OS X 10.2 - Page 2

[quote]Originally posted by Mac Write:
<strong>This is what Apple Needs to do in Mac OS X:
Fully support Aqua excelleration via the video card
Optimize the OS 10.2 to the Max to it runs dcently on a G3 233 (I have a G3 266)

My video card isn't being used. I want to see OpenGL excelleration on this computer and @leat 90% of the speed of Mac OS 9.

The eariliest I will be able to get a new PowerMac is MacWorld SF 2004. (I am also not going to buy anything below a 2.2GHZ G5 (at the low end of the line).

Also note I do alot on this computer which slows it down alot. (Apache, PHP, MySQL) etc.

So I really work my computer. but am broke and won't be able to afford a new computer until 2004 </strong><hr></blockquote>

Are you hosting your web site off of your 266?

I agree that Apple needs to implement video acceleration in Quartz, but after reading some articles on this I am not sure if its possible to the degree that OS 9's GUI is accelerated by the GPU.

<a href="http://www.railheaddesign.com" target="_blank">RAILHead Design</a> is reporting that Mac OS X 10.2 will bring back USB Printer Sharing. Finally.

[quote]Originally posted by Quarem:
<strong>

Are you hosting your web site off of your 266?

I agree that Apple needs to implement video acceleration in Quartz, but after reading some articles on this I am not sure if its possible to the degree that OS 9's GUI is accelerated by the GPU.

<a href="http://www.railheaddesign.com" target="_blank">RAILHead Design</a> is reporting that Mac OS X 10.2 will bring back USB Printer Sharing. Finally.</strong><hr></blockquote>


anything is possible. it's whether apple wants to put the money and resources into it that is the deciding factor.

my guess is not considering OS X performs very well on a 667Mhz G4 and they only ship a couple products slower than that now

I only use Apache/PHP/MySQL as a dev server. The Radeion Mac:Edition needs to see dramtic Quartz/OpenGL off-loaded from the CPU to the Radeon.

There are people who bought 466mhz G3 last year directly from Apple. Apple needs to make X run well on 233mhz G3's and up.

I don't think we will see OS X's True preformance until mid to late next year. and all the apps are in the second version as carbon apps. By then I think OS X will run at very acceptable levels on a G3 233 and very good levels on a G3 500mhz.

[Note: I am not defending planned obselesence]

Since when does a computer perform better 2 years later? It never happens. I don't think OS X is going to get any faster for our current machines. It will be screamingly fast on new (e.g.,released sometime in the future), but it probably won't get significantly faster on the current machines. In 2 years, our current machines will not be in wide use. My pessimistic perspective. It just doesn't make financial sense.

[quote]Originally posted by torifile:
<strong>[Note: I am not defending planned obselesence]

Since when does a computer perform better 2 years later? It never happens. I don't think OS X is going to get any faster for our current machines. It will be screamingly fast on new (e.g.,released sometime in the future), but it probably won't get significantly faster on the current machines. In 2 years, our current machines will not be in wide use. My pessimistic perspective. It just doesn't make financial sense.</strong><hr></blockquote>


considering OS X was suppose to be a major speed increase on CURRENT Hardware I don't why peoplewho complain that its slower get yelled at and told not to expect better performance on an old machine.

whatever happened to the advantages of ppc native code\\, no legacy, improved core, better written, modern os,

rhapsody was a hell of a lot faster on 120Mhz machines than mac OS 9. Why is OS X not fast (and to some not usable) on an imac rev a or b?

it makes no sense. Quartz is one hell of a resource hog

[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>


considering OS X was suppose to be a major speed increase on CURRENT Hardware I don't why peoplewho complain that its slower get yelled at and told not to expect better performance on an old machine.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm not questioning you, but where does it say that? Do you have a link?

[quote]<strong>
whatever happened to the advantages of ppc native code\\, no legacy, improved core, better written, modern os,
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Have you ever tried to do anything while IE was loading a page in OS 9? Most of the time, you can't. The whole computer just sits there while it does its thing. In OS X, I can actually do stuff while it's doing its thing. The OS is faster. I can work much better in it. My workflow has improved a hundred times just thanks to the column view in the finder and the dock. It may be slower from a GUI perspective, but that's not all there is to an OS. I can't remember the last time I had to reboot because an app crashed. Oh wait, I do remember, it was the last time I was in OS 9. OS X is good stuff. I just don't think that the GUI will increase in speed all that much.

<strong> [quote]
it makes no sense. Quartz is one hell of a resource hog</strong><hr></blockquote>

There is room for improvement, though. There's a bug in the menuing system that causes the CPU to spike to 100% everytime it needs to display a menu that requires scrolling. moki pointed it out on MacNN and apparently it does this for every computer, regardless of speed. That's just one bug and I'm sure there are tons of others to be worked out. Just don't expect a miracle on a machine that's already 2 years old.

Any one else find it annoying that Sherlock can not be scheduled to index your drive like it could in OS 9. This should definitely be a feature in 10.2.

I think they should be able to get OS X speed up to, or very close to, OS 9 performance on today's machines and older G3 systems. It probably will never be on par; there is a price to pay for that gorgeous Aqua UI.

[quote]Originally posted by torifile:
<strong>[Note: I am not defending planned obselesence]

Since when does a computer perform better 2 years later? It never happens. I don't think OS X is going to get any faster for our current machines. It will be screamingly fast on new (e.g.,released sometime in the future), but it probably won't get significantly faster on the current machines. In 2 years, our current machines will not be in wide use. My pessimistic perspective. It just doesn't make financial sense.</strong><hr></blockquote>


When the OS is shipped to meet a management deadline (March 24) and isn't internally nearly polished, honed or -- let's be frank -- finished yet?


Does it make finanical sense for Apple to have an operating system that users complain is sluggish?

Look, the guts of OS X aren't going to get dramatically faster on a current machine. (Nor probably do they need to.) But what it will get -- as Finder's problems are solved, as hundreds of optimizations continue, as Carbon apps mature -- is dramatically more responsive.

At least it better.

[ 03-08-2002: Message edited by: Hobbes ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Infinite Void:
<strong>

They just stopped seeding their builds to all paying developers. </strong><hr></blockquote>

I find this disturbing being that I was just about to become a paying ADC member. It's @$shole$ that don't respect their NDA's, and Apple's well known passion for secrecy that ruin good things for all of us.

BTW, I went all the way back to the begining of this tread to bring this up. Don't let me interupt your current discussion. I was just stating my opinion on the ADC situation.

[ 03-08-2002: Message edited by: onlooker ]</p>

In the World of Publishing:
Print Center is a joke and a toy
but they licence CUPS... so hoping a little.
In the World of Files:
The Finder is a joke too. Full of bugs and slow in 'list view' and 'icon view' even in 10.1.3 on a Dual 800 with a GeForce3 and 1.5 GB RAM...
In the World of Options:
Hopefully, we have the freeware...
So the little i expect for the 10.2 (Jaguar) is a perfect 'full options' finder, more speed, better printing support... and some extra magic from apple.

10.2 will rock. Think of it this way...they've had more time to work on the 10.1 to 10.2 update than the 10.0 to 10.1 update.

For 10.0, Apple released it because of a deadline. 10.1 was released under pressure to make OS X usable. Finally, 10.2 development isn't under the same sort of pressure, and I think it will be more impressive because of this. I'm expecting a much improved finder, better printing, and SPEED. If rumors are correct then 10.2 is going to fly...it's getting about a 20% speed increase from compiler issues alone, not including code optimizations by the OS X team.

There is every reason to expect OS X speed to increase on any given hardware. The OS is new and thus there are many area's that can be optimized. I have no doubt that 10.2 is going to speed up on my G4 400, just like 10.1 speeded up.

[quote]Originally posted by onlooker:
<strong>

I find this disturbing being that I was just about to become a paying ADC member. It's @$shole$ that don't respect their NDA's, and Apple's well known passion for secrecy that ruin good things for all of us.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I can fully understand you, but I also do understand Apple: Every time they released a 10.1 build to their paying ADC members it was on most Carracho/Hotline/whatever servers the day after. That's just nuts. Remember wincent.org? The only news that site had were reviews of the latest 10.1 builds and now that he doesn't get 10.2 builds we don't see any news at all.

lol?

[ 03-09-2002: Message edited by: Infinite Void ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Infinite Void:
<strong>

I can fully understand you, but I also do understand Apple: Every time they released a 10.1 build to their paying ADC members it was on most Carracho/Hotline/whatever servers the day after. That's just nuts. Remember wincent.org? The only news that site had were reviews of the latest 10.1 builds and now that he doesn't get 10.2 builds we don't see any news at all.

lol?

[ 03-09-2002: Message edited by: Infinite Void ]</strong><hr></blockquote>


and why the hell does that matter at all? who cares if pics and builds leak out? It's an OS. Who cares if a neat new feature is publicized before release? it doesn't hurt apple at all. eople don't put off OS purchases like they do hardware. hardware apple should be secretive, but not with an OS in which developer availability for support is FAR more important than keeping secret that spring loaded folders are in 10.2
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>


and why the hell does that matter at all? who cares if pics and builds leak out? It's an OS. Who cares if a neat new feature is publicized before release? it doesn't hurt apple at all. eople don't put off OS purchases like they do hardware. hardware apple should be secretive, but not with an OS in which developer availability for support is FAR more important than keeping secret that spring loaded folders are in 10.2
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

It was already mentioned that 10.2 may contain 64-bit code that would give away the impending release of a G5. Therefore Apple's secrecy of 10.2 may be directly related to their hardware secrecy. If this is true I can see why they would do this, otherwise I totally agree with you.

[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>


and why the hell does that matter at all? who cares if pics and builds leak out? It's an OS. Who cares if a neat new feature is publicized before release? it doesn't hurt apple at all. eople don't put off OS purchases like they do hardware. hardware apple should be secretive, but not with an OS in which developer availability for support is FAR more important than keeping secret that spring loaded folders are in 10.2
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>


You kinda misunderstood me... There's nothing wrong if pics leak out and we get to know some details about upcoming features. But the builds are for developers and not for every single idiot who is able to use Carracho. The builds are no public betas.

I've getting a little tired of hearing people complain OS X is slow. NO one is forcing you to use X, and new programs are still coming out for 9. If you think that OS X sucks, then stay with 9. I think X runs perfectly fast on my Prismo 500 with 512 MB ram. Yes, I'm sure there are some things they could speed up, but it works, and it's a whole hell of a lot better then the Classic mac os's.

[quote]Originally posted by torifile:
<strong>I'm not questioning you, but where does it say that? Do you have a link?</strong><hr></blockquote>I don't have a link, but I do know that this was common knowledge back in the Rhapsody days in the 90's. It was supposed to make even 604 systems fly. When Apple tacked Aqua onto it, they probably slowed the system down ten-fold or more. They introduced some serious bottlenecks over the past two and a half years.

all I can say is that if 10.2 doesnt show SUBSTANTIAL speed gains (and less buggyness in general) on my BRAND NEW iBook 600, I will wait for the next revision of TiBooks and sell this portable. If I have the money.

I honestly think Apple miscalculated Moto processor development and was expecting to be in the 1.4Ghz (slowest speed) by now, which would make a buggy and slow OS X pretty much ok.

Wake up... we are stuck at 600Mhz NOW and dont give me the 'G3/G4 is n times faster than a P3/P4/Athlon bs'. The fact is that processor speeds on Macs suck right now which means that OS X sucks now (and I dont want to hear any bs from you people that have dual G4s and whatnot). Im talking as a person who made a pretty substantial investment and have a computer that is a smidgen above 'usable' and yet I just bought it 4 weeks ago. Pathetic.

soooooo... after this pleasant rant I just hope Apple gets its MUCH better with 10.2 (where are the frikken labels fer chrissake!)

It really depends on what you think is usable. My G4 450 that I bought about a year and a half ago is many smidgins above usable. As a matter of fact I've gotten more milage out of this computer than any other before. I did add RAM and a Radeon card ( which helped a lot ) but for every day use : games, the internet , word processing it's still on top of things.

I don't know what you do for a living or how you use your Mac but, unless you're crunching numbers in a lab or working with heavy duty graphics it should be more than usable and even if that's true that certainly isn't the average user.

What I've found lately is for everyday tasks the hardware ( in computers ) is starting to pull ahead of the software. Nobody uses all of that 2Ghz found in PCs for everyday tasks.

The fact that the hardware is starting to pull ahead of the software is a good thing. It means you can get a little more out of your hard earned money.

The only reason I advocate Apple releasing faster hardware ( like the G5 ) is for marketing or for the new purchaser. If someone walks into a store and sees one number vs. another the average person will probably pick the one with the higher number. Even if it doesn't mean exactly what they think it does.

If Apple released a G5 I'd get it because I know that day is coming when this computer will being showing it's age. But, that day isn't here quite yet.

Now back to 10.2.

[quote]Originally posted by ZO:
<strong>all I can say is that if 10.2 doesnt show SUBSTANTIAL speed gains (and less buggyness in general) on my BRAND NEW iBook 600, I will wait for the next revision of TiBooks and sell this portable. If I have the money.</strong><hr></blockquote> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

Don't you get it? That's exactly what Apple WANTS you to do! They're in this business to make money... by making people buy new computers. Duh.

[quote] I honestly think Apple miscalculated Moto processor development and was expecting to be in the 1.4Ghz (slowest speed) by now, which would make a buggy and slow OS X pretty much ok.

Wake up... we are stuck at 600Mhz NOW and dont give me the 'G3/G4 is n times faster than a P3/P4/Athlon bs'. The fact is that processor speeds on Macs suck right now which means that OS X sucks now (and I dont want to hear any bs from you people that have dual G4s and whatnot). Im talking as a person who made a pretty substantial investment and have a computer that is a smidgen above 'usable' and yet I just bought it 4 weeks ago. Pathetic.
<hr></blockquote>

I agree, Apple's OS X team planned on faster CPUs than what we currently have....but this was way back when they were laying down the groundwork for Quartz.

However, OS X is quite usable on my G4 400. It is dog-slow in some areas, like file management in the finder, but in every case the slowness is due to poor OS design, NOT hardware. It is so slow that the hardware would have to be 20 fold faster to make it responsive, and that is not realistic, even with a 2 GHz G5....the only way to get better performance out of the finder is through software optimization, or by tapping into the video cards for Quartz acceleration.

I think you should wait until 10.2 before deciding that your iBook isn't fast enough. You might be pleasantly surprised.

They have work to do in a number of areas. Above all, they need to stop it from behaving in a quirky way. Quirky OS's are not desirable.

(1) They need the Unix layer to behave like a Unix layer, not like The Unix That Apple Built. It's not standard enough.

* 1a. Darwin needs a good package manager. If nothing, a solid and current version of FreeBSD ports.

* 1b. Things need to compile without people having to beat them severely. This means bundling things like ncurses and not using libcurses, having a working pthreads, fixing that whole thing with cpp-precomp, and the rest.

* 1c. Hook it up with some stuff from FreeBSD 4.x (or even the 5.x tree, at this point...). FreeBSD 3.2 is too old as a base.

* 1d. Use bash for /bin/sh. Install /usr/bin/gcc symlinks to /usr/bin/cc and the rest. Make users' lives easier.

* 1e. Keep on top of the bundled software. If you bundled it, maintain it, and release frequent updates. Where's PHP 4.1.2? Where's SSH 3.0.2? If for no other reason, should be there for security.

(2) Fix these weird bugs. They're obvious. They stick out like a sore thumb. Get on top of them. That PPP bug has taken *WAY* too long. It's one thing if you hit up against a weird, obscure bug, but bugs that people have to deal with dozens of times a day are bugs that shouldn't have been shipped.

(3) Speed. There's gotta be some way to coax more speed out of it. For hardware, they're stuck with Moto, who generally does things right but does 'em slow. Find a way around it. I'm looking forward to seeing how much faster 10.2 is, since I get the impression that the speedup in 10.1 was largely based on fixing blatant inefficiencies rather than optimizing the code itself.

(4) Finder. Why is this so messed up? Fix it.

(5) Where are all these features from OS 9? Fine, I dig the Dock, but some people need USB Printer Sharing, file encryption (you can use openssl for this and just make it another frontend to an existing Unix app. Flexibility, power, open source. Fits right in there!), and the rest. I like the whole spring-loaded folder thing I saw, looks good. Hopefully there'll be some more of that.

However, I'm not pessimistic. It took me around ten minutes to think of all those things to fix, which suggests to me (since Apple's engineers aren't idiots) that it's more a matter of needing time to code these things rather than a matter of starting on them in the first place.

This CUPS thing could turn out very well. There needs to be more of that.

Also, it seems that there are more pressing issues that need to be tended to rather than setting some engineer the task of engineering this seemingly useless and bizarre minimized window behavior in 10.2. And yes, I KNOW there are different engineers for different tasks. But surely there are other things within an arena even as limited as the Dock that are more relevant? Lifting that 5 folder hierarchical limit? More customization? Who knows? Maybe you need one less engineer working on the Dock.

Either way, it's the quirkiness that bothers me, most of all in the terminal. I'm hoping the situation will improve by July. The speed will come, even if by default via hardware- it's the rest of it that needs more specific thought and attention.

And seriously, people need to stop posting "it needs to be faster!!" as if it's some kind of revelation. Everyone knows! Everyone wants it to be faster!

Phooh. Haven't posted anything that long in a while. *runs off to recuperate*

-gzl.

One thing Apple could do that would make the web-deveopler happy is Include:

Apache (which they do) with maybe a few more options via the GUI
Latest PHP
MySQL this would be a major major help to all with a on/off switch in the control panel.

I dread reinstalling cuase of building MySQL etc.

*bump*

Anyone know if the Apple Menu is going to be more customizable (like the last one) in terms of say, being able to put a folder full of application aliases in there? This one seems as much a no-brainer for inclusion (given all the rabid complaining) as spring-loaded folders.

Anyone know? I don't recall seeing it as part of the 10.2 known feature set (hopefully we'll find out come MWTY).

[quote]Originally posted by Moogs :
<strong>Anyone know if the Apple Menu is going to be more customizable (like the last one) in terms of say, being able to put a folder full of application aliases in there? This one seems as much a no-brainer for inclusion (given all the rabid complaining) as spring-loaded folders.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't know, but I'd be surprised. That's what the Dock is for.

I can see how labels or spring-loaded folders (or some equivalent) might make it in because there's no straightforward equivalent to substitute in. But the Dock is basically a funny-looking folder full of application aliases, so...

there is one thing that i would like to see in os x, and that is the ability to tunnel through more than 5 folders in a pop up menu. also, i have noticed that if i have alot of items in a folder that i have in the dock, say my downloads folder, os x will only display half of them or so in the menu :/

All Hail the Fruit Menu, I guess... oh well. Couldn't hurt to ask. Hopefully though Apple has some goodies up its sleeve we don't yet know about as far as the GUI stuff. A nice integrated Find File feature inteh Finder would be a great start, maybe in conjunction with all the meta data stuff people talk about.

I think I'd rather see the option of a "tear away" menubar... like in NeXTSTEP/OpenSTEP and some of the WM's for linux. It basically aligns all the menu options vertically in a floating pallette. I'd like to see the dock become more like the Windows taskbar. I don't want it to look like it, but there are a good many features the dock could borrow from it.

"Im talking as a person who made a pretty substantial investment and have a computer that is
a smidgen above 'usable' and yet I just bought it 4 weeks ago. Pathetic."

Hey ZO, no disrespect mate, but why the hell would you buy a "computer that is a smidgen above usable"? Didn't you play with a similar model before you bought it? Seems to me the joke's on you for buying something that in your estimation is barely useful....lol.

[quote] Anyone know if the Apple Menu is going to be more customizable (like the last one) in terms of say, being able to put a folder full of application aliases in there? This one seems as much a no-brainer for inclusion (given all the rabid complaining) as spring-loaded folders.
<hr></blockquote>

What are you, an idiot?? Seriously, haven't you ever used the dock and thought about it? I'll make it easy for you:

1. Create a new folder. Paste a custom icon on it so you can easily recognize it in the dock and know what's inside it.

2. Fill the folder with aliases to all of your applications. You can organize them in sub-folders if you like.

3. Put the folder in the dock.

4. You can use this folder as you would an Apple menu, by doing one of the following:
Click and hold, and you get an Apple menu.
Right click, and you get an Apple menu.
Control click, and you get an Apple menu.
Click on the folder, and a finder window will open. This is useful for utilities with drag and drop functionality. For example, I have a file utilties folder in the dock, and I've set its view to icons. If I need to rename a folder of files, then I just click on the file utilties in the dock, then drag my folder onto the renamer icon.

5. This is far better than the Apple menu, because you can A) create as many as you like, and B) it is not full of clutter like the old Apple menu was.

6. It is also nice to put your documents folder, or your home directory, into the dock. This allows you instant access to every document on your HD, without any clutter in the way at all!

I have four different Apple menus in the dock, and when I boot into OS 9, using the Apple menu now is annoying, to say the least. It's full of clutter with system controls and other sorts of crap that gets in the way. And there is ONLY one apple menu is OS 9. In OS X, I have Apple menus for: Documents, Applications, Downloads, and File utilties. It's awesome.

Try it, and if you have any questions feel free to ask here. But don't whine about the lack of an Apple menu in OS X, because you can have as many Apple menus as you like (at least, as many as will fit in the dock).

I think Apple should provide a GUI dock utility that facilitates the creation and maintenance of "apple menus" in the dock. The reason is because many Mac users are too dumb to figure it out, and thus they miss out on a great deal of functionality. I can see why M$ loads Windows up with all sorts of annoying "Wizards". They may be obnoxious to users who know what they're doing, but for computer illiterate folks, they are necessary.

No offense people but asking Apple to make Mac OS X run usable fast is like asking Adobe to make Photoshop make old hardware do benchmarks that beat Intel hardware

Go easy on the man, JYD. I'd be perfectly happy to use the Dock as an exclusive Apple Menu substitute (I'm not one of those old-timers clamoring for the return of the Apple Menu--in fact I never cared for it much), except that whenever I right-click a folder of aliases it chokes trying to draw all the icons. So I used FruitMenu to put an Application list in the Apple Menu sans icons, and presto: a handy, and quick, application launcher. I'd be happy to trash it once Quartz is capable of drawing all that stuff a little faster, but that won't be for a while (maybe never on this G4 350).

[quote]Originally posted by Jared:
<strong>No offense people but asking Apple to make Mac OS X run usable fast is like asking Adobe to make Photoshop make old hardware do benchmarks that beat Intel hardware </strong><hr></blockquote>

wait a minute... isn't that what Apple has Adobe do anyway?


BTW, that analogy doesn't make much sense

[quote] except that whenever I right-click a folder of aliases it chokes trying to draw all the icons. <hr></blockquote>

If this is so then there is something wrong with your system. I have an Applications folder filled with at least 50 aliases, and the menu shows up instantaneously when I click on it.

Are you sure they are aliases? I do get a delay if I right click a folder in the dock that is large and not made up of aliases. For example, I have a shortcut to preferences, and that chugs when I right click. But aliases should never chug.

Anyhow I'm sick of going easy on people who whine about the Apple menu. If they only stopped to think about how to use the dock, they would realize that OS X has the functionality of 20 Apple menus! It's this sort of dogmatic stubborn thinking that drives people to use Windows..they are afraid of learning something different, experiencing something new, or just plain trying something they've never done before. It's pathetic. I swear 95 % of the whiners who don't like OS X spend all their time complaining that OS X is different from OS 9, and their favorite OS X shareware is all aimed at making OS X behave like OS 9. That's absurd! It's like replacing a Buick with a Porsche, and then whining about how the Porsche lacks an automatic trans, that it gets bad gas milage, and that its ride is too harsh. Sometimes I think Apple's products are too damn good for the general public, this is the same public after all who voted Dubya into office....what do you expect from such a populace? Rational, intelligent behavior? LOL!

Now you know where I was about a year ago when OS X was released. Everyone was talking about the big learning curve. WHAT FLIPP'IN BIG LEARNING CURVE? I've always found it to be easy to figure out ( unlike the first time I tried to find my way around Windows ) I've noticed that one of the reasons that Macusers stick to the Mac is because basically it ( the OS ) hasn't changed in years.

There is a guy at work who works in the bookstore ( long time Macuser ) who's worried because it doesn't use Telenet! He points out that it locks up OS X because it isn't written to work in Classic.

Even our tech dept. says old programs like that are on the way out. But, that's the type of mentality we are dealing with here.

The funny thing is wait until they switch to Windows ( oh yes it's much better than it used to be ). And they think they are frustrated now?

This resistance to learning something new is soooooooo stupid.
I tried to console myself by chanting the mantra " this to will pass ".

[ 03-16-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>

[quote]If this is so then there is something wrong with your system. I have an Applications folder filled with at least 50 aliases, and the menu shows up instantaneously when I click on it. <hr></blockquote>
Oh thats right it can't be Apple's fault for implementing a half-assed launcher that is also a file manager that is also a workspace organizer that is also....The Dock is so broken that its not even funny. And its just as much a PITA to customize as the OS9 apple menu.

[quote]Sometimes I think Apple's products are too damn good for the general public, this is the same public after all who voted Dubya into office....what do you expect from such a populace? Rational, intelligent behavior? LOL! <hr></blockquote>Half the public, pinhead. The other half was stupid enough to vote for a democratic candidate, incumbent veep, that was dumb enough to NOT be able to beat a blithering idiot who can barely read and talk to the public. That aside, if the UI implementation is WORSE than what is in OS9 you will hear complaints. OSX was supposed to be a step up, but the Finder, printing, file copying and other major UI components suck. No one really cares about Apples groovy base layer of *nix goodness or Quartz--the UI IS THE OS--and when the Aqua fashion show is over there ain't much left that is an improvement over OS9. Learning curve my ass -- these hacks exist because they make the UI more useable.

Ahem, The facts are he didn't win the popular vote. Therefore in my book he wasn't chosen " by the majority of the people " as is the common idea of a democratic sytem. By the way half is an inaccurate statement. I think the Electoral College is a crock and should be done away with until they can find some better method to take it's place.

I won't get into what he would do to the world if he had free rein as this isn't the proper forum to start an arguement about politics.

As far as the dock being broken I really don't know what you're talking about. That makes me think you don't know what your talking about. The hacks make the GUI more popular ( among stick the mud Macusers ) you mean.

[ 03-16-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>

[quote] Learning curve my ass -- these hacks exist because they make the UI more useable. <hr></blockquote>

I think that ultimate test of usability is too see how long it takes a 'new' user to get familiar with the feature and use it. In my experience the Dock is infinitely better than the old OS 9 UI for the stuff it does.

Case in point, for the last 3-4 years before Mac OS X, I have explained to my mom, to my sister, and to my dad how to switch their applications with the application menu, how to customize their apple menu (non of them felt comfortable enough to do this), and how to use the apple menu to launch applications. No matter how clearly or how many times I explained it, it just never sunk it. The day my dad, mom, and sister started using OS X they were customizing the dock, launching their apps from the dock and switching their forward applications with the dock. On top of that, they all love the dock. In fact, every novice computer user that I have talked to loves the dock.

My conclusion can only be that the dock is easier to understand and more usable. I personally love the dock and was happy to have more flexibility then the OS 9 Apple Menu provided, while keeping my shortcuts and active applications visible and organized.

Aqua is a superior UI to OS 9's platinum. You just have to use it the way it was meant to be used instead of hacking it back into OS 9's disabilities to see this for yourself.

[quote]Ahem, The facts are he didn't win the popular vote. Therefore in my book he wasn't chosen " by the majority of the people " as is the common idea of a democratic sytem. By the way half is an inaccurate statement.<hr></blockquote>
Yeah, it was 48% to 48% no sig digits.
[quote]As far as the dock being broken I really don't know what you're talking about. That makes me think you don't know what your talking about.<hr></blockquote>
Can I quote you on that. WTF kind of logical statement is that. You don't know what you're talking about, therefore you don't know what you're talking about. Broken:
sym links break if app is moved [thats an MS move]
drag-n-drop metaphor works one way--you can move files into first level folders [visible folder in Dock] and nothing more
cannot move files from Dock[ed] folders elsewhere
only five levels hierarchical menus--BeHierachic had that beat years ago
no org distinction between folders, drives, opened apps, docked apps
scrubbing required to get text names
very limited customizability, unless user engages in cutting and pasting icons, making folders and aliases [not newby activities--how about a "Customize Dock" option like early Rhapsody builds and the Apple Menu]
limited use to power users [10-20 apps open]
no ability to show system level processes [like when Classic is running, also nice for web developers to see if PHP, mySQL, Apache is up and running without going to &lt;top&gt;
Doesn't make up for all things missing from OS9--mostly tabbed folders--can't really give a sh*t about the Apple Menu, but you OSX-ites as so intolerant that you deserve the grief.
[quote]Aqua is a superior UI to OS 9's platinum.<hr></blockquote>You mean like open/save dialogs, the munged up Desktop folder, Print Center, lack of metadata, UI sluggishness [I'm on a DP1GHZ and I have little patience for spinning wheels], poorly threaded finder, non-existent network browsing etc. I'd call it a draw and give the edge to OSX cause it don't crash too often, though crashing apps are another matter.