[quote]Originally posted by Aquatik:
<strong>You have to be kidding me. OS X knows better than I do what settings I want for the Energy Saver?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Welcome to UNIX, the first operating system to present a greatly simplified, highly abstracted interface to the hardware. OS X knows a lot of things better than you do. Including when to store files in "memory" on disk, and when to store files on "disk" in memory. This means relinquishing low-level control, yes, but people have been eagerly doing just that since FORTRAN first appeared, in the name of ease of use.
Generally, this is a Good Thing(TM). It means that the average person - remember, the sort of person Apple has targeted from the get-go - can get excellent battery performance without ever seeing the Energy Saver control panel.
[quote]<strong>Sometime I want it full power everything on battery, sometimes I need to trim it down as conservative as possible.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, if you're trimming down as conservative as possible, you probably aren't ripping a CD while playing a tune while applying 10 filters to a 1GB file while running folding@home. Likewise, if you want to run full blast, you probably aren't running TextEdit all by itself with the brightness at 40%. So I'll bet that there's some correlation between what how you're using the laptop and what sort of energy requirements you need. That's not too hard for OS X to figure out. If, in actual use, OS X does what you want, then you aren't missing anything.
[quote]<strong>Gambit, I do programming. OK, maybe I don't work in assembly or UNIX system calls
But I know that it wouldn't take a frikkin' GENIUS to put Spring Loaded Folders in. Why don't they just release 10.1.4 with Spring Loaded Folders and Windowshades??? Amorph raised an interesting point about metadata and Labels, though. That needs some deeper thought.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I sincerely doubt that it's a programming problem.
It's a design
problem. You absolutely do not design a user interface by gluing a bunch of different widgets together without considering how they work together - that way lies Gnome. Nor do you offer everything and let the user and the developer choose. That way lies Motif, quite possibly the most godawful GUI ever inflicted on the world. Design 101: Anything that doesn't fit neatly into the gestalt
should get cut. If Apple is lazy about making a UI decision in their new, fledgling OS, it will bite them in the ass for years. The time and trouble spent getting a design right the first time is far, far less than the time you'll spend coping with the oversights and compromises of a mediocre design. Believe me, I've learned this the hard way. There are several discrete functionalities within Aqua that either substitute for or moot the need for windowshades, so I don't expect them back. I certainly don't miss them, and I used them a lot in OS 9.
The classic Apple Menu is a textbook example of horrible UI design. Its passing should not be mourned. There are, again, different ways to accomplish the myriad, unrelated tasks that the Apple Menu tried to offer, so there's no reason to have it there.
[quote]<strong>Amorph, I am coming from a B&W G3 300 w/ 512 megs of RAM, plain vanilla everything. All I know is, 9.2.2 on the G3 300 whips 10.1.3's @$$ on the iBook, especially in terms of responsiveness, UI, and organization/customization.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not really surprising. 512MB of RAM will speed OS 9 up quite dramatically, especially if you change all your applications' memory usage to take advantage of it. Furthermore, if your iBook doesn't have much RAM (especially if it only has 64MB), then OS X will be hitting the hard drive a lot, and notebook hard drives are s l o w.
[quote]<strong>This new iBook is less than a year old, the B&W.... Ah well. What do I know? Maybe OpenGL is slow, or Mach isn't monolithic? I just thought, with a total re-write and a year's worth of revisions, no 68K code, etc. etc., it would be faster.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The Darwin kernel is monolithic.
The parts of the OS that are no longer 68K code are much, much, much faster in OS X. For example, the filesystem. There are things that are much more responsive in OS X, courtesy of the preemptive multitasking and far more efficient threading. As far as the total rewrite goes, there's an old saying from the NeXTStep days: Make it work, then make it fast. Apple is still making parts of OS X work. Lastly, Quartz does a whole hell of a lot more work than QuickDraw ever had to, so it will always be faster and easier for OS 9 to paint its primitive windows on screen.
[quote]<strong>OS X has some good points, but multi-tasking isn't one of the ones I've observed. So far, the Dock is the only metric I've really looked, but it really seems to hog the CPU, looking at the CPU monitor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
% CPU is highly misleading. Especially if there's not much else running, a spike of high CPU use is simply an indication of tightly written code.
[quote]<strong>Why are options bad?</strong><hr></blockquote>
First of all, a statement like "options are bad" is absurd. More often than anyone would like to admit, however, options are a symptom of developer laziness: They can't be bothered to do the extra work involved in deciding what belongs where, so they punt that task to the user. (I see a lot more of this in the Windows world, and it's rampant in the Linux community, but it's not unknown on the Mac side.) This is not the way Apple has ever done things, and this is precisely why they are admired for their user friendliness. In this case, the options you're asking for aren't so much enhancements of the Aqua interface as kludges to shoehorn in things from another interface that you're used to, and that immediately makes them suspect. If there's a problem Aqua doesn't currently address or address well (which is certainly not out of the question!) then the proper solution is to design
a feature into
Aqua's paradigm, rather than port something over from OS 9 lock, stock and barrel.
If you've tailored the way you work to OS 9, OS X is going to seem weird. I know this.
But if you take the plunge, and approach OS X more like a new thing, I'm confident that you'll find a way to work without relying on (many) shareware hacks. If you stop thinking of it as a funny-looking OS 9, it does make sense in its own terms. At this point, I find OS 9 frustrating and awkward, and I've used Macs since 1986.
[ 03-20-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>