Not to mention that now, my Word document scrolls a million times slower. Hopefully Xtreeeeeem Quartz will fix this problem. But you shouldn't need a 32 MB Radeon JUST TO GET SOME FRICKING HARDWARE 2D ACCELARATION FOR THE GUI!!! COME ON APPLE!!
Their argument is that, "Duh, well, you shouldn't complain that what we're doing is way advanced and your hardware just can't run it. Your computer can still do exactly what it could do the day you bought it." Yeah but the day I bought it, OS X sucked then too! So when are you gonna finally own up to the fact that your CHEESY-ARSE interface is the problem, not the fact that my hardware (a 550 G4) is too slow to run it??</strong><hr></blockquote>
Did anyone ever tell you to shut up? I will! stfu!
a. being rendered as PDFs essentially so look in an Acrobat file in OS 9 and tell me the OS 9 ones look better. This isn't Postscript, it's PDF because PDF is an open standard that ties web/screen and print together whereas Postscript is a print-oriented model.
< < <
PDF is Postscript. Hello... it's basically the same thing. Why do you think Acrobat doesn't work if you don't have ATM installed? Quartz is essentially NeXTSTEP's old Display Postscript model.
> > >
b. Some fonts were designed for the OS 9 display model, such as Geneva. Geneva is Apple's original rip-off of Helvetica debcause Helvetica would cost them money and didn't read as clearly under the old text rendering model of the original Mac. The point is that fonts are WYSIWYG so let go of using Geneva and its ilk. It's pointless to use now. Use real fonts.
< < <
I don't care what you say -- there is NO EXCUSE for the only alternative to anti-aliasing being, looking at fonts that run together and look like garbage. The concept of "WYSIWYG" is completely irrelevant to this discussion; we're talking about screen display fonts here for use in displaying lists of items in my newsreader, MT-NewsWatcher 3.2 for instance, or for display in the "Toolbar Favorites" section of the Explorer browser window. Right now, if you are using Explorer, go and turn off antialiasing and load up explorer. Look at your toolbar favoirtes. In mine, there is "Google." Except the "l" and the "e" are literally touching each other. This is bad rendering. It should not happen. There is no argument to be had here; there is no possible way you can convince me that Apple is right to have an inferior font rendering model "just because it is OS X." You can't blame it on Microsoft, either; the same thing happens if you open Apple's own Preferences panel and look at the ugliness of the non-antialiased text in the favorites bar.
We should not sit by casually as Apple begins to sell us flawed technology without voicing our opinions about it, or else it won't ever get fixed. That's how customer service works. Customers beotch about stuff, then the company fixes it.
> > >
c. Office X's font rendering sucks -- it's not even using Quartz ATSUI rendering, it's still using QuickDraw. So you have Quickdraw being rendered to a system that composites everythingin Quartz. Yes, looks crappy, and a lot of Carbon ports do this because they didn't take the time or care to render using the new font rendering model.
< < <
Well, I hope you're right on this one.
> > >
But frankly, I think this isn't really your gripe. I think you have much bigger issues.
< < <
Yes the fonts thing is a very small issue. The biggest issue is having been using Macs since I was seven years old, for the past 18 years, and now seeing that Apple is making some really stupid design decisions. Why do you automatically accept what many of the designers of the original Mac, and many experts of interface design, recognize to be a vastly inferior user experience regarding the GUI? Why protect it? It sucks! Lets make it better!
I applaud apple for being daring enough to try something new. But this is a bit like Jar-Jar Binks. Lets hope that Steve Jobs realizes his error and, like Lucas, cans Jar-Jar and comes out with a version of OS X that has less stupid frills and runs faster on the current hardware. I don't want to hear arguments how on the one hand, we should all switch to OS X now, but on the other hand, we should shut up and not complain if it runs like arse on our computers, when we know good and well that if they weren't wasting so many processor cycles on useless eye candy, it would actually be FASTER than the old system!
<strong>not to get too off topic, but philter, have you even USED iPhoto or iTunes? From the sound of your post, I'd say no. Most of the gripes you had about iPhoto are just plain wrong. Can't open a photo in Photoshop? Ummm, yes you can. Don't be a dolt. Just because your new here doesn't give you an excuse to be stupid... Learn the facts first. Carry on.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, of course I have used both of these programs extensively, or I wouldn't comment on them. Of course I don't use iPhoto very much, because it's a pain in the arm. In Canon Image Browser, the program I prefer, I can click a picture, select multiple ones, and rotate them all as a batch. I can open them all into photoshop as a batch without having to open a separate program. It also recognizes movies, which iPhoto should but doesn't do. Also Canon Image Browser doesn't rename all of my photos from their original name on the camera. It lets me open pictures directly into photoshop by control-clicking and saying, "open in photoshop." Does iPhoto do that? If you actually read my original post you will see that is what I was referring to.
I get the distinct impression that Apple's design engineers are not thinking about how to make their software versatile so that it can be integrated into other workflows. This is a difficult concept to express, but look at iMovie for instance, and see how it has some cool features, like iPhoto, but fundamentally, when it comes to the way these programs manage their files, it's very un-Mac-like, because they store their documents hidden away in their own folders instead of prompting the user to save the file under whatever name and location they choose. It's as if Apple no longer deems its users intelligent enough to organize their own documents, as if this were a complicated process.
This is further compounded by the presence in OS X of a "Documents" folder, a "Pictures" folder, a "Music" folder, etc. Which is funny because not even their own software completely follows the way they try to make you use your computer; for instance, iTunes doesn't keep its folder inside the Music folder by default. It's just silly.
One solution I've found is just to make an alias to the "Documents" folder and put it at the root of the hard drive, so now all my OS 9 applications and OS X applications both look in the same place for their respective folders (Eudora, Quicken, and Palm being good examples of programs that would otherwise be confused when launched in OS 9 instead of OS X).
Well I may have spoken too soon... they just announced iPhoto 1.1 that fixes several of the problems I had with it.
Nuff said.
I'm sure Jaguar is going to rock, but still, I think it's valid to question the direction they are taking the user interface. I'm not yearning for OS 9; I want OS X, but I want it to be made intelligently, for it to run fast, for the interface to be more customizable, etc. But more, I think one of the things about a graphical user interface is the underlying design philosophy that it represents, and the user experience that it tries to help.
People should not take criticisms of the new philosophy behind OS X's interface so personally; it is a valid discussion. Like I said, I'm highly critical of the way that OS X's GUI departs, not from the look and feel of the Mac, but from the quality and responsiveness, from the efficiency with regards to screen real estate. And I don't see any progression in that direction for iBook users, iMac users, G3 and earlier G4 users, or perhaps even myself with my almost new PowerBook 550, in Jaguar, which is really sad. Someone has said, "Don't worry; it will be faster for those machines too." But will it? Is there 2D hardware accelaration other than Extreme Quartz? There should be. But is there?
And I know, many of you already know all of these complaints, and have somehow reconciled them within yourself. Some of you are already selling your "old" PowerBooks and buying new ones, just a few months after you bought it. Maybe I'll end up doing the same thing - I'm sure Steve would like that. And you're thinking, "What's this guy's problem? Get over it. Deal." Hey, I'm not upset. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
I'm sure Jaguar is going to rock, but still, I think it's valid to question the direction they are taking the user interface. I'm not yearning for OS 9; I want OS X, but I want it to be made intelligently, for it to run fast, for the interface to be more customizable, etc. But more, I think one of the things about a graphical user interface is the underlying design philosophy that it represents, and the user experience that it tries to help.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Make it work, then make it fast.
QuickDraw wasn't hardware accelerated for the first two years of its existence. If you disable the video driver for your OS 9 machine, you'll find that, unaccelerated, it's a whole lot slower than Quartz is.
[quote]<strong>People should not take criticisms of the new philosophy behind OS X's interface so personally; it is a valid discussion.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course it is.
What I am objecting to, primarily, is the hijacking of every thread about any aspect of OS X to rattled off exactly the same set of complaints, often verbatim, that some people have been voicing since Aqua first appeared - often peppered with a great deal of inflammatory and content-free rhetoric. This thread is about what's coming in Jaguar. If you want to start a thread about improvements to the OS X UI, go for it.
[quote]<strong>Like I said, I'm highly critical of the way that OS X's GUI departs, not from the look and feel of the Mac, but from the quality and responsiveness, from the efficiency with regards to screen real estate.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There might actually be some loss in screen real estate when you go from an interface designed for 640x480 to one designed for 1024x768. The question is, is there something to be gained from that? People complain about the new books with large fonts and wide margins, and trumpet the old "value for money!" design of older books that had tiny fonts jammed up to the edges of the pages; but the latter are especially hard on your eyes, while the former are not.
[quote]<strong>Someone has said, "Don't worry; it will be faster for those machines too." But will it? Is there 2D hardware accelaration other than Extreme Quartz? There should be. But is there?</strong><hr></blockquote>
1) There already is some hardware acceleration. Try dragging a window around the screen. 2) There are lots of ways to make OS X faster without touching Quartz. Finder's sluggishness has nothing to do with Quartz, for instance.
I'm confident that Jaguar will be substantively faster than 10.1 on hardware that can't use Quartz Extreme. People who know have said that there's room for another healthy speed boost.
In my opinion, the Dock is really a bad concept. It can be usefull for some things (gadgets, control devices, temporary items, etc), but it's a real pain in the ass to put there all my important, permanent, applications and folders, and to put AT THE SAME PLACE the temporarily collapsed windows (the divider doesn't help that much).
The point is , there is too much stuff in the Dock. The old Apple menu goes there, the application menu goes there, and all the rest goes to the Dock too ! This is insane ! I'm losing time just to recognise the application icon to which I want to switch. It's confusing. The Dock is really becoming a Duck !
The Dock could be usefull if you manage only few things. But for the professionnal with a lot of files, folders and apps, it's a stupid concept. That's why I want the old Apple menu and applications menu BACK ! I'm forced to use some sharewares because of this, and it's unacceptable from Apple.
I'm sorry to say the Macintosh is becoming a kind of PC machine, with OS X.
What saddens me is that once again Apple is selling us a product that won't be available for five months. That's fine for developers and investors, but a crappy way to treat customers.
<strong>What saddens me is that once again Apple is selling us a product that won't be available for five months. That's fine for developers and investors, but a crappy way to treat customers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
"So far all iApps by Apple I have dealt with are less than half decent and would slip through as freeware made by lazy and bored programmers with no interest in anything that makes a good program a good program, this is sad."
That's your opinion. Given the great press they've received I'd guess you're in a minority.
Me? I like them of course.
"As long as these things are "free" and I can happily delete the bulk of them, they are not too bad. But a.) we all are paying for this by paying for the OS and b.) it seems that Apple integrates support for this into the OS, which both doesn't invoke happy feelings. It feels and tastes too much like MS if you ask me."
Sure. I guess I didn't see that take coming. (Doc'...get me some therapy over here...)
"If you feel that those iApps do a good job for you I suggest comparing things to other programs,"
Well, I have...and er...many of the 'free' programs you get in 'x86' land suck, hard to use pedantic windows logic and come 'free' with a grey (Ugly TM) interface.
"if you still are happy with them, well, I'd say I won't disturb you."
Well, don't. Stay in your OS9 coffin. It's gonna be a deep sleep...
Yeesh.
Apple do a sterling preview...a raft of nice features with Jaguar and some people are still screaming like gonads slammed door on.
"In my opinion, the Dock is really a bad concept."
Sure it is.
I think the dock is more direct and has more potential than any interface device in OS 9.
It get's better when you compare it to the 8 bit grey lego brick ('taskbar') in winblows. It also responds under duress.
I see plenty more potential to expand the use of the dock. I use it all the time. Barely use the harddrive icon any more. It's one big, orgasmic and heavenly springloaded folder...
I hear a lot of people complaining that labels have not been introduced as one of Jaguar's new features. A while back Apple hired the guy who created BFS. I think that Apple didn't include labels in Jaguar because they are working on something better. It doesn't look like a new file system will be implemented for Jaguar, but I think we will see a new FS in the next major release of OS X after Jaguar. I think that the new FS will include superior metadata handling and will blow labels out of the water.
If this is the case, then it makes sense for Apple not to bring labels in Jaguar as a hacked on feature, but to wait for the new FS and full metadata support.
Apple's listening to your concerns and tackling the issues one at a time. The question is not 'if' labels will be included, but 'when' will labels be included. Mac OS 8.1 brought us HFS+, so I wonder if Apple would be bold enough to introduce a new filesystem between Jaguar and the next major release after that.
Nice to have a seasoned response. At least one person gets it.
I'm really enjoying the development of Ten.
We're in on something 'new' from the ground up.
A solid base to add some great features.
I thought the WWDC had a stunning feature packed keynote. And Apple are just getting started on this OS.
What gnarks me is the whinging about things that probably will come eg speed eventually (although now? I find it quite responsive...) and 'name feature of your choice'.
I like the ichat. Apple gets in bed with AOL. Nice one. A good strategic alliance that gives Apple access to a hundred million 'buddies'. Good business sense.
Like the gum-drop speech bubbles and drag and drop from iphoto onto a buddy piccy to send them a pic. Nice feature. All animated nicely in the Apple way.
I love the Quartz Extreme (despite the technical cloud that hangs over the ibook my wife and I use...) acceleration. Can't wait until I get my G5 (where Quartz Extreme will probably be redundant anyhow...but...) I wonder what the grass roots developers and major players will do with this 'power'? I've got some weird interface requests...but 'aqua' is already vexing the 'grey enlightened' souls on some of these topic threads so I'll stay quiet for now...
I like the new 'search' from anywhere. Finder far and wide and omni-present sherlock 3...which is the muchly superb Watson, right? Only a matter of time.
Does Windows have a Watson in XP?
Still, who cares? Ten has (soon) and it's my OS of choice.
I was initially unsure of the metal interface elements...but they grew on me quick. I like this for the many 'mini apps'...and special features. It's a nice contrast with Aqua.
The 'aware' industry proposed standard. Interesting concept. Can't think of anybody who'd want to share my 'daddy's music collection'. Eagles anyone?
Inkwell. Well, it was developed already?
I like it. Superb integration with Photoshop et al. I was amazed by it. Cool. Saw the Cnet streaming video demo of it. Amazed was I.
Quicktime 6. This looks to be a biggy. Hmmm. Hope Apple can resolve the licensing issue with those guys.
And then...there's the romantic woo-ing of the enterprise market...
Maybe Jaguar is beginning to realise some of the 'X' promise.
If Apple can get some of those big business customers that Compaq rely on for profital quarters...then real growth maybe just around the corner.
Looking back at the MAC market over the last five years...makes me think that we're beginning to see things that just weren't possible on OS9.
People are beginning to take the Mac market seriously again and we're seeing people coming back or giving the Mac market the long hard look. From Unix to Java to Windows developers.
And enterprise?
It, for me, is exciting to see all the Jaguar features and I'll be one of the first to buy it whether it cost £50 or £95!
Where were we five years ago? Near bankruptcy?
I think if you'd have offered Apple and Apple users like me Apple's position today? We'd take it. Trade it for any minor gripes about a new OS Ten which is still receiving it's polish and comming up all shiny metal!
Comments
<strong>
Not to mention that now, my Word document scrolls a million times slower. Hopefully Xtreeeeeem Quartz will fix this problem. But you shouldn't need a 32 MB Radeon JUST TO GET SOME FRICKING HARDWARE 2D ACCELARATION FOR THE GUI!!! COME ON APPLE!!
Their argument is that, "Duh, well, you shouldn't complain that what we're doing is way advanced and your hardware just can't run it. Your computer can still do exactly what it could do the day you bought it." Yeah but the day I bought it, OS X sucked then too! So when are you gonna finally own up to the fact that your CHEESY-ARSE interface is the problem, not the fact that my hardware (a 550 G4) is too slow to run it??</strong><hr></blockquote>
Did anyone ever tell you to shut up? I will! stfu!
> > >
a. being rendered as PDFs essentially so look in an Acrobat file in OS 9 and tell me the OS 9 ones look better. This isn't Postscript, it's PDF because PDF is an open standard that ties web/screen and print together whereas Postscript is a print-oriented model.
< < <
PDF is Postscript. Hello... it's basically the same thing. Why do you think Acrobat doesn't work if you don't have ATM installed? Quartz is essentially NeXTSTEP's old Display Postscript model.
> > >
b. Some fonts were designed for the OS 9 display model, such as Geneva. Geneva is Apple's original rip-off of Helvetica debcause Helvetica would cost them money and didn't read as clearly under the old text rendering model of the original Mac. The point is that fonts are WYSIWYG so let go of using Geneva and its ilk. It's pointless to use now. Use real fonts.
< < <
I don't care what you say -- there is NO EXCUSE for the only alternative to anti-aliasing being, looking at fonts that run together and look like garbage. The concept of "WYSIWYG" is completely irrelevant to this discussion; we're talking about screen display fonts here for use in displaying lists of items in my newsreader, MT-NewsWatcher 3.2 for instance, or for display in the "Toolbar Favorites" section of the Explorer browser window. Right now, if you are using Explorer, go and turn off antialiasing and load up explorer. Look at your toolbar favoirtes. In mine, there is "Google." Except the "l" and the "e" are literally touching each other. This is bad rendering. It should not happen. There is no argument to be had here; there is no possible way you can convince me that Apple is right to have an inferior font rendering model "just because it is OS X." You can't blame it on Microsoft, either; the same thing happens if you open Apple's own Preferences panel and look at the ugliness of the non-antialiased text in the favorites bar.
We should not sit by casually as Apple begins to sell us flawed technology without voicing our opinions about it, or else it won't ever get fixed. That's how customer service works. Customers beotch about stuff, then the company fixes it.
> > >
c. Office X's font rendering sucks -- it's not even using Quartz ATSUI rendering, it's still using QuickDraw. So you have Quickdraw being rendered to a system that composites everythingin Quartz. Yes, looks crappy, and a lot of Carbon ports do this because they didn't take the time or care to render using the new font rendering model.
< < <
Well, I hope you're right on this one.
> > >
But frankly, I think this isn't really your gripe. I think you have much bigger issues.
< < <
Yes the fonts thing is a very small issue. The biggest issue is having been using Macs since I was seven years old, for the past 18 years, and now seeing that Apple is making some really stupid design decisions. Why do you automatically accept what many of the designers of the original Mac, and many experts of interface design, recognize to be a vastly inferior user experience regarding the GUI? Why protect it? It sucks! Lets make it better!
I applaud apple for being daring enough to try something new. But this is a bit like Jar-Jar Binks. Lets hope that Steve Jobs realizes his error and, like Lucas, cans Jar-Jar and comes out with a version of OS X that has less stupid frills and runs faster on the current hardware. I don't want to hear arguments how on the one hand, we should all switch to OS X now, but on the other hand, we should shut up and not complain if it runs like arse on our computers, when we know good and well that if they weren't wasting so many processor cycles on useless eye candy, it would actually be FASTER than the old system!
<strong>
Did anyone ever tell you to shut up? I will! stfu!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Heh, no you're the first actually!
Could we please talk about Jaguar, instead of resurrecting the "OS X sucks 'cuz it's not OS 9" rant for the 10,000,000th time?
Thanks.
[ 05-08-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
What's this I hear about Exchange support? Calendar, Contacts, Global Address list support? This would make my day.
<strong>not to get too off topic, but philter, have you even USED iPhoto or iTunes? From the sound of your post, I'd say no. Most of the gripes you had about iPhoto are just plain wrong. Can't open a photo in Photoshop? Ummm, yes you can. Don't be a dolt. Just because your new here doesn't give you an excuse to be stupid... Learn the facts first. Carry on.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, of course I have used both of these programs extensively, or I wouldn't comment on them. Of course I don't use iPhoto very much, because it's a pain in the arm. In Canon Image Browser, the program I prefer, I can click a picture, select multiple ones, and rotate them all as a batch. I can open them all into photoshop as a batch without having to open a separate program. It also recognizes movies, which iPhoto should but doesn't do. Also Canon Image Browser doesn't rename all of my photos from their original name on the camera. It lets me open pictures directly into photoshop by control-clicking and saying, "open in photoshop." Does iPhoto do that? If you actually read my original post you will see that is what I was referring to.
I get the distinct impression that Apple's design engineers are not thinking about how to make their software versatile so that it can be integrated into other workflows. This is a difficult concept to express, but look at iMovie for instance, and see how it has some cool features, like iPhoto, but fundamentally, when it comes to the way these programs manage their files, it's very un-Mac-like, because they store their documents hidden away in their own folders instead of prompting the user to save the file under whatever name and location they choose. It's as if Apple no longer deems its users intelligent enough to organize their own documents, as if this were a complicated process.
This is further compounded by the presence in OS X of a "Documents" folder, a "Pictures" folder, a "Music" folder, etc. Which is funny because not even their own software completely follows the way they try to make you use your computer; for instance, iTunes doesn't keep its folder inside the Music folder by default. It's just silly.
One solution I've found is just to make an alias to the "Documents" folder and put it at the root of the hard drive, so now all my OS 9 applications and OS X applications both look in the same place for their respective folders (Eudora, Quicken, and Palm being good examples of programs that would otherwise be confused when launched in OS 9 instead of OS X).
Nuff said.
I'm sure Jaguar is going to rock, but still, I think it's valid to question the direction they are taking the user interface. I'm not yearning for OS 9; I want OS X, but I want it to be made intelligently, for it to run fast, for the interface to be more customizable, etc. But more, I think one of the things about a graphical user interface is the underlying design philosophy that it represents, and the user experience that it tries to help.
People should not take criticisms of the new philosophy behind OS X's interface so personally; it is a valid discussion. Like I said, I'm highly critical of the way that OS X's GUI departs, not from the look and feel of the Mac, but from the quality and responsiveness, from the efficiency with regards to screen real estate. And I don't see any progression in that direction for iBook users, iMac users, G3 and earlier G4 users, or perhaps even myself with my almost new PowerBook 550, in Jaguar, which is really sad. Someone has said, "Don't worry; it will be faster for those machines too." But will it? Is there 2D hardware accelaration other than Extreme Quartz? There should be. But is there?
And I know, many of you already know all of these complaints, and have somehow reconciled them within yourself. Some of you are already selling your "old" PowerBooks and buying new ones, just a few months after you bought it. Maybe I'll end up doing the same thing - I'm sure Steve would like that. And you're thinking, "What's this guy's problem? Get over it. Deal." Hey, I'm not upset. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
<strong>
I'm sure Jaguar is going to rock, but still, I think it's valid to question the direction they are taking the user interface. I'm not yearning for OS 9; I want OS X, but I want it to be made intelligently, for it to run fast, for the interface to be more customizable, etc. But more, I think one of the things about a graphical user interface is the underlying design philosophy that it represents, and the user experience that it tries to help.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Make it work, then make it fast.
QuickDraw wasn't hardware accelerated for the first two years of its existence. If you disable the video driver for your OS 9 machine, you'll find that, unaccelerated, it's a whole lot slower than Quartz is.
[quote]<strong>People should not take criticisms of the new philosophy behind OS X's interface so personally; it is a valid discussion.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course it is.
What I am objecting to, primarily, is the hijacking of every thread about any aspect of OS X to rattled off exactly the same set of complaints, often verbatim, that some people have been voicing since Aqua first appeared - often peppered with a great deal of inflammatory and content-free rhetoric. This thread is about what's coming in Jaguar. If you want to start a thread about improvements to the OS X UI, go for it.
[quote]<strong>Like I said, I'm highly critical of the way that OS X's GUI departs, not from the look and feel of the Mac, but from the quality and responsiveness, from the efficiency with regards to screen real estate.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There might actually be some loss in screen real estate when you go from an interface designed for 640x480 to one designed for 1024x768. The question is, is there something to be gained from that? People complain about the new books with large fonts and wide margins, and trumpet the old "value for money!" design of older books that had tiny fonts jammed up to the edges of the pages; but the latter are especially hard on your eyes, while the former are not.
[quote]<strong>Someone has said, "Don't worry; it will be faster for those machines too." But will it? Is there 2D hardware accelaration other than Extreme Quartz? There should be. But is there?</strong><hr></blockquote>
1) There already is some hardware acceleration. Try dragging a window around the screen. 2) There are lots of ways to make OS X faster without touching Quartz. Finder's sluggishness has nothing to do with Quartz, for instance.
I'm confident that Jaguar will be substantively faster than 10.1 on hardware that can't use Quartz Extreme. People who know have said that there's room for another healthy speed boost.
[ 05-08-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]
[ 05-08-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
In my opinion, the Dock is really a bad concept. It can be usefull for some things (gadgets, control devices, temporary items, etc), but it's a real pain in the ass to put there all my important, permanent, applications and folders, and to put AT THE SAME PLACE the temporarily collapsed windows (the divider doesn't help that much).
The point is , there is too much stuff in the Dock. The old Apple menu goes there, the application menu goes there, and all the rest goes to the Dock too ! This is insane ! I'm losing time just to recognise the application icon to which I want to switch. It's confusing. The Dock is really becoming a Duck !
The Dock could be usefull if you manage only few things. But for the professionnal with a lot of files, folders and apps, it's a stupid concept. That's why I want the old Apple menu and applications menu BACK ! I'm forced to use some sharewares because of this, and it's unacceptable from Apple.
I'm sorry to say the Macintosh is becoming a kind of PC machine, with OS X.
[ 05-08-2002: Message edited by: JLL ]</p>
<strong>What saddens me is that once again Apple is selling us a product that won't be available for five months. That's fine for developers and investors, but a crappy way to treat customers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What product? Jaguar isn't selling.
That's your opinion. Given the great press they've received I'd guess you're in a minority.
Me? I like them of course.
"As long as these things are "free" and I can happily delete the bulk of them, they are not too bad. But a.) we all are paying for this by paying for the OS and b.) it seems that Apple integrates support for this into the OS, which both doesn't invoke happy feelings. It feels and tastes too much like MS if you ask me."
Sure. I guess I didn't see that take coming. (Doc'...get me some therapy over here...)
"If you feel that those iApps do a good job for you I suggest comparing things to other programs,"
Well, I have...and er...many of the 'free' programs you get in 'x86' land suck, hard to use pedantic windows logic and come 'free' with a grey (Ugly TM) interface.
"if you still are happy with them, well, I'd say I won't disturb you."
Well, don't. Stay in your OS9 coffin. It's gonna be a deep sleep...
Yeesh.
Apple do a sterling preview...a raft of nice features with Jaguar and some people are still screaming like gonads slammed door on.
Some people are pathalogical whingers.
(Did I spell that right...?)
Lemon Bon Bon
Sure it is.
I think the dock is more direct and has more potential than any interface device in OS 9.
It get's better when you compare it to the 8 bit grey lego brick ('taskbar') in winblows. It also responds under duress.
I see plenty more potential to expand the use of the dock. I use it all the time. Barely use the harddrive icon any more. It's one big, orgasmic and heavenly springloaded folder...
Lemon Bon Bon
Yeah. A superior one at that. It's giving XP a scrapy knees and elbows drag across a gravelly car park...
Lemon Bon Bon
If this is the case, then it makes sense for Apple not to bring labels in Jaguar as a hacked on feature, but to wait for the new FS and full metadata support.
Apple's listening to your concerns and tackling the issues one at a time. The question is not 'if' labels will be included, but 'when' will labels be included. Mac OS 8.1 brought us HFS+, so I wonder if Apple would be bold enough to introduce a new filesystem between Jaguar and the next major release after that.
I think Apple are doing. I barely use OS 9.
X is a more fluid experience for me. iBook 600 mhz and 384 megs of ram.
"I applaud apple for being daring enough to try something new."
Me too.
" But this is a bit like Jar-Jar Binks."
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? Just in what way is an OS like Jar-Jar?
"Lets hope that Steve Jobs realizes his error"
You'll be waiting a while. Don't hold your breath. In the meantime. People will move on with OS X.
"and, like Lucas, cans Jar-Jar and comes out with a version of OS X that has less stupid frills and runs faster on the current hardware."
It probably will run faster on current hardware. Each update has got faster.
10.2 will probably be noticeably faster without Quartz extreme.
"I don't want to hear arguments how on the one hand, we should all switch to OS X now,"
Fine. Stamp your feet like a child. You'll soon be one of a minority still playing in the OS 9 playground...
"... but on the other hand, we should shut up and not complain if it runs like arse on our computers,"
What you running it on? An Apple II?
"...when we know good and well that if they weren't wasting so many processor cycles on useless eye candy,"
What? The dock? Most of the time, app's are using 'eye candy' genie effects? What are you referring to? Eg?
"...it would actually be FASTER than the old system!"
It eventually will be as they tweak the code and add Quartz Extreme etc.
Sure, Apple are deliberating making code run slow to alienate its existing userbase....
Guess you don't wanna see the big picture.
Well, I like it. And so do nearly five million others by the end of the year and counting ?
Lemon Bon Bon
Still chuckling...
Lemon Bon Bon
Tee-hee...
Nice to have a seasoned response. At least one person gets it.
I'm really enjoying the development of Ten.
We're in on something 'new' from the ground up.
A solid base to add some great features.
I thought the WWDC had a stunning feature packed keynote. And Apple are just getting started on this OS.
What gnarks me is the whinging about things that probably will come eg speed eventually (although now? I find it quite responsive...) and 'name feature of your choice'.
I like the ichat. Apple gets in bed with AOL. Nice one. A good strategic alliance that gives Apple access to a hundred million 'buddies'. Good business sense.
Like the gum-drop speech bubbles and drag and drop from iphoto onto a buddy piccy to send them a pic. Nice feature. All animated nicely in the Apple way.
I love the Quartz Extreme (despite the technical cloud that hangs over the ibook my wife and I use...) acceleration. Can't wait until I get my G5 (where Quartz Extreme will probably be redundant anyhow...but...) I wonder what the grass roots developers and major players will do with this 'power'? I've got some weird interface requests...but 'aqua' is already vexing the 'grey enlightened' souls on some of these topic threads so I'll stay quiet for now...
I like the new 'search' from anywhere. Finder far and wide and omni-present sherlock 3...which is the muchly superb Watson, right? Only a matter of time.
Does Windows have a Watson in XP?
Still, who cares? Ten has (soon) and it's my OS of choice.
I was initially unsure of the metal interface elements...but they grew on me quick. I like this for the many 'mini apps'...and special features. It's a nice contrast with Aqua.
The 'aware' industry proposed standard. Interesting concept. Can't think of anybody who'd want to share my 'daddy's music collection'. Eagles anyone?
Inkwell. Well, it was developed already?
I like it. Superb integration with Photoshop et al. I was amazed by it. Cool. Saw the Cnet streaming video demo of it. Amazed was I.
Quicktime 6. This looks to be a biggy. Hmmm. Hope Apple can resolve the licensing issue with those guys.
And then...there's the romantic woo-ing of the enterprise market...
Maybe Jaguar is beginning to realise some of the 'X' promise.
If Apple can get some of those big business customers that Compaq rely on for profital quarters...then real growth maybe just around the corner.
Looking back at the MAC market over the last five years...makes me think that we're beginning to see things that just weren't possible on OS9.
People are beginning to take the Mac market seriously again and we're seeing people coming back or giving the Mac market the long hard look. From Unix to Java to Windows developers.
And enterprise?
It, for me, is exciting to see all the Jaguar features and I'll be one of the first to buy it whether it cost £50 or £95!
Where were we five years ago? Near bankruptcy?
I think if you'd have offered Apple and Apple users like me Apple's position today? We'd take it. Trade it for any minor gripes about a new OS Ten which is still receiving it's polish and comming up all shiny metal!
Lemon Bon Bon
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />