<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is useful because extensions in OS 9 are patches to the operating system, so they have to be loaded with the operating system, and they're basically part of the OS until you restart again.
OS X doesn't use that model. (In fact, the extensions model was never intended to be used the way it eventually was - it was a backdoor for Apple to patch the OS that was exploited by a lot of third parties.)
[quote]<strong>in OS X, i can't for the life of me figure out how this is done, if it can be done at all.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What you need to figure out is whether it makes any sense to do it in the first place. It doesn't. All the "extensions" you're seeing are just files sitting on a hard drive. When OS X needs one, it loads it. When it's done needing it, it unloads it. Extensions aren't bound tightly to the OS anymore, so there's no speedup to boot time, nor is there any benefit to stability, if you delete them: You just buy yourself a nominal amount of disk space, and create the possibility that OS X won't be able to find a resource when it needs one.
If you never need an OS X "extension," it will spend its life sitting quietly on the hard drive, taking up a little space and not bothering or interfering with anything.
[quote]<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is OS 9 thinking, and it's wrong. They're loaded when they're needed, for as long as they're needed.
[quote]<strong>i have no idea, and it's not really covered in the help documents.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because you should never have to worry about them. They're much less dangerous, and much less fussy, than OS 9 extensions are, and there's no discernable benefit to removing them.
[quote]<strong>next, i would really love to see a permissions dialogue.</strong><hr></blockquote>
At first blush, this looks like a good idea to me. Some care should be taken if the machine is single-user, too: Permissions shouldn't be an issue unless the person tries mucking around with system files, and then the OS should explain why that's a bad idea instead of saying "insufficient privileges." The dialogs need to be completely rewritten. They're currently terse and accusatory, and utterly un-Mac-like.
[snip more good stuff about printers]
[quote]<strong>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)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Uhhh, how many people are going to edit mounted volumes? Maybe Apple could make that easier by allowing people with Administrator privileges to do things like this...
[quote]<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The thing is, though, that OS X isn't finished, and criticism should be encouraged - Apple put the Feedback app in the Dock for a reason. The problem is that a lot of the criticism isn't well-founded. It's nice to see some real problems identified, and suggestions made to fix them. Thank you. Be sure to send your ideas to Apple!
ok, that extension thing rules. i looked into the help files on extensions, and all it really said was that there aren't any 'cause OSX doesn't need them.
the explanation of what OSX does though is much more helpful. it would have been nice to see something along the lines of that explanation in the help file, although that might be asking a bit much.
knowing how they are run completly changes how i view them and their setup in OSX.
i think a lot of my problems, and probably other people's problems are not understanding the basic, gut level differences between how OS 9 and OS X are run, and the effect that has on how you interact with your OS.
[quote]next, i would really love to see a permissions dialogue...
...At first blush, this looks like a good idea to me. Some care should be taken if the machine is single-user, too: Permissions shouldn't be an issue unless the person tries mucking around with system files, and then the OS should explain why that's a bad idea instead of saying "insufficient privileges." The dialogs need to be completely rewritten. They're currently terse and accusatory, and utterly un-Mac-like.<hr></blockquote>
Good point. The grammar police would have a field day with OS X's dialogs too.
Permissions seems to be a real sticking point, and while I think theidea is a very welcome one, it would be nice to develop a better mousetrap for them. I'm repeating myself (again), but I wonder if all the stuff at thte top of the directory structure (that is, on top of your home folder) should even be seen by people who aren't allowed to manipulate them. Make the Finder feel more lke it's all yours, at least while you're working in it. I feel like there can be one idea that creates an elegant solution for all of this stuff.
[quote]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.<hr></blockquote>
The use of it is a feeling of control. That's all, really. It's not going to be done in OS X, which is why I suggested the Home directory be on the desktop above the fixed disks. It's a very simple thing and makes the system more elegant.
[quote]So Apple is not supposed to listen to their customers?<hr></blockquote>
I already hinted at what Apple should do in situations like this: think first. But they can also go ahead and make a system that encourages people to use it a certain way and annoys them when they do.
[quote]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.<hr></blockquote>
Yeah, I agree. I was only saying that there would be a way to do what I proposed.
[quote]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.<hr></blockquote>
You have a lot of good points about the printer stuff. I've had endless issues with my machines and printing (both iMacs, both with Epson Stylus Color 740s, which are supposed to be supported..), which I never had in OS 9. And I never liked the Chooser much--but this is just terrible, the Print Center SHOULD be a part of the System Preferences, and it should be more stable and usable. And I know it's been said, but USB printer sharing would still be nice.
[quote]<strong>The use of it is a feeling of control. That's all, really. It's not going to be done in OS X, which is why I suggested the Home directory be on the desktop above the fixed disks. It's a very simple thing and makes the system more elegant.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think it's more useful to get people used to the idea that they have real control over a part of the filesystem than to risk Windows-style inconsistency, which apart from being unintuitive, makes me wonder if I have any control over anything.
I wouldn't mind if, instead, volumes mounted in the Home of the current user, and they could opt to share them with other users. This would require a much more robust Sharing interface than OS X currently has, but it needs one anyway...
It would also remove the most frequent and likely need to go all the way up to the "Computer" level, outside of the user's domain.
[quote]<strong>I already hinted at what Apple should do in situations like this: think first. But they can also go ahead and make a system that encourages people to use it a certain way and annoys them when they do.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Believe me, I'd rather they'd thought it through as well. I've written elsewhere on these boards that Apple can't afford to compromise the UI this early in the game, or they'll be hobbled for years. They did it right with the Apple Menu, for example. The drives on the desktop thing isn't so bad, though, because it is useful to have removable media there. Removable media in the Dock would be really nice for me.
[quote]quote by Amorph: 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.
<strong>I'm sorry for wasting your time.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Gah! That came off sounding a lot snippier than I meant it to. Sorry.
I agree that permissions should be easier to work with. This has thrown me in a few situations.
Overall, I like OSX more than 9. I mostly use, but when I switch to 9, I am looking for the dock and reaching for the keyboard shortcuts for Computer, Home, etc.
Keyboard shortcuts...I dont think anyone mentioned these. I LOVE them. Its minor, but makes the OS for me.
I like this OS so much that I am willing to role with the bumps until it matures. By this time next year, a Mac developer will be an OSX developer and many of these problems will be a memory.
i don't think they should have to go in and change the damn file permissions on everything they create/download/install just so other people can use them.
at least something like a general area where any files within a folder will have universal access. that would go a long way. you want other poeple to be able to use them, put them in there.
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
Actually, this is present. It's /Users/Shared. Or, in the way you're thinking, Macintosh HD:Users:Shared:. That is a public folder, and I'm not entirely sure if permissions apply there, because:
There is a very easy "workaround" for the crappy permissions present in OS X (Which, BTW, is present in all *NIX OSen). What I like to do is set up a partition for media. It's a good practice to do that anyways, just in case your system screws up so bad you have to force-restart it, and it screws up the partition so bad you have to erase it... It's a painful process to lose all of your media. Anyways, in OS X, there is this nifty feature in the About box for all drives other than the boot drive. It's <a href="http://homepage.mac.com/nub/ignore_privs.jpg"; target="_blank">Ignore Priveliges on This Drive</a>. Then you set up all your download, rip, encode, whatever programs to save to that drive, and they'll never even realize that you've duped them. Your parents, that is.
[quote]Originally posted by alcimedes:
<strong>
and make the file locations obvious. for example, i rip my Smashing Pumpkins CD. then i want move the files, check the file size etc. so i go to find them.
where did they go? Macintosh HD/users/alcimedes/documents/itunes/smashing pumpkins/greatest hits/
that's 8 directories before i find them. iPhoto is no better. Macintosh HD/users/alcimedes/pictures/iphoto library/2000/01/01
that's nine before i find the files. and i have no idea where that folder heirarchy came from.
it's convuluted and confusing. some of the images are buried 12 folders deep. i'm sorry but that is not a good way to have your files set up. not a good default, especially not on an iMac.
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
You can work around this, too. Open a new window, go to /Users, and drag your own home folder to the dock. Then, go into the command line, type this in there: "ln -s ~ ~/Desktop" without the quotes. What that does is creates a softlink (You know it as an alias) to your home folder on your desktop. It also works by command-option dragging the icon of your home folder to your desktop, but you don't get the nifty icon.
And, just for your own future reference, Unix refers to the current user's "Home" directory (/Users/yourname) as "~". So if you're typing out a path to something in your own home directory, say /Users/jimbob/Music/Cake/frank_sinatra.mp3, all you actually have to type is ~/Music/Cake/frank_sinatra.mp3. It just makes it easier for you to remember where stuff is, and there's less typing.
[quote]Originally posted by alcimedes:
<strong>
#2 OS X is not ready for prime time: i'm also ticked because i feel that OSX was installed as the default while still half baked at best. who here has not had to boot into OS 9, or classic mode since switching to OS X? i have apps. that need classic mode, and i have hardware that won't work in OS X. part of the problem is other software/hardware companies haven't written drivers. part of it is apple's fault.
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
I've booted Classic exactly once in the past month. I can understand being peeved with Classic, because it's a workaround, skirting the real issue: Why isn't it there natively? Well, this happened a lot with the move from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95. There was (and is) still a lot of legacy, 16-bit code that Windows had to effectively run in a virtual machine because it wasn't ported to their new 32-bit system. Just give it time, is all I can say. OS X is still just a baby.
[quote]Originally posted by alcimedes:
<strong>
let me ask this then. what would you be happier with? OS 9 with protected memory, or OS X the way it is now?"
</strong><hr></blockquote>
In all honesty, I'd prefer OS X the way it is now. With OS 9, there was too much of a "you don't need to know how it works" kind of attitude. OS X may be a bit harder to learn *if you want to learn it*, but that's just the point of it. You don't have to learn all of it. There is an interface for almost everything you could want to do with the Unix side of OSX. If there isn't, post a message on a message board that OSX programmers read. Like this one.
Aside from that, OSX still has far superior multitasking. I can do so many things at one time with X, it just boggles my mind that I was so used to the "no more than 5 apps open" rule I had for myself in 9. I can be downloading stuff, listening to music, chatting, reading email, compiling, etc. all at the same time, and I hardly notice any of it.
The problems I have with OSX are different than I think most peoples. For instance, why does the window server take up 5% of my CPU when I'm doing nothing? Is the interface really that taxing on the CPU? I think it's really time to get some real hardware acceleration going on here. Every bit of the prettiness of OSX is computed by the CPU. This is why dragging an alpha-masked window takes so much out of your computer. My video card has no trouble at all rendering a moving alpha mask, that's what it was made for.
All in all, though, I think OS X makes people so mad because it's just a different way of doing things. Not necessarily worse, not necessarily better. Just different. It's better for me, though.
PS: I'd delete my entire install of OS 9, but I know that as soon as I do that, I'll need something in it. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
iNub you have madea really intelligent response here and much of what you say makes perfect sense. I just have trouble with a point that I think is splitting the Mac community:
Should a new OS that forms the basis for the Mac platform for the next decade be easier to use and more trasnparent than its predecessor or should it require users to become more techno orientated to master?
Personally, i think that X should be even more transparent with a very firm "You don't need to know philosophy". Hell that's what made the mac's famous ease of use advantage over windows. By all means keep the rest of the techno stuff but make it last resort only or difficult to access for those who don't want it to the point that it seems not to exist. At the moment even newbies are occasionally being faced with kernel panics that rip them out of the GUi and scares the hell out of them. And too often the solution to relatively simple problems invloves some delving into Unix and the dreaded CLI.
Finally, file extensions? WTF? So what if Unix makes demands re file extensions? Who cares? Are apple's software guys not good enough to be able to develop a way around it? The same goes for file names. The number of names for files especially in the sytem that are woefully cryptic and could have come straight out of the windows folder is unacceptable. Am I right in thinking that after so many years of computer development there is no way of gettign around this?
One of the big things about my mac is that I feel in control and freely play with the system to tailor it to my needs. With Windows I'm scared to even change basic settings becuase in the windows folder I can't tell by looking at an icon or its name exactly what the damn thing does. Thus my X mac now gives me as much control as my windows PC
Should a new OS that forms the basis for the Mac platform for the next decade be easier to use and more trasnparent than its predecessor or should it require users to become more techno orientated to master?
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
That's the balance Apple has decided to toy with in using a Unix as the base for their OS. Unix is inherently user unfrienly. Very unfriendly. OS X is the first real attempt at making a Unix OS for the desktop. For non-geeks. The kinds that don't like to write shell scripts. The kind that think a shell script is some new kind of Chinese cookie. When you step back and look at it, though, OS X isn't much worse than OS 9. Sure, there are a few tweaks and customizations that require toying with the command line, but there aren't many. And the simple fact is, at least in my opinion, these features just weren't there in OS 9 without some buggy, "why is my ethernet driver conflicting with my printer driver", kind of extension. A perfect example is Apache. OS 9's built in web server was so haphazardly thrown in there, it scares me. Since when does serving up web pages require patching system-level calls? (This is what extensions do.)
[quote]Originally posted by spooky:
<strong>
Personally, i think that X should be even more transparent with a very firm "You don't need to know philosophy". Hell that's what made the mac's famous ease of use advantage over windows. By all means keep the rest of the techno stuff but make it last resort only or difficult to access for those who don't want it to the point that it seems not to exist.
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
I disagree. I think proprietary software is a thing of the past. Perfect example: A 15 year old was able to fix a problem before college educated programmers even figured out what caused it (PPP freeze). With those kind of resources behind them, Apple simply cannot fail with this OS. There are literally thousands of programmers willing to work -- for free -- to develop OS X.
The Mac's famous ease of use had nothing to do with being a closed system. Windows is just as closed as Mac OS 9, yet the experience still sucks.
[quote]Originally posted by spooky:
<strong>
At the moment even newbies are occasionally being faced with kernel panics that rip them out of the GUi and scares the hell out of them. And too often the solution to relatively simple problems invloves some delving into Unix and the dreaded CLI.
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
I'd rather have a kernel panic than just have my computer lock up on me. Or a dialog box pop up that says my computer needs to be restarted because of a "bus error". What's a bus error? How do I fix it? Not even Apple knows. At least with a kernel panic, you have the opportunity to snap a picture of it and have somebody tell you what happened. That's the kind of feedback a kernel panic gives. Just having the computer freeze up is much more aggravating than a kernel panic, to me at least, if only because the moment you see that, you know your computer is screwed. When OS 9 locks up, you don't know whether something's just hogging the CPU (evil evil coop multitasking), or if you just lost all your unsaved work.
[quote]Originally posted by spooky:
<strong>
Finally, file extensions? WTF? So what if Unix makes demands re file extensions? Who cares? Are apple's software guys not good enough to be able to develop a way around it?
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
Actually, unix doesn't care about file extensions. I can have a text file named anything I want, and I can do whatever I want with it. The extensions are there to provide the "lowest common denominator" level of compatibility that most of the computing world is so used to. I'd rather have a BFS metadata system (It makes Mac OS's forked files look like a joke) than anything else, but the problem with that is, no other systems could recognize the files without that extension. By bringing the extension to the center of attention, Apple is either trying to get Microsoft to notice how much it sucks, or conceding defeat.
And we know Apple never loses. ;D
[quote]Originally posted by spooky:
<strong>
The same goes for file names. The number of names for files especially in the sytem that are woefully cryptic and could have come straight out of the windows folder is unacceptable. Am I right in thinking that after so many years of computer development there is no way of gettign around this?
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
They make sense to developers. Also, programmers are lazy. They'd rather name a file "TFDSI.kext" than "This File Does Something Important.kext". It all boils down to fewer keystrokes and carpal tunnel syndrome.
There is a way of getting around this. OS 9 did it. OSX, being based on Unix, doesn't have it. Basically, though, if you don't need to be mucking around in the OS X system folder, DON'T. "Breakage will occur." Every service that you're used to being handled by an extension is now handled by daemons. Little programs with no user interaction, usually hidden in their host app's bundle. That's why you don't mess around in /System. Everything is in there because it HAS to be there. If you have to ask, don't touch.
[quote]Originally posted by spooky:
<strong>
One of the big things about my mac is that I feel in control and freely play with the system to tailor it to my needs. With Windows I'm scared to even change basic settings becuase in the windows folder I can't tell by looking at an icon or its name exactly what the damn thing does. Thus my X mac now gives me as much control as my windows PC</strong><hr></blockquote>
See above.
I'm not flaming, just trying to preach a little bit of prudence when playing with this stuff. The owner is "root" for all of those files for a reason. Messing around in /System is akin to running through your System suitcase with Resedit, deleting stuff that looks unneeded.
That means you'll squeal while you learn new tricks.
Fundamentally, Ten is better than 9 in most respects. Forces to look at ways of working which are 'easier'. (Once you learn HOW to USE them...)
Part of me sez...'Why not Ten like 9?' with Aqua on top... (That's what I 'wanted'...)
Other part, after seeing the 'MacAcademy' video/CD (Given away free with Macworld mag'...) sees exactly what Apple are doing.
It's a better platform for the beginner and pro user once you leave '9' behind.
Sure we don't have spring loaded folders or faster than 9 speed yet (but it's faster if you use the way you CAN work with 'Ten'). But these will come.
So. They went for user experience over speed. The efficiency and speed will come. Get the code right first. It'll get better. Refinements to the Ten interface will come. Printer, Scanner and peripheral support will come.
Having said that. My wife's cheap Hewlett Packard printer is excellent on 'Ten'. Print quality is great.
Software? I've never heard of so many Unix, Java apps/interest on a Mac before. More games than you can shake a stick at...and 'X' has been out, what...a year?
Patience. Given the progress 'X' has made in a year...then I think we'll be closer to what we 'wanted' within a years time and then some.
We don't always get what we want. We get what we need sometimes.
I can see what Apple are trying to do.
With 1.2...maybe alot of the whingers will be silence. Probably not. Luddites...will probably need a stick in the chops to keep 'em quiet...but at least Apple don't emply the tactics MS do...bribery and bullying... So far, Apple have taken OS 'Ten' criticism 'on the chin' and they have, to a degree, 'listened'...
<strong>ok, so i'm reading through the genius bar area, and the OS X area, and i start noticing a trend.<hr></blockquote>
Of course you notice a trend...only people with problems post there. Of course "everyone" there has problems with OS X, that's why they are posting!
[quote]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.<hr></blockquote>
OS X is not hard to use. It is completely unecessary to partition one's HD to use OS X.
Try explaining to someone why they need to set the memory allocation for individual apps in OS 9, and then reconsider your ideas about OS X. Because in OS 9, the user MUST toy with memory allocations at some point, but OS X never forces such arcane practices upon the user.
[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.
now all of the new iMacs are coming with OS X as the default.<hr></blockquote>
Patience, my friend. In time there will be plenty of OS X drivers about. It's a new OS.
[quote]yeah it's cool and all, but wtf ever happened to "drag the photoshop folder to the applications folder, there it's installed"
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>
Actually installing apps in OS X is about as easy as it gets. Drag n' drop, or use the package installer. No more difficult than OS 9 and in many cases much easier.
[quote]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 suppose you miss creating a different extension set to work around extension conflicts? That is the tribute Mac OS leaves with us. OS X requires less of the user, but if the user desires, he/she can do MORE with the OS.
It sounds to me like you're simply used to OS 9 and are too lazy to learn how to use another OS. OS X is different from OS 9 and thus it requires an investment of time and energy to learn how to use it. Many OS 9 users are so entrenched in their ways that they simply do not want to "learn" any new ways of doing things.
But the truth is that OS X is leaps and bounds easier to use than OS 9 with its antiquated memory management and its buggy extensions.
"MacOS is kind of cool, but it seems to have quite a few problems, and some significant missing features."
"No, no, no you moron, MacOS X is the dogs bollocks, Bill Gates is creaming himself just thinking about it, Steve's got the right attitude: you are all morons, I am right. MacOS X does eveything you could ever want in a modern operating system, just like a 'nix, and does them better than Windows. It's just an OS where the user doesn't need to know about anything under the bonnet, it just works, and if you want to tinker you can use like a gazillion command lines to do them, and that's got to be easier for the average user than trying to move a few files around, you need to learn it before you criticise, and it's so easy, it's much easier than "Classic", I don't know what all these luddites are crying about, and everyone, including my granny is using X, on like a 233 iMac, and they all say it's well fast... but stop, it's only a 1.1 product, it'll get better, sure it's got a few rough edges... and the features will get padded out, eventually..."
There are genuine problems, which have been identified and accepted as such in this thread. Then there are "problems" that arise because OS X does things differently than OS 9 - but once you get used to OS X, they're not a problem. Then there are things that simply aren't a problem (managing kexts in OS X), and claims whose veracity varies wildly with specific experiences and applications. I can believe that OS X is "not ready for prime time" for prepress or pro audio work, but that doesn't mean it's "not ready for prime time," period. Similarly, performance claims vary wildly depending on usage and expectation. Similarly again, the interface might be confusing to OS 9 power users, but that doesn't mean it's confusing to new computer users, or to people new to the Mac.
I've tried to steer discussion away from perceived problems and toward actual problems precisely because there are a number of actual problems with OS X, and there is no better time to ferret them out and address them than now.
Comments
<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is useful because extensions in OS 9 are patches to the operating system, so they have to be loaded with the operating system, and they're basically part of the OS until you restart again.
OS X doesn't use that model. (In fact, the extensions model was never intended to be used the way it eventually was - it was a backdoor for Apple to patch the OS that was exploited by a lot of third parties.)
[quote]<strong>in OS X, i can't for the life of me figure out how this is done, if it can be done at all.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What you need to figure out is whether it makes any sense to do it in the first place. It doesn't. All the "extensions" you're seeing are just files sitting on a hard drive. When OS X needs one, it loads it. When it's done needing it, it unloads it. Extensions aren't bound tightly to the OS anymore, so there's no speedup to boot time, nor is there any benefit to stability, if you delete them: You just buy yourself a nominal amount of disk space, and create the possibility that OS X won't be able to find a resource when it needs one.
If you never need an OS X "extension," it will spend its life sitting quietly on the hard drive, taking up a little space and not bothering or interfering with anything.
[quote]<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is OS 9 thinking, and it's wrong. They're loaded when they're needed, for as long as they're needed.
[quote]<strong>i have no idea, and it's not really covered in the help documents.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because you should never have to worry about them. They're much less dangerous, and much less fussy, than OS 9 extensions are, and there's no discernable benefit to removing them.
[quote]<strong>next, i would really love to see a permissions dialogue.</strong><hr></blockquote>
At first blush, this looks like a good idea to me. Some care should be taken if the machine is single-user, too: Permissions shouldn't be an issue unless the person tries mucking around with system files, and then the OS should explain why that's a bad idea instead of saying "insufficient privileges." The dialogs need to be completely rewritten. They're currently terse and accusatory, and utterly un-Mac-like.
[snip more good stuff about printers]
[quote]<strong>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)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Uhhh, how many people are going to edit mounted volumes? Maybe Apple could make that easier by allowing people with Administrator privileges to do things like this...
[quote]<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The thing is, though, that OS X isn't finished, and criticism should be encouraged - Apple put the Feedback app in the Dock for a reason. The problem is that a lot of the criticism isn't well-founded. It's nice to see some real problems identified, and suggestions made to fix them. Thank you.
[ 04-10-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
the explanation of what OSX does though is much more helpful. it would have been nice to see something along the lines of that explanation in the help file, although that might be asking a bit much.
knowing how they are run completly changes how i view them and their setup in OSX.
i think a lot of my problems, and probably other people's problems are not understanding the basic, gut level differences between how OS 9 and OS X are run, and the effect that has on how you interact with your OS.
...At first blush, this looks like a good idea to me. Some care should be taken if the machine is single-user, too: Permissions shouldn't be an issue unless the person tries mucking around with system files, and then the OS should explain why that's a bad idea instead of saying "insufficient privileges." The dialogs need to be completely rewritten. They're currently terse and accusatory, and utterly un-Mac-like.<hr></blockquote>
Good point. The grammar police would have a field day with OS X's dialogs too.
Permissions seems to be a real sticking point, and while I think theidea is a very welcome one, it would be nice to develop a better mousetrap for them. I'm repeating myself (again), but I wonder if all the stuff at thte top of the directory structure (that is, on top of your home folder) should even be seen by people who aren't allowed to manipulate them. Make the Finder feel more lke it's all yours, at least while you're working in it. I feel like there can be one idea that creates an elegant solution for all of this stuff.
The use of it is a feeling of control. That's all, really. It's not going to be done in OS X, which is why I suggested the Home directory be on the desktop above the fixed disks. It's a very simple thing and makes the system more elegant.
[quote]So Apple is not supposed to listen to their customers?<hr></blockquote>
I already hinted at what Apple should do in situations like this: think first. But they can also go ahead and make a system that encourages people to use it a certain way and annoys them when they do.
[quote]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
Yeah, I agree. I was only saying that there would be a way to do what I proposed.
[quote]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.<hr></blockquote>
I'm sorry for wasting your time.
[quote]<strong>The use of it is a feeling of control. That's all, really. It's not going to be done in OS X, which is why I suggested the Home directory be on the desktop above the fixed disks. It's a very simple thing and makes the system more elegant.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think it's more useful to get people used to the idea that they have real control over a part of the filesystem than to risk Windows-style inconsistency, which apart from being unintuitive, makes me wonder if I have any control over anything.
I wouldn't mind if, instead, volumes mounted in the Home of the current user, and they could opt to share them with other users. This would require a much more robust Sharing interface than OS X currently has, but it needs one anyway...
It would also remove the most frequent and likely need to go all the way up to the "Computer" level, outside of the user's domain.
[quote]<strong>I already hinted at what Apple should do in situations like this: think first. But they can also go ahead and make a system that encourages people to use it a certain way and annoys them when they do.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Believe me, I'd rather they'd thought it through as well. I've written elsewhere on these boards that Apple can't afford to compromise the UI this early in the game, or they'll be hobbled for years. They did it right with the Apple Menu, for example. The drives on the desktop thing isn't so bad, though, because it is useful to have removable media there. Removable media in the Dock would be really nice for me.
[quote]quote by Amorph: 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.
<strong>I'm sorry for wasting your time.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Gah! That came off sounding a lot snippier than I meant it to. Sorry.
Overall, I like OSX more than 9. I mostly use, but when I switch to 9, I am looking for the dock and reaching for the keyboard shortcuts for Computer, Home, etc.
Keyboard shortcuts...I dont think anyone mentioned these. I LOVE them. Its minor, but makes the OS for me.
I like this OS so much that I am willing to role with the bumps until it matures. By this time next year, a Mac developer will be an OSX developer and many of these problems will be a memory.
good info though. thanks for the link.
now i'll see if they can explain permissions to me in a way that makes me happy.
<strong>
i don't think they should have to go in and change the damn file permissions on everything they create/download/install just so other people can use them.
at least something like a general area where any files within a folder will have universal access. that would go a long way. you want other poeple to be able to use them, put them in there.
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
Actually, this is present. It's /Users/Shared. Or, in the way you're thinking, Macintosh HD:Users:Shared:. That is a public folder, and I'm not entirely sure if permissions apply there, because:
There is a very easy "workaround" for the crappy permissions present in OS X (Which, BTW, is present in all *NIX OSen). What I like to do is set up a partition for media. It's a good practice to do that anyways, just in case your system screws up so bad you have to force-restart it, and it screws up the partition so bad you have to erase it... It's a painful process to lose all of your media. Anyways, in OS X, there is this nifty feature in the About box for all drives other than the boot drive. It's <a href="http://homepage.mac.com/nub/ignore_privs.jpg"; target="_blank">Ignore Priveliges on This Drive</a>. Then you set up all your download, rip, encode, whatever programs to save to that drive, and they'll never even realize that you've duped them. Your parents, that is.
[quote]Originally posted by alcimedes:
<strong>
and make the file locations obvious. for example, i rip my Smashing Pumpkins CD. then i want move the files, check the file size etc. so i go to find them.
where did they go? Macintosh HD/users/alcimedes/documents/itunes/smashing pumpkins/greatest hits/
that's 8 directories before i find them. iPhoto is no better. Macintosh HD/users/alcimedes/pictures/iphoto library/2000/01/01
that's nine before i find the files. and i have no idea where that folder heirarchy came from.
it's convuluted and confusing. some of the images are buried 12 folders deep. i'm sorry but that is not a good way to have your files set up. not a good default, especially not on an iMac.
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
You can work around this, too. Open a new window, go to /Users, and drag your own home folder to the dock. Then, go into the command line, type this in there: "ln -s ~ ~/Desktop" without the quotes. What that does is creates a softlink (You know it as an alias) to your home folder on your desktop. It also works by command-option dragging the icon of your home folder to your desktop, but you don't get the nifty icon.
And, just for your own future reference, Unix refers to the current user's "Home" directory (/Users/yourname) as "~". So if you're typing out a path to something in your own home directory, say /Users/jimbob/Music/Cake/frank_sinatra.mp3, all you actually have to type is ~/Music/Cake/frank_sinatra.mp3. It just makes it easier for you to remember where stuff is, and there's less typing.
[quote]Originally posted by alcimedes:
<strong>
#2 OS X is not ready for prime time: i'm also ticked because i feel that OSX was installed as the default while still half baked at best. who here has not had to boot into OS 9, or classic mode since switching to OS X? i have apps. that need classic mode, and i have hardware that won't work in OS X. part of the problem is other software/hardware companies haven't written drivers. part of it is apple's fault.
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
I've booted Classic exactly once in the past month. I can understand being peeved with Classic, because it's a workaround, skirting the real issue: Why isn't it there natively? Well, this happened a lot with the move from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95. There was (and is) still a lot of legacy, 16-bit code that Windows had to effectively run in a virtual machine because it wasn't ported to their new 32-bit system. Just give it time, is all I can say. OS X is still just a baby.
[quote]Originally posted by alcimedes:
<strong>
let me ask this then. what would you be happier with? OS 9 with protected memory, or OS X the way it is now?"
</strong><hr></blockquote>
In all honesty, I'd prefer OS X the way it is now. With OS 9, there was too much of a "you don't need to know how it works" kind of attitude. OS X may be a bit harder to learn *if you want to learn it*, but that's just the point of it. You don't have to learn all of it. There is an interface for almost everything you could want to do with the Unix side of OSX. If there isn't, post a message on a message board that OSX programmers read. Like this one.
Aside from that, OSX still has far superior multitasking. I can do so many things at one time with X, it just boggles my mind that I was so used to the "no more than 5 apps open" rule I had for myself in 9. I can be downloading stuff, listening to music, chatting, reading email, compiling, etc. all at the same time, and I hardly notice any of it.
The problems I have with OSX are different than I think most peoples. For instance, why does the window server take up 5% of my CPU when I'm doing nothing? Is the interface really that taxing on the CPU? I think it's really time to get some real hardware acceleration going on here. Every bit of the prettiness of OSX is computed by the CPU. This is why dragging an alpha-masked window takes so much out of your computer. My video card has no trouble at all rendering a moving alpha mask, that's what it was made for.
All in all, though, I think OS X makes people so mad because it's just a different way of doing things. Not necessarily worse, not necessarily better. Just different. It's better for me, though.
PS: I'd delete my entire install of OS 9, but I know that as soon as I do that, I'll need something in it.
[ 04-21-2002: Message edited by: iNub ]</p>
Should a new OS that forms the basis for the Mac platform for the next decade be easier to use and more trasnparent than its predecessor or should it require users to become more techno orientated to master?
Personally, i think that X should be even more transparent with a very firm "You don't need to know philosophy". Hell that's what made the mac's famous ease of use advantage over windows. By all means keep the rest of the techno stuff but make it last resort only or difficult to access for those who don't want it to the point that it seems not to exist. At the moment even newbies are occasionally being faced with kernel panics that rip them out of the GUi and scares the hell out of them. And too often the solution to relatively simple problems invloves some delving into Unix and the dreaded CLI.
Finally, file extensions? WTF? So what if Unix makes demands re file extensions? Who cares? Are apple's software guys not good enough to be able to develop a way around it? The same goes for file names. The number of names for files especially in the sytem that are woefully cryptic and could have come straight out of the windows folder is unacceptable. Am I right in thinking that after so many years of computer development there is no way of gettign around this?
One of the big things about my mac is that I feel in control and freely play with the system to tailor it to my needs. With Windows I'm scared to even change basic settings becuase in the windows folder I can't tell by looking at an icon or its name exactly what the damn thing does. Thus my X mac now gives me as much control as my windows PC
<strong>
Should a new OS that forms the basis for the Mac platform for the next decade be easier to use and more trasnparent than its predecessor or should it require users to become more techno orientated to master?
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
That's the balance Apple has decided to toy with in using a Unix as the base for their OS. Unix is inherently user unfrienly. Very unfriendly. OS X is the first real attempt at making a Unix OS for the desktop. For non-geeks. The kinds that don't like to write shell scripts. The kind that think a shell script is some new kind of Chinese cookie. When you step back and look at it, though, OS X isn't much worse than OS 9. Sure, there are a few tweaks and customizations that require toying with the command line, but there aren't many. And the simple fact is, at least in my opinion, these features just weren't there in OS 9 without some buggy, "why is my ethernet driver conflicting with my printer driver", kind of extension. A perfect example is Apache. OS 9's built in web server was so haphazardly thrown in there, it scares me. Since when does serving up web pages require patching system-level calls? (This is what extensions do.)
[quote]Originally posted by spooky:
<strong>
Personally, i think that X should be even more transparent with a very firm "You don't need to know philosophy". Hell that's what made the mac's famous ease of use advantage over windows. By all means keep the rest of the techno stuff but make it last resort only or difficult to access for those who don't want it to the point that it seems not to exist.
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
I disagree. I think proprietary software is a thing of the past. Perfect example: A 15 year old was able to fix a problem before college educated programmers even figured out what caused it (PPP freeze). With those kind of resources behind them, Apple simply cannot fail with this OS. There are literally thousands of programmers willing to work -- for free -- to develop OS X.
The Mac's famous ease of use had nothing to do with being a closed system. Windows is just as closed as Mac OS 9, yet the experience still sucks.
[quote]Originally posted by spooky:
<strong>
At the moment even newbies are occasionally being faced with kernel panics that rip them out of the GUi and scares the hell out of them. And too often the solution to relatively simple problems invloves some delving into Unix and the dreaded CLI.
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
I'd rather have a kernel panic than just have my computer lock up on me. Or a dialog box pop up that says my computer needs to be restarted because of a "bus error". What's a bus error? How do I fix it? Not even Apple knows. At least with a kernel panic, you have the opportunity to snap a picture of it and have somebody tell you what happened. That's the kind of feedback a kernel panic gives. Just having the computer freeze up is much more aggravating than a kernel panic, to me at least, if only because the moment you see that, you know your computer is screwed. When OS 9 locks up, you don't know whether something's just hogging the CPU (evil evil coop multitasking), or if you just lost all your unsaved work.
[quote]Originally posted by spooky:
<strong>
Finally, file extensions? WTF? So what if Unix makes demands re file extensions? Who cares? Are apple's software guys not good enough to be able to develop a way around it?
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
Actually, unix doesn't care about file extensions. I can have a text file named anything I want, and I can do whatever I want with it. The extensions are there to provide the "lowest common denominator" level of compatibility that most of the computing world is so used to. I'd rather have a BFS metadata system (It makes Mac OS's forked files look like a joke) than anything else, but the problem with that is, no other systems could recognize the files without that extension. By bringing the extension to the center of attention, Apple is either trying to get Microsoft to notice how much it sucks, or conceding defeat.
And we know Apple never loses.
[quote]Originally posted by spooky:
<strong>
The same goes for file names. The number of names for files especially in the sytem that are woefully cryptic and could have come straight out of the windows folder is unacceptable. Am I right in thinking that after so many years of computer development there is no way of gettign around this?
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
They make sense to developers. Also, programmers are lazy. They'd rather name a file "TFDSI.kext" than "This File Does Something Important.kext". It all boils down to fewer keystrokes and carpal tunnel syndrome.
There is a way of getting around this. OS 9 did it. OSX, being based on Unix, doesn't have it. Basically, though, if you don't need to be mucking around in the OS X system folder, DON'T. "Breakage will occur." Every service that you're used to being handled by an extension is now handled by daemons. Little programs with no user interaction, usually hidden in their host app's bundle. That's why you don't mess around in /System. Everything is in there because it HAS to be there. If you have to ask, don't touch.
[quote]Originally posted by spooky:
<strong>
One of the big things about my mac is that I feel in control and freely play with the system to tailor it to my needs. With Windows I'm scared to even change basic settings becuase in the windows folder I can't tell by looking at an icon or its name exactly what the damn thing does. Thus my X mac now gives me as much control as my windows PC</strong><hr></blockquote>
See above.
I'm not flaming, just trying to preach a little bit of prudence when playing with this stuff. The owner is "root" for all of those files for a reason. Messing around in /System is akin to running through your System suitcase with Resedit, deleting stuff that looks unneeded.
[ 04-22-2002: Message edited by: iNub ]</p>
It grew up. It got better in many ways.
That means you'll squeal while you learn new tricks.
Fundamentally, Ten is better than 9 in most respects. Forces to look at ways of working which are 'easier'. (Once you learn HOW to USE them...)
Part of me sez...'Why not Ten like 9?' with Aqua on top... (That's what I 'wanted'...)
Other part, after seeing the 'MacAcademy' video/CD (Given away free with Macworld mag'...) sees exactly what Apple are doing.
It's a better platform for the beginner and pro user once you leave '9' behind.
Sure we don't have spring loaded folders or faster than 9 speed yet (but it's faster if you use the way you CAN work with 'Ten'). But these will come.
So. They went for user experience over speed. The efficiency and speed will come. Get the code right first. It'll get better. Refinements to the Ten interface will come. Printer, Scanner and peripheral support will come.
Having said that. My wife's cheap Hewlett Packard printer is excellent on 'Ten'. Print quality is great.
Software? I've never heard of so many Unix, Java apps/interest on a Mac before. More games than you can shake a stick at...and 'X' has been out, what...a year?
Patience. Given the progress 'X' has made in a year...then I think we'll be closer to what we 'wanted' within a years time and then some.
We don't always get what we want. We get what we need sometimes.
I can see what Apple are trying to do.
With 1.2...maybe alot of the whingers will be silence. Probably not. Luddites...will probably need a stick in the chops to keep 'em quiet...but at least Apple don't emply the tactics MS do...bribery and bullying... So far, Apple have taken OS 'Ten' criticism 'on the chin' and they have, to a degree, 'listened'...
It makes sense to me.
Lemon Bon Bon.
<strong>What's a Benoit Ball?</strong><hr></blockquote>
He mis-spelled 'ben-wa'.
They're for "vaginal exercises".
Guess he thinks Ive is a pussy.
<strong>So did booting from a RAM disk in OS 9. That trick wasn't exactly straightforward to implement either.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oi! Since when can you boot 9.x from a RAm disk - I thought that trick disappeared with 8.6?
<strong>ok, so i'm reading through the genius bar area, and the OS X area, and i start noticing a trend.<hr></blockquote>
Of course you notice a trend...only people with problems post there. Of course "everyone" there has problems with OS X, that's why they are posting!
[quote]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.<hr></blockquote>
OS X is not hard to use. It is completely unecessary to partition one's HD to use OS X.
Try explaining to someone why they need to set the memory allocation for individual apps in OS 9, and then reconsider your ideas about OS X. Because in OS 9, the user MUST toy with memory allocations at some point, but OS X never forces such arcane practices upon the user.
[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.
now all of the new iMacs are coming with OS X as the default.<hr></blockquote>
Patience, my friend. In time there will be plenty of OS X drivers about. It's a new OS.
[quote]yeah it's cool and all, but wtf ever happened to "drag the photoshop folder to the applications folder, there it's installed"
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>
Actually installing apps in OS X is about as easy as it gets. Drag n' drop, or use the package installer. No more difficult than OS 9 and in many cases much easier.
[quote]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 suppose you miss creating a different extension set to work around extension conflicts? That is the tribute Mac OS leaves with us. OS X requires less of the user, but if the user desires, he/she can do MORE with the OS.
It sounds to me like you're simply used to OS 9 and are too lazy to learn how to use another OS. OS X is different from OS 9 and thus it requires an investment of time and energy to learn how to use it. Many OS 9 users are so entrenched in their ways that they simply do not want to "learn" any new ways of doing things.
But the truth is that OS X is leaps and bounds easier to use than OS 9 with its antiquated memory management and its buggy extensions.
<strong>
Oi! Since when can you boot 9.x from a RAm disk - I thought that trick disappeared with 8.6?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It might have. I didn't keep track.
If so, then just change "OS 9" to "OS 8.6."
"MacOS is kind of cool, but it seems to have quite a few problems, and some significant missing features."
"No, no, no you moron, MacOS X is the dogs bollocks, Bill Gates is creaming himself just thinking about it, Steve's got the right attitude: you are all morons, I am right. MacOS X does eveything you could ever want in a modern operating system, just like a 'nix, and does them better than Windows. It's just an OS where the user doesn't need to know about anything under the bonnet, it just works, and if you want to tinker you can use like a gazillion command lines to do them, and that's got to be easier for the average user than trying to move a few files around, you need to learn it before you criticise, and it's so easy, it's much easier than "Classic", I don't know what all these luddites are crying about, and everyone, including my granny is using X, on like a 233 iMac, and they all say it's well fast... but stop, it's only a 1.1 product, it'll get better, sure it's got a few rough edges... and the features will get padded out, eventually..."
There are genuine problems, which have been identified and accepted as such in this thread. Then there are "problems" that arise because OS X does things differently than OS 9 - but once you get used to OS X, they're not a problem. Then there are things that simply aren't a problem (managing kexts in OS X), and claims whose veracity varies wildly with specific experiences and applications. I can believe that OS X is "not ready for prime time" for prepress or pro audio work, but that doesn't mean it's "not ready for prime time," period. Similarly, performance claims vary wildly depending on usage and expectation. Similarly again, the interface might be confusing to OS 9 power users, but that doesn't mean it's confusing to new computer users, or to people new to the Mac.
I've tried to steer discussion away from perceived problems and toward actual problems precisely because there are a number of actual problems with OS X, and there is no better time to ferret them out and address them than now.