Install MAC OS X on Intel PC

Really? Fascinating.

Personally I am a touch typist, as in, no I don't use ten fingers I use my index fingers and sometimes my ring fingers for the 'a' and 'l'.

I can peak at 80-90 wpm and can hit 50-60 with my eyes closed. After doing it for all my life its become muscle memory where exactly the keys are and I can rather accurately type (assuming a decent position a posture) without having to actually look at the keyboard.

And yes, I do catch a lot of crap for it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ElectricFetus is just talking more trash. QWERTY is a greater strain on the fingers, it makes you more susceptible to carpel tunnel and it's naturally slower. It's not a "Myth" that it was designed to separate common keys from each other, it's a fact. I type around 100+ in both and I greatly prefer DVORAK for its ease.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Citation needed.

http://reason.com/archives/1996/06/01/typing-errors/

Better link, http://www.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/keys1.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...Go_M75&sig=AHIEtbQb5OVAR_oApYvwaaTqz9RbtzobLw

Increased by 47% efficiency.

If you can't recognize why your study doesn't have anything to do with the merits of DVORAK vs. QWERTY, then there's nothing I can do to help you.

 

Your cited source proves almost nothing. The study I cited basically shows that the vaunted improvements of Dvorak over QWERTY seem to very nearly completely evaporate when examined closely. Dvorak proselytizers talk about efficiency and ergonomics, but I've yet to see any substantive evidence for them. If the Dvorak layout were capable of significantly reducing carpal tunnel syndrome, why haven't major corporations, who spend a great deal on treating employees who suffer from this condition (lost productivity, workman's comp, medical bills) jumped on board? Why hasn't it ever caught on if it is such an improvement?

 

My cited source proves exactly what I said, "QWERTY is a greater strain on the fingers, it makes you more susceptible to carpel tunnel and it's naturally slower".

Your source proves that investing the time in teaching employees DVORAK is not cost effective, since the level of efficiency which can be achieved in training does not exceed the losses incurred during training.

I'll tell you this.
1. I am not a DVORAK 'proselytizer', I don't give a damn what you or any other person types on.
2. I provided you evidence that dvorak is of greater finger efficiency...that's a FACT. Since the mean difference in keystroke distances is provably lower.
3. You provided evidence that it was no financially viable. So...what?

Repo Man, I have never seen someone so strongly anti-DVORAK in my entire life. I've never seen someone so strongly pro-QWERTY either. You might be crazy!

 

Chipz

Please do show a real world experiment that proves mark benefits of Dvorak. Your citation uses no human subjects and merely theorizes.

 

Go nuts!
http://www.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/keys1.html

But just so you know....since my entire point was DVORAK is higher efficiency, and not "Faster typing". You ONLY need theory, not experimental fact. In this case, not surprisingly, they corroborate.

 

This is not an experimental study, more so I'll quote the abstract/eeer introduction's last paragraph:

This article examines the history, economics, and ergonomics of the typewriter keyboard. We show that David's version of the history of the market's rejection of Dvorak does not report the true history, and we present evidence that the continued use of Qwerty is efficient given the current understanding of keyboard design. We conclude that the example of the Dvorak keyboard is what beehives and lighthouses were for earlier market-failure fables. It is an example of market failure that will not withstand rigorous examination of the historical record

Lets examine this logic: why would experimental evidence show efficiency not be superior to conjecture?

 

So you didn't read it then?

Why is the fastest car not inherently the most efficient? Do you know the definition of the word "efficiency", because it looks like you don't. :shrug:

 

Not true, hardware wise, they are a car crash waiting to happen, Mac hardware has one of the worst failure rates, and that becomes excruciating when you compare cost vs reliability.

Given Apple now use Intel chips, and SATA disks same as PCs wtf?

I can safely say in 20 years of using Windows, I probably haven't spent half a day in total recovering lost files, on personal machines. Sure, as a tecchie I've done this, but then I worked at places that had thousands of machines, which weren't respected by the user base. I've had people blame the OS for errors, when it was their keyboard, choc full of beard hair and cigar ash, that was the problem, for instance.

I've been using auto-save for over a decade.

I can't say that's ever happened.

Until the day it breaks, just outside of warranty, and you throw it away, like a broken toaster.

Macs are niche products for a reason: because Windows is better.

Sure, macs might be intuitive to some, but I find them infuriating. I don't mind that sometimes, you have to spend a little time learning to use something. After all, we all learned to ride bicycles, and had a few falls along the way. PCs are worth the effort, unless you want to be an adult, with training wheels on for ever.

 

Yeah and I have an old Dell laptop from 1999 that originally ran Windows98, and that I upgraded to Window2000 Professional that works just fine too.

My brother in law just scrapped his fourth MacBook however. They fall over shortly after the warranty expires. And the fool keeps buying them. You just can't reason with fanboys.

 

I thank you again for present evidence that Dvorak provides no marked improvement over Qwerty.

I wasn't comparing speed, please stop with the straw men. Again I was asking why can't experimentation validate or invalidate theory in this case? Why can't efficiency be determined experimentally?

 

You're right? Citing "Dvorak shows 6% time test improvement over QWERTY" proves .... no...marked...improvement? :shrug:

I'm done on this point. You're wrong again. You're at least LESS wrong than you were regarding the MacOS vs. Linux _ OS vs. Windows. But still, wrong no less.

It did, you just have no idea what "efficiency", "theory", or "evidence" is in this case. Without knowing those 3 things, it's going to be hard for you to ever comprehend basic language.

But once again -- I wish you the best of luck. I hope you one day understand even the most basic computer bench-marking, the most basic concept of "efficiency", and maybe even the scientific method one day.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Exactly! 6% improvement is nothing, note another study cite by that one only achieved 2%, single digit improvements don't validate changing standards, they aren't even worth noting, hence not marked improvement.

Well clearly I must be wrong, as well as the study you cite must be wrong as its conclusions must be wrong, let me guess everyone other than people that agree with you must be wrong?

Interesting conclusion, and can you explain how you derive this? Please do explain how I errored in understanding the idea of "efficiency", "theory", or "evidence"? Do teach me, I'm willing to learn.

Why thank you for the well wishing.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

and if you are closing down arguments with me I just want to say how much I enjoyed your insults, back-handed complements and logic fallacies, I consider it a personal victory when my opponent is reduce to that.

 

I'm not anti Dvorak. I am against urban legends being stated as fact. If Dvorak is more efficient, then it ought to be easy to prove with objective studies showing greater typing speed. Claims require evidence, and I have yet to see any that shows a significant advantage for the Dvorak layout.

 

I recall seeing articles in computing mags 20 years ago, that lauded the benefits of Dvorak keyboards, and ergonomic keyboards, and single handed entry devices, such as the 'quinkey' and despite all the fluff and allegation,... well, we're all still happy with QWERTY, aren't we?

and so what if a different layout could produce a tiny improvement? It's not worth junking all the kit in existence for such a small change. It's not like the world is failing to advance due to a bottleneck of untyped words.

 

Oh my god clearly a chorded keyboard would be faster, more ergonomic and efficient, how could silly concepts like QWERT and Dvorak compete with that, clearly it must be a business conspiracy!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

To be honest, i built many...MANY systems and wont hesitate to tell peole if you have the extra money to spend then get a Mac. Not that i dislike other systems i use windows 7 myself and yest i used windows since it booted to DOS and have used Linux, which is does the job it was meant to do just as good. Hell for that matter i would look for my BeOs disks and use that if i could get drivers for it...version R4.

http://www.guidebookgallery.org/guis/beos/beos4

 

How I recall the episode of 'Tomorrow's World' where the demonstrated these devices,... ah, but like they say, 'nothing dates as fast as a vision of the future', and well, no, we aren't using those, travelling to work in jetpacks, or holidaying in glass bubbles at the bottom of the sea either.