problem, since I seldom ran an app full-screen. At least on this count, what bothers you is simply not an issue with me. I never minimize apps.

 

Finally, I set the Dock to always display, and find it to be superior to the Quick Launch bar because it can hold more apps, without interfering with other important GUI tools (like the task bar).

 

At first I was annoyed with having to open finder and click on "Applications" to launch programs I seldom use, but the fact is........... I seldom use them, so by definition, it doesn't come up often....

 

Subsequent to that, going back to Windows and dealing with that gawdawful Start menu (with its tangled web of haphazardly alphabetized menus, and occasional icon items) seems so cumbersome.

 

I mean, I'm all for the quick launch bar, if you could really make use of it....

 

And IMO, Apple is right up there with Google, they are both companies that are cheerfully basking in the adulation of a pliant press which refuses to examine their questionable conduct. I don't like Microsoft, but I'm no fan of Apple or Google.

 

I like exactly two things about Apple: That they use BSD as a base for OS X, and that they put a premium on human interface design. You can take iTunes and stuff it, as far as I'm concerned. Charging $9.99 for about a minute's worth of data transfer, with a nearly non-existent cost of delivery is a RIP-OFF, and Steve Jobs can blame the RIAA all he wants, I'm not buying it.

 

You could probably give the artist 10x the royalties they get off a CD sale, charge a quarter of the price for a download, and still make a fortune.

Edited April 26, 2007 by RichardJensen

[suv_guy_19]

I don't use Safari. It's a piece of non-standard non-compliant junk. It's Apple's answer to IE, and I mean every negative connotation that comparison implies. In Firefox, Command-N opens a new window just like it does on the PC (substitute ctrl, of course).

 

Also, I don't put apps off screen. Generally any app I'm using is visible, and by clicking on it, you activate it. Going back to Windows (which, thanks to its CRAPPY font rendering must be run at 1024x768 on my 17" monitor--the Mac is running 1280x1024) I have to run things full screen, and using the taskbar to switch suddenly seems so inconvenient. With the Mac, no app, by default, occupies the full screen, so you see the next program you want, you just click on it. When I could run the PC at 1280x1024 (back in the 'good old' Windows 98 days--amazing how upgrading Windows, you get WORSE font rendering) this was not as much of a problem, since I seldom ran an app full-screen. At least on this count, what bothers you is simply not an issue with me. I never minimize apps.

 

Finally, I set the Dock to always display, and find it to be superior to the Quick Launch bar because it can hold more apps, without interfering with other important GUI tools (like the task bar).

 

At first I was annoyed with having to open finder and click on "Applications" to launch programs I seldom use, but the fact is........... I seldom use them, so by definition, it doesn't come up often....

 

Subsequent to that, going back to Windows and dealing with that gawdawful Start menu (with its tangled web of haphazardly alphabetized menus, and occasional icon items) seems so cumbersome.

 

I mean, I'm all for the quick launch bar, if you could really make use of it....

 

And IMO, Apple is right up there with Google IMO, they are both companies that are cheerfully basking in the adulation of a pliant press which refuses to examine their questionable conduct. I don't like Microsoft, but I'm no fan of Apple or Google.

 

I like exactly two things about Apple: That they use BSD as a base for OS X, and that they put a premium on human interface design. You can take iTunes and stuff it, as far as I'm concerned. Charging $9.99 for about a minute's worth of data transfer, with a nearly non-existent cost of delivery is a RIP-OFF, and Steve Jobs can blame the RIAA all he wants, I'm not buying it.

 

Well ike I said a matter of opinion...but I always run my windows at 1440 x 900, on both xp and vista

[RichardJensen]

Well ike I said a matter of opinion...but I always run my windows at 1440 x 900, on both xp and vista

If I had a 19" monitor......

 

What really burns me up about THAT is how I could run 1280x1024 in Windows 98, but can't in XP.

 

Maybe with Vista, which apparently has better font rendering, I can go back to 1280x1024, but it's just so typical of the low priority that Microsoft places on the actual USEFULNESS of a product. Like how in Windows Media Player & IE they've eliminated drop down menus. I mean that is a huge step BACKWARD. Do you know how long it took me to find file options in WMP? Used to be "Edit > Options" or "Tools > Options".... Not anymore! I mean MS came up with an interface that looks better and functions worse than its predecessors. This is the exact opposite of good design, and as a designer it grates on me no end (can you tell?)

[suv_guy_19]

If I had a 19" monitor......

 

What really burns me up about THAT is how I could run 1280x1024 in Windows 98, but can't in XP.

 

Maybe with Vista, which apparently has better font rendering, I can go back to 1280x1024, but it's just so typical of the low priority that Microsoft places on the actual USEFULNESS of a product. Like how in Windows Media Player & IE they've eliminated drop down menus. I mean that is a huge step BACKWARD. Do you know how long it took me to find file options in WMP? Used to be "Edit > Options" or "Tools > Options".... Not anymore! I mean MS came up with an interface that looks better and functions worse than its predecessors. This is the exact opposite of good design, and as a designer it grates on me no end (can you tell?)

 

the computer withxp had a 19 inch monitor...in fact i believe it was 1280 1024, myl laptop has had both systems on its 17 inch widescreen at 1440 by 900 i works fine I found it better looking...strange....i dunno....maybe you got a bad copy or something...though I'm not sure how...but yeah....i agree with what your saying on the rest