What I miss the most... the contextual menus Sure, OS X has some, but where did the rest go? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
[quote]I sometimes feel like I"m the only person that ever used them. But...
Labels<hr></blockquote>
1- Labels.
I agree with you : I am fed up with copy & paste of color customized folders.
2- Print center refining
Why this f*ing "configure printer" option in Print Center is still greyed out (I need my HP 2100 third paper tray recognized : it works under 9 with the same .pdd and HP had new driver out last month) ?
3- Dock refining
I would like more options for the dock to avoid cluters : maybe a similar behaviour than old launcher (ability to swith between Graphic apps, Office apps etc.)
Separators would be fine also (even if you can create ones with a false .app folder).
I despise using third party apps even if Dragthing is helping for now : it sort of add a second dock which doesn't do much to avoid screen clutering.
4- Aqua colors should be user choosable
Why not be able to choose hue saturation etc instead of having the usual blue/graphite
5- Application folder a little more organized
mine is a mess thanks to Mac OS X own apps.
- apple can have more organized folders inside Application like "iApps" "Network" "Office" etc whatever
- or we should be able to organize this App folder like we want without losing the benefits of automatic Software Update
6- Ability to decide that a disk or folder is considered public.
- or having the Sharepoints shareware features enabled by default in Mac OS X (like the old time OS 9 Groups & Users).
7- As for third parties apps (Office, Adobe etc.) : ability to minimize palettes in dock (remember this Golive 3 very practical feature : palettes minimized and docked to the side of the screen )
Those above are mainly GUI features/tweeks but should allow the work to be done faster or/and have OS X to be on par with OS 9 smoothness.
I think 10.2 will take care of my other grudges (except for proper metadata handling, maybe).
Oh, and is it possible for Formac to have OS X compatible with his older USB CD-Burners (I think no formac burners have ever been listed as Disc Burner able)
<snip> like iTunes supports many CD burners.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Really? Since when?
I have 3 CD burners (2 CDR's, 1 CDRW) and none of them are supported by iTunes, and only the CDRW is supported by Disk Burner under OSX.
So I guess my main gripe with OSX is lack of drivers.
Other issues are:
Lack of user interface customization, I know they call it aqua, but does everything have to be blue? Yes, I now you can make it grey, but why not any other color?
Multiple virtual desktops would be cool.
Other people have mentioned Labels, and while I did use them occasionally pre OSX, I think it underscores a need for additional ways to classify files in the filesystem. So rather than just adding labels back (hey, we've had labels for over 10 years) why not think bigger and make a major advancement by creating a user extensible filesystem, where users could define and add their own attributes to the filesystem.
As an example: Lets say I'm a government entity, wouldn't it be cool if I could define an attribute called 'Classification' where the acceptable values would be one of (Unclassified, Confidential, Secret, Top Secret). This would help many tasks, such as in doing automatic audits to check that no Top Secret data is on a computer thats only supposed to have Secret data. etc.
Thats just one example, as you could define your own attributes, the possibilities are endless.
[quote]The controversial Aqua has not seen any cosmetic changes since its intro, where as just about every other part of OS X has.<hr></blockquote>
That's not totally true. In DP3, the dock was composed of tiles and buttons were bigger than they are now. In Public Beta, Apple made the stripes in tabbed views brighter. In 10.1, they removed shadows under text in the menu bar and under buttons to make the interface more readable. In 10.2, the dock currently has no stripes and sheets are more opaque.
<strong>the most glaring omission imho is the lack of a journaling fs, and proper meta-data. The rest will come with Jaguar.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why is a journaling fs glaring? Linux is the only OS I know that is really using it, and even there it's optional. Do you really need to back out that many changes? Hell most Unix' are still using UFS, which I think should be the default in OS X. :cool:
And meta-data is dead and should be, it's not compatable with other OS', and should not be used. The biggest thing about OS X is it's connectivity, and meta-deta doesn't work there.
<strong>In 10.1, they removed shadows under text in the menu bar and under buttons to make the interface more readable.</strong><hr></blockquote>I don't think so.
When you have multiple windows open in a perticular app and you want to go to the one you want simply do this....go to the program you want in the dock, click and hold the mouse over the icon in the dock, a pull-down menu will appear with all of the windows you have open in that particular application, simply highlight the one you want up front and release the mouse...voila, very nice dock feature.
I don't have Mac OS X, so I'm mostly doing this from memory. Shadows under menu text other than the application title are still there, but they're a lot more subtle than in 10.0. Something that I can add is that in DP4, some apps had shadows in tab titles. Now I believe they have been removed.
[quote] If I melted Dry Ice, could I swim and not get wet? <hr></blockquote>
No, but you could breath and not get oxygen.
Oh right, the thread... People keep saying that Jaguar is going to solve speed problems in X, but I see no reason to think this at all. The only speed related improvement mentioned for Jaguar is Quartz extreme, which requires such steep graphics card specs as to rule out virtually all existing Apple hardware.
If you've got an iBook, a PowerBook prior to 800MHz, a PowerMac with less than a Geeforce 3, or an iMac (possibly even including the flat-screen ones), you can forget it. I think Luca's brother, with his Rev. B bondi machine is going to be very dissapointed.
And none of this is going to make Quake 3 run any faster on my PB G3 is it? The fact is that under OS 9 most of my games ran with maxed out settings and under OS X they run ok with minimum settings, and the same goes for other Apps like Virtual PC.
<strong>The only speed related improvement mentioned for Jaguar is Quartz extreme, which requires such steep graphics card specs as to rule out virtually all existing Apple hardware.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You forgot the new and much improved gcc 3.1 compiler. Just with a simple recompile, some apps can increase performance by 5-20%. Many people on this board have compared old builds to builds with the new gcc and there is definitely a speed boost. I believe Eugene did some comparisons with a LAME MP3 encoder. [quote]<strong>And none of this is going to make Quake 3 run any faster on my PB G3 is it?</strong><hr></blockquote>Actually, yeah, it might. People tend to forget that Quartz Extreme isn't the only improvement Jaguar will bring us.
If Jaguar is a paid upgrade, my brother probably won't get it. Unless someone else in my family gets it and he uses the upgrade also (which isn't uncommon). If Apple introduces that Glove registration thing with Jaguar, he could do that legally.
But do you think that Quartz Extreme would only speed up computers that meet the requirements, and slow down others? Or will other computers just not see any change? If it does slow it down, could you possibly "disable" QE so that the older setup was used in conjunction with Jaguar's other benefits?
[quote]But do you think that Quartz Extreme would only speed up computers that meet the requirements, and slow down others? Or will other computers just not see any change?<hr></blockquote>
From what I've heard, QE doesn't slow incompatible systems down.
One thing I'd really like to see is full support for my beige G3s A/V card. It still does stereo minijack, but that sounds pretty sad compared to the RCA connectors, and I haven't seen anything that would even kind of work with the video connections. I now have to use a converter to plug my computer into my amplifier, and I've noticed that it doesn't sound as good, especially louder sounds.
This is rather disappointing, because one of my favorite things about my computer was its ability to plug in to virtually anything (it also has a Firewire/USB card, making it compatible with almost anything you can find). I suppose it still can do everything in 9, but I spend the vast majority of my time in X, and would like it to work there, too. In fact, it used to work in the earlier versions. It was doing fine in 10.0.3 and 10.0.4. I think 10.1 broke it. Any ideas as to why this would be? Anybody else having this problem/not having it?
Why is a journaling fs glaring? Linux is the only OS I know that is really using it, and even there it's optional. Do you really need to back out that many changes? Hell most Unix' are still using UFS, which I think should be the default in OS X. :cool:
And meta-data is dead and should be, it's not compatable with other OS', and should not be used. The biggest thing about OS X is it's connectivity, and meta-deta doesn't work there.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Journaling filesystems are a must for any modern OS. Windows NTFS, available on NT since forever, is a journaling filesystem and a good one at that. NTFS is fast and quite durable through power outages, hardware crashes, etc. In Linux Ext3, JFS, XFS, ReiserFS are all journaling filesystems.
The main benefits:
- better data integrity
- journaling filesystems are generally faster
- no scandisk after a crash
- large filesize limits - Ext3 limit is 2TB IIRC, XFS is 16TB
- far better suited to high transaction load placed on a filesystem by heavy duty file serving, databases, IMAP servers, etc.
Generally speaking there is no downside. ReiserFS has had some beta issues but XFS has been industrial strength for years and Ext3 has proven to be solid and fast.
[quote]And meta-data is dead and should be, it's not compatable with other OS', and should not be used. The biggest thing about OS X is it's connectivity, and meta-deta doesn't work there.<hr></blockquote>
By extension, Mac programs are not compatible with other OSes and should not be used, right? The biggest thing about OS X is its focus on the user, not how faithfully it emulates Microsoft's idiotic policies.
Re: journaling: I think that journaling systems would be slightly slower than otherwise identical non-journaling systems, since you have the journaling and the actual commission of changes. Also, as far as I know, journaling has nothing to do with filesize limits.
we should be able to turn stuff off. TinkerTool should NOT be a required piece sofware, neither should anything from Unsanity. Why are "tricks" like Window Compression hidden from us!? Are we too stupid to understand how to use them?
And a JFS is a must! I will not trust Norton or any other utility on to my X drive to defrag. TTP and Norton seem to just cause more problems. **** them. The fine folks from Alsoft should add defragging into DiskWarrior, but really, why isn't there a defrag utility included with OS X? Windows has one?
The Dock still needs MAJOR work, though it's awesome, just not up to Mac standards.
And my PET PEEVE!
WHY oh WHY is the MacOS X "Desktop" in our Library not a link to the MacOS 9 Desktop Folder? When I finally decided to sync the desktops, it was SUCH a relief! Anyone here who hasn't tried this, just try it! It's great!
That should at least be an option in Prefs. Options, yes, that would be nice...
When you have multiple windows open in a perticular app and you want to go to the one you want simply do this....go to the program you want in the dock, click and hold the mouse over the icon in the dock, a pull-down menu will appear with all of the windows you have open in that particular application, simply highlight the one you want up front and release the mouse...voila, very nice dock feature. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I've always known about this feature, but I've never really used it. I guess I'm just not a fan of having to click twice to access a window, I could probably get to it faster by just switching to the app and clicking on it. I guess I also don't like waiting the .5+ seconds it takes for my 233 G3 to render the popup menu
But now that I think of it, I have thought of two ways Apple could improve window management. They could make it so the Dock popup menus appear when you just mouseover an icon, or have another Dock anchored on another edge of the screen that lists all your open windows.
WHY oh WHY is the MacOS X "Desktop" in our Library not a link to the MacOS 9 Desktop Folder? When I finally decided to sync the desktops, it was SUCH a relief! Anyone here who hasn't tried this, just try it! It's great!</strong><hr></blockquote>Duh... that's a Very Bad Idea? for anyone on a multiuser system, as Mac OS X is meant to be. Each user needs his or her own desktop. Thus, each one gets their own desktop located in the home directory.It would be awful for Apple to link these to a single, common directory because each user could mangle with the other users files.
Regarding journaling, don't forget that Be's main filesystem designer Dominic Giampaolo was hired by Apple back in April and "joined Apple as a file system engineer." Be had a journaling FS and had excellent metadata support. It takes t-i-m-e to build a FS, especially if they want any backwards compatibility (like being able to use files with resource forks and properly interacting with carbon apps) so I don't expect to see a new FS by 10.2. Maybe with 10.5 or 11.0, but not any time soon.
Virtualy NO Audio/midi apps out yet, NO VST or native OS X audio plugins, no soft synthes/samplers yet and NO pro tools yet. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
This is a joke ! the Mac is the platform of choice in 80% of the world's pro studios but no Apps exist for the platform's Main OS which has been out for over two years now (remember DP4 ?).... and we have had soooo many promises about the OS's marvelous builtin Audio and midi capabilities .. I'd say it's about f****** time !
Comments
Labels<hr></blockquote>
1- Labels.
I agree with you : I am fed up with copy & paste of color customized folders.
2- Print center refining
Why this f*ing "configure printer" option in Print Center is still greyed out (I need my HP 2100 third paper tray recognized : it works under 9 with the same .pdd and HP had new driver out last month) ?
3- Dock refining
I would like more options for the dock to avoid cluters : maybe a similar behaviour than old launcher (ability to swith between Graphic apps, Office apps etc.)
Separators would be fine also (even if you can create ones with a false .app folder).
I despise using third party apps even if Dragthing is helping for now : it sort of add a second dock which doesn't do much to avoid screen clutering.
4- Aqua colors should be user choosable
Why not be able to choose hue saturation etc instead of having the usual blue/graphite
5- Application folder a little more organized
mine is a mess thanks to Mac OS X own apps.
- apple can have more organized folders inside Application like "iApps" "Network" "Office" etc whatever
- or we should be able to organize this App folder like we want without losing the benefits of automatic Software Update
6- Ability to decide that a disk or folder is considered public.
- or having the Sharepoints shareware features enabled by default in Mac OS X (like the old time OS 9 Groups & Users).
7- As for third parties apps (Office, Adobe etc.) : ability to minimize palettes in dock (remember this Golive 3 very practical feature : palettes minimized and docked to the side of the screen
Those above are mainly GUI features/tweeks but should allow the work to be done faster or/and have OS X to be on par with OS 9 smoothness.
I think 10.2 will take care of my other grudges (except for proper metadata handling, maybe).
Oh, and is it possible for Formac to have OS X compatible with his older USB CD-Burners (I think no formac burners have ever been listed as Disc Burner able)
<strong>
<snip> like iTunes supports many CD burners.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Really? Since when?
I have 3 CD burners (2 CDR's, 1 CDRW) and none of them are supported by iTunes, and only the CDRW is supported by Disk Burner under OSX.
So I guess my main gripe with OSX is lack of drivers.
Other issues are:
Lack of user interface customization, I know they call it aqua, but does everything have to be blue? Yes, I now you can make it grey, but why not any other color?
Multiple virtual desktops would be cool.
Other people have mentioned Labels, and while I did use them occasionally pre OSX, I think it underscores a need for additional ways to classify files in the filesystem. So rather than just adding labels back (hey, we've had labels for over 10 years) why not think bigger and make a major advancement by creating a user extensible filesystem, where users could define and add their own attributes to the filesystem.
As an example: Lets say I'm a government entity, wouldn't it be cool if I could define an attribute called 'Classification' where the acceptable values would be one of (Unclassified, Confidential, Secret, Top Secret). This would help many tasks, such as in doing automatic audits to check that no Top Secret data is on a computer thats only supposed to have Secret data. etc.
Thats just one example, as you could define your own attributes, the possibilities are endless.
That's not totally true. In DP3, the dock was composed of tiles and buttons were bigger than they are now. In Public Beta, Apple made the stripes in tabbed views brighter. In 10.1, they removed shadows under text in the menu bar and under buttons to make the interface more readable. In 10.2, the dock currently has no stripes and sheets are more opaque.
<strong>the most glaring omission imho is the lack of a journaling fs, and proper meta-data. The rest will come with Jaguar.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why is a journaling fs glaring? Linux is the only OS I know that is really using it, and even there it's optional. Do you really need to back out that many changes? Hell most Unix' are still using UFS, which I think should be the default in OS X. :cool:
And meta-data is dead and should be, it's not compatable with other OS', and should not be used. The biggest thing about OS X is it's connectivity, and meta-deta doesn't work there.
<strong>In 10.1, they removed shadows under text in the menu bar and under buttons to make the interface more readable.</strong><hr></blockquote>I don't think so.
When you have multiple windows open in a perticular app and you want to go to the one you want simply do this....go to the program you want in the dock, click and hold the mouse over the icon in the dock, a pull-down menu will appear with all of the windows you have open in that particular application, simply highlight the one you want up front and release the mouse...voila, very nice dock feature.
I don't have Mac OS X, so I'm mostly doing this from memory. Shadows under menu text other than the application title are still there, but they're a lot more subtle than in 10.0. Something that I can add is that in DP4, some apps had shadows in tab titles. Now I believe they have been removed.
[quote] If I melted Dry Ice, could I swim and not get wet? <hr></blockquote>
No, but you could breath and not get oxygen.
Oh right, the thread... People keep saying that Jaguar is going to solve speed problems in X, but I see no reason to think this at all. The only speed related improvement mentioned for Jaguar is Quartz extreme, which requires such steep graphics card specs as to rule out virtually all existing Apple hardware.
If you've got an iBook, a PowerBook prior to 800MHz, a PowerMac with less than a Geeforce 3, or an iMac (possibly even including the flat-screen ones), you can forget it. I think Luca's brother, with his Rev. B bondi machine is going to be very dissapointed.
And none of this is going to make Quake 3 run any faster on my PB G3 is it? The fact is that under OS 9 most of my games ran with maxed out settings and under OS X they run ok with minimum settings, and the same goes for other Apps like Virtual PC.
So yeah, speed would be nice.
<strong>The only speed related improvement mentioned for Jaguar is Quartz extreme, which requires such steep graphics card specs as to rule out virtually all existing Apple hardware.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You forgot the new and much improved gcc 3.1 compiler. Just with a simple recompile, some apps can increase performance by 5-20%. Many people on this board have compared old builds to builds with the new gcc and there is definitely a speed boost. I believe Eugene did some comparisons with a LAME MP3 encoder. [quote]<strong>And none of this is going to make Quake 3 run any faster on my PB G3 is it?</strong><hr></blockquote>Actually, yeah, it might. People tend to forget that Quartz Extreme isn't the only improvement Jaguar will bring us.
[ 06-14-2002: Message edited by: starfleetX ]</p>
But do you think that Quartz Extreme would only speed up computers that meet the requirements, and slow down others? Or will other computers just not see any change? If it does slow it down, could you possibly "disable" QE so that the older setup was used in conjunction with Jaguar's other benefits?
From what I've heard, QE doesn't slow incompatible systems down.
This is rather disappointing, because one of my favorite things about my computer was its ability to plug in to virtually anything (it also has a Firewire/USB card, making it compatible with almost anything you can find). I suppose it still can do everything in 9, but I spend the vast majority of my time in X, and would like it to work there, too. In fact, it used to work in the earlier versions. It was doing fine in 10.0.3 and 10.0.4. I think 10.1 broke it. Any ideas as to why this would be? Anybody else having this problem/not having it?
<strong>
Why is a journaling fs glaring? Linux is the only OS I know that is really using it, and even there it's optional. Do you really need to back out that many changes? Hell most Unix' are still using UFS, which I think should be the default in OS X. :cool:
And meta-data is dead and should be, it's not compatable with other OS', and should not be used. The biggest thing about OS X is it's connectivity, and meta-deta doesn't work there.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Journaling filesystems are a must for any modern OS. Windows NTFS, available on NT since forever, is a journaling filesystem and a good one at that. NTFS is fast and quite durable through power outages, hardware crashes, etc. In Linux Ext3, JFS, XFS, ReiserFS are all journaling filesystems.
The main benefits:
- better data integrity
- journaling filesystems are generally faster
- no scandisk after a crash
- large filesize limits - Ext3 limit is 2TB IIRC, XFS is 16TB
- far better suited to high transaction load placed on a filesystem by heavy duty file serving, databases, IMAP servers, etc.
Generally speaking there is no downside. ReiserFS has had some beta issues but XFS has been industrial strength for years and Ext3 has proven to be solid and fast.
Meta-data is another issue all together. For Windows interoperability you need the extensions, otherwise not. There is an<a href="http://arstechnica.com/reviews/01q3/metadata/metadata-1.html"; target="_blank">article</a>
on Ars Technica arguing for increased meta-data. I am indifferent on this issue.
By extension, Mac programs are not compatible with other OSes and should not be used, right? The biggest thing about OS X is its focus on the user, not how faithfully it emulates Microsoft's idiotic policies.
Re: journaling: I think that journaling systems would be slightly slower than otherwise identical non-journaling systems, since you have the journaling and the actual commission of changes. Also, as far as I know, journaling has nothing to do with filesize limits.
And a JFS is a must! I will not trust Norton or any other utility on to my X drive to defrag. TTP and Norton seem to just cause more problems. **** them. The fine folks from Alsoft should add defragging into DiskWarrior, but really, why isn't there a defrag utility included with OS X? Windows has one?
The Dock still needs MAJOR work, though it's awesome, just not up to Mac standards.
And my PET PEEVE!
WHY oh WHY is the MacOS X "Desktop" in our Library not a link to the MacOS 9 Desktop Folder? When I finally decided to sync the desktops, it was SUCH a relief! Anyone here who hasn't tried this, just try it! It's great!
That should at least be an option in Prefs. Options, yes, that would be nice...
<strong>for evo or anyone else who cares....
When you have multiple windows open in a perticular app and you want to go to the one you want simply do this....go to the program you want in the dock, click and hold the mouse over the icon in the dock, a pull-down menu will appear with all of the windows you have open in that particular application, simply highlight the one you want up front and release the mouse...voila, very nice dock feature.
I've always known about this feature, but I've never really used it. I guess I'm just not a fan of having to click twice to access a window, I could probably get to it faster by just switching to the app and clicking on it. I guess I also don't like waiting the .5+ seconds it takes for my 233 G3 to render the popup menu
But now that I think of it, I have thought of two ways Apple could improve window management. They could make it so the Dock popup menus appear when you just mouseover an icon, or have another Dock anchored on another edge of the screen that lists all your open windows.
Are there any shareware apps that do this?
<strong>And my PET PEEVE!
WHY oh WHY is the MacOS X "Desktop" in our Library not a link to the MacOS 9 Desktop Folder? When I finally decided to sync the desktops, it was SUCH a relief! Anyone here who hasn't tried this, just try it! It's great!</strong><hr></blockquote>Duh... that's a Very Bad Idea? for anyone on a multiuser system, as Mac OS X is meant to be. Each user needs his or her own desktop. Thus, each one gets their own desktop located in the home directory.It would be awful for Apple to link these to a single, common directory because each user could mangle with the other users files.
Regarding journaling, don't forget that Be's main filesystem designer Dominic Giampaolo was hired by Apple back in April and "joined Apple as a file system engineer." Be had a journaling FS and had excellent metadata support. It takes t-i-m-e to build a FS, especially if they want any backwards compatibility (like being able to use files with resource forks and properly interacting with carbon apps) so I don't expect to see a new FS by 10.2. Maybe with 10.5 or 11.0, but not any time soon.
[ 06-15-2002: Message edited by: starfleetX ]</p>
and how about a nice new map , instead of that 3d chess junk... ?
The biggest and worst BAD point for me:
Virtualy NO Audio/midi apps out yet, NO VST or native OS X audio plugins, no soft synthes/samplers yet and NO pro tools yet. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
This is a joke ! the Mac is the platform of choice in 80% of the world's pro studios but no Apps exist for the platform's Main OS which has been out for over two years now (remember DP4 ?).... and we have had soooo many promises about the OS's marvelous builtin Audio and midi capabilities .. I'd say it's about f****** time !