or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › New Features in Jaguar (please post here rather than one thread per feature!)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New Features in Jaguar (please post here rather than one thread per feature!) - Page 3

post #81 of 339
Thread Starter 
Some more Jaguar details, <a href="http://macnn.com/news.php?id=14084" target="_blank">courtesy of MacNN</a>:

[quote]
# Developers will now have access to the "Metal" interface (in QT and iChat) via new GUI feature in all Jaguar tools. It will be available in all frameworks.

# Universal Access improvements includes full zoom support, offering users the ability to zoom into any part of the screen with support for rollovers and transparency as well as full motion DVD video. A new Screen Reader preference (in the Speech Control Panel) allows the computer to speak any text the mouse rolls over for improved navigation access. Jaguar will also include new visual notifications. All of these will have Developer APIs, allowing new applications to take advantage of the new Universal Access improvements. (Jobs did remark that Apple "was in the market for some good text-to-speech technology" after the data Victoria voice was used to speak text for the Screen Reader technology demonstration.)
<hr></blockquote>

A few other details: AppleCare (Apple tech support document) searching will be shipped standard with Sherlock 3; streams will no longer need any prebuffering; Palm syncing to Address Book promised "by the end of the year."

[ 05-07-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #82 of 339
The maximize button in 10.1.x only maximizes vertically and one would be inclined to think it would extend both horizontal and vertical. I, however, doubt that Jaguar will address this, not that its a big deal anyways.
''i'm an extremist, i have to deal with my own extreme personality and i walk the fine line of wanting to die and wanting to be the ruler of all.''
Reply
''i'm an extremist, i have to deal with my own extreme personality and i walk the fine line of wanting to die and wanting to be the ruler of all.''
Reply
post #83 of 339
[quote]Originally posted by philter:
<strong>
If I ever see Steve Jobs in person, I will give him a piece of my mind.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Just before his bodyguards kill you and throw your body into an iGrave.

J :cool:
post #84 of 339
[quote]Originally posted by Mount_my_floppy:
<strong>The maximize button in 10.1.x only maximizes vertically and one would be inclined to think it would extend both horizontal and vertical. I, however, doubt that Jaguar will address this, not that its a big deal anyways.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Eh? Maximize doesn't maximize to full screen, ala Windows, it maximizes the the minimum needed to show all the content. It should only maximize enough to get rid of the scroll bars if possible. 'Optimize' is a better term for the button, IMHO.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #85 of 339
I must say I totally agree with philter, about the OS X. The Dock sucks, and the new Apple menu sucks. Too much fancy things, not enough usefull things like the labels, which are gone. I need the labels.

Mac mini 2.53 GHz, 4 GB, NVidia's 9400M.
13" MacBook Pro 2.66 GHz, 8 GB, NVidia's 320M.
OS X Snow Leopard 10.6.8

Reply

Mac mini 2.53 GHz, 4 GB, NVidia's 9400M.
13" MacBook Pro 2.66 GHz, 8 GB, NVidia's 320M.
OS X Snow Leopard 10.6.8

Reply
post #86 of 339
[quote]Originally posted by Kali:
<strong>I must say I totally agree with philter, about the OS X. The Dock sucks, and the new Apple menu sucks. Too much fancy things, not enough usefull things like the labels, which are gone. I need the labels.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Throw me in with this group. Don't know about iphoto, but there are some extremely simple changes that would help OSX alot. Putting favorites in the Apple menu would let us rely less on the dock. Putting the trash can back on the sedk top would help because at times its very difficult to throw things away when the dock is set to hide. Bring back 'Windowshade', an extremely useful tool. Give us Notepad-why wouldn't it be here? Don't tell me about shareware-it shouldn't be necessary. If the 'GO' Menu replaced the 'Special' Menu then the items that used to be there should be in the Go Menu as well. The fonts on screen are just awful-blurry as hell. It gives me a headache-let us change the font or fix the damn thing. Very simple changes, but it would enhance the OS so much and make it more acceptaable to older Mac users and it would make OSX even more helpful and easy to use.
post #87 of 339
[quote]Originally posted by Gulliver64:
<strong>

Why is FreeBSD 4.4 even worth mentioning while the current version is 4.5 and version 5.0 is in late Beta?
<a href="http://www.freebsd.org/" target="_blank">http://www.freebsd.org/</a></strong><hr></blockquote>

FreeBSD 5.0 is currently in "developers' preview 1" stage, and is supposed to ship in late 2002.

The next release will be 4.6 on June 1.
Still, 4.4 offers quite some improvements over 3.2 (which was what Darwin is roughly in sync with right now).

Bye,
RazzFazz
post #88 of 339
[quote]Originally posted by steve666:
<strong>Putting favorites in the Apple menu would let us rely less on the dock.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Agreed. I'd like them there too.

[quote]<strong>Putting the trash can back on the sedk top would help because at times its very difficult to throw things away when the dock is set to hide.</strong><hr></blockquote>

It' still easier than having to find it under all those windows. Now all apps can hopefully start to use it whereas before it was really just a Finder tool.

[quote]<strong>If the 'GO' Menu replaced the 'Special' Menu then the items that used to be there should be in the Go Menu as well.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Shut down and restart, etc. make more sense under the System-wide Apple menu now. They are accessible from any app and are placed at the top of the menubar hierarchy. Actually, I think we've discussed this before.

[quote]<strong>The fonts on screen are just awful-blurry as hell. It gives me a headache-let us change the font or fix the damn thing.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Small fonts can be difficult to read with antialiasing. But OS X has that setting to turn it off under a certain text size. Large fonts are much easier to read with this antialiasing model -- it appears as basically the same as Adobe's PDF model for text rendering. That's why made up anti-aliasing in the first place: easier to read as well as being closer to true WSIWYG.
post #89 of 339
LABELS! GIMME MY HOTDAMN LABELS BACK YOU COMMIE APPLE BASTARDS

If youre gonna give us Spring-Loaded folders back, go the whole damn 9 yards and give us flippin labels back. And no, I dont give a rats @ss if his Holiness doesn't use them and therefore doesn't see them fit for "the rest of us".

Grrrrrrrr....
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
post #90 of 339
I think SJ should have at least 2 or 3 themes anstead of the aqua GUI theme. Maybe alowing people to make their own themes ruins the brand image, but if apple went ahead and made like 3 standard themes, they would still be able to propagate the Mac OS image to the public, while giving mac users more options without having to use hacks. Personally i would like a theme that is a little darker, kinda reminisent of the 20th Aniversary Mac, that is highly angular, uses darker greys, and wastes little screen real-estate.
Ranger in training
PMDF
Ashan McNealy
Reply
Ranger in training
PMDF
Ashan McNealy
Reply
post #91 of 339
[quote]Originally posted by ZO:
<strong>LABELS! GIMME MY HOTDAMN LABELS BACK YOU COMMIE APPLE BASTARDS

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Use <a href="http://www.cocoatech.com/" target="_blank">SNAX</a> instead of Finder. It works better, has more features, and restores labels.
post #92 of 339
No themes. No brushed metal. Just pure Aqua goodness.
post #93 of 339
You guys are really over the top sometimes... hell, not just sometimes. All of the time. Constantly. It gets old.

Of course I fall victim to the very same craziness at times, so I shouldn't talk.
art may imitate life, but life imitates tv.
Reply
art may imitate life, but life imitates tv.
Reply
post #94 of 339
[quote]Originally posted by torifile:
<strong>... Learn the facts first. Carry on.</strong><hr></blockquote>

What facts? iPhoto works exactly as described. Seems you never looked into it, hm?
With regard to PS re-read his posting, you got that wrong I think.

Apples iApps business is a bit weird since when I bought a copy of SoundJam this was a nice app then, but when Apple bought the lot of it and turned it into iTunes, it lost performance and ease and options. IMHO. I would not have bought a copy of iTunes to be frank. I do not know if there is a predecessor to iPhoto, but it is all the same style like iTunes, but easily tops it in the field of resource hogging. It is not only a goofy app, but it is wasting space on disk and screen in a way unseen in anything Apple did prior. IMHO. Test it against Curator, a decent app compared to iPhoto, and you might see the difference.

So far all iApps by Apple I have dealt with are less than half decent and would slip through as freeware made by lazy and bored programmers with no interest in anything that makes a good program a good program, this is sad.

As long as these things are "free" and I can happily delete the bulk of them, they are not too bad. But a.) we all are paying for this by paying for the OS and b.) it seems that Apple integrates support for this into the OS, which both doesn't invoke happy feelings. It feels and tastes too much like MS if you ask me.

If you feel that those iApps do a good job for you I suggest comparing things to other programs, if you still are happy with them, well, I'd say I won't disturb you.
post #95 of 339
Apple, I really don't care about your damn iApps, gadgets and bubbles. I want full options and functionality back in OS X, like in OS 9. I'm not interested in fancy colorfull 3D buttons, fancy shadows and animation effects.

Why should I change all my habbits, just to adapt to a new OS, while they were fully efficient in the old OS ? Why change things while it was simple and efficient before ? Don't flame me, I'll get used to OS X. But I'm pissed to see the absence from OS X of really usefull options that were there in all the older OS (at least since system 6).

I WANT THE LABELS BACK !

I need labels. They are very important to me, because they let me make some special orders in my folders, documents, etc... I can't live without labels, god dammit !

Apple is losing its time on too fancy things.

FEATURES ! FEATURES ! FEATURES !

Mac mini 2.53 GHz, 4 GB, NVidia's 9400M.
13" MacBook Pro 2.66 GHz, 8 GB, NVidia's 320M.
OS X Snow Leopard 10.6.8

Reply

Mac mini 2.53 GHz, 4 GB, NVidia's 9400M.
13" MacBook Pro 2.66 GHz, 8 GB, NVidia's 320M.
OS X Snow Leopard 10.6.8

Reply
post #96 of 339
I can think of lots of areas where OS 9 was a crusty hack job. To think that the way one edited the Apple menu, or the fact that only the initiated figured out how to switch other apps, the fact that Quit was something you did to the app but it was under the File menu, etc, etc, etc.

Let's not rehash the same old points. They are adding features (though why labels aren't there is beyond me -- I thought they would have some better alternative in Jaguar) for casual and high-end users.
post #97 of 339
[quote]Originally posted by steve666:
<strong>

Throw me in with this group. Don't know about iphoto, but there are some extremely simple changes that would help OSX alot. Putting favorites in the Apple menu would let us rely less on the dock. Putting the trash can back on the sedk top would help because at times its very difficult to throw things away when the dock is set to hide. Bring back 'Windowshade', an extremely useful tool. Give us Notepad-why wouldn't it be here? Don't tell me about shareware-it shouldn't be necessary. If the 'GO' Menu replaced the 'Special' Menu then the items that used to be there should be in the Go Menu as well. The fonts on screen are just awful-blurry as hell. It gives me a headache-let us change the font or fix the damn thing. Very simple changes, but it would enhance the OS so much and make it more acceptaable to older Mac users and it would make OSX even more helpful and easy to use.</strong><hr></blockquote>


Hey! These are GREAT suggestions!! Maybe we should implement them? ...... What's that? They've ALREADY been implemented? On OS 9? Ooooohh.

Hey! I got an idea. Why don't you actually try USING the Dock instead of hiding it? That way, you can minimize windows and use the Trash Can the way it was designed to be used: always up front, never anything in its way to move aside when you want to put things in it.

I don't know if you noticed, but the OS X concept relies HEAVILY on the Dock, and the more you fight it, the more frustrated you'll become. So, you can either take a deep breath, give it a chance and relearn the MacOS; or you can stay in your comfort zone and be buried along with 9.
post #98 of 339
[quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:
<strong>

Small fonts can be difficult to read with antialiasing. But OS X has that setting to turn it off under a certain text size. Large fonts are much easier to read with this antialiasing model -- it appears as basically the same as Adobe's PDF model for text rendering. That's why made up anti-aliasing in the first place: easier to read as well as being closer to true WSIWYG.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes, but if you turn off anti-aliasing, then the fonts suddenly look like crap. I mean, Geneva is not Geneva anymore, it turns into this horrible scrunched up thing were letters run together and it just looks really really bad. Why? because Quartz is still rendering the postscript, not using a Screen Font like old Mac OS does. What a JOKE!!! Quartz blows!!! Even when it does render PostScript, it looks wayyy worse than ATM. Do this comparison: Get Futura Medium, 12 point. Get Office 2001 and then get Office X (any two programs will work though). Now, open a document in OS 9 with ATM and change the font to Futura Med. 12. Look at it. Quit. Restart. Open it in OS X. Now the font is darker and harder to read. The antialiasing engine is less accurate and not as crisp as Adobe's. Well, big surprise, I mean, Postscript is an Adobe technology after all. But Apple really needs to fix this.

Not to mention that now, my Word document scrolls a million times slower. Hopefully Xtreeeeeem Quartz will fix this problem. But you shouldn't need a 32 MB Radeon JUST TO GET SOME FRICKING HARDWARE 2D ACCELARATION FOR THE GUI!!! COME ON APPLE!!

Their argument is that, "Duh, well, you shouldn't complain that what we're doing is way advanced and your hardware just can't run it. Your computer can still do exactly what it could do the day you bought it." Yeah but the day I bought it, OS X sucked then too! So when are you gonna finally own up to the fact that your CHEESY-ARSE interface is the problem, not the fact that my hardware (a 550 G4) is too slow to run it??
-philter-
Reply
-philter-
Reply
post #99 of 339
[quote]Originally posted by RazzFazz:
<strong>

FreeBSD 5.0 is currently in "developers' preview 1" stage, and is supposed to ship in late 2002.

The next release will be 4.6 on June 1.
Still, 4.4 offers quite some improvements over 3.2 (which was what Darwin is roughly in sync with right now).

Bye,
RazzFazz</strong><hr></blockquote>

Could you help us out please. What improvements does 4.4 offer over 3.2. Don't need a complete list just the biggies if you would.
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
post #100 of 339
You're looking at fonts that are

a. being rendered as PDFs essentially so look in an Acrobat file in OS 9 and tell me the OS 9 ones look better. This isn't Postscript, it's PDF because PDF is an open standard that ties web/screen and print together whereas Postscript is a print-oriented model.

b. Some fonts were designed for the OS 9 display model, such as Geneva. Geneva is Apple's original rip-off of Helvetica debcause Helvetica would cost them money and didn't read as clearly under the old text rendering model of the original Mac. The point is that fonts are WYSIWYG so let go of using Geneva and its ilk. It's pointless to use now. Use real fonts.

c. Office X's font rendering sucks -- it's not even using Quartz ATSUI rendering, it's still using QuickDraw. So you have Quickdraw being rendered to a system that composites everythingin Quartz. Yes, looks crappy, and a lot of Carbon ports do this because they didn't take the time or care to render using the new font rendering model.

But frankly, I think this isn't really your gripe. I think you have much bigger issues.
post #101 of 339
Gambit wrote:
&gt; &gt; &gt;
Hey! I got an idea. Why don't you actually try USING the Dock instead of hiding it? That way, you can minimize windows and use the Trash Can the way it was designed to be used: always up front, never anything in its way to move aside when you want to put things in it.

I don't know if you noticed, but the OS X concept relies HEAVILY on the Dock, and the more you fight it, the more frustrated you'll become. So, you can either take a deep breath, give it a chance and relearn the MacOS; or you can stay in your comfort zone and be buried along with 9.
&lt; &lt; &lt;

Hey I dunno if you're the Gambit I used to know from the old BBS days, but if so, then hello! (Dark Goob here.)

Anyways, other than that, your suggestions sark uss. Why? Because look. You want me to adopt AN INFERIOR USER INTERFACE CONEPT that uses up way too much screen real estate and is wayyy too slow.

In my dock, there are 35 programs, five folders. I HAVE to hide it; it's ugly! Besides, my Titanium PowerBook's screen is too small to afford the screen real estate to have that lame dock always sitting there, popping up and reacting every time my cursor ventures near that edge of the screen.

I do minimize windows into it sometimes. But, how is this any better than just hiding programs, like in the old OS? It's not any better. I can just windowshade a window if I really want to hide it. Don't get me wrong, the Genie comes in handy on occasion, but I ABSOLUTELY DETEST the suggestion that it is now somehow "bad" and "evil" to run with 8 windows open on the screen at once. I'm a human being, I have a brain, I can multitask in my head, my desk is full of clutter, and I like a cluttered screen. I know where everything is; I like having all my information laid out in front of me at once, not all hidden away in some stupid dock somewhere. I routinely have about 5 finder windows open: the root, my documents folder, my OS 9 and OS X applications folders (because the dock is insufficient to hold aliases for everything, like spring-loaded folders used to), plus a few web browser windows, my e-mail, etc. I hide a few programs, switch between them, etc. I don't need some lame-arse dock down there hickory-dickory-docking my beloved Macintosh into inanity and ridiculousness. Alls I need is a trusty Apple Menu with aliases for my favorite programs. The dock can stay out of my way, hidden, until I really need it -- as it should be.

Really, the dock is just Apple's way to try to make a better "task bar," in order to make windows users feel more comfortable switching over. But the "task bar" was even better than the dock, because at least it can be configured to display text only instead of icons only, thus taking up less screen real estate. Apple's designers obviously have the luxury of 22" cinema displays so they don't notice the obvious flaws in their designs. But not every mac user has two million pixels spare to play around with.

I can go on and on and on. "The OS X concept," as you refer to it, goes counter to and flies in the face of "The Macintosh concept," or as I have always known it, "The best way to use a computer." Use your brain, instead of falling under Apple's hypnotising spell of whirly-majig gadgetry of interface design that looks pretty but is slow and counter-efficient. For instance, the dock could be made hierarchical: i would like to see it be able to expand out like a tree instead of everything being in a row. And I don't just mean having to click on a folder, wait TWO SECONDS for the pop up menu, and then go though A DOG - ARSE SLOW excuse for a hierarchical menu; I mean, something truly navigable like the old Apple menu.

There are a lot of great things about OS X, but the interface isn't one of them. It's definitely better than any of the other Unices out there, but come on, it ain't the Mac, at least, not yet.
-philter-
Reply
-philter-
Reply
post #102 of 339
[quote]Originally posted by philter:
<strong>

Not to mention that now, my Word document scrolls a million times slower. Hopefully Xtreeeeeem Quartz will fix this problem. But you shouldn't need a 32 MB Radeon JUST TO GET SOME FRICKING HARDWARE 2D ACCELARATION FOR THE GUI!!! COME ON APPLE!!

Their argument is that, "Duh, well, you shouldn't complain that what we're doing is way advanced and your hardware just can't run it. Your computer can still do exactly what it could do the day you bought it." Yeah but the day I bought it, OS X sucked then too! So when are you gonna finally own up to the fact that your CHEESY-ARSE interface is the problem, not the fact that my hardware (a 550 G4) is too slow to run it??</strong><hr></blockquote>

Did anyone ever tell you to shut up? I will! stfu!
post #103 of 339
Buon Rotto wrote:
&gt; &gt; &gt;
a. being rendered as PDFs essentially so look in an Acrobat file in OS 9 and tell me the OS 9 ones look better. This isn't Postscript, it's PDF because PDF is an open standard that ties web/screen and print together whereas Postscript is a print-oriented model.
&lt; &lt; &lt;

PDF is Postscript. Hello... it's basically the same thing. Why do you think Acrobat doesn't work if you don't have ATM installed? Quartz is essentially NeXTSTEP's old Display Postscript model.

&gt; &gt; &gt;
b. Some fonts were designed for the OS 9 display model, such as Geneva. Geneva is Apple's original rip-off of Helvetica debcause Helvetica would cost them money and didn't read as clearly under the old text rendering model of the original Mac. The point is that fonts are WYSIWYG so let go of using Geneva and its ilk. It's pointless to use now. Use real fonts.
&lt; &lt; &lt;

I don't care what you say -- there is NO EXCUSE for the only alternative to anti-aliasing being, looking at fonts that run together and look like garbage. The concept of "WYSIWYG" is completely irrelevant to this discussion; we're talking about screen display fonts here for use in displaying lists of items in my newsreader, MT-NewsWatcher 3.2 for instance, or for display in the "Toolbar Favorites" section of the Explorer browser window. Right now, if you are using Explorer, go and turn off antialiasing and load up explorer. Look at your toolbar favoirtes. In mine, there is "Google." Except the "l" and the "e" are literally touching each other. This is bad rendering. It should not happen. There is no argument to be had here; there is no possible way you can convince me that Apple is right to have an inferior font rendering model "just because it is OS X." You can't blame it on Microsoft, either; the same thing happens if you open Apple's own Preferences panel and look at the ugliness of the non-antialiased text in the favorites bar.

We should not sit by casually as Apple begins to sell us flawed technology without voicing our opinions about it, or else it won't ever get fixed. That's how customer service works. Customers beotch about stuff, then the company fixes it.

&gt; &gt; &gt;
c. Office X's font rendering sucks -- it's not even using Quartz ATSUI rendering, it's still using QuickDraw. So you have Quickdraw being rendered to a system that composites everythingin Quartz. Yes, looks crappy, and a lot of Carbon ports do this because they didn't take the time or care to render using the new font rendering model.
&lt; &lt; &lt;

Well, I hope you're right on this one.

&gt; &gt; &gt;
But frankly, I think this isn't really your gripe. I think you have much bigger issues.
&lt; &lt; &lt;

Yes the fonts thing is a very small issue. The biggest issue is having been using Macs since I was seven years old, for the past 18 years, and now seeing that Apple is making some really stupid design decisions. Why do you automatically accept what many of the designers of the original Mac, and many experts of interface design, recognize to be a vastly inferior user experience regarding the GUI? Why protect it? It sucks! Lets make it better!

I applaud apple for being daring enough to try something new. But this is a bit like Jar-Jar Binks. Lets hope that Steve Jobs realizes his error and, like Lucas, cans Jar-Jar and comes out with a version of OS X that has less stupid frills and runs faster on the current hardware. I don't want to hear arguments how on the one hand, we should all switch to OS X now, but on the other hand, we should shut up and not complain if it runs like arse on our computers, when we know good and well that if they weren't wasting so many processor cycles on useless eye candy, it would actually be FASTER than the old system!
-philter-
Reply
-philter-
Reply
post #104 of 339
[quote]Originally posted by kim kap sol:
<strong>

Did anyone ever tell you to shut up? I will! stfu!</strong><hr></blockquote>

Heh, no you're the first actually!
-philter-
Reply
-philter-
Reply
post #105 of 339
Thread Starter 
[Oh, forget about it.]

Could we please talk about Jaguar, instead of resurrecting the "OS X sucks 'cuz it's not OS 9" rant for the 10,000,000th time?

Thanks.

[ 05-08-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #106 of 339
Since Mail is part of OS X then let me ask this question:

What's this I hear about Exchange support? Calendar, Contacts, Global Address list support? This would make my day.
post #107 of 339
[quote]Originally posted by torifile:
<strong>not to get too off topic, but philter, have you even USED iPhoto or iTunes? From the sound of your post, I'd say no. Most of the gripes you had about iPhoto are just plain wrong. Can't open a photo in Photoshop? Ummm, yes you can. Don't be a dolt. Just because your new here doesn't give you an excuse to be stupid... Learn the facts first. Carry on.</strong><hr></blockquote>

No, of course I have used both of these programs extensively, or I wouldn't comment on them. Of course I don't use iPhoto very much, because it's a pain in the arm. In Canon Image Browser, the program I prefer, I can click a picture, select multiple ones, and rotate them all as a batch. I can open them all into photoshop as a batch without having to open a separate program. It also recognizes movies, which iPhoto should but doesn't do. Also Canon Image Browser doesn't rename all of my photos from their original name on the camera. It lets me open pictures directly into photoshop by control-clicking and saying, "open in photoshop." Does iPhoto do that? If you actually read my original post you will see that is what I was referring to.

I get the distinct impression that Apple's design engineers are not thinking about how to make their software versatile so that it can be integrated into other workflows. This is a difficult concept to express, but look at iMovie for instance, and see how it has some cool features, like iPhoto, but fundamentally, when it comes to the way these programs manage their files, it's very un-Mac-like, because they store their documents hidden away in their own folders instead of prompting the user to save the file under whatever name and location they choose. It's as if Apple no longer deems its users intelligent enough to organize their own documents, as if this were a complicated process.

This is further compounded by the presence in OS X of a "Documents" folder, a "Pictures" folder, a "Music" folder, etc. Which is funny because not even their own software completely follows the way they try to make you use your computer; for instance, iTunes doesn't keep its folder inside the Music folder by default. It's just silly.

One solution I've found is just to make an alias to the "Documents" folder and put it at the root of the hard drive, so now all my OS 9 applications and OS X applications both look in the same place for their respective folders (Eudora, Quicken, and Palm being good examples of programs that would otherwise be confused when launched in OS 9 instead of OS X).
-philter-
Reply
-philter-
Reply
post #108 of 339
Well I may have spoken too soon... they just announced iPhoto 1.1 that fixes several of the problems I had with it.

Nuff said.

I'm sure Jaguar is going to rock, but still, I think it's valid to question the direction they are taking the user interface. I'm not yearning for OS 9; I want OS X, but I want it to be made intelligently, for it to run fast, for the interface to be more customizable, etc. But more, I think one of the things about a graphical user interface is the underlying design philosophy that it represents, and the user experience that it tries to help.

People should not take criticisms of the new philosophy behind OS X's interface so personally; it is a valid discussion. Like I said, I'm highly critical of the way that OS X's GUI departs, not from the look and feel of the Mac, but from the quality and responsiveness, from the efficiency with regards to screen real estate. And I don't see any progression in that direction for iBook users, iMac users, G3 and earlier G4 users, or perhaps even myself with my almost new PowerBook 550, in Jaguar, which is really sad. Someone has said, "Don't worry; it will be faster for those machines too." But will it? Is there 2D hardware accelaration other than Extreme Quartz? There should be. But is there?

And I know, many of you already know all of these complaints, and have somehow reconciled them within yourself. Some of you are already selling your "old" PowerBooks and buying new ones, just a few months after you bought it. Maybe I'll end up doing the same thing - I'm sure Steve would like that. And you're thinking, "What's this guy's problem? Get over it. Deal." Hey, I'm not upset. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
-philter-
Reply
-philter-
Reply
post #109 of 339
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by philter:
<strong>
I'm sure Jaguar is going to rock, but still, I think it's valid to question the direction they are taking the user interface. I'm not yearning for OS 9; I want OS X, but I want it to be made intelligently, for it to run fast, for the interface to be more customizable, etc. But more, I think one of the things about a graphical user interface is the underlying design philosophy that it represents, and the user experience that it tries to help.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Make it work, then make it fast.

QuickDraw wasn't hardware accelerated for the first two years of its existence. If you disable the video driver for your OS 9 machine, you'll find that, unaccelerated, it's a whole lot slower than Quartz is.

[quote]<strong>People should not take criticisms of the new philosophy behind OS X's interface so personally; it is a valid discussion.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Of course it is.

What I am objecting to, primarily, is the hijacking of every thread about any aspect of OS X to rattled off exactly the same set of complaints, often verbatim, that some people have been voicing since Aqua first appeared - often peppered with a great deal of inflammatory and content-free rhetoric. This thread is about what's coming in Jaguar. If you want to start a thread about improvements to the OS X UI, go for it.

[quote]<strong>Like I said, I'm highly critical of the way that OS X's GUI departs, not from the look and feel of the Mac, but from the quality and responsiveness, from the efficiency with regards to screen real estate.</strong><hr></blockquote>

There might actually be some loss in screen real estate when you go from an interface designed for 640x480 to one designed for 1024x768. The question is, is there something to be gained from that? People complain about the new books with large fonts and wide margins, and trumpet the old "value for money!" design of older books that had tiny fonts jammed up to the edges of the pages; but the latter are especially hard on your eyes, while the former are not.

[quote]<strong>Someone has said, "Don't worry; it will be faster for those machines too." But will it? Is there 2D hardware accelaration other than Extreme Quartz? There should be. But is there?</strong><hr></blockquote>

1) There already is some hardware acceleration. Try dragging a window around the screen. 2) There are lots of ways to make OS X faster without touching Quartz. Finder's sluggishness has nothing to do with Quartz, for instance.

I'm confident that Jaguar will be substantively faster than 10.1 on hardware that can't use Quartz Extreme. People who know have said that there's room for another healthy speed boost.

[ 05-08-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]

[ 05-08-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #110 of 339
I still totally agree with philter.

In my opinion, the Dock is really a bad concept. It can be usefull for some things (gadgets, control devices, temporary items, etc), but it's a real pain in the ass to put there all my important, permanent, applications and folders, and to put AT THE SAME PLACE the temporarily collapsed windows (the divider doesn't help that much).

The point is , there is too much stuff in the Dock. The old Apple menu goes there, the application menu goes there, and all the rest goes to the Dock too ! This is insane ! I'm losing time just to recognise the application icon to which I want to switch. It's confusing. The Dock is really becoming a Duck !

The Dock could be usefull if you manage only few things. But for the professionnal with a lot of files, folders and apps, it's a stupid concept. That's why I want the old Apple menu and applications menu BACK ! I'm forced to use some sharewares because of this, and it's unacceptable from Apple.

I'm sorry to say the Macintosh is becoming a kind of PC machine, with OS X.

Mac mini 2.53 GHz, 4 GB, NVidia's 9400M.
13" MacBook Pro 2.66 GHz, 8 GB, NVidia's 320M.
OS X Snow Leopard 10.6.8

Reply

Mac mini 2.53 GHz, 4 GB, NVidia's 9400M.
13" MacBook Pro 2.66 GHz, 8 GB, NVidia's 320M.
OS X Snow Leopard 10.6.8

Reply
post #111 of 339
What saddens me is that once again Apple is selling us a product that won't be available for five months. That's fine for developers and investors, but a crappy way to treat customers.
Chicanery.
Reply
Chicanery.
Reply
post #112 of 339
Hmm I thought this was a New Features in Jaguar thread - I must have made a wrong turn a while back.

[ 05-08-2002: Message edited by: JLL ]</p>
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #113 of 339
[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>What saddens me is that once again Apple is selling us a product that won't be available for five months. That's fine for developers and investors, but a crappy way to treat customers.</strong><hr></blockquote>

What product? Jaguar isn't selling.
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #114 of 339
Lots of products are announced well before they're available. Why is this such a big deal?
post #115 of 339
"So far all iApps by Apple I have dealt with are less than half decent and would slip through as freeware made by lazy and bored programmers with no interest in anything that makes a good program a good program, this is sad."

That's your opinion. Given the great press they've received I'd guess you're in a minority.

Me? I like them of course.

"As long as these things are "free" and I can happily delete the bulk of them, they are not too bad. But a.) we all are paying for this by paying for the OS and b.) it seems that Apple integrates support for this into the OS, which both doesn't invoke happy feelings. It feels and tastes too much like MS if you ask me."

Sure. I guess I didn't see that take coming. (Doc'...get me some therapy over here...)

"If you feel that those iApps do a good job for you I suggest comparing things to other programs,"

Well, I have...and er...many of the 'free' programs you get in 'x86' land suck, hard to use pedantic windows logic and come 'free' with a grey (Ugly TM) interface.

"if you still are happy with them, well, I'd say I won't disturb you."

Well, don't. Stay in your OS9 coffin. It's gonna be a deep sleep...

Yeesh.

Apple do a sterling preview...a raft of nice features with Jaguar and some people are still screaming like gonads slammed door on.

Some people are pathalogical whingers.

(Did I spell that right...?)


Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #116 of 339
"In my opinion, the Dock is really a bad concept."

Sure it is.

I think the dock is more direct and has more potential than any interface device in OS 9.

It get's better when you compare it to the 8 bit grey lego brick ('taskbar') in winblows. It also responds under duress.

I see plenty more potential to expand the use of the dock. I use it all the time. Barely use the harddrive icon any more. It's one big, orgasmic and heavenly springloaded folder...

Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #117 of 339
"I'm sorry to say the Macintosh is becoming a kind of PC machine, with OS X."

Yeah. A superior one at that. It's giving XP a scrapy knees and elbows drag across a gravelly car park...

Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #118 of 339
I hear a lot of people complaining that labels have not been introduced as one of Jaguar's new features. A while back Apple hired the guy who created BFS. I think that Apple didn't include labels in Jaguar because they are working on something better. It doesn't look like a new file system will be implemented for Jaguar, but I think we will see a new FS in the next major release of OS X after Jaguar. I think that the new FS will include superior metadata handling and will blow labels out of the water.

If this is the case, then it makes sense for Apple not to bring labels in Jaguar as a hacked on feature, but to wait for the new FS and full metadata support.

Apple's listening to your concerns and tackling the issues one at a time. The question is not 'if' labels will be included, but 'when' will labels be included. Mac OS 8.1 brought us HFS+, so I wonder if Apple would be bold enough to introduce a new filesystem between Jaguar and the next major release after that.
post #119 of 339
"Lets make it better!"

I think Apple are doing. I barely use OS 9.

X is a more fluid experience for me. iBook 600 mhz and 384 megs of ram.

"I applaud apple for being daring enough to try something new."


Me too.

" But this is a bit like Jar-Jar Binks."

<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? Just in what way is an OS like Jar-Jar?

"Lets hope that Steve Jobs realizes his error"

You'll be waiting a while. Don't hold your breath. In the meantime. People will move on with OS X.

"and, like Lucas, cans Jar-Jar and comes out with a version of OS X that has less stupid frills and runs faster on the current hardware."

It probably will run faster on current hardware. Each update has got faster.

10.2 will probably be noticeably faster without Quartz extreme.


"I don't want to hear arguments how on the one hand, we should all switch to OS X now,"

Fine. Stamp your feet like a child. You'll soon be one of a minority still playing in the OS 9 playground...


"... but on the other hand, we should shut up and not complain if it runs like arse on our computers,"

What you running it on? An Apple II?

"...when we know good and well that if they weren't wasting so many processor cycles on useless eye candy,"

What? The dock? Most of the time, app's are using 'eye candy' genie effects? What are you referring to? Eg?

"...it would actually be FASTER than the old system!"

It eventually will be as they tweak the code and add Quartz Extreme etc.

Sure, Apple are deliberating making code run slow to alienate its existing userbase....

Guess you don't wanna see the big picture.

Well, I like it. And so do nearly five million others by the end of the year and counting ?

Lemon Bon Bon

We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #120 of 339
"Just before his bodyguards kill you and throw your body into an iGrave."



Still chuckling...

Lemon Bon Bon


Tee-hee...
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › New Features in Jaguar (please post here rather than one thread per feature!)