TenHanger, you make some very excellent points, particularly with regard to the success of the Ipod and the need for simplicity of use of PCs. I work productively in both the OSX and XP universes. Though I much prefer Apple/OSX, I like it when windows folk point out obvious marketing realities and "blind spots" to Apple devotees. Forums like this need counterpoints presented articulately so that Apple Geekdom can expand its horizons and better understand the rest (95%) of the pc world. Thanks for that TH.
Since this forum is about predictions for top secret features in Leopard, my wish is for full support for Multi-Touch technology (MT) which was previewed in a very understated way by Jobs in the iPhone part of the keynote. This technology, apparently now wholly owned and patented by Apple, will revolutionize the way users interact with computers. See my posts on MT and FingerWorks technology here (towards the end of page 1 and on page 2):
You've obviously never actually tried Parallels. It does do exactly what you claim "80-95% of us" () need. I'm especially pleased with the latest release and it's development in the area of seamless interaction between OS's.
You are right that I've never tried Parallels, and I never will. That fact that you HAVE tried it, means you are obviosly an Apple devotee, or as I'd call it an "Appostle". Therefore, your eye-rolling makes no sense, as 80-95% of 5% is in reality 4-4.75% of what consumers as-a-whole need. You are in that 4%, I am in the 96%-- listen to me, or rather LISTEN to me. The avg Joe doesn't want to have to purchase Parallels or VMWare or even be required to say those words. He just wants to open the box, plug the device into the wall, throw the directions in the trash, and begin running two operating systems at the same time. At MOST, maybe Apple would require the consumer to buy his own copy of Vista and put the CDs into the CD bay, answering "OK" with a mouse click one, maybe two times after that. Any more complicated than that, and Apple can simply subtract market share from any future projections.
As a PC user, I can tell you exactly when Leopard needs to give Apple the big juicing it needs to stop being a geekland and go mainstream like the iPod.
Wow. You must be new here. How is the iPod not geeky? How is the Mac geeky? Go over to Slashdot and see what real geeks think about Macs.
Quote:
We already have Boot Camp and Parallels, niether of which is what non-Apple buyers want. Boot Camp requires the dreadful reboot, but good side is Windows runs native to processor.
You know this for sure? Market data suggest otherwise - sales suggest otherwise.
Quote:
for instance, when a website doesn't work on safari, you're going to want to open IE (or Firefox) immediately to get the job done, but if you have to reboot, that's a lot of precious time wasted that non-geeks don't have. Reboots aren't an option for the masses, remember this all you geeks, and niether is a complicate installation such as Boot Camp. I don't care HOW easy it is, it's still a pain for the common simpleton like me.
There are at least 8 web browsers that operate on the Macintosh. Safari's WebKit is arguably the best engine out there. And there is Firefox and it's more Mac-like cousin, Camino. I don't consider my aunt to be a geek, and she has absolutely no problem with Boot Camp.
Actually bundling Vista with a Mac is stupid and misses the whole point of buying a Mac. Apple won't do it, and if they did it would suggest a lack of confidence in their product. Plus, Computers would cost a lot more, since they have to buy Vista anyway. I don't want to pay for that POS when I move to Intel. Moreover, the computer essentially would no longer be a Mac, it would be an "Apple (with mac)." Why prostitute the brand like that?
Quote:
Parallels doesn't run Windows properly, close, but no cigar.
Please explain.
Quote:
Apple became a real company again based on ONE single decision: Jobs finally got smart and ported the iTunes to run on Windows machines.
Half-true. it did boost the marketshare, as well as all the attention the company was getting, as well as having a prominent position in thousands of malls across the country. People saw, and tried.
Quote:
This was the best decision he's made since the early 80s. So now he needs to take the final step, and allow all us Apple-phobiacs to be able to walk into the Apple store, and buy a very cool looking iMac fully knowing it can run either Windows (for Dad) and Apple (for the kids and Mom), and both at the same time.
First off, looks are only a small part of the reason people buy Macs for the second time. It's the OS, the interface, and the design. The aesthetics/cool factor are only a part. Why you are Apple-phobic is beyond me, as is my own Apple phobia from before I used one.
Quote:
Why else would Apple have waited until Vista is shipping a couple of months to release Leopard? It's not because he's trying to hide stuff from Microsoft, he's doing it so he can ship the dual-OS system to run Vista and QA the computer so its seemless.
Because it takes a long time to write code and get it right. Once you've used OS X long enough, you'll understand why people think Parallels, VMWare, and CrossOver are satisfactory. And can you imagine the RAM wasted to keep a whole separate OS working all the time?
Quote:
This is what I hope anyway, and I hope it for Apple, even though it's a company I've never liked, and run by a guy who never learned marketing until recently. If Apple pulls this off, you will see your world change quickly.
Steve Jobs has always been a master marketer. That is the so-called Reality Distortion Field. And actually, most of his advertising was better before the "Get a Mac" ads.
And it's better not to flame meelash's signature, and just ignore it, or else I'll have to start throwing some kittens around.
The majority of Mac users who are recent switchers appreciate the fact that they have Windows available for those one or two apps that are vertical market Windows-only, or required for their work. They do not intend to run mainly Windows on their Mac machines.
Apple isn't going to sell a system that comes preloaded with Vista. Dream on. They need to expand the installed base of their OS, not become another Wintel maker.
As far as websites that won't work on Mac OS, that is the fault of the website. Safari is W3C compliant, and IE is not. If a webmaster is not concerned about cutting off his website from 35 million potential viewers, to hell with him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenHanger
The avg Joe doesn't want to have to purchase Parallels or VMWare or even be required to say those words. He just wants to open the box, plug the device into the wall, throw the directions in the trash, and begin running two operating systems at the same time.
I"m trying to give you all a view of what it is like to not spend 100% of my time trying to figure out technology, but 100% of my time USING technology.
Actually bundling Vista with a Mac is stupid and misses the whole point of buying a Mac. Apple won't do it, and if they did it would suggest a lack of confidence in their product. Plus, Computers would cost a lot more, since they have to buy Vista anyway. I don't want to pay for that POS when I move to Intel. Moreover, the computer essentially would no longer be a Mac, it would be an "Apple (with mac)." Why prostitute the brand like that?
Exactly! If Apple preloaded Vista, they wouldn't really be Macs, and they'd be more expensive. Then they are just another Dell, HP, Gateway, etc. Plus it sends the message that Apple is admitting defeat and surrendering to PC's to all the ignorant noobs who think Bill Gates is the brains and innovator behind the computer industry. If someone can't deal with a vast minority of websites that aren't compatible with Safari and are too lazy to either use a different browser or utilize Boot Camp or Parallels, then by all means, just stick with a PC. I'm not gonna lose sleep over it
No kidding, iPeon. As someone who works on XP at work, and MacOS X at home and for my private CS research, I think I can firmly say... XP feels like a toy. More so, it feels like a half-assed, cobbled together monstrosity that is lacking any attention to detail or thought in its design. I spend most of my time fighting the idiotic thing *instead* of getting work done. If it's not doing something completely at odds with itself, it's acting like a hyper three year old trying to be helpful.
To make my employer happy, I use the XP machine. For real work, I use my Mac... because it stays out of my way, and it just works.
And TenHanger, isn't that exactly what you'd rather be doing, instead of dealing with Windows?
I disagree that it feels like a toy. It's a very responsive system in general, more responsive than MacOS which has quite some delays even with 2GB of memory. Also file management is far more effective.
However, MacOS feels more stable, and when something crashes, MacOS doesn't go beserk like Windows (strangely the harddrive is going beserk, paging stuff I guess). Also, sound is much better on MacOSX, much more responsive.
They both give a different experience, I think it's easy to bash OS #1 and praise OS #2.
I disagree that it feels like a toy. It's a very responsive system in general, more responsive than MacOS which has quite some delays even with 2GB of memory. Also file management is far more effective.
I agreed with you on the former, (as long as you don't tax the poor thing - OS X is much better at handling a couple dozen open apps at once) but whaaaa? File mgmt is *effective*? How so? There's no rhyme nor reason to the where things go on the disk. It's like dealing with Mac OS9 in that regards, but without the obvious clues as to why things are where they are. User accounts are obviously an after-thought, and it feels even worse at trying to hide 'the real disk' from you than even OS9 did.
Or are you speaking of moving files around?
Quote:
They both give a different experience, I think it's easy to bash OS #1 and praise OS #2.
Every OS has issues, and problems, no doubt. What I'm talking about is the complete lack of craftsmanship and attention to detail that I run into in XP on a daily basis. It *feels* like something slapped together by committee, without a unified design plan. For instance...
I read a review of Vista that said that Windows (XP an Vista both) is like a hyper 3 yr old, endlessly wanting to make sure you know how helpful they are, and apparently terrified you might forget that they're there, while MacOS X is like a gentleman's gentleman, standing silently on the side until an opportunity for assistance is noted, given, and then shrugged off as simply business as normal. I couldn't agree more. I am constantly barraged by notices on my XP laptop that serve zero useful purpose. My favorite one on Friday was plugging in a USB 2.0 USB key, and having it tell me 1) New hardware had been detected. 2) New hardware was now ready for use. 3) The USB device would work faster if plugged into a USB 2.0 port.
1) Thank you for stating the obvious - it should always be detected. I would not expect you to tell me that a key on my keyboard had been pressed every time I did it, nor would I expect this. Unless the standard situation is that hardware is *not* detected, ie, it fails, then this shouldn't be a notification. Notify me when the unexpected occurs, not when things are as normal. The fact that anyone thought this was a necessary notification puts a chill up my spine. It reads like something you have in there while you're debugging, and don't expect it to work.
2) How very odd. You said it was detected, then you make a second notice to tell me it's ready... why not just... let me use it? Bring up an Explorer window showing the data device, or otherwise give me *any* visual feedback that it has been mounted? To be fair, it does bring up a dialog asking how I want to interact with the data device, giving me a list of possibilities like "View pictures as slideshow", and in there is "View device in Explorer". This just strikes me as that hyper 3 yr old again though - the tools to show slideshows, etc, are already in Explorer, (and *very* prominent in that silly task bar on the left, I might add,) so why add an unnecessary barrier to interacting with the device I just plugged in? Note also that *any* feedback here, even the original notification, makes the notice in #1 utterly superfluous.
3) Here's the icing on the cake. Okay, this is kind of useful, in a way, even though most users won't have a clue what it means. I think to myself "Ok, so there's a USB1.x bus, and a USB 2.0 bus on this machine. Common enough. But I only saw two USB ports... hmm..." Into the Hardware panel I go, and find out... the machine *has no USB 2.0 ports*. So please, explain why it gave me the useless notice? Can't the OS tell what hardware it has underneath?
It's precisely this sort of thing that drives me nuts. It's just a complete lack of attention to detail in places that matter, leading to an explosion of semi-useful or downright false information being thrown at the user. I don't care if it's a computer, a car, or any other kind of tool, lack of design detail makes my brain boil over.
And that's just the user experience. As a developer, it's much, much worse.
3) Here's the icing on the cake. Okay, this is kind of useful, in a way, even though most users won't have a clue what it means. I think to myself "Ok, so there's a USB1.x bus, and a USB 2.0 bus on this machine. Common enough. But I only saw two USB ports... hmm..." Into the Hardware panel I go, and find out... the machine *has no USB 2.0 ports*. So please, explain why it gave me the useless notice? Can't the OS tell what hardware it has underneath?
I thought I was the only one. This drives me absolutely insane every time I plug in a flash drive. It's just SO STUPID. It just happened to you last Friday? I have to deal with this every freakin' day and it gets more irritating as time goes on, not less, believe me....
Come on guys, quit feeding the Troll. TenHanger clearly has a definite view of Mac users being isolated from reality and incapable of making the simplest of observations. Noting this, he feels it is his duty to inform us, to save us from ourselves and to show us the light, since we are so deluded.
Disagreeing with such individuals, or, gods forbid, asking them what the hell they are thinking, tends to only make them feel like they are under attack by morons who are blind to the obvious. They simply MUST respond!
A Request: Let him burn himself out, and hopefully he'll go do something more productive than telling others what to think.
<Takes a Class D Fire Extinguisher and puts out TenHanger The Flaming Troll>
Had a thought and dug up this thread as being appropriately titled. What if one of the secret features was an Apple polished and spruced up Open Office??? This might make sense given the way that Jobs/Apples seems to have opened up the taunting factor against MSFT/Vista. People here have worried in the past about alienating the Mac BU and MSFT and them cancelling the Office product for Mac. With the ongoing progress with ODF adoption and even MSFT's ODXML and Apple participation in the open source software this might make a lot of sense. ?????
You are right that I've never tried Parallels, and I never will. That fact that you HAVE tried it, means you are obviosly an Apple devotee, or as I'd call it an "Appostle". Therefore, your eye-rolling makes no sense, as 80-95% of 5% is in reality 4-4.75% of what consumers as-a-whole need. You are in that 4%, I am in the 96%-- listen to me, or rather LISTEN to me. The avg Joe doesn't want to have to purchase Parallels or VMWare or even be required to say those words. He just wants to open the box, plug the device into the wall, throw the directions in the trash, and begin running two operating systems at the same time. At MOST, maybe Apple would require the consumer to buy his own copy of Vista and put the CDs into the CD bay, answering "OK" with a mouse click one, maybe two times after that. Any more complicated than that, and Apple can simply subtract market share from any future projections.
You bitch and whine about wanting a dual OS machine yet you won't even consider trying Parallels or Bootcamp???That right there takes away any credibility you may have had.
To me iWork offers other things, or better things, or different things. I'm not sure but if the Mac NEEDs office for compatibility with the Window's world then this could be a way. It may be tat the OO source base is to bloated and convoluted for this to happen, or not? I really don't know but if ODF takes off as a standard, like Texas and Mass. and Minn. are leaning then this might be a was to break this dependency.
I would like better iCal integration with iMac, so I can view my callanders & edit them on-line from any computer, including a PC (which I have to use at work with a direct link from iMac
It's called .mac syncing. I have done this with Tiger. Sure, it's not free, but nothing is now in days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Beardsley
I'm guessing we won't see a new finder in Leopard. Why would they waste the time to add grid spacing to icons in the current finder if it was going to be replaced with something else? I may be wrong about this, but sadly I'm not expecting much to happen in finder land.
I think Finder will be updated -- it needs to be with Explore being updated. i find the search functionaitly in it being very, very unuseful. Maybe it's just me not being able to use it correctly. Will it be "new and improved"? Who knows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenHanger
Virtualization
Redesigned Finder / UI Overhaul
Resolution Independance
Stickty Widgets (widgets floating on screen without dashboard open
Heavily meta data based Finder
Wow, this was a great thread start, but I was totally disappointed with the answers. I think the problem is you are all Mac users. As a PC user, I can tell you exactly when Leopard needs to give Apple the big juicing it needs to stop being a geekland and go mainstream like the iPod.
VIRTUALIZATION: There's now 2 cores running x86, and maybe 4 in the near future. We already have Boot Camp and Parallels, niether of which is what non-Apple buyers want. Boot Camp requires the dreadful reboot, but good side is Windows runs native to processor. for instance, when a website doesn't work on safari, you're going to want to open IE (or Firefox) immediately to get the job done, but if you have to reboot, that's a lot of precious time wasted that non-geeks don't have. Reboots aren't an option for the masses, remember this all you geeks, and niether is a complicate installation such as Boot Camp. I don't care HOW easy it is, it's still a pain for the common simpleton like me.
Parallels doesn't run Windows properly, close, but no cigar. What new-to-Mac users want is the ability to go from Apple OS to Windows with the press of a "Switch" button on the keyboard that's big and green and simple. Can't get a website to work in Safari? SWITCH. The software you want only comes in Windows flavor? SWITCH. Boom, you are done. Apple became a real company again based on ONE single decision: Jobs finally got smart and ported the iTunes to run on Windows machines. This was the best decision he's made since the early 80s. So now he needs to take the final step, and allow all us Apple-phobiacs to be able to walk into the Apple store, and buy a very cool looking iMac fully knowing it can run either Windows (for Dad) and Apple (for the kids and Mom), and both at the same time. No reboots, no complicated installs, SWITCH. Right on the keyboard so my 75 year old father can do it without even knowing what he's doing. Maybe it doesn't have to be a button on the keyboard, but it better be damn easy, as easy as switching from Firefox to IE browser. Why else would Apple have waited until Vista is shipping a couple of months to release Leopard? It's not because he's trying to hide stuff from Microsoft, he's doing it so he can ship the dual-OS system to run Vista and QA the computer so its seemless. This is what I hope anyway, and I hope it for Apple, even though it's a company I've never liked, and run by a guy who never learned marketing until recently. If Apple pulls this off, you will see your world change quickly. If not, this board will continue to have geeky comments posted by the same APPostLE crowd that's always followed this company like a religion-- small beans.
Maybe the key to your problems is not Virtualization, but emulation. Meaning, Safari 3.0 being able to emulate an IE environment. Meaning that Apple's OS will be powerful enough to emulate some, if not all, programs that run on Windows. Linux has been doing some of this for quite some time, anf if they can pull of broswer emulation...that would be great.
And guys, you MUST have Finder. Go into Safe Boot and try to use Spotlight. it's disabled. Why? I don't know. So yea...
Parallels doesn't run Windows properly, close, but no cigar. What new-to-Mac users want is the ability to go from Apple OS to Windows with the press of a "Switch" button on the keyboard that's big and green and simple. Can't get a website to work in Safari? SWITCH. The software you want only comes in Windows flavor? SWITCH. Boom, you are done.
Uhm, dude, that is EXACTLY what parallels allows you to do
Microsoft makes IE for Mac. Also there are FireFox and Opera available. Of those three, Safari has been found to be the most compatible with web pages which use web standards. Only the rogue pages who do stupid customized stuff tend to not work.... there was a post somewhere around here about that.... Go wiki Acid_2 test.
One of the wonderful aspects of BootCamp is that it walks us right through the process. It's really (no, I mean REALLY. Like, literally) just as easy as installing a fresh copy of windows. Oh, right. Ok, never mind then.
BTW, the more opinionated a post is around here, the more the writer gets flamed. Just thought I'd give ya a heads up.
Microsoft made IE for Mac. Made IE for Mac. Piece of shit it was, too.
Comments
Since this forum is about predictions for top secret features in Leopard, my wish is for full support for Multi-Touch technology (MT) which was previewed in a very understated way by Jobs in the iPhone part of the keynote. This technology, apparently now wholly owned and patented by Apple, will revolutionize the way users interact with computers. See my posts on MT and FingerWorks technology here (towards the end of page 1 and on page 2):
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=70695
Also see the posts here:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=70688
Microsoft makes IE for Mac.
Nope.
Development ceased in 2003 and it was pulled from the MS website in January 2006.
You've obviously never actually tried Parallels. It does do exactly what you claim "80-95% of us" (
You are right that I've never tried Parallels, and I never will. That fact that you HAVE tried it, means you are obviosly an Apple devotee, or as I'd call it an "Appostle". Therefore, your eye-rolling makes no sense, as 80-95% of 5% is in reality 4-4.75% of what consumers as-a-whole need. You are in that 4%, I am in the 96%-- listen to me, or rather LISTEN to me. The avg Joe doesn't want to have to purchase Parallels or VMWare or even be required to say those words. He just wants to open the box, plug the device into the wall, throw the directions in the trash, and begin running two operating systems at the same time. At MOST, maybe Apple would require the consumer to buy his own copy of Vista and put the CDs into the CD bay, answering "OK" with a mouse click one, maybe two times after that. Any more complicated than that, and Apple can simply subtract market share from any future projections.
As a PC user, I can tell you exactly when Leopard needs to give Apple the big juicing it needs to stop being a geekland and go mainstream like the iPod.
Wow. You must be new here. How is the iPod not geeky? How is the Mac geeky? Go over to Slashdot and see what real geeks think about Macs.
We already have Boot Camp and Parallels, niether of which is what non-Apple buyers want. Boot Camp requires the dreadful reboot, but good side is Windows runs native to processor.
You know this for sure? Market data suggest otherwise - sales suggest otherwise.
for instance, when a website doesn't work on safari, you're going to want to open IE (or Firefox) immediately to get the job done, but if you have to reboot, that's a lot of precious time wasted that non-geeks don't have. Reboots aren't an option for the masses, remember this all you geeks, and niether is a complicate installation such as Boot Camp. I don't care HOW easy it is, it's still a pain for the common simpleton like me.
There are at least 8 web browsers that operate on the Macintosh. Safari's WebKit is arguably the best engine out there. And there is Firefox and it's more Mac-like cousin, Camino. I don't consider my aunt to be a geek, and she has absolutely no problem with Boot Camp.
Actually bundling Vista with a Mac is stupid and misses the whole point of buying a Mac. Apple won't do it, and if they did it would suggest a lack of confidence in their product. Plus, Computers would cost a lot more, since they have to buy Vista anyway. I don't want to pay for that POS when I move to Intel. Moreover, the computer essentially would no longer be a Mac, it would be an "Apple (with mac)." Why prostitute the brand like that?
Parallels doesn't run Windows properly, close, but no cigar.
Please explain.
Apple became a real company again based on ONE single decision: Jobs finally got smart and ported the iTunes to run on Windows machines.
Half-true. it did boost the marketshare, as well as all the attention the company was getting, as well as having a prominent position in thousands of malls across the country. People saw, and tried.
This was the best decision he's made since the early 80s. So now he needs to take the final step, and allow all us Apple-phobiacs to be able to walk into the Apple store, and buy a very cool looking iMac fully knowing it can run either Windows (for Dad) and Apple (for the kids and Mom), and both at the same time.
First off, looks are only a small part of the reason people buy Macs for the second time. It's the OS, the interface, and the design. The aesthetics/cool factor are only a part. Why you are Apple-phobic is beyond me, as is my own Apple phobia from before I used one.
Why else would Apple have waited until Vista is shipping a couple of months to release Leopard? It's not because he's trying to hide stuff from Microsoft, he's doing it so he can ship the dual-OS system to run Vista and QA the computer so its seemless.
Because it takes a long time to write code and get it right. Once you've used OS X long enough, you'll understand why people think Parallels, VMWare, and CrossOver are satisfactory. And can you imagine the RAM wasted to keep a whole separate OS working all the time?
This is what I hope anyway, and I hope it for Apple, even though it's a company I've never liked, and run by a guy who never learned marketing until recently. If Apple pulls this off, you will see your world change quickly.
Steve Jobs has always been a master marketer. That is the so-called Reality Distortion Field. And actually, most of his advertising was better before the "Get a Mac" ads.
And it's better not to flame meelash's signature, and just ignore it, or else I'll have to start throwing some kittens around.
The majority of Mac users who are recent switchers appreciate the fact that they have Windows available for those one or two apps that are vertical market Windows-only, or required for their work. They do not intend to run mainly Windows on their Mac machines.
Apple isn't going to sell a system that comes preloaded with Vista. Dream on. They need to expand the installed base of their OS, not become another Wintel maker.
As far as websites that won't work on Mac OS, that is the fault of the website. Safari is W3C compliant, and IE is not. If a webmaster is not concerned about cutting off his website from 35 million potential viewers, to hell with him.
The avg Joe doesn't want to have to purchase Parallels or VMWare or even be required to say those words. He just wants to open the box, plug the device into the wall, throw the directions in the trash, and begin running two operating systems at the same time.
I"m trying to give you all a view of what it is like to not spend 100% of my time trying to figure out technology, but 100% of my time USING technology.
If that is the case, why are you using Windows?
Actually bundling Vista with a Mac is stupid and misses the whole point of buying a Mac. Apple won't do it, and if they did it would suggest a lack of confidence in their product. Plus, Computers would cost a lot more, since they have to buy Vista anyway. I don't want to pay for that POS when I move to Intel. Moreover, the computer essentially would no longer be a Mac, it would be an "Apple (with mac)." Why prostitute the brand like that?
Exactly! If Apple preloaded Vista, they wouldn't really be Macs, and they'd be more expensive. Then they are just another Dell, HP, Gateway, etc. Plus it sends the message that Apple is admitting defeat and surrendering to PC's to all the ignorant noobs who think Bill Gates is the brains and innovator behind the computer industry. If someone can't deal with a vast minority of websites that aren't compatible with Safari and are too lazy to either use a different browser or utilize Boot Camp or Parallels, then by all means, just stick with a PC. I'm not gonna lose sleep over it
To make my employer happy, I use the XP machine. For real work, I use my Mac... because it stays out of my way, and it just works.
And TenHanger, isn't that exactly what you'd rather be doing, instead of dealing with Windows?
However, MacOS feels more stable, and when something crashes, MacOS doesn't go beserk like Windows (strangely the harddrive is going beserk, paging stuff I guess). Also, sound is much better on MacOSX, much more responsive.
They both give a different experience, I think it's easy to bash OS #1 and praise OS #2.
I disagree that it feels like a toy. It's a very responsive system in general, more responsive than MacOS which has quite some delays even with 2GB of memory. Also file management is far more effective.
I agreed with you on the former, (as long as you don't tax the poor thing - OS X is much better at handling a couple dozen open apps at once) but whaaaa? File mgmt is *effective*? How so? There's no rhyme nor reason to the where things go on the disk. It's like dealing with Mac OS9 in that regards, but without the obvious clues as to why things are where they are. User accounts are obviously an after-thought, and it feels even worse at trying to hide 'the real disk' from you than even OS9 did.
Or are you speaking of moving files around?
They both give a different experience, I think it's easy to bash OS #1 and praise OS #2.
Every OS has issues, and problems, no doubt. What I'm talking about is the complete lack of craftsmanship and attention to detail that I run into in XP on a daily basis. It *feels* like something slapped together by committee, without a unified design plan. For instance...
I read a review of Vista that said that Windows (XP an Vista both) is like a hyper 3 yr old, endlessly wanting to make sure you know how helpful they are, and apparently terrified you might forget that they're there, while MacOS X is like a gentleman's gentleman, standing silently on the side until an opportunity for assistance is noted, given, and then shrugged off as simply business as normal. I couldn't agree more. I am constantly barraged by notices on my XP laptop that serve zero useful purpose. My favorite one on Friday was plugging in a USB 2.0 USB key, and having it tell me 1) New hardware had been detected. 2) New hardware was now ready for use. 3) The USB device would work faster if plugged into a USB 2.0 port.
1) Thank you for stating the obvious - it should always be detected. I would not expect you to tell me that a key on my keyboard had been pressed every time I did it, nor would I expect this. Unless the standard situation is that hardware is *not* detected, ie, it fails, then this shouldn't be a notification. Notify me when the unexpected occurs, not when things are as normal. The fact that anyone thought this was a necessary notification puts a chill up my spine. It reads like something you have in there while you're debugging, and don't expect it to work.
2) How very odd. You said it was detected, then you make a second notice to tell me it's ready... why not just... let me use it? Bring up an Explorer window showing the data device, or otherwise give me *any* visual feedback that it has been mounted? To be fair, it does bring up a dialog asking how I want to interact with the data device, giving me a list of possibilities like "View pictures as slideshow", and in there is "View device in Explorer". This just strikes me as that hyper 3 yr old again though - the tools to show slideshows, etc, are already in Explorer, (and *very* prominent in that silly task bar on the left, I might add,) so why add an unnecessary barrier to interacting with the device I just plugged in? Note also that *any* feedback here, even the original notification, makes the notice in #1 utterly superfluous.
3) Here's the icing on the cake. Okay, this is kind of useful, in a way, even though most users won't have a clue what it means. I think to myself "Ok, so there's a USB1.x bus, and a USB 2.0 bus on this machine. Common enough. But I only saw two USB ports... hmm..." Into the Hardware panel I go, and find out... the machine *has no USB 2.0 ports*. So please, explain why it gave me the useless notice? Can't the OS tell what hardware it has underneath?
It's precisely this sort of thing that drives me nuts. It's just a complete lack of attention to detail in places that matter, leading to an explosion of semi-useful or downright false information being thrown at the user. I don't care if it's a computer, a car, or any other kind of tool, lack of design detail makes my brain boil over.
And that's just the user experience. As a developer, it's much, much worse.
3) Here's the icing on the cake. Okay, this is kind of useful, in a way, even though most users won't have a clue what it means. I think to myself "Ok, so there's a USB1.x bus, and a USB 2.0 bus on this machine. Common enough. But I only saw two USB ports... hmm..." Into the Hardware panel I go, and find out... the machine *has no USB 2.0 ports*. So please, explain why it gave me the useless notice? Can't the OS tell what hardware it has underneath?
I thought I was the only one. This drives me absolutely insane every time I plug in a flash drive. It's just SO STUPID. It just happened to you last Friday? I have to deal with this every freakin' day and it gets more irritating as time goes on, not less, believe me....
Disagreeing with such individuals, or, gods forbid, asking them what the hell they are thinking, tends to only make them feel like they are under attack by morons who are blind to the obvious. They simply MUST respond!
A Request: Let him burn himself out, and hopefully he'll go do something more productive than telling others what to think.
<Takes a Class D Fire Extinguisher and puts out TenHanger The Flaming Troll>
Celemourn
I will handle the moderation, if you don't mind. Your post is off-topic.
You are right that I've never tried Parallels, and I never will. That fact that you HAVE tried it, means you are obviosly an Apple devotee, or as I'd call it an "Appostle". Therefore, your eye-rolling makes no sense, as 80-95% of 5% is in reality 4-4.75% of what consumers as-a-whole need. You are in that 4%, I am in the 96%-- listen to me, or rather LISTEN to me. The avg Joe doesn't want to have to purchase Parallels or VMWare or even be required to say those words. He just wants to open the box, plug the device into the wall, throw the directions in the trash, and begin running two operating systems at the same time. At MOST, maybe Apple would require the consumer to buy his own copy of Vista and put the CDs into the CD bay, answering "OK" with a mouse click one, maybe two times after that. Any more complicated than that, and Apple can simply subtract market share from any future projections.
You bitch and whine about wanting a dual OS machine yet you won't even consider trying Parallels or Bootcamp???That right there takes away any credibility you may have had.
er.. what would happen to iWork
To me iWork offers other things, or better things, or different things. I'm not sure but if the Mac NEEDs office for compatibility with the Window's world then this could be a way. It may be tat the OO source base is to bloated and convoluted for this to happen, or not? I really don't know but if ODF takes off as a standard, like Texas and Mass. and Minn. are leaning then this might be a was to break this dependency.
I would like better iCal integration with iMac, so I can view my callanders & edit them on-line from any computer, including a PC (which I have to use at work
It's called .mac syncing. I have done this with Tiger. Sure, it's not free, but nothing is now in days.
I'm guessing we won't see a new finder in Leopard. Why would they waste the time to add grid spacing to icons in the current finder if it was going to be replaced with something else? I may be wrong about this, but sadly I'm not expecting much to happen in finder land.
I think Finder will be updated -- it needs to be with Explore being updated. i find the search functionaitly in it being very, very unuseful. Maybe it's just me not being able to use it correctly. Will it be "new and improved"? Who knows.
Virtualization
Redesigned Finder / UI Overhaul
Resolution Independance
Stickty Widgets (widgets floating on screen without dashboard open
Heavily meta data based Finder
Wow, this was a great thread start, but I was totally disappointed with the answers. I think the problem is you are all Mac users. As a PC user, I can tell you exactly when Leopard needs to give Apple the big juicing it needs to stop being a geekland and go mainstream like the iPod.
VIRTUALIZATION: There's now 2 cores running x86, and maybe 4 in the near future. We already have Boot Camp and Parallels, niether of which is what non-Apple buyers want. Boot Camp requires the dreadful reboot, but good side is Windows runs native to processor. for instance, when a website doesn't work on safari, you're going to want to open IE (or Firefox) immediately to get the job done, but if you have to reboot, that's a lot of precious time wasted that non-geeks don't have. Reboots aren't an option for the masses, remember this all you geeks, and niether is a complicate installation such as Boot Camp. I don't care HOW easy it is, it's still a pain for the common simpleton like me.
Parallels doesn't run Windows properly, close, but no cigar. What new-to-Mac users want is the ability to go from Apple OS to Windows with the press of a "Switch" button on the keyboard that's big and green and simple. Can't get a website to work in Safari? SWITCH. The software you want only comes in Windows flavor? SWITCH. Boom, you are done. Apple became a real company again based on ONE single decision: Jobs finally got smart and ported the iTunes to run on Windows machines. This was the best decision he's made since the early 80s. So now he needs to take the final step, and allow all us Apple-phobiacs to be able to walk into the Apple store, and buy a very cool looking iMac fully knowing it can run either Windows (for Dad) and Apple (for the kids and Mom), and both at the same time. No reboots, no complicated installs, SWITCH. Right on the keyboard so my 75 year old father can do it without even knowing what he's doing. Maybe it doesn't have to be a button on the keyboard, but it better be damn easy, as easy as switching from Firefox to IE browser. Why else would Apple have waited until Vista is shipping a couple of months to release Leopard? It's not because he's trying to hide stuff from Microsoft, he's doing it so he can ship the dual-OS system to run Vista and QA the computer so its seemless. This is what I hope anyway, and I hope it for Apple, even though it's a company I've never liked, and run by a guy who never learned marketing until recently. If Apple pulls this off, you will see your world change quickly. If not, this board will continue to have geeky comments posted by the same APPostLE crowd that's always followed this company like a religion-- small beans.
Maybe the key to your problems is not Virtualization, but emulation. Meaning, Safari 3.0 being able to emulate an IE environment. Meaning that Apple's OS will be powerful enough to emulate some, if not all, programs that run on Windows. Linux has been doing some of this for quite some time, anf if they can pull of broswer emulation...that would be great.
And guys, you MUST have Finder. Go into Safe Boot and try to use Spotlight. it's disabled. Why? I don't know. So yea...
Parallels doesn't run Windows properly, close, but no cigar. What new-to-Mac users want is the ability to go from Apple OS to Windows with the press of a "Switch" button on the keyboard that's big and green and simple. Can't get a website to work in Safari? SWITCH. The software you want only comes in Windows flavor? SWITCH. Boom, you are done.
Uhm, dude, that is EXACTLY what parallels allows you to do
Microsoft makes IE for Mac. Also there are FireFox and Opera available. Of those three, Safari has been found to be the most compatible with web pages which use web standards. Only the rogue pages who do stupid customized stuff tend to not work.... there was a post somewhere around here about that.... Go wiki Acid_2 test.
One of the wonderful aspects of BootCamp is that it walks us right through the process. It's really (no, I mean REALLY. Like, literally) just as easy as installing a fresh copy of windows. Oh, right. Ok, never mind then.
BTW, the more opinionated a post is around here, the more the writer gets flamed.
Microsoft made IE for Mac. Made IE for Mac. Piece of shit it was, too.