This is almost as annoying as no Spring Loaded Folders, WindowShades (I have Window Shade X finally, and it is COOl! Apple, hire these people from Unsanity! Duh!), Labels, REAL control over the Appearance (c'mon, Steve, get over it, some people just friggin' DON'T like Aqua, so how what if I want to Think Different???)
Xounds, Winshades X, Fruit Menu, should all be folded into X.2. Plus, how about a REAL Energy Saver? I was blown away at how CRAPPY MacOS X still is. I mean, Apple has had a LONG time to work on this. And, I am in computer programming, and I know and respect how much work the employees are doing. I don't think it is their fault, I am guessing most of these issues of customization are one person's fault...
Labels are metadata. And we know that Apple is backing away from the old MacOS way of handling metadata.
OS X is currently so completely devoid of any such thing - setting pictures as folder backgrounds seems to be the beginning and end of the solution for now - that I have to wonder if Apple is even sure how to handle the problem. I can't believe that they intend to drop metadata altogether. That's a completely nonsensical approach in a modern operating system, and it seems to me that both the NeXT and MacOS veterans within Apple would be deeply concerned at the lack.
I'm aware that Apple has hired a bunch of people recently with UI credentials, and of course they folded their OS 9 development team into the OS X team as well. I'm beginning to think - actually, hope would be a better word - that they're really trying to hammer this out. Resource forks are out, since they're not portable. Packages are strictly portable, in the sense that they consist of folders and flat files, but they still have to be recognized by the host OS, and that's currently a problem.
Until the issues involved in the larger project of designing and/or integrating a subsystem to store metadata are resolved, any attempt to store information like the label of a folder will be a hack. (In fact, the definition of "label" they use might also be a hack - a more robust and flexible design than OS 9's is certainly possible, given Quartz.) If Apple ships a hack and then settles on an incompatible metadata implementation, they've just compromised the integrity of the OS they're hoping will last them for the next 15 years or so. If they have any sense, they're moving very carefully in this space.
I'm not so worried about the obvious flakiness and inconsistency, such as between Carbon and Cocoa open/save dialogs. Carbon and Cocoa are both still converging, and I'm confident that Apple will iron those issues out as a matter of course. What I'm interested in are the major architectural decisions they have left to make, and to refine. Metadata is definitely up near the top of that list.
I too earnestly hope that metadata is a hot issue within the compound at 1 Infinite Loop. I've preached this topic a hundred times; so, I'll shut up about it this time.
[quote]I'm not so worried about the obvious flakiness and inconsistency, such as between Carbon and Cocoa open/save dialogs<hr></blockquote>
Its not that, but the fact that Open/Save has reverted back to pre-Nav Services levels of useability. Ideally Open/Save should be as transparent as the Finder--it should be the Finder, hopefully helping to eliminate "where did I save that file" issues.
Its all really part of File Management architecture that needs to be addressed. More apps are now doing file management tasks, from iApps to Go Live/Dreamweaver, and now even Photoshop. How does the Finder fit in, and how do these apps interface with the Finder.
All I can say, is I finally started using OS X yesterday, 10.1.3 and 9.2.2 with Office X. I was THOROUGHLY unimpressed. OS X sucks.
I couldn't find ANYTHING. I realized how screwed up the directory structure was from UNIX when I tried to import my Entourage 2k1 data into Entourage X. I had to find a data file. Sounded simple. I got lost wading through the System 9 folder and the Documents folder (now there are seemingly millions of folders called Documents! Friggin' A! I had things VERY organized in 9)
AND where the HELL is the Energy Saver? No sets for battery and power adapter, Apple, are you KIDDING ME?
OS X deserves a MacAddict BLECH!
Stability, UNIXy coolness/tweakability is COOL but I want friggin' OS 9 UI & customizability back!
OS 9 was too bland for my taste so I used Kaliedoscope a lot. I must stress ( lest this be turned into something else ) the appearance of OS 9 was bland and old fashioned looking to me. I liked the usabilty despite the " house of cards " it's foundation was based on.
The thing about Labels is that when I first heard this argument I went around asking to see if my viewpoint was unusual. Everyone I asked said the same thing " huh "? So there are many people out there who didn't use them.
I imagine when Apple weighs what is important ( when to include these features ) the priority is probably based on popularity.
Once again this is all subjective and will probably mean little in the coming years as OS X becomes more and more mature.
Labels != metadata. That's just the OS9 kludge. Think of iTunes, iPhoto. Without metadata they would be useless. Just hoping for Apple to consider that sort of capability in the Finder After all given the increasing number of files and file types, the hierarchical folder sequence as organizing tool is getting to be more cumbersome than useful.
Next version of Windows hooks the filesystem to an SQL database. Kinda overkill, but a step in the right direction, though Apple was there first [conceptually at least] with OpenDoc.
So has anyone taken a peak at the Energy Saver?? :eek:
Also, why did Apple move the control strip up into the menu bar? less choice is BAD.
The main focus of my dislike of OS X is the lack of choice. CHOICE = POWER. UNIX sure has lots of choices, but that is not what I am talking about. Comand lines are too kludgy for most people, and even though I've warmed up to UNIX (top is useful, and the concept of piping is definitely powerful, but vi makes me want to laugh), the GUI is faster and simpler for most things.
Why is Apple throwing all their MONEY and TIME spent on research away? Their research was money well spent, and the Platinum interface is for the most part, the best interface in the world. This is why we use Macs. Windows, for me anyway, is a waste of time, because it doesn't let me get things done the way I want to, in the amount of time I want.
One other thing: SPEED. Now, I now it's been re-hashed a million times, but I JUST bought a new iBook Combo (Circuit City ). Why, oh WHY, does mousing around in the Dock put the CPU monitor up to 100%? Is there anyone here technically oriented enough to explain why OS X is so slow, and if it will ever speed up? (Programmer?) After all, I thought OS X was supposed to be FASTER, what with all that 68k code out, and the nice high-performance UNIX plumbing? Is Mach monolithic?
Here's to 10.2.
If they screw that up, I'm going back to Classic. Crashes and all (which I don't have much of, G FINDER in the Open Firmware is much more effective than Force Quit in OS 9)
OS X is a dynamic OS. It uses the power it needs when it needs it. It automatically assigns ram and processing power dynamically. You think that maybe there's no battery/plugged in setting in Energy Saver because the OS already KNOWS when to add more juice and when to conserve power? Think about it.
Actually, I just read the rest of your last post. .... Forget everything I said and DON'T think about it. We wouldn't want you to hurt yourself. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
Why are there so many headlines about OS X sucking power??? I haven't tested this with my iBook, I will tonight.
Anyway, OS X isn't the adept OS some suggest. Earlier today I used the Modem control strip (the menu bar thingy) to connect while booting. The Dock froze. If I moved an icon, that icon would stay huge. I had to REBOOT. This is opposite to what OS X is made out (supposed to) be.
Gambit, how does OS X using 100% of a 500mhz G3 (nothing to sneeze at, we are getting jaded in this day and age) just to expand an icon in the Dock "dynamically conserve power" etc?
Also, on a sidenote, Apple was nice in making front-ends to utilities like top... A utility for a GUI frontend to nice, like Renice, which I'm looking at downloading, would go far to appease impatient people (like me ). Maybe Apple should hire the Northern Softworks people too!
OS X is a dynamic OS. It uses the power it needs when it needs it. It automatically assigns ram and processing power dynamically. You think that maybe there's no battery/plugged in setting in Energy Saver because the OS already KNOWS when to add more juice and when to conserve power? Think about it.
that's bullshit. battery life in OS X is considerably less than in 9 and you do not have any of the energy saving options that 9 does.
So your saying OS X knows when I want to downclock the processor without me telling it or it knows what kind of sleep and display sleep timings I want for plugs and batteries without me telling it?
<strong>Why are there so many headlines about OS X sucking power??? I haven't tested this with my iBook, I will tonight.
Anyway, OS X isn't the adept OS some suggest. Earlier today I used the Modem control strip (the menu bar thingy) to connect while booting. The Dock froze. If I moved an icon, that icon would stay huge. I had to REBOOT. This is opposite to what OS X is made out (supposed to) be.
10.2 will be much better, I'm sure. I hope.
It's not like I said Windows XP is better </strong><hr></blockquote>
Or you could have launched terminal or process viewer and killed the dock process.
if I didnt know better I would say Aquatik is a clone of me... I just bought a 600Mhz iBook w/384 MB ram and am mostly unimpressed with OS X. I have to be with Aq on this, if 10.2 doesnt CONSIDERABLY improve my OS X experience, its off to selling my iBook at a good price while I still can, buy a lowend iBook (just to have a Mac) and then buying a 1700+AMD with DDR ram for about 500$ to be anble to actually do some WORK and GAME. PS is ok in OS 9 and other graphics apps... but I want OS X, not 9... and right now, while OS X is definetly a great step in the right direction, I can only give it a luke warm recomendation and will possibly think of using OS X in a year or two when Apple gets its damn act together and not some second dibs compared to Winblows.
I hate Winblows, but OS X isnt really doing it for me. hah... 2400$ for a 600Mhz portable... wtf was I thinking...
I got the 500 Combo from Circuit City for 850! I am tempted to overclock it, but even @ 600 / 100 with more RAM than me, OS X is slow?
Ouch. There is no excuse for this. As I have said, we are becoming jaded. A 500mhz G3 is nothing to sneeze at. My Blue and White 300 with 512 RAM rocks in OS 9.1.
Mr A J, even as familiar as I am with dipping into UNIX every now and then, the average user would be irate, and I am annoyed that I have to tweak Terminal settings, for anything!
UNIX sucks, in terms of user friendliness. I have long thought one of the coolest things Apple could do would be to make "aliases" to all the frequently used UNIX commands, in ENGLISH language. For example, why can't I find??? I have to "grep". That sounds like something the cat puked up. For everyone who's already memorized these shorter old commands, they're still their. But I am not looking forfward to memorizing the obscure syntax of utilities like fsck, nice, blah blah. Just look at vi for an example of how things are done in the Terminal. Ew!
Applenut, do you think Apple will offer the old Energy Saver in 10.2? If I clock my iBook (now there's an operative, if) to be at 600/350, I could get even more battery. So far, I have gotten almost 5 hours of battery out of regular use. At 350 this would go up, I imagine. Anyone know a good place to buy a soldering iron? Seriously, last time I touched one of these was way back in Shop, so I'm a bit nervous :eek:
There are some VERY good suggestions on this board. I hope Apple looks here! Or I'll have some mailing to do
[quote]
hey 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.
...
<hr></blockquote>
Now that was an example of a good post! *claps loudly, whistles a little*
I am aware speed will be resolved, it's just too damn obvious, especially when accompanied by the Megahurts stigma that seems so important to Joe Sixpack. But it is starting to seem as if Apple just doesn't CARE!? 10.1 was big, but come on, that was really 10.0. Just by READING about 10.0, I knew it was a joke. One of those ones where you are embarassed for the person telling it. Gorgonzola was very right it seeing optimism in the CUPS thing. If Apple really tackles this open source thing aggressively it could have dramatic repercussions, simply from the good will of all the open source programmers out there. My hat tips to them.
We're still ahead of Windows, at least !
For now...
"Even if you are on the right track, if you sit there long enough, you can still get run over..."
Or so the saying goes, I think!
Applenut, you are right! It is odd that OS X is slower, not faster??? And torifile is right on the necessary evil of planned obsolescence for businesses. Geez, guys, get a new computer. Oh, wait, I'm on one. And we all know how MacOS X 10.1.3 is on a piece of junk iBook 500 *wry smile* Really, I love this machine! I just want the best for it! *sob*
I really don't feel like going over really old ground. Hell, we went over this crap almost a year ago and it's still stupid.
Oh, and I'm quite grown up. The prospect of a birthday coming up soon doesn't inspire the same feelings that it once did.
I'll have to say after seeing your pictures on your home page you seem more grown up than I gave you credit for.
I hope 10.2 is a more finished OS than the current one also. But, even if it is I really don't think the whining will stop. I've given up on that one. I just can't believe anyone would want to go back to 9.
Comments
This is almost as annoying as no Spring Loaded Folders, WindowShades (I have Window Shade X finally, and it is COOl! Apple, hire these people from Unsanity! Duh!), Labels, REAL control over the Appearance (c'mon, Steve, get over it, some people just friggin' DON'T like Aqua, so how what if I want to Think Different???)
Xounds, Winshades X, Fruit Menu, should all be folded into X.2. Plus, how about a REAL Energy Saver? I was blown away at how CRAPPY MacOS X still is. I mean, Apple has had a LONG time to work on this. And, I am in computer programming, and I know and respect how much work the employees are doing. I don't think it is their fault, I am guessing most of these issues of customization are one person's fault...
Labels are metadata. And we know that Apple is backing away from the old MacOS way of handling metadata.
OS X is currently so completely devoid of any such thing - setting pictures as folder backgrounds seems to be the beginning and end of the solution for now - that I have to wonder if Apple is even sure how to handle the problem. I can't believe that they intend to drop metadata altogether. That's a completely nonsensical approach in a modern operating system, and it seems to me that both the NeXT and MacOS veterans within Apple would be deeply concerned at the lack.
I'm aware that Apple has hired a bunch of people recently with UI credentials, and of course they folded their OS 9 development team into the OS X team as well. I'm beginning to think - actually, hope would be a better word - that they're really trying to hammer this out. Resource forks are out, since they're not portable. Packages are strictly portable, in the sense that they consist of folders and flat files, but they still have to be recognized by the host OS, and that's currently a problem.
Until the issues involved in the larger project of designing and/or integrating a subsystem to store metadata are resolved, any attempt to store information like the label of a folder will be a hack. (In fact, the definition of "label" they use might also be a hack - a more robust and flexible design than OS 9's is certainly possible, given Quartz.) If Apple ships a hack and then settles on an incompatible metadata implementation, they've just compromised the integrity of the OS they're hoping will last them for the next 15 years or so. If they have any sense, they're moving very carefully in this space.
I'm not so worried about the obvious flakiness and inconsistency, such as between Carbon and Cocoa open/save dialogs. Carbon and Cocoa are both still converging, and I'm confident that Apple will iron those issues out as a matter of course. What I'm interested in are the major architectural decisions they have left to make, and to refine. Metadata is definitely up near the top of that list.
[edited for clarity]
[ 03-18-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
I too earnestly hope that metadata is a hot issue within the compound at 1 Infinite Loop. I've preached this topic a hundred times; so, I'll shut up about it this time.
Its not that, but the fact that Open/Save has reverted back to pre-Nav Services levels of useability. Ideally Open/Save should be as transparent as the Finder--it should be the Finder, hopefully helping to eliminate "where did I save that file" issues.
Its all really part of File Management architecture that needs to be addressed. More apps are now doing file management tasks, from iApps to Go Live/Dreamweaver, and now even Photoshop. How does the Finder fit in, and how do these apps interface with the Finder.
I couldn't find ANYTHING. I realized how screwed up the directory structure was from UNIX when I tried to import my Entourage 2k1 data into Entourage X. I had to find a data file. Sounded simple. I got lost wading through the System 9 folder and the Documents folder (now there are seemingly millions of folders called Documents! Friggin' A! I had things VERY organized in 9)
AND where the HELL is the Energy Saver? No sets for battery and power adapter, Apple, are you KIDDING ME?
OS X deserves a MacAddict BLECH!
Stability, UNIXy coolness/tweakability is COOL but I want friggin' OS 9 UI & customizability back!
Why is this so ridiculous to ask?
OS 9 was too bland for my taste so I used Kaliedoscope a lot. I must stress ( lest this be turned into something else ) the appearance of OS 9 was bland and old fashioned looking to me. I liked the usabilty despite the " house of cards " it's foundation was based on.
The thing about Labels is that when I first heard this argument I went around asking to see if my viewpoint was unusual. Everyone I asked said the same thing " huh "? So there are many people out there who didn't use them.
I imagine when Apple weighs what is important ( when to include these features ) the priority is probably based on popularity.
Once again this is all subjective and will probably mean little in the coming years as OS X becomes more and more mature.
[ 03-19-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
Next version of Windows hooks the filesystem to an SQL database. Kinda overkill, but a step in the right direction, though Apple was there first [conceptually at least] with OpenDoc.
[ 03-19-2002: Message edited by: cowerd ]</p>
Also, why did Apple move the control strip up into the menu bar? less choice is BAD.
The main focus of my dislike of OS X is the lack of choice. CHOICE = POWER. UNIX sure has lots of choices, but that is not what I am talking about. Comand lines are too kludgy for most people, and even though I've warmed up to UNIX (top is useful, and the concept of piping is definitely powerful, but vi makes me want to laugh), the GUI is faster and simpler for most things.
Why is Apple throwing all their MONEY and TIME spent on research away? Their research was money well spent, and the Platinum interface is for the most part, the best interface in the world. This is why we use Macs. Windows, for me anyway, is a waste of time, because it doesn't let me get things done the way I want to, in the amount of time I want.
One other thing: SPEED. Now, I now it's been re-hashed a million times, but I JUST bought a new iBook Combo (Circuit City
Here's to 10.2.
If they screw that up, I'm going back to Classic. Crashes and all (which I don't have much of, G FINDER in the Open Firmware is much more effective than Force Quit in OS 9)
OS X is a dynamic OS. It uses the power it needs when it needs it. It automatically assigns ram and processing power dynamically. You think that maybe there's no battery/plugged in setting in Energy Saver because the OS already KNOWS when to add more juice and when to conserve power? Think about it.
Actually, I just read the rest of your last post. .... Forget everything I said and DON'T think about it. We wouldn't want you to hurt yourself. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
[ 03-19-2002: Message edited by: Gambit ]</p>
Anyway, OS X isn't the adept OS some suggest. Earlier today I used the Modem control strip (the menu bar thingy) to connect while booting. The Dock froze. If I moved an icon, that icon would stay huge. I had to REBOOT. This is opposite to what OS X is made out (supposed to) be.
10.2 will be much better, I'm sure. I hope.
It's not like I said Windows XP is better
Also, on a sidenote, Apple was nice in making front-ends to utilities like top... A utility for a GUI frontend to nice, like Renice, which I'm looking at downloading, would go far to appease impatient people (like me
<strong>Aquatik: figure this:
OS X is a dynamic OS. It uses the power it needs when it needs it. It automatically assigns ram and processing power dynamically. You think that maybe there's no battery/plugged in setting in Energy Saver because the OS already KNOWS when to add more juice and when to conserve power? Think about it.
[ 03-19-2002: Message edited by: Gambit ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
that's bullshit. battery life in OS X is considerably less than in 9 and you do not have any of the energy saving options that 9 does.
So your saying OS X knows when I want to downclock the processor without me telling it or it knows what kind of sleep and display sleep timings I want for plugs and batteries without me telling it?
<strong>Why are there so many headlines about OS X sucking power??? I haven't tested this with my iBook, I will tonight.
Anyway, OS X isn't the adept OS some suggest. Earlier today I used the Modem control strip (the menu bar thingy) to connect while booting. The Dock froze. If I moved an icon, that icon would stay huge. I had to REBOOT. This is opposite to what OS X is made out (supposed to) be.
10.2 will be much better, I'm sure. I hope.
It's not like I said Windows XP is better
Or you could have launched terminal or process viewer and killed the dock process.
AJ
I hate Winblows, but OS X isnt really doing it for me. hah... 2400$ for a 600Mhz portable... wtf was I thinking...
<strong>Or maybe they've halted all development work on OS X..
Steve: "WHAT DO YOU MEAN IT ISN'T INSANELY GREAT ALREADY?!?! YOU'RE FIRED!"
-robo</strong><hr></blockquote>
hehehe LOL...
Steve's Insane...
------------------------------------
© FERRO 2001-2002
I got the 500 Combo from Circuit City for 850! I am tempted to overclock it, but even @ 600 / 100 with more RAM than me, OS X is slow?
Ouch. There is no excuse for this. As I have said, we are becoming jaded. A 500mhz G3 is nothing to sneeze at. My Blue and White 300 with 512 RAM rocks in OS 9.1.
Mr A J, even as familiar as I am with dipping into UNIX every now and then, the average user would be irate, and I am annoyed that I have to tweak Terminal settings, for anything!
UNIX sucks, in terms of user friendliness. I have long thought one of the coolest things Apple could do would be to make "aliases" to all the frequently used UNIX commands, in ENGLISH language. For example, why can't I find??? I have to "grep". That sounds like something the cat puked up. For everyone who's already memorized these shorter old commands, they're still their. But I am not looking forfward to memorizing the obscure syntax of utilities like fsck, nice, blah blah. Just look at vi for an example of how things are done in the Terminal. Ew!
Applenut, do you think Apple will offer the old Energy Saver in 10.2? If I clock my iBook (now there's an operative, if) to be at 600/350, I could get even more battery. So far, I have gotten almost 5 hours of battery out of regular use. At 350 this would go up, I imagine. Anyone know a good place to buy a soldering iron?
There are some VERY good suggestions on this board. I hope Apple looks here! Or I'll have some mailing to do
[quote]
hey 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.
...
<hr></blockquote>
Now that was an example of a good post! *claps loudly, whistles a little*
I am aware speed will be resolved, it's just too damn obvious, especially when accompanied by the Megahurts stigma that seems so important to Joe Sixpack. But it is starting to seem as if Apple just doesn't CARE!? 10.1 was big, but come on, that was really 10.0. Just by READING about 10.0, I knew it was a joke. One of those ones where you are embarassed for the person telling it. Gorgonzola was very right it seeing optimism in the CUPS thing. If Apple really tackles this open source thing aggressively it could have dramatic repercussions, simply from the good will of all the open source programmers out there. My hat tips to them.
We're still ahead of Windows, at least !
For now...
"Even if you are on the right track, if you sit there long enough, you can still get run over..."
Or so the saying goes, I think!
Applenut, you are right! It is odd that OS X is slower, not faster??? And torifile is right on the necessary evil of planned obsolescence for businesses. Geez, guys, get a new computer. Oh, wait, I'm on one. And we all know how MacOS X 10.1.3 is on a piece of junk iBook 500 *wry smile* Really, I love this machine! I just want the best for it! *sob*
It's good to be back at AI
[ 03-19-2002: Message edited by: Aquatik ]</p>
<strong>If Apple looks here they will have a good laugh.
way to show your intelligence. keep posting rolleyes. really impressive.
grow up
Oh, and I'm quite grown up. The prospect of a birthday coming up soon doesn't inspire the same feelings that it once did.
I'll have to say after seeing your pictures on your home page you seem more grown up than I gave you credit for.
I hope 10.2 is a more finished OS than the current one also. But, even if it is I really don't think the whining will stop. I've given up on that one. I just can't believe anyone would want to go back to 9.
[ 03-20-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>