<strong>OS X is hard to use. not impossible hard, but it's not easy. to me that doesn't matter all that much, i'm used to windows, but what about all the old school mac folks?
like partitioning your drive into different areas for the different OS'es, that's a joke! you shouldn't have to have a partition for OSX and another for OS 9 just to get things to work right.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Uh, I don't have separate partitions for that. I boot into OS 9 that's on the same disk as OS X all the time, and to date I've never encountered a reason to do so or any kind of a problem with that setup. But some people still recommend separate partitions, for some reason...
[quote]Originally posted by alcimedes:
<strong>and i have been less than impressed with the number of drivers for Mac hardware that support OS X too.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Like what?! Some obscure, overpriced, "professional" Epson printer or something? The only thing I can really even think of that I've heard wasn't supported that was any big deal were a few weird Epson printers, maybe that aren't even for sale anymore, or there might be beta drivers out for now.
[quote]Originally posted by alcimedes:
<strong>suddenly a light goes on and i realize this is some bastardized Unix hallway.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do me a favor and get real.
[quote]Originally posted by alcimedes:
<strong>yeah it's cool and all, but wtf ever happened to "drag the photoshop folder to the applications folder, there it's installed"</strong><hr></blockquote>
WHEN has Photoshop not had an Installer? I've used Photoshop since like 4.0 and I don't even believe that was a "drag the folder.." type installation. Anyway, double-clicking an installer is JUST as easy as dragging it over, and Photoshop 7 has an installer that is really really simple. Besides, I've seen FAR more usage of "drag this over here" and bam, that's it, in OS X than I ever did in OS 9. Plus OS X has a built-in installer interface, called .pkg! There wasn't even such a standard thing in OS 9. It's EXTREMELY ELEMENTARY as well. If that's too hard for you, but all of the installers of OS 9 aren't.. come on.
[quote]Originally posted by alcimedes:
<strong>now i've got hidden files everywhere that show up in OS 9, stupid permissions to deal with on everything. shitty ass heirarchy that files default into.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't remember seeing hidden files everywhere (just a few mach files in the root of my HD), and I've never had permissions problems.
The only time I even came close.... In fact the only time I've had to use the command line for ANY system-related reason, was one time I trashed a file that was "locked" and I was too lazy to go through my like thousands of files in the trash to find one that was locked. So I just (carefully) rm -rf'd it all. And like I said that was only because of my own laziness (or stupidity, if I locked it, or if I was supposed to keep tabs on locked files ).
[quote]Originally posted by alcimedes:
<strong>OS X is a pain in the ass. and it took me this long to notice.
is it ever going to be as nice as OS9? i mean, just give me 9 with protected memory and i'd have been happy....</strong><hr></blockquote>
I just love OS X...it never, never crashes...tons of things are easier and yes there are WAY more drag 'n drop instalations than there were in 9...Photoshop never, never had a drag 'n drop installation, nor do any of Adobe's apps AFAIK. OS X is a bit different so it takes time to learn, but I find many things to be much simpler. All of the control panels are in one window, easy access and displaying (w/icon) of them all, thank God. Force quit works beautifully (especially from the Dock). Speaking of the Dock...I use it to control iTunes all the time....Adium as well. Also very easy to navigate via keyboard (command+tab, command+shift+tab for backwards rotation.) Whenever I go into Adobe Photoshop, I just hit command+option+d which hides it, gets it out of the way. Many of the apps in X have a built in spell checker much like that of Word thanks to Cocoa...Mail, Adium, Frogblast, others will come. And i use these apps on a regular basis...The interface is the most beautiful ever, IMO. Still pics do not do it justice...you just gotta see it in action. And the installers are very awesome and consistant thanks to X...bar the Limewire one (pukes). The command line is fun to poke around in even if I don't need it. My only bitch about X is speed....if it gets to that of OS 9 I'm never goin' back.
Plus...I'm a big icon guy I make a lot of my own and like to customize stuff...make it better (like Improving Hotline's sh!t icon, making an AW folder, etc.) OS X is the most awesome OS period for this kind of stuff. After making icons for X, 32x32 for 9 just seems so limited.
I love the save dialogs...most people b!tch forever about them but I just love them...so much more easily navigable by the keyboard (arrow keys) than in os 9...also more consistant.
[quote]You're navigating from the top level. That's OS 9 thinking.<hr></blockquote>
"OS 9 thinking" seems better to me for the purpose of organising my files. I want my stuff at the top level of a hierarchy, not the system's stuff. Perhaps instead of Macintosh HD showing up on the desktop, posing as the user's starting point, there could be a nice big Home instead. It's not the top of the hierarchy, but it is the top of the useful hierarchy. It could be made more obvious.
Also, it might be more natural to be able to set Mac OS X up as a single user system. There's not much need to stick the user's stuff down a few folders if they're going to be the only user.
<strong>"OS 9 thinking" seems better to me for the purpose of organising my files. I want my stuff at the top level of a hierarchy, not the system's stuff. Perhaps instead of Macintosh HD showing up on the desktop, posing as the user's starting point, there could be a nice big Home instead.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Doesn't opening a new Finder by default go to a user's home directory? (If not, it's an option I thought was on by default in the Finder prefs) Is there not a completely obvious icon in every Finder window by default that says "Home"? Isn't it extremely easy to drag your Home folder into the dock for easy access?
Wait a minute... Are you telling me for "real" Mac users that are migrating from Mac OS 9 that "instead" of your HD the only icon on the desktop should be your home directory? How would THAT make things more obvious or easy? How is that "OS 9 thinking" at all? That would just cause more confusion, if you really do think people are too stupid to understand the concept of a Home directory.
[quote]Originally posted by Mac The Fork:
<strong>There's not much need to stick the user's stuff down a few folders if they're going to be the only user.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What a silly little gripe. Anybody who actually cares about that is intelligent enough to be able to handle going through a "Users" folder and then their chosen name.
<strong>Perhaps instead of Macintosh HD showing up on the desktop, posing as the user's starting point, there could be a nice big Home instead. It's not the top of the hierarchy, but it is the top of the useful hierarchy. It could be made more obvious.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You know, that's a really good idea. Apple has a feedback section somewhere. Methinks this should go in there.
[quote]<strong>There's not much need to stick the user's stuff down a few folders if they're going to be the only user.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I disagree on this one. It simplifies things to have the user's home directory in the same spot regardless of how many users there are.
"OS 9 thinking" seems better to me for the purpose of organising my files. I want my stuff at the top level of a hierarchy, not the system's stuff.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It is at the top level of a hierarchy, starting at your home directory.
[quote]<strong>Perhaps instead of Macintosh HD showing up on the desktop, posing as the user's starting point, there could be a nice big Home instead.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The zillions of OS 9 users who pounded Apple to "put drives on the desktop, DAMMIT!" should have thought about that before making their demands. But they didn't.
You can drag Home to the Dock, or onto the desktop, or just pop up a new Finder window and click Home. I don't go Home all that often (heh). I usually go straight to Documents or Utilities.
[quote]<strong>Also, it might be more natural to be able to set Mac OS X up as a single user system. There's not much need to stick the user's stuff down a few folders if they're going to be the only user.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's not much use in designing, shipping, and supporting two radically different system installs when it's perfectly possible to make OS X look for all the world like a single-user system. If you're set to log in automatically, and you use the Finder toolbar to get around, you'll never have to know that you're several directories down from root.
If Apple would have stuck to OS 9 I'd have bouhgt a PC, no question..OS 9 crashed often, it's lack of features PC users have had for years was irritating, and platinum was plain ugly.
The Dock rocks, I hardly have to open my hard drive anymore, I just keep all my folders and apps in the dock for easy access.
You don't have to use the command line unless you want to...but if you do it's all the better. The Gimp has 80% of the functionality of Photoshop.
Plus, I have never had a kernel panic, freeze, crash, whatever..I've had apps mess up. But could always force quit them.
..And the one time I've rebooted into OS 9 it crashed shortly after startup :[
[quote]like partitioning your drive into different areas for the different OS'es, that's a joke! you shouldn't have to have a partition for OSX and another for OS 9 just to get things to work right.<hr></blockquote>
You don't need to. Apple ships new computers with one partition. Everything works fine.
[quote]and i have been less than impressed with the number of drivers for Mac hardware that support OS X too. this didn't bother me before because OS 9 was the shipping OS.<hr></blockquote>
Mac OS 9 is still shipping with every Mac. If you need the drivers, you know what to do.
[quote]yeah it's cool and all, but wtf ever happened to "drag the photoshop folder to the applications folder, there it's installed"<hr></blockquote>
This was never the case with Photoshop, and the drag and drop install paradigm is BETTER with OS X. Microsoft Office is still a drag and drop install. Most of my apps are drag and drop bundles. The only apps that aren't are the ones from lame developers like AOL and such...or apps that need kernel extensions installed.
[quote]now i've got hidden files everywhere that show up in OS 9, stupid permissions to deal with on everything. shitty ass heirarchy that files default into.<hr></blockquote>
Mac OS 9 has hidden files too. OS 9 is usually good about hiding most of these files from you anyway. The default hierarchy is something you might want to get used to, because on a multi-user system, you have to concede personal quirks for order. However, I expect updates to OS X will allow for the same amount of freedom in moving around files as OS 9. OS X is a year old.
[quote]OS X is a pain in the ass. and it took me this long to notice.<hr></blockquote>
OS 9 is a pain in the ass for me. I'm 10x more productive in OS X.
[quote]system folder can't be modified?<hr></blockquote>
You aren't supposed to modify it. /System/Library is for Apple and /Library is for system-wide administrator installed additions. ~/Library is for personal additions for each user.
If you have not yet figured this out, this is not Apple's fault. Apple has a nice thick packet that teaches you how to use OS X...
[quote]login as root?<hr></blockquote>
You aren't supposed to log in as root. Why is this a usability issue?
[quote]bootable OSX CD<hr></blockquote>
This is a bit hard at the moment, but it's probably going to be mad much easier by a volunteer who decides to make an archive of certain bits of the UNIX hierarchy and a CD making assistant app or something like that.
[quote]command line usage.<hr></blockquote>
A desire to learn how to use the command line is different from a necessity.
[quote]Apache as an FTP server<hr></blockquote>
He's asking for a complex solution, why should he get a simple answer? If he asked "How do I serve my website?" then the answer would have been, "Press so-and-so button and put your files in so-and-so folder."
You're just being remarkably stubborn...or stupid.
[quote]i don't want to have to explain to my parents that to share their images, they have to go in and set the user preferences to allow both of them access.<hr></blockquote>
The "Shared" folder may give you a hint. And is it really that hard to specify how to change permissions? Permissions exist in any multiple-user OS and they existed in OS 9 with Multiple-Users and with AppleTalk.
[quote]this is exactly what my Mac is like now. i can do almost anything is OSX, but i have to read the help files. it's no longer intuitive or straightforward. at least not to me.<hr></blockquote>
You've used Mac OS "Classic" for numerous years. Of course OS X isn't as intuitive as something you've worked with for so many years.
[quote]where did they go? Macintosh HD/users/alcimedes/documents/itunes/smashing pumpkins/greatest hits/<hr></blockquote>
There's an oft used tool called Sherlock. And what do you expect? I have my Finder windows open to my home directory, and I've specified iTunes to rip to /Users/ceugene/Music/iTunes.
When I open a Finder window, bam, home directory. First click, Music. Second click, iTunes. Third click, whichever artist I'm looking for. This is not what you want? If you do this a lot, make a freaking alias.
As for iPhoto, it's designed to shield you from the actual files. If you want those files, you can use export to batch process them wherever you like. Sheesh.
[quote]edit: let me ask this then. what would you be happier with? OS 9 with protected memory, or OS X the way it is now?"<hr></blockquote>
I would have to agree with most of the posts for and against osx. My biggest complaint is the 'dumbing down' of how the system sits and organizes itself on my hard drive. OS9 had its share of hidden files, but they were not critical to the system if you wanted to move contents of one drive to another. Quick! make a startup disk on a zip disk running osx. Oops, you can't. At least if your not a programmer, or uber-osx/unix geek. The feeling of the os becoming the messy roomate and coming in and throwing lots of folders and files around, some hidden, some not, some that seem to belong inside the system folder, some not, reminds me a lot of using my old windows 95 machine. Granted some of it pertains to unix and multiple users, but os9 was just so much tidier, with its only meager request be that the system folder be located at the root of the drive (or not sometimes). Now things are so complex, reinstalling the whole OS seems to be the only fix if something seriously goes wrong, while in OS9 I could pick and choose a few files to replace in the system and everything is fixed. Not that it stops me from using OSX full time at home, but life would be a little easier for me if the system could be as simple as 9. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Am I the only one who thinks OS X is not only easier than OS 9, but is more logical? Maybe it's because I was never a fan of the older Mac OS systems - I just think X is great and hoping it gets faster and less quirky with it's next update. Sure X needs improvements, but it's still fairly new.
I do have a concern though, what's all this about hidden files? If an installer installs files in various folders on your system, then there should be an un-installer to remove them all when you wish. Are these hidden files named the same as the application so they can be searched and deleted (the Mac way of deleting programs). If not, then I totally understand why this would be a rant. Apple has been reaming Windows for years for the very same issue (though, most if not all Win apps have uninstallers, it's still a pain when regiments are left behind or shared). Am I not to assume that any program I install on my Mac can simply be deleted by searching the file names?
[quote]Doesn't opening a new Finder by default go to a user's home directory? (If not, it's an option I thought was on by default in the Finder prefs) Is there not a completely obvious icon in every Finder window by default that says "Home"? Isn't it extremely easy to drag your Home folder into the dock for easy access?<hr></blockquote>
You're completely right and off topic.
[quote]Wait a minute... Are you telling me for "real" Mac users that are migrating from Mac OS 9 that "instead" of your HD the only icon on the desktop should be your home directory? How would THAT make things more obvious or easy?<hr></blockquote>
At least instead of having your drive at the top of the desktop, you should have a link to your Home directory, by default. Under OS 9, the top level of your drive was where you put your stuff; that's why it was there. It was where you were most likely to start using your computer, and was featured prominently. Under OS X, your Home is where you put your stuff. Home is more important than the top level of a drive, yet it isn't on the desktop by default, and it isn't prominent enough.
Why? OS 9 users probably didn't think of the Home directory when they advocated for drives on the desktop and Apple listened to them without thinking.
[quote]How is that "OS 9 thinking" at all? That would just cause more confusion, if you really do think people are too stupid to understand the concept of a Home directory.<hr></blockquote>
Oh, you got me there! Perhaps you are too stupid to understand what I am saying. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
I'm proposing a more convenient and familiar way to get to the Home directory, built in the system. It'd be child's play to implement it.
[quote]What a silly little gripe. Anybody who actually cares about that is intelligent enough to be able to handle going through a "Users" folder and then their chosen name.<hr></blockquote>
Apple should use that in their marketing. I suppose a more obvious Home directory would fix that problem anyway.
[quote]It is at the top level of a hierarchy, starting at your home directory.<hr></blockquote>
The hierarchy, then. Principle of charity...
[quote]The zillions of OS 9 users who pounded Apple to "put drives on the desktop, DAMMIT!" should have thought about that before making their demands. But they didn't.<hr></blockquote>
Sorry, I don't buy that. It's not OS 9 users' responsibility to think out features in Apple's OS. Apple: "It's not my fault! They made me do it!"
[quote]There's not much use in designing, shipping, and supporting two radically different system installs when it's perfectly possible to make OS X look for all the world like a single-user system. If you're set to log in automatically, and you use the Finder toolbar to get around, you'll never have to know that you're several directories down from root.<hr></blockquote>
There's an easy way around that. The directory structure can be represented virtually any way Apple wants. They could combine the contents of the top level of the drive with the contents of Home in one window. There's nothing technical preventing it. On the other hand, it's not worth the trouble.
<strong>The hierarchy, then. Principle of charity...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I know what you meant. That's why I emphasized the a. What on Earth is the use of having your files (appear to be) at the top of the filesystem, apart from a warm fuzzy feeling for OS 9 users (who didn't have multiple users)? You have control over an arbitrarily large directory tree. That's what you had in OS 9, in functional terms.
[quote]<strong>Sorry, I don't buy that. It's not OS 9 users' responsibility to think out features in Apple's OS. Apple: "It's not my fault! They made me do it!"</strong><hr></blockquote>
So Apple is not supposed to listen to their customers?
Note that there is some use to mounting volumes on the desktop, if they're removable media, or if they aren't the boot volume. It's not a purely inappropriate idea. It just doesn't make sense for the boot volume.
[quote]<strong>There's an easy way around that. The directory structure can be represented virtually any way Apple wants.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is what Windows NT does.
It sucks.
I never want Apple to do anything of the sort. Their current setup makes a lot more sense, and it doesn't run the risk of making the user see Desktop at the top of the hierarchy sometimes, and in C\winnt\\profiles\\username\\Desktop sometimes. Until the filesystem is replaced by a database, things should appear to be where they actually are whenever possible.
The filesystem layout is logical for a multi-user OS. It can look and act a lot like a single-user OS without changing anything, once you get used to the idea that Home is your top level.
This really is not a serious issue. It's just a matter of getting used to the fact that a few things are different in OS X. Not less functional, just different. And it takes attention away from the things in OS X that are less functional.
A lot of people who have yelled and begged for YEARS that Apple come out with a new, modern, powerful and full-featured OS are, in my observations, many of the same ones complaining about how "different" X is from 9.
If you want to make an omelet...
I think OS X - now that I'm used to it and have gotten myself to "think in X" - is far more elegant and logical. I think many of us simply got around some of the things in 9 and trained ourselves to accept them and that was just the way it was.
If anything, I see/catch myself "unlearning" old habits and the "old way of doing things".
It's kinda weird, yes. Only because - due to some drivers and critical apps - I'm still using OS 9 at work. But I look very forward to the day (certainly by this autumn, I would think) when all I ever use - at home AND at work - is Mac OS X.
It's a transitional phase. I think Apple making OS X the default boot-up OS will do more for getting those last-minute laggers to hurry up and get their software and hardware OS X native/ready than anything else.
It's like someone else said about USB. If Apple didn't make that original Bondi iMac such a radical (and smart) departure, we'd all still be screwing around with ADB, SCSI, serial ports, etc. Having to shut down and start up just to swap peripherals, setting IDs, etc.
For a few months, you could only find a couple of bondi-colored USB doodads. Then in 1999 and 2000...BAM! Everything: hubs, printers, mice, joysticks, drives, adapters, scanners, etc.
Same thing with X. By Christmas, we'll all look back and chuckle at how bent out of shape we were over this OS.
Put simply: DO NOT USE X if you are in a situation where the software/hardware isn't quite ready for it. I waited and I was patient. I dabbled here and there and experimented with it, knowing that eventually it would be my full-time OS...WHEN I felt it made sense.
We're all on different time-tables and do different things with our Macs. It just so happens that I can run OS X only at home on my new iMac and it serves all my needs.
Here at work, it's a different situation. But I know that it's temporary and therefore I'm not up nights worrying and bitching about it.
It's a WHOLE NEW OS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. Learn it and adapt, or use OS 9. Either way, deal with it.
The only thing I would add is that for some users ("normal" users), I suppose it can be a bit alarming to see a System folder and a Library folder that you have no means of using (read, not write permissions). If something has to change, perhaps these folders should either be invisible or have lock badges on them. Show Info should be more helpful and say either who owns the items or why you can't edit their contents.
This top-level stuff seems to be where people have the most problems: where permissions and multi-user systems are both exposed. To me, permissions aren't particularly difficult to grasp: it's like having your own stuff in your room. Seems like human nature to take possesion of your stuff like this.
I like OS X more than OS 9. I find it easier to use.
I think most people who whine about OS X either are running it on sub-400 MHz Macs w/ too little RAM, or they are scared to learn a new system and just want to stick with their cozy OS 9. But OS X is a "cozier" OS, after one gets used to it. So many people get stuck in their ways and hate to change, it makes the world a miserable place, i.e., see mideast conflicts where people won't change and kill over not having to change. Sorry for the absurd analogy, but there is a little truth to it, no?
I love OS X, it quells my inner geek. I love messing around in the command line, and the stability is amazing.
[quote] OS X is a hard switch for an OS 9 expert.
<hr></blockquote>
Agreed, I takes 2 or so weeks to get into the swing of things, and every now and then a suprise pops up. File permissions annoy me, but I like the greater level of security they offer.
ok i will now continue my rant, as i have been a bit busy the last few days setting up an OSX webserver. haven't had time to actually post a coherent list of things that really annoy me about OSX.
so i'll start with a few new ones. in OS 9, i liked the fact that there was an extension manager. i just clicked on the control panel and i could see what's loading up on my computer. 90% of the time, if i clicked on the extension icon, it would give me a brief description of what the extension did, and who it was from. i could view them as packages as well, so if one day i decided that i don't need all that stupid modem crap, i could be relatively sure to kill it all in one fell swoop. it allowed me to tweak my machine's speed and stability by hand picking which extensions would load.
in OS X, i can't for the life of me figure out how this is done, if it can be done at all. i've got my system, then libraries, then extensions. here there's a list of lots of extensions. in fact, there are 122 of them. i assume they're all loading, since there in the system folder. some of them are easy to figure out. ultratek33, 66, 100 .kext are probably Ultra DMA drivers. there's an iPod one, etc. what happens if i take those out? (well, not the ultra DMA ones, but the iPod one). will the machine just reboot next time and not include those files? will less stuff be loaded in OSX and therefore it's faster? will it get really pissed off and make me reinstall the whole thing?
i have no idea, and it's not really covered in the help documents. they say OSX doesn't use extensions, but lo and behold, there they are. can i get rid of the crap i want or not? anyone know?
next, i would really love to see a permissions dialogue. at least the first time or so when people are setting things up. tell them that when they import these files, or install this software that they're going to be the only ones who can use it, or at least ask them if they would like other people to have access to them. i've seen numerous problems on machines with more than one user where software is installed by one, and then pukes out for someone else. the most annoying part of this is that usually there's an error message about not being able to find a file, or open a file etc.
i know what that means, but most new iMac buyers won't. tell them it's a permissions problem if nothing else, so they have a prayer of fixing the problem.
along these lines i'm stil annoyed about the pinter setup. why isn't there a control panel? mac users are used to the chooser. pc users are used to a control panel. no one is automatically looking for printer setup info in the utilities folder, inside the applications folder. it's not natural. there's a lot of good stuff in that utilities folder, it really should be more prominently displayed, but that's an easy fix.
now when i go to set up my printer, there's all this crap about USB, or LPR on IP etc. yeah, my mom's really going to know what the hell LPR on IP is going to mean. this is sad, windows has a way better printer setup utility than macs, and that just shouldn't be.
ask the user is it connected directly or through a network. if it's direct, is it USB, firewire etc. walk them through it. if it's on the network, at least ****ing look for it. don't tell me to enter the IP, at least not until nothing else works. that's half assed at best.
then for those of you who say you never need to login as root normally.
just this morning i was trying to help torifile with a question about .iso files of windows disks. i happened to have a WinME .iso on my desktop, that i made. i mounted the image and was going to edit what was on the image, then try to burn the editited copy. (what he was looking to do on a win2k disc, wasn't sure if it was possible)
i try to edit the image and it tells me i can't, because root created it. well it took a whole two days of using OSX before i had a need to log in as root. it's not even that unusual of a request. edititing an .iso that's mounted seems like a really useful thing to do. as an admin of this machine i'd like to be able to do it. fine if it doesn't want me to edit my HD, but this is a lousey mounted .iso file, i'd really like to have access to the files that i've created.
well, this is my rant for now, time to go check and see if the backup system has run properly.
edit: oops, didn't notice this was a tired thread over in the OSX forum. we can drop this if you want. i can see that whatever problems i've had other people have had. similar defenses for both arguements are being made in both places.
*sigh* it's just not all it's cracked up to be. hopefully it will change in the future, it's doing pretty well for a 1.0 of an OS, but it has a lot to live up to.
Extensions (different animals altogether in OS X) load and unload as required. No need for an extensions manager, and far less likely (though still possible with kernel extensions) chance of an extension "conflict."
I can't say much for the Print Center except "Death to the Chooser! I spit on its grave!" And in theory OS X automatically recognizes connected printers -- hopefully it will be better at this (having drivers preinstalled, etc.) soon.
The less I have to think about the system, the better I like it. That's not to say I like having options taken out of the apps though.
Comments
<strong>OS X is hard to use. not impossible hard, but it's not easy. to me that doesn't matter all that much, i'm used to windows, but what about all the old school mac folks?
like partitioning your drive into different areas for the different OS'es, that's a joke! you shouldn't have to have a partition for OSX and another for OS 9 just to get things to work right.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Uh, I don't have separate partitions for that. I boot into OS 9 that's on the same disk as OS X all the time, and to date I've never encountered a reason to do so or any kind of a problem with that setup. But some people still recommend separate partitions, for some reason...
[quote]Originally posted by alcimedes:
<strong>and i have been less than impressed with the number of drivers for Mac hardware that support OS X too.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Like what?! Some obscure, overpriced, "professional" Epson printer or something? The only thing I can really even think of that I've heard wasn't supported that was any big deal were a few weird Epson printers, maybe that aren't even for sale anymore, or there might be beta drivers out for now.
[quote]Originally posted by alcimedes:
<strong>suddenly a light goes on and i realize this is some bastardized Unix hallway.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do me a favor and get real.
[quote]Originally posted by alcimedes:
<strong>yeah it's cool and all, but wtf ever happened to "drag the photoshop folder to the applications folder, there it's installed"</strong><hr></blockquote>
WHEN has Photoshop not had an Installer? I've used Photoshop since like 4.0 and I don't even believe that was a "drag the folder.." type installation. Anyway, double-clicking an installer is JUST as easy as dragging it over, and Photoshop 7 has an installer that is really really simple. Besides, I've seen FAR more usage of "drag this over here" and bam, that's it, in OS X than I ever did in OS 9. Plus OS X has a built-in installer interface, called .pkg! There wasn't even such a standard thing in OS 9. It's EXTREMELY ELEMENTARY as well. If that's too hard for you, but all of the installers of OS 9 aren't.. come on.
[quote]Originally posted by alcimedes:
<strong>now i've got hidden files everywhere that show up in OS 9, stupid permissions to deal with on everything. shitty ass heirarchy that files default into.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't remember seeing hidden files everywhere (just a few mach files in the root of my HD), and I've never had permissions problems.
The only time I even came close.... In fact the only time I've had to use the command line for ANY system-related reason, was one time I trashed a file that was "locked" and I was too lazy to go through my like thousands of files in the trash to find one that was locked. So I just (carefully) rm -rf'd it all. And like I said that was only because of my own laziness (or stupidity, if I locked it, or if I was supposed to keep tabs on locked files
[quote]Originally posted by alcimedes:
<strong>OS X is a pain in the ass. and it took me this long to notice.
is it ever going to be as nice as OS9? i mean, just give me 9 with protected memory and i'd have been happy....</strong><hr></blockquote>
Pfft.. pain in the ass, MY ass
[ 04-08-2002: Message edited by: bradbower ]</p>
Plus...I'm a big icon guy I make a lot of my own and like to customize stuff...make it better (like Improving Hotline's sh!t icon, making an AW folder, etc.) OS X is the most awesome OS period for this kind of stuff. After making icons for X, 32x32 for 9 just seems so limited.
I love the save dialogs...most people b!tch forever about them but I just love them...so much more easily navigable by the keyboard (arrow keys) than in os 9...also more consistant.
What's not to love.....
"OS 9 thinking" seems better to me for the purpose of organising my files. I want my stuff at the top level of a hierarchy, not the system's stuff. Perhaps instead of Macintosh HD showing up on the desktop, posing as the user's starting point, there could be a nice big Home instead. It's not the top of the hierarchy, but it is the top of the useful hierarchy. It could be made more obvious.
Also, it might be more natural to be able to set Mac OS X up as a single user system. There's not much need to stick the user's stuff down a few folders if they're going to be the only user.
<strong>"OS 9 thinking" seems better to me for the purpose of organising my files. I want my stuff at the top level of a hierarchy, not the system's stuff. Perhaps instead of Macintosh HD showing up on the desktop, posing as the user's starting point, there could be a nice big Home instead.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Doesn't opening a new Finder by default go to a user's home directory? (If not, it's an option I thought was on by default in the Finder prefs) Is there not a completely obvious icon in every Finder window by default that says "Home"? Isn't it extremely easy to drag your Home folder into the dock for easy access?
Wait a minute... Are you telling me for "real" Mac users that are migrating from Mac OS 9 that "instead" of your HD the only icon on the desktop should be your home directory? How would THAT make things more obvious or easy? How is that "OS 9 thinking" at all? That would just cause more confusion, if you really do think people are too stupid to understand the concept of a Home directory.
[quote]Originally posted by Mac The Fork:
<strong>There's not much need to stick the user's stuff down a few folders if they're going to be the only user.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What a silly little gripe. Anybody who actually cares about that is intelligent enough to be able to handle going through a "Users" folder and then their chosen name.
<strong>Perhaps instead of Macintosh HD showing up on the desktop, posing as the user's starting point, there could be a nice big Home instead. It's not the top of the hierarchy, but it is the top of the useful hierarchy. It could be made more obvious.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You know, that's a really good idea. Apple has a feedback section somewhere. Methinks this should go in there.
[quote]<strong>There's not much need to stick the user's stuff down a few folders if they're going to be the only user.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I disagree on this one. It simplifies things to have the user's home directory in the same spot regardless of how many users there are.
<strong>
"OS 9 thinking" seems better to me for the purpose of organising my files. I want my stuff at the top level of a hierarchy, not the system's stuff.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It is at the top level of a hierarchy, starting at your home directory.
[quote]<strong>Perhaps instead of Macintosh HD showing up on the desktop, posing as the user's starting point, there could be a nice big Home instead.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The zillions of OS 9 users who pounded Apple to "put drives on the desktop, DAMMIT!" should have thought about that before making their demands. But they didn't.
You can drag Home to the Dock, or onto the desktop, or just pop up a new Finder window and click Home. I don't go Home all that often (heh). I usually go straight to Documents or Utilities.
[quote]<strong>Also, it might be more natural to be able to set Mac OS X up as a single user system. There's not much need to stick the user's stuff down a few folders if they're going to be the only user.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's not much use in designing, shipping, and supporting two radically different system installs when it's perfectly possible to make OS X look for all the world like a single-user system. If you're set to log in automatically, and you use the Finder toolbar to get around, you'll never have to know that you're several directories down from root.
[ 04-08-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
If Apple would have stuck to OS 9 I'd have bouhgt a PC, no question..OS 9 crashed often, it's lack of features PC users have had for years was irritating, and platinum was plain ugly.
The Dock rocks, I hardly have to open my hard drive anymore, I just keep all my folders and apps in the dock for easy access.
You don't have to use the command line unless you want to...but if you do it's all the better. The Gimp has 80% of the functionality of Photoshop.
Plus, I have never had a kernel panic, freeze, crash, whatever..I've had apps mess up. But could always force quit them.
..And the one time I've rebooted into OS 9 it crashed shortly after startup :[
You don't need to. Apple ships new computers with one partition. Everything works fine.
[quote]and i have been less than impressed with the number of drivers for Mac hardware that support OS X too. this didn't bother me before because OS 9 was the shipping OS.<hr></blockquote>
Mac OS 9 is still shipping with every Mac. If you need the drivers, you know what to do.
[quote]yeah it's cool and all, but wtf ever happened to "drag the photoshop folder to the applications folder, there it's installed"<hr></blockquote>
This was never the case with Photoshop, and the drag and drop install paradigm is BETTER with OS X. Microsoft Office is still a drag and drop install. Most of my apps are drag and drop bundles. The only apps that aren't are the ones from lame developers like AOL and such...or apps that need kernel extensions installed.
[quote]now i've got hidden files everywhere that show up in OS 9, stupid permissions to deal with on everything. shitty ass heirarchy that files default into.<hr></blockquote>
Mac OS 9 has hidden files too. OS 9 is usually good about hiding most of these files from you anyway. The default hierarchy is something you might want to get used to, because on a multi-user system, you have to concede personal quirks for order. However, I expect updates to OS X will allow for the same amount of freedom in moving around files as OS 9. OS X is a year old.
[quote]OS X is a pain in the ass. and it took me this long to notice.<hr></blockquote>
OS 9 is a pain in the ass for me. I'm 10x more productive in OS X.
You aren't supposed to modify it. /System/Library is for Apple and /Library is for system-wide administrator installed additions. ~/Library is for personal additions for each user.
If you have not yet figured this out, this is not Apple's fault. Apple has a nice thick packet that teaches you how to use OS X...
[quote]login as root?<hr></blockquote>
You aren't supposed to log in as root. Why is this a usability issue?
[quote]bootable OSX CD<hr></blockquote>
This is a bit hard at the moment, but it's probably going to be mad much easier by a volunteer who decides to make an archive of certain bits of the UNIX hierarchy and a CD making assistant app or something like that.
[quote]command line usage.<hr></blockquote>
A desire to learn how to use the command line is different from a necessity.
[quote]Apache as an FTP server<hr></blockquote>
He's asking for a complex solution, why should he get a simple answer? If he asked "How do I serve my website?" then the answer would have been, "Press so-and-so button and put your files in so-and-so folder."
You're just being remarkably stubborn...or stupid.
[quote]i don't want to have to explain to my parents that to share their images, they have to go in and set the user preferences to allow both of them access.<hr></blockquote>
The "Shared" folder may give you a hint. And is it really that hard to specify how to change permissions? Permissions exist in any multiple-user OS and they existed in OS 9 with Multiple-Users and with AppleTalk.
[quote]this is exactly what my Mac is like now. i can do almost anything is OSX, but i have to read the help files. it's no longer intuitive or straightforward. at least not to me.<hr></blockquote>
You've used Mac OS "Classic" for numerous years. Of course OS X isn't as intuitive as something you've worked with for so many years.
There's an oft used tool called Sherlock. And what do you expect? I have my Finder windows open to my home directory, and I've specified iTunes to rip to /Users/ceugene/Music/iTunes.
When I open a Finder window, bam, home directory. First click, Music. Second click, iTunes. Third click, whichever artist I'm looking for. This is not what you want? If you do this a lot, make a freaking alias.
As for iPhoto, it's designed to shield you from the actual files. If you want those files, you can use export to batch process them wherever you like. Sheesh.
[quote]edit: let me ask this then. what would you be happier with? OS 9 with protected memory, or OS X the way it is now?"<hr></blockquote>
OS X the way it is now.
I do have a concern though, what's all this about hidden files? If an installer installs files in various folders on your system, then there should be an un-installer to remove them all when you wish. Are these hidden files named the same as the application so they can be searched and deleted (the Mac way of deleting programs). If not, then I totally understand why this would be a rant. Apple has been reaming Windows for years for the very same issue (though, most if not all Win apps have uninstallers, it's still a pain when regiments are left behind or shared). Am I not to assume that any program I install on my Mac can simply be deleted by searching the file names?
You're completely right and off topic.
[quote]Wait a minute... Are you telling me for "real" Mac users that are migrating from Mac OS 9 that "instead" of your HD the only icon on the desktop should be your home directory? How would THAT make things more obvious or easy?<hr></blockquote>
At least instead of having your drive at the top of the desktop, you should have a link to your Home directory, by default. Under OS 9, the top level of your drive was where you put your stuff; that's why it was there. It was where you were most likely to start using your computer, and was featured prominently. Under OS X, your Home is where you put your stuff. Home is more important than the top level of a drive, yet it isn't on the desktop by default, and it isn't prominent enough.
Why? OS 9 users probably didn't think of the Home directory when they advocated for drives on the desktop and Apple listened to them without thinking.
[quote]How is that "OS 9 thinking" at all? That would just cause more confusion, if you really do think people are too stupid to understand the concept of a Home directory.<hr></blockquote>
Oh, you got me there! Perhaps you are too stupid to understand what I am saying. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
I'm proposing a more convenient and familiar way to get to the Home directory, built in the system. It'd be child's play to implement it.
[quote]What a silly little gripe. Anybody who actually cares about that is intelligent enough to be able to handle going through a "Users" folder and then their chosen name.<hr></blockquote>
Apple should use that in their marketing. I suppose a more obvious Home directory would fix that problem anyway.
[quote]It is at the top level of a hierarchy, starting at your home directory.<hr></blockquote>
The hierarchy, then. Principle of charity...
[quote]The zillions of OS 9 users who pounded Apple to "put drives on the desktop, DAMMIT!" should have thought about that before making their demands. But they didn't.<hr></blockquote>
Sorry, I don't buy that. It's not OS 9 users' responsibility to think out features in Apple's OS. Apple: "It's not my fault! They made me do it!"
[quote]There's not much use in designing, shipping, and supporting two radically different system installs when it's perfectly possible to make OS X look for all the world like a single-user system. If you're set to log in automatically, and you use the Finder toolbar to get around, you'll never have to know that you're several directories down from root.<hr></blockquote>
There's an easy way around that. The directory structure can be represented virtually any way Apple wants. They could combine the contents of the top level of the drive with the contents of Home in one window. There's nothing technical preventing it. On the other hand, it's not worth the trouble.
<strong>The hierarchy, then. Principle of charity...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I know what you meant. That's why I emphasized the a. What on Earth is the use of having your files (appear to be) at the top of the filesystem, apart from a warm fuzzy feeling for OS 9 users (who didn't have multiple users)? You have control over an arbitrarily large directory tree. That's what you had in OS 9, in functional terms.
[quote]<strong>Sorry, I don't buy that. It's not OS 9 users' responsibility to think out features in Apple's OS. Apple: "It's not my fault! They made me do it!"</strong><hr></blockquote>
So Apple is not supposed to listen to their customers?
Note that there is some use to mounting volumes on the desktop, if they're removable media, or if they aren't the boot volume. It's not a purely inappropriate idea. It just doesn't make sense for the boot volume.
[quote]<strong>There's an easy way around that. The directory structure can be represented virtually any way Apple wants.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is what Windows NT does.
It sucks.
I never want Apple to do anything of the sort. Their current setup makes a lot more sense, and it doesn't run the risk of making the user see Desktop at the top of the hierarchy sometimes, and in C
The filesystem layout is logical for a multi-user OS. It can look and act a lot like a single-user OS without changing anything, once you get used to the idea that Home is your top level.
This really is not a serious issue. It's just a matter of getting used to the fact that a few things are different in OS X. Not less functional, just different. And it takes attention away from the things in OS X that are less functional.
[ 04-09-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
If you want to make an omelet...
I think OS X - now that I'm used to it and have gotten myself to "think in X" - is far more elegant and logical. I think many of us simply got around some of the things in 9 and trained ourselves to accept them and that was just the way it was.
If anything, I see/catch myself "unlearning" old habits and the "old way of doing things".
It's kinda weird, yes. Only because - due to some drivers and critical apps - I'm still using OS 9 at work. But I look very forward to the day (certainly by this autumn, I would think) when all I ever use - at home AND at work - is Mac OS X.
It's a transitional phase. I think Apple making OS X the default boot-up OS will do more for getting those last-minute laggers to hurry up and get their software and hardware OS X native/ready than anything else.
It's like someone else said about USB. If Apple didn't make that original Bondi iMac such a radical (and smart) departure, we'd all still be screwing around with ADB, SCSI, serial ports, etc. Having to shut down and start up just to swap peripherals, setting IDs, etc.
For a few months, you could only find a couple of bondi-colored USB doodads. Then in 1999 and 2000...BAM! Everything: hubs, printers, mice, joysticks, drives, adapters, scanners, etc.
Same thing with X. By Christmas, we'll all look back and chuckle at how bent out of shape we were over this OS.
Put simply: DO NOT USE X if you are in a situation where the software/hardware isn't quite ready for it. I waited and I was patient. I dabbled here and there and experimented with it, knowing that eventually it would be my full-time OS...WHEN I felt it made sense.
We're all on different time-tables and do different things with our Macs. It just so happens that I can run OS X only at home on my new iMac and it serves all my needs.
Here at work, it's a different situation. But I know that it's temporary and therefore I'm not up nights worrying and bitching about it.
It's a WHOLE NEW OS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. Learn it and adapt, or use OS 9. Either way, deal with it.
This top-level stuff seems to be where people have the most problems: where permissions and multi-user systems are both exposed. To me, permissions aren't particularly difficult to grasp: it's like having your own stuff in your room. Seems like human nature to take possesion of your stuff like this.
I think most people who whine about OS X either are running it on sub-400 MHz Macs w/ too little RAM, or they are scared to learn a new system and just want to stick with their cozy OS 9. But OS X is a "cozier" OS, after one gets used to it. So many people get stuck in their ways and hate to change, it makes the world a miserable place, i.e., see mideast conflicts where people won't change and kill over not having to change. Sorry for the absurd analogy, but there is a little truth to it, no?
[quote] OS X is a hard switch for an OS 9 expert.
<hr></blockquote>
Agreed, I takes 2 or so weeks to get into the swing of things, and every now and then a suprise pops up. File permissions annoy me, but I like the greater level of security they offer.
so i'll start with a few new ones. in OS 9, i liked the fact that there was an extension manager. i just clicked on the control panel and i could see what's loading up on my computer. 90% of the time, if i clicked on the extension icon, it would give me a brief description of what the extension did, and who it was from. i could view them as packages as well, so if one day i decided that i don't need all that stupid modem crap, i could be relatively sure to kill it all in one fell swoop. it allowed me to tweak my machine's speed and stability by hand picking which extensions would load.
in OS X, i can't for the life of me figure out how this is done, if it can be done at all. i've got my system, then libraries, then extensions. here there's a list of lots of extensions. in fact, there are 122 of them. i assume they're all loading, since there in the system folder. some of them are easy to figure out. ultratek33, 66, 100 .kext are probably Ultra DMA drivers. there's an iPod one, etc. what happens if i take those out? (well, not the ultra DMA ones, but the iPod one). will the machine just reboot next time and not include those files? will less stuff be loaded in OSX and therefore it's faster? will it get really pissed off and make me reinstall the whole thing?
i have no idea, and it's not really covered in the help documents. they say OSX doesn't use extensions, but lo and behold, there they are. can i get rid of the crap i want or not? anyone know?
next, i would really love to see a permissions dialogue. at least the first time or so when people are setting things up. tell them that when they import these files, or install this software that they're going to be the only ones who can use it, or at least ask them if they would like other people to have access to them. i've seen numerous problems on machines with more than one user where software is installed by one, and then pukes out for someone else. the most annoying part of this is that usually there's an error message about not being able to find a file, or open a file etc.
i know what that means, but most new iMac buyers won't. tell them it's a permissions problem if nothing else, so they have a prayer of fixing the problem.
along these lines i'm stil annoyed about the pinter setup. why isn't there a control panel? mac users are used to the chooser. pc users are used to a control panel. no one is automatically looking for printer setup info in the utilities folder, inside the applications folder. it's not natural. there's a lot of good stuff in that utilities folder, it really should be more prominently displayed, but that's an easy fix.
now when i go to set up my printer, there's all this crap about USB, or LPR on IP etc. yeah, my mom's really going to know what the hell LPR on IP is going to mean. this is sad, windows has a way better printer setup utility than macs, and that just shouldn't be.
ask the user is it connected directly or through a network. if it's direct, is it USB, firewire etc. walk them through it. if it's on the network, at least ****ing look for it. don't tell me to enter the IP, at least not until nothing else works. that's half assed at best.
then for those of you who say you never need to login as root normally.
just this morning i was trying to help torifile with a question about .iso files of windows disks. i happened to have a WinME .iso on my desktop, that i made. i mounted the image and was going to edit what was on the image, then try to burn the editited copy. (what he was looking to do on a win2k disc, wasn't sure if it was possible)
i try to edit the image and it tells me i can't, because root created it. well it took a whole two days of using OSX before i had a need to log in as root. it's not even that unusual of a request. edititing an .iso that's mounted seems like a really useful thing to do. as an admin of this machine i'd like to be able to do it. fine if it doesn't want me to edit my HD, but this is a lousey mounted .iso file, i'd really like to have access to the files that i've created.
well, this is my rant for now, time to go check and see if the backup system has run properly.
edit: oops, didn't notice this was a tired thread over in the OSX forum. we can drop this if you want. i can see that whatever problems i've had other people have had. similar defenses for both arguements are being made in both places.
*sigh* it's just not all it's cracked up to be. hopefully it will change in the future, it's doing pretty well for a 1.0 of an OS, but it has a lot to live up to.
[ 04-10-2002: Message edited by: alcimedes ]</p>
I can't say much for the Print Center except "Death to the Chooser! I spit on its grave!" And in theory OS X automatically recognizes connected printers -- hopefully it will be better at this (having drivers preinstalled, etc.) soon.
The less I have to think about the system, the better I like it. That's not to say I like having options taken out of the apps though.
[ 04-10-2002: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>