<strong>If you're rewriting the system from scratch, why rewrite, from scratch, something that you know is going to go away soon anyway, and that you need to wean your customers off of in any case?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, if it took Unsanity 7$ to implement it, it couldn't really have been that much of an effort from Apple's side to present it to us in the interim. It would be the weaning-bit they'd be concerned about in that case.. And how long has that interim been now, anyways?
I also take issue with this kind of Apple design mentallity--this is not Cupertino's system, it is the *users* system. Saying, "well, metadata will be here in...ah...maybe 10.3" means that folks wait AT LEAST THREE YEARS FROM WHEN WE LOST LABELS.
Waiting is bearable--waiting without even the tools that we used to have is pathetic.
I think Kick's explanation is an accurate one for how Apple sees the situation, and i think it smacks of arrogance.
Apple should not and can not be expected to deliver *everything* that users want. That's why third party software vendors exist -- to fill in the gaps and provide solutions for things that Apple doesn't.
Let's return to the haxie itself. How is it behaving on your system ?
I tried it yesterday, and I've found some minor issues with it :
1- In the list view (which I'm using a lot), changing an icon label doesn't always update instantaneously. I have to close the window and reopen it to see the change. This is dull !
2- I don't see the labels in the Open/Save dialog boxes. Dull !
3- When I select many files (about 20 or more) in a window and ctrl-click to change all their labels, it may be slow. I got many times the damn spinning rainbow yummy for few seconds before I can select the label in the contextual menu. Ultra-dull !
Ok, this is version 1.0 of this new haxie, so maybe it will be better in the next versions.
Well, if it took Unsanity 7$ to implement it, it couldn't really have been that much of an effort from Apple's side to present it to us in the interim. </strong><hr></blockquote>
You're missing the point. It's not about the cost of implementation up front (and come on... it so did *not* cost Unsanity $7 to implement - that's like saying it only cost $129 for Apple to create Jaguar), it's about the cost of long term maintenance, not only of the code base to interact with that single byte in the HFS+ header (and remember, OS X is moving towards *file system independence*... say you really want to use ReiserFS (theoretically, you can) for journaling... you'd lose all your labels. With Apple's rethinking of the metadata, you are much more likely *not* to... isn't that better?), but also long-term maintenance of everyone's workflows. Seriously, if Apple added this back in, *just like it was*, then they'd be expected to keep it in, ad nauseum.
OS X should be a dumping of as much cruft as possible, and labels are part of that cruft. Unsanity has stepped up to the bat for those few folks who just can't live without them, but I'm glad to see them gone as they were implemented. Don't think of the loss, think of what will be filling the space.
[quote]<strong>It would be the weaning-bit they'd be concerned about in that case.. And how long has that interim been now, anyways?
I also take issue with this kind of Apple design mentallity--this is not Cupertino's system, it is the *users* system. </strong><hr></blockquote>
...
Well, you're welcome to your opinion.
[quote]<strong>Saying, "well, metadata will be here in...ah...maybe 10.3" means that folks wait AT LEAST THREE YEARS FROM WHEN WE LOST LABELS.
Waiting is bearable--waiting without even the tools that we used to have is pathetic.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Unsanity provided the tool. Go use it. Simple.
Problem?
Seriously, it's not like Apple outright blocked 3rd parties from implementing it... the data is all still there, the UI is (unofficially) extensible to interact with it... I still fail to see the problem. If Apple *had* completely blocked anyone from adding this, then I'd say you had a reason to be ticked, but they didn't.
[quote]<strong>I think Kick's explanation is an accurate one for how Apple sees the situation, and i think it smacks of arrogance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Again, you're welcome to your opinion.
I, for one, believe that the folks at Apple know more about UI and metadata than any legion of armchair 'professionals' among the userbase that you care to gather.
Anytime you add *any* feature to a system, there will be at least one person out there that finds that they Just Can't Live Without It(tm)* *Any* feature. In this case, OS9 -> OS X is a large enough jump that it is the *best* opportunity Apple has ever had, and the best one they're *likely* to have, to dump cruft. Labels, as they were implemented, were cruft. Buh-bye. Yes, I agree that it would have been wonderful to have the full metadata system in place by 10.0... but it wasn't. Apple hasn't the resources. OSs evolve. And in any evolution, there are throwbacks and dead ends to the tree. Labels were a dead end.
Personnaly, I interpret this thread as about the labels haxie (see the first message here). Not about metadata or other wanabie features. Apple's labels are vaporware. Please, let discuss about the labels haxies.
Do you have it ? Are you using it ? Do you noticed some weird things with it ?
With all that said, I don't use labels much except for the old-school trick of making an invisible label to track changes wrought by new installs. Love that trick.
Good arguements, Kick.
As for Labels X, I installed it and found similar issues. A little slow with multiple items, and the labels need to show up in open/save dialogues. Not really ready for me to use, as I'm not wedded to it in the first place.
My friends who have stayed glued to OS9 because of lack of labels killing workflow...they are another story.
it so did *not* cost Unsanity $7 to implement - (that's like saying it only cost $129 for Apple to create Jaguar)</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, but if you think about what I said, you'd wager that if unsanity is a company remotely interested in making a profit off their products, then the cost of implementing the hack would have been less than (7$ * the amount of users desperately in need of the product). Obviously this is what I meant, if you care to think about it...
[quote]Originally posted by Kickaha:
<strong>
Seriously, if Apple added this back in, *just like it was*, then they'd be expected to keep it in, ad nauseum</strong><hr></blockquote>
Like I said earlier, this is the only real argument you've got...
[quote]Originally posted by Kickaha:
<strong>
Don't think of the loss, think of what will be filling the space.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Like, when? Within our lifetime? Within OS X's lifetime? I'm NOT arguing that Apple should now suddenly implement the feature. After all, there is a third party hack that implements it in their place, but... They should have in the first place.
Imagine a farmer working in the same fashion... "I'm working on some new cattle and carrots, so I'll give you much better veggies and meat in a few years but you'll just have to make do with what you've got in the mean time..."
Sure, it's an extreme example but I'm sure you get my point...
[quote]Originally posted by Kickaha:
<strong>
I, for one, believe that the folks at Apple know more about UI and metadata than any legion of armchair 'professionals' among the userbase that you care to gather.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is an example of the arrogance earlier noted..
Well, these "UI professionals" aren't the ones stuck USING the system, are they?
[quote]Originally posted by Kickaha:
<strong>
What, you have to pee?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You have no idea..
*suddenly realizes this is an extremely silly issue to get riled up over, but it's Kickaha's attitude that vexes me... I've been f u c k e d enough by software companies that think they know what's best for me...*
[ 10-11-2002: Message edited by: Whyatt Thrash ]</p>
Well, I never realized used labels much, but for those who do but would like something more customizable than labels, here's a little tip I've been using for a while now.
Just go to View Options for any window and select show Comment field. Now, for any file you have just do a get info, put in any comment you want. Go ahead and move the comment field all the way over next to the Applications column if you want - just drag it.
You may not have a quick color cue to see what's different, but you'll be able to get a hell of a lot more info at a quick glance than - "uh, dark green, that means sent as PDF right? And light green means needs finished?"
On top of that, the view options only holds for that window so I don't have to view the Comments column in every open window.
Mix in a little Applescripting to do the typing/sorting for me and voila!
Just thought I'd share the tip since I hadn't seen it brought up yet.
<strong>Honestly, what's all the fuss about labels? Why can't you just stick a custom icon on 'important' things? xicons.com has hundreds of neat looking ones. If it's just a visual cue, why not spruce it up a bit?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It isn't just a visual cue. It's pretty helpful when organizing/ordering project files.
[quote]No, but if you think about what I said, you'd wager that if unsanity is a company remotely interested in making a profit off their products, then the cost of implementing the hack would have been less than (7$ * the amount of users desperately in need of the product). Obviously this is what I meant, if you care to think about it...<hr></blockquote>
Say what you mean, please. Expecting a reader to make up for a lack of writing skill is just lazy. If that is what you meant originally, then you should have said so. (Yes, I knew what you most likely meant. Pardon my taking your words as your actual meaning. Silly me. I'll be sure to inject plenty of conjecture and assumptions. That's to be sure to clear everything right up.)
[quote]Seriously, if Apple added this back in, *just like it was*, then they'd be expected to keep it in, ad nauseum
Like I said earlier, this is the only real argument you've got...<hr></blockquote>
And you have a refutation?
Seriously, from the point of view of pretty much anyone inside or outside of Apple who is concerned with keeping MacOS X as a *long term* viable system, this alone *should* be compelling.
[quote]Don't think of the loss, think of what will be filling the space.
Like, when? Within our lifetime? Within OS X's lifetime? I'm NOT arguing that Apple should now suddenly implement the feature. After all, there is a third party hack that implements it in their place, but... They should have in the first place.<hr></blockquote>
Why? Honestly, why?
1) It's a feature that is being replaced.
2) It's a feature that people need to migrate away from.
3) It's a feature that, if implemented by Apple, would be expected to be maintained indefinitely... which is just a waste all the way around.
4) It's a feature that is perfectly implementable by a third party, since all the pieces were already there.
Personally, I'm surprised it took someone this long to implement.
[quote]Imagine a farmer working in the same fashion... "I'm working on some new cattle and carrots, so I'll give you much better veggies and meat in a few years but you'll just have to make do with what you've got in the mean time..."
Sure, it's an extreme example but I'm sure you get my point...<hr></blockquote>
Yes, I do, as I think we *all* do. The horse is dead and beaten. There's a lack in the UI for what some people need.
You know, there's a lack in the UI for a *lot* of things I need, but my needs aren't exactly general purpose in some areas, and I have this strangely rational viewpoint that Apple shouldn't be the sole source of all UI elements. If they cover 90% of the needs of 90% of the userbase in a useful, clean, elegant manner, they're doing extremely well. If they also allow third parties to step in and provide the bits and pieces they miss, then they're doing *VERY* well. Which is what they've done.
[quote]I, for one, believe that the folks at Apple know more about UI and metadata than any legion of armchair 'professionals' among the userbase that you care to gather.
This is an example of the arrogance earlier noted..<hr></blockquote>
Then do better. Really. If it's all that simple, just do it. Everyone has the Best Idea EVER... until it's implemented, and you realize that there are myriads of little problems that don't crop up until you have to use it in a real system.
Sorry, but would you say that a medical doctor was 'arrogant' for saying that they might know something about medicine that you don't?
Going by the democratic vote by user population, menu bars should be at the top of every window. Going by the realities of physiological and psychological constraints, Fitt's Law overrides, and the menu bar should be on an edge of the screen.
This isn't arrogance, it's recognizing that folks who have more experience at something might know a bit more than I. It's not arrogance - quite the opposite.
[quote]Well, these "UI professionals" aren't the ones stuck USING the system, are they?<hr></blockquote>
Oh, you're absolutely right. Not a single person inside Apple is using MacOS X. Nope, not a single one. (Come on, you can do better than that.)
[quote]What, you have to pee?
You have no idea..<hr></blockquote>
Then what are you doing here, man?
[quote]*suddenly realizes this is an extremely silly issue to get riled up over, but it's Kickaha's attitude that vexes me... I've been f u c k e d enough by software companies that think they know what's best for me...*<hr></blockquote>
Then you have three choices:
1) Don't use their products.
2) Use their competitor's products.
3) Provide feedback to the company, and realize that they *do* use the system, they have *much* more information than you do about the plans for the system, and that they, unlike the general public, have actually implemented a working system.
Use the Haxie. Take a deep breath. Relax. Realize that your problem is solved for now, and all is good with the world because a much better approach is in the pipeline.
And on that note, the horse is truly, really, 100%, thoroughly, honestly and actually dead, beaten, and pummeled. Gah.
Kick's arguements are well-formed, but in truth its a little specious you have to admit: there is a pattern of OS9 GUI innovations that have been left out of OSX, and while some of them had replacements since day one, even if all the people didn't like them (e.g. the Dock) they were there.
We all know, from following the evolution of OSX, that there was considerable doubt that they were even working on any kind of metadata system for the future for quite some time. As of 10.0, they were into file extensions in the name of interoperability, and stripped out what little metadata we had with the labels.
Apple like's being mysterious, and Apple likes to innovate and keep its cards close to its chest--fine. But it's a bit much to swallow that they remove easy to implement features with no guidance on when/if they will return?
I do think they dropped the ball on this one--implementing labels is something that could have been done early, as a legacy concession, and then folded into future systems.
Better yet, Apple could have not been wishy-washy on metadata and realized type/creator was a core asset of MacOS.
That is the past, however. I do hope (oh, do i hope) that they are indeed actually dedicated to good, coherent metadata for OSX in our lifetime.
It was just a jokingly way of saying the same thing. If you look at it, my first post was just a pun at apple's cost. Jokes are generally not that funny if you start explaining the punchline and why it's funny instead of just pulling it... Some ppl will get it, some will not. *shrugs*
[quote]Originally posted by Kickaha:
<strong>
Why? Honestly, why?
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
Because it IS a feature that took someone very long to implement, and obviously a LOT of users really missed. That's MY only point. We've been stuck for very long without an even rudimentary equivalent.
[quote]Originally posted by Kickaha:
<strong>
Then you have three choices:
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, I have lots more choices than that. And one of them includes:
a) Continuing to use their products.
b) Contuing to be an untolerable bitch about it
c) Stop making bad jokes about it, as of right now... <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
[quote]Originally posted by Kickaha:
<strong>
Take a deep breath.</strong><hr></blockquote>
*woooooooooh*pffffff*
No, that didn't work. Wait, lemme try that again (removes slime-ridden hair).
AAAH! That's so much better... Suddenly my brain starts functioning again. Thank you, Kickaha! You've successfully implemented the feature of life into my previously lifeless body. Thank God for third party hacks.
I think I'm gonna go take that leak now... *Walks over dead horse at the way to the bathroom*
Anyone for hamburgers?
[ 10-12-2002: Message edited by: Whyatt Thrash ]</p>
<strong>Don't think of the loss, think of what will be filling the space.
Like, when? Within our lifetime? Within OS X's lifetime? I'm NOT arguing that Apple should now suddenly implement the feature. After all, there is a third party hack that implements it in their place, but... They should have in the first place.
Why? Honestly, why?
1) It's a feature that is being replaced.</strong><hr></blockquote>
By something that should allow for labels. How hard could it be to simply migrate the labels to the new system?
[quote]2) It's a feature that people need to migrate away from.<hr></blockquote>
Why should people migrate away from something that they used in the past and will again be available in the new system? Isn't that incredibly stupid?
[quote]3) It's a feature that, if implemented by Apple, would be expected to be maintained indefinitely... which is just a waste all the way around.<hr></blockquote>
No, only until the new system is around which should allow for labels in a nice new way (I don't know what nice new way, since I've never heard Apple's plans with metadata).
[quote]4) It's a feature that is perfectly implementable by a third party, since all the pieces were already there.
Personally, I'm surprised it took someone this long to implement. <hr></blockquote>
Wrong, the haxie may break at any time, cause problems and is quite limited judging from the comments in another post above. Apple could add support much more easily. Of course, Apple isn't in the habit of making simple changes to their OS that make a lot of people happy (windowshade, replaceable dock, splittable dock), so I don't see them adding anything like lables which is a tad harder. I can remember the days when they added popular hacks to the OS (instead of removing popular stuff), sigh.
[quote]<strong>By something that should allow for labels. How hard could it be to simply migrate the labels to the new system?
Why should people migrate away from something that they used in the past and will again be available in the new system? Isn't that incredibly stupid?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're missing the problem. From a pure user standpoint, it might look strange that labels vanish and then labels come back, but this view obscures or ignores all the issues that Apple is facing: OS X, as an all-new OS, is Apple's one chance to get rid of legacy stuff. They're stuck with anything they bring over. The MacOS metadata system was great and visionary in its time, but it introduces a fundamental and confusing incompatibility with other platforms - including the Web - at a time when Macs survive by being compatible. So it went away at the only real opportunity Apple had to get rid of it. Unfortunately, there wasn't a replacement ready. Apple had more urgent concerns with OS X. So we're in between.
It's not optimal, but had Apple waited they would have saddled their new OS with the legacy implementation, or come up with some stop-gap implementation that they'd probably have to break right around the time that people had gotten dependent on it. Apple has to take the time to design any new metadata system just right, because they'll have to live with it for the next 15 years.
[quote]<strong>No, only until the new system is around which should allow for labels in a nice new way (I don't know what nice new way, since I've never heard Apple's plans with metadata).</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, indefinitely, because the nice new way would have to be incompatible with the old way, which all the applications would be written for. Apple has one golden opportunity to break applications in such a fundamental way - the transition to OS X.
[quote]<strong>Wrong, the haxie may break at any time, cause problems and is quite limited judging from the comments in another post above. Apple could add support much more easily.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But they are either not interested (an outside possibility) or working to solve the bigger problem of designing a robust, intelligent, extensible file system, which is not something that anyone can do easily. And again, they get to live with their design for the next 15 years. Wouldn't you approach anything carefully, knowing that?
<strong>You're missing the problem. From a pure user standpoint, it might look strange that labels vanish and then labels come back, but this view obscures or ignores all the issues that Apple is facing: OS X, as an all-new OS, is Apple's one chance to get rid of legacy stuff.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I already told you that I don't see why it should be so hard to migrate labels. Suppose we have this ultra-slow xml-thingie that some people seem to believe in. What makes it so difficult to move the bit to <label>black</label>? It would just be an extra bit-check during the copying of a file (from a HFS+ partition). If the bit is set you create an xml-label and zap the bit. You lose the ability to migrate back without a special utility to revert the <labels> to the label-bit, but I think that users could live with that.
[quote]<strong>They're stuck with anything they bring over.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Repeating it doesn't make it true. Please explain why we can't migrate?
[quote]<strong>The MacOS metadata system was great and visionary in its time, but it introduces a fundamental and confusing incompatibility with other platforms - including the Web - at a time when Macs survive by being compatible.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Clearly you don't understand what you're talking about. The Web needs more metadata than extensions can provide. That's why both the MacOS and Windows have MIME mappings. Windows maps from/to extensions, MacOS used file types and now a mix of both. Unless you move to a BeFS-like MIME file type, you will be stuck with such a conversion.
[quote]<strong>But they are either not interested (an outside possibility)</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think the first option is that far-fetched. If you've been around Unix-heads (which 90% of the NeXTies are), then you know that most of them despise new metadata (you may not touch their drwxrwxrwx though). Why do you think that Mr Mach moved to file extensions? Would it make sense to move from file type/creator to extensions and then to something more advanced?
[quote]<strong>or working to solve the bigger problem of designing a robust, intelligent, extensible file system, which is not something that anyone can do easily. And again, they get to live with their design for the next 15 years. Wouldn't you approach anything carefully, knowing that?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I would work with the community to try and solve this very difficult problem. Create a document that describes the problems you want to solve ('The new system should do x and y and z') and get feedback from developers (release it at WWDC for instance). Then come up with a possible solution and get feedback on that. The current system is a cludge with some severe problems. It could have used some peer review.
On an interesting side note, it should be noted that Apple may have been working on this "new metadata solution" for a great long time now. Is it possible that it has lost its focus?
Comments
<strong>If you're rewriting the system from scratch, why rewrite, from scratch, something that you know is going to go away soon anyway, and that you need to wean your customers off of in any case?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, if it took Unsanity 7$ to implement it, it couldn't really have been that much of an effort from Apple's side to present it to us in the interim. It would be the weaning-bit they'd be concerned about in that case.. And how long has that interim been now, anyways?
*Tinkle* *Tinkle*
I also take issue with this kind of Apple design mentallity--this is not Cupertino's system, it is the *users* system. Saying, "well, metadata will be here in...ah...maybe 10.3" means that folks wait AT LEAST THREE YEARS FROM WHEN WE LOST LABELS.
Waiting is bearable--waiting without even the tools that we used to have is pathetic.
I think Kick's explanation is an accurate one for how Apple sees the situation, and i think it smacks of arrogance.
Apple should not and can not be expected to deliver *everything* that users want. That's why third party software vendors exist -- to fill in the gaps and provide solutions for things that Apple doesn't.
I tried it yesterday, and I've found some minor issues with it :
1- In the list view (which I'm using a lot), changing an icon label doesn't always update instantaneously. I have to close the window and reopen it to see the change. This is dull !
2- I don't see the labels in the Open/Save dialog boxes. Dull !
3- When I select many files (about 20 or more) in a window and ctrl-click to change all their labels, it may be slow. I got many times the damn spinning rainbow yummy for few seconds before I can select the label in the contextual menu. Ultra-dull !
Ok, this is version 1.0 of this new haxie, so maybe it will be better in the next versions.
<strong>
Well, if it took Unsanity 7$ to implement it, it couldn't really have been that much of an effort from Apple's side to present it to us in the interim. </strong><hr></blockquote>
You're missing the point. It's not about the cost of implementation up front (and come on... it so did *not* cost Unsanity $7 to implement - that's like saying it only cost $129 for Apple to create Jaguar), it's about the cost of long term maintenance, not only of the code base to interact with that single byte in the HFS+ header (and remember, OS X is moving towards *file system independence*... say you really want to use ReiserFS (theoretically, you can) for journaling... you'd lose all your labels. With Apple's rethinking of the metadata, you are much more likely *not* to... isn't that better?), but also long-term maintenance of everyone's workflows. Seriously, if Apple added this back in, *just like it was*, then they'd be expected to keep it in, ad nauseum.
OS X should be a dumping of as much cruft as possible, and labels are part of that cruft. Unsanity has stepped up to the bat for those few folks who just can't live without them, but I'm glad to see them gone as they were implemented. Don't think of the loss, think of what will be filling the space.
[quote]<strong>It would be the weaning-bit they'd be concerned about in that case.. And how long has that interim been now, anyways?
*Tinkle* *Tinkle*</strong><hr></blockquote>
What, you have to pee?
<strong>Booyah, Thrash! My point exactly.
I also take issue with this kind of Apple design mentallity--this is not Cupertino's system, it is the *users* system. </strong><hr></blockquote>
...
Well, you're welcome to your opinion.
[quote]<strong>Saying, "well, metadata will be here in...ah...maybe 10.3" means that folks wait AT LEAST THREE YEARS FROM WHEN WE LOST LABELS.
Waiting is bearable--waiting without even the tools that we used to have is pathetic.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Unsanity provided the tool. Go use it. Simple.
Problem?
Seriously, it's not like Apple outright blocked 3rd parties from implementing it... the data is all still there, the UI is (unofficially) extensible to interact with it... I still fail to see the problem. If Apple *had* completely blocked anyone from adding this, then I'd say you had a reason to be ticked, but they didn't.
[quote]<strong>I think Kick's explanation is an accurate one for how Apple sees the situation, and i think it smacks of arrogance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Again, you're welcome to your opinion.
I, for one, believe that the folks at Apple know more about UI and metadata than any legion of armchair 'professionals' among the userbase that you care to gather.
Anytime you add *any* feature to a system, there will be at least one person out there that finds that they Just Can't Live Without It(tm)* *Any* feature. In this case, OS9 -> OS X is a large enough jump that it is the *best* opportunity Apple has ever had, and the best one they're *likely* to have, to dump cruft. Labels, as they were implemented, were cruft. Buh-bye. Yes, I agree that it would have been wonderful to have the full metadata system in place by 10.0... but it wasn't. Apple hasn't the resources. OSs evolve. And in any evolution, there are throwbacks and dead ends to the tree. Labels were a dead end.
* with Back of Hand to Forehead Goth Action!
[ 10-11-2002: Message edited by: Kickaha ]</p>
Do you have it ? Are you using it ? Do you noticed some weird things with it ?
Good arguements, Kick.
As for Labels X, I installed it and found similar issues. A little slow with multiple items, and the labels need to show up in open/save dialogues. Not really ready for me to use, as I'm not wedded to it in the first place.
My friends who have stayed glued to OS9 because of lack of labels killing workflow...they are another story.
<strong>
it so did *not* cost Unsanity $7 to implement - (that's like saying it only cost $129 for Apple to create Jaguar)</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, but if you think about what I said, you'd wager that if unsanity is a company remotely interested in making a profit off their products, then the cost of implementing the hack would have been less than (7$ * the amount of users desperately in need of the product). Obviously this is what I meant, if you care to think about it...
[quote]Originally posted by Kickaha:
<strong>
Seriously, if Apple added this back in, *just like it was*, then they'd be expected to keep it in, ad nauseum</strong><hr></blockquote>
Like I said earlier, this is the only real argument you've got...
[quote]Originally posted by Kickaha:
<strong>
Don't think of the loss, think of what will be filling the space.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Like, when? Within our lifetime? Within OS X's lifetime? I'm NOT arguing that Apple should now suddenly implement the feature. After all, there is a third party hack that implements it in their place, but... They should have in the first place.
Imagine a farmer working in the same fashion... "I'm working on some new cattle and carrots, so I'll give you much better veggies and meat in a few years but you'll just have to make do with what you've got in the mean time..."
Sure, it's an extreme example but I'm sure you get my point...
[quote]Originally posted by Kickaha:
<strong>
I, for one, believe that the folks at Apple know more about UI and metadata than any legion of armchair 'professionals' among the userbase that you care to gather.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is an example of the arrogance earlier noted..
Well, these "UI professionals" aren't the ones stuck USING the system, are they?
[quote]Originally posted by Kickaha:
<strong>
What, you have to pee?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You have no idea..
*suddenly realizes this is an extremely silly issue to get riled up over, but it's Kickaha's attitude that vexes me... I've been f u c k e d enough by software companies that think they know what's best for me...*
[ 10-11-2002: Message edited by: Whyatt Thrash ]</p>
Just go to View Options for any window and select show Comment field. Now, for any file you have just do a get info, put in any comment you want. Go ahead and move the comment field all the way over next to the Applications column if you want - just drag it.
You may not have a quick color cue to see what's different, but you'll be able to get a hell of a lot more info at a quick glance than - "uh, dark green, that means sent as PDF right? And light green means needs finished?"
On top of that, the view options only holds for that window so I don't have to view the Comments column in every open window.
Mix in a little Applescripting to do the typing/sorting for me and voila!
Just thought I'd share the tip since I hadn't seen it brought up yet.
<strong>Honestly, what's all the fuss about labels? Why can't you just stick a custom icon on 'important' things? xicons.com has hundreds of neat looking ones. If it's just a visual cue, why not spruce it up a bit?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It isn't just a visual cue. It's pretty helpful when organizing/ordering project files.
Say what you mean, please. Expecting a reader to make up for a lack of writing skill is just lazy. If that is what you meant originally, then you should have said so. (Yes, I knew what you most likely meant. Pardon my taking your words as your actual meaning. Silly me. I'll be sure to inject plenty of conjecture and assumptions. That's to be sure to clear everything right up.)
[quote]Seriously, if Apple added this back in, *just like it was*, then they'd be expected to keep it in, ad nauseum
Like I said earlier, this is the only real argument you've got...<hr></blockquote>
And you have a refutation?
Seriously, from the point of view of pretty much anyone inside or outside of Apple who is concerned with keeping MacOS X as a *long term* viable system, this alone *should* be compelling.
[quote]Don't think of the loss, think of what will be filling the space.
Like, when? Within our lifetime? Within OS X's lifetime? I'm NOT arguing that Apple should now suddenly implement the feature. After all, there is a third party hack that implements it in their place, but... They should have in the first place.<hr></blockquote>
Why? Honestly, why?
1) It's a feature that is being replaced.
2) It's a feature that people need to migrate away from.
3) It's a feature that, if implemented by Apple, would be expected to be maintained indefinitely... which is just a waste all the way around.
4) It's a feature that is perfectly implementable by a third party, since all the pieces were already there.
Personally, I'm surprised it took someone this long to implement.
[quote]Imagine a farmer working in the same fashion... "I'm working on some new cattle and carrots, so I'll give you much better veggies and meat in a few years but you'll just have to make do with what you've got in the mean time..."
Sure, it's an extreme example but I'm sure you get my point...<hr></blockquote>
Yes, I do, as I think we *all* do. The horse is dead and beaten. There's a lack in the UI for what some people need.
You know, there's a lack in the UI for a *lot* of things I need, but my needs aren't exactly general purpose in some areas, and I have this strangely rational viewpoint that Apple shouldn't be the sole source of all UI elements. If they cover 90% of the needs of 90% of the userbase in a useful, clean, elegant manner, they're doing extremely well. If they also allow third parties to step in and provide the bits and pieces they miss, then they're doing *VERY* well. Which is what they've done.
[quote]I, for one, believe that the folks at Apple know more about UI and metadata than any legion of armchair 'professionals' among the userbase that you care to gather.
This is an example of the arrogance earlier noted..<hr></blockquote>
Then do better. Really. If it's all that simple, just do it. Everyone has the Best Idea EVER... until it's implemented, and you realize that there are myriads of little problems that don't crop up until you have to use it in a real system.
Sorry, but would you say that a medical doctor was 'arrogant' for saying that they might know something about medicine that you don't?
Going by the democratic vote by user population, menu bars should be at the top of every window. Going by the realities of physiological and psychological constraints, Fitt's Law overrides, and the menu bar should be on an edge of the screen.
This isn't arrogance, it's recognizing that folks who have more experience at something might know a bit more than I. It's not arrogance - quite the opposite.
[quote]Well, these "UI professionals" aren't the ones stuck USING the system, are they?<hr></blockquote>
Oh, you're absolutely right. Not a single person inside Apple is using MacOS X. Nope, not a single one. (Come on, you can do better than that.)
[quote]What, you have to pee?
You have no idea..<hr></blockquote>
Then what are you doing here, man?
[quote]*suddenly realizes this is an extremely silly issue to get riled up over, but it's Kickaha's attitude that vexes me... I've been f u c k e d enough by software companies that think they know what's best for me...*<hr></blockquote>
Then you have three choices:
1) Don't use their products.
2) Use their competitor's products.
3) Provide feedback to the company, and realize that they *do* use the system, they have *much* more information than you do about the plans for the system, and that they, unlike the general public, have actually implemented a working system.
Use the Haxie. Take a deep breath. Relax. Realize that your problem is solved for now, and all is good with the world because a much better approach is in the pipeline.
And on that note, the horse is truly, really, 100%, thoroughly, honestly and actually dead, beaten, and pummeled. Gah.
[ 10-12-2002: Message edited by: Kickaha ]</p>
We all know, from following the evolution of OSX, that there was considerable doubt that they were even working on any kind of metadata system for the future for quite some time. As of 10.0, they were into file extensions in the name of interoperability, and stripped out what little metadata we had with the labels.
Apple like's being mysterious, and Apple likes to innovate and keep its cards close to its chest--fine. But it's a bit much to swallow that they remove easy to implement features with no guidance on when/if they will return?
I do think they dropped the ball on this one--implementing labels is something that could have been done early, as a legacy concession, and then folded into future systems.
Better yet, Apple could have not been wishy-washy on metadata and realized type/creator was a core asset of MacOS.
That is the past, however. I do hope (oh, do i hope) that they are indeed actually dedicated to good, coherent metadata for OSX in our lifetime.
<strong>
Say what you mean, please.</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
It was just a jokingly way of saying the same thing. If you look at it, my first post was just a pun at apple's cost. Jokes are generally not that funny if you start explaining the punchline and why it's funny instead of just pulling it... Some ppl will get it, some will not. *shrugs*
[quote]Originally posted by Kickaha:
<strong>
Why? Honestly, why?
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
Because it IS a feature that took someone very long to implement, and obviously a LOT of users really missed. That's MY only point. We've been stuck for very long without an even rudimentary equivalent.
[quote]Originally posted by Kickaha:
<strong>
Then you have three choices:
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, I have lots more choices than that. And one of them includes:
a) Continuing to use their products.
b) Contuing to be an untolerable bitch about it
c) Stop making bad jokes about it, as of right now... <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
[quote]Originally posted by Kickaha:
<strong>
Take a deep breath.</strong><hr></blockquote>
*woooooooooh*pffffff*
No, that didn't work. Wait, lemme try that again (removes slime-ridden hair).
AAAH! That's so much better... Suddenly my brain starts functioning again. Thank you, Kickaha! You've successfully implemented the feature of life into my previously lifeless body. Thank God for third party hacks.
I think I'm gonna go take that leak now... *Walks over dead horse at the way to the bathroom*
Anyone for hamburgers?
[ 10-12-2002: Message edited by: Whyatt Thrash ]</p>
<strong>Don't think of the loss, think of what will be filling the space.
Like, when? Within our lifetime? Within OS X's lifetime? I'm NOT arguing that Apple should now suddenly implement the feature. After all, there is a third party hack that implements it in their place, but... They should have in the first place.
Why? Honestly, why?
1) It's a feature that is being replaced.</strong><hr></blockquote>
By something that should allow for labels. How hard could it be to simply migrate the labels to the new system?
[quote]2) It's a feature that people need to migrate away from.<hr></blockquote>
Why should people migrate away from something that they used in the past and will again be available in the new system? Isn't that incredibly stupid?
[quote]3) It's a feature that, if implemented by Apple, would be expected to be maintained indefinitely... which is just a waste all the way around.<hr></blockquote>
No, only until the new system is around which should allow for labels in a nice new way (I don't know what nice new way, since I've never heard Apple's plans with metadata).
[quote]4) It's a feature that is perfectly implementable by a third party, since all the pieces were already there.
Personally, I'm surprised it took someone this long to implement.
Wrong, the haxie may break at any time, cause problems and is quite limited judging from the comments in another post above. Apple could add support much more easily. Of course, Apple isn't in the habit of making simple changes to their OS that make a lot of people happy (windowshade, replaceable dock, splittable dock), so I don't see them adding anything like lables which is a tad harder. I can remember the days when they added popular hacks to the OS (instead of removing popular stuff), sigh.
[ 10-12-2002: Message edited by: wfzelle ]</p>
Too many beer labels I guess.
Why should people migrate away from something that they used in the past and will again be available in the new system? Isn't that incredibly stupid?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're missing the problem. From a pure user standpoint, it might look strange that labels vanish and then labels come back, but this view obscures or ignores all the issues that Apple is facing: OS X, as an all-new OS, is Apple's one chance to get rid of legacy stuff. They're stuck with anything they bring over. The MacOS metadata system was great and visionary in its time, but it introduces a fundamental and confusing incompatibility with other platforms - including the Web - at a time when Macs survive by being compatible. So it went away at the only real opportunity Apple had to get rid of it. Unfortunately, there wasn't a replacement ready. Apple had more urgent concerns with OS X. So we're in between.
It's not optimal, but had Apple waited they would have saddled their new OS with the legacy implementation, or come up with some stop-gap implementation that they'd probably have to break right around the time that people had gotten dependent on it. Apple has to take the time to design any new metadata system just right, because they'll have to live with it for the next 15 years.
[quote]<strong>No, only until the new system is around which should allow for labels in a nice new way (I don't know what nice new way, since I've never heard Apple's plans with metadata).</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, indefinitely, because the nice new way would have to be incompatible with the old way, which all the applications would be written for. Apple has one golden opportunity to break applications in such a fundamental way - the transition to OS X.
[quote]<strong>Wrong, the haxie may break at any time, cause problems and is quite limited judging from the comments in another post above. Apple could add support much more easily.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But they are either not interested (an outside possibility) or working to solve the bigger problem of designing a robust, intelligent, extensible file system, which is not something that anyone can do easily. And again, they get to live with their design for the next 15 years. Wouldn't you approach anything carefully, knowing that?
[ 10-12-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
<strong>You're missing the problem. From a pure user standpoint, it might look strange that labels vanish and then labels come back, but this view obscures or ignores all the issues that Apple is facing: OS X, as an all-new OS, is Apple's one chance to get rid of legacy stuff.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I already told you that I don't see why it should be so hard to migrate labels. Suppose we have this ultra-slow xml-thingie that some people seem to believe in. What makes it so difficult to move the bit to <label>black</label>? It would just be an extra bit-check during the copying of a file (from a HFS+ partition). If the bit is set you create an xml-label and zap the bit. You lose the ability to migrate back without a special utility to revert the <labels> to the label-bit, but I think that users could live with that.
[quote]<strong>They're stuck with anything they bring over.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Repeating it doesn't make it true. Please explain why we can't migrate?
[quote]<strong>The MacOS metadata system was great and visionary in its time, but it introduces a fundamental and confusing incompatibility with other platforms - including the Web - at a time when Macs survive by being compatible.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Clearly you don't understand what you're talking about. The Web needs more metadata than extensions can provide. That's why both the MacOS and Windows have MIME mappings. Windows maps from/to extensions, MacOS used file types and now a mix of both. Unless you move to a BeFS-like MIME file type, you will be stuck with such a conversion.
[quote]<strong>But they are either not interested (an outside possibility)</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think the first option is that far-fetched. If you've been around Unix-heads (which 90% of the NeXTies are), then you know that most of them despise new metadata (you may not touch their drwxrwxrwx though). Why do you think that Mr Mach moved to file extensions? Would it make sense to move from file type/creator to extensions and then to something more advanced?
[quote]<strong>or working to solve the bigger problem of designing a robust, intelligent, extensible file system, which is not something that anyone can do easily. And again, they get to live with their design for the next 15 years. Wouldn't you approach anything carefully, knowing that?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I would work with the community to try and solve this very difficult problem. Create a document that describes the problems you want to solve ('The new system should do x and y and z') and get feedback from developers (release it at WWDC for instance). Then come up with a possible solution and get feedback on that. The current system is a cludge with some severe problems. It could have used some peer review.
See this old Reality (pre-AppleInsider) article:
<a href="http://www.appleinsider.com/archives/102797/Rhap_Tags.html"; target="_blank">http://www.appleinsider.com/archives/102797/Rhap_Tags.html</a>;
Yes, the date in that URL is right. October 27, 1997.
Oh, for X newbies, Rhapsody was the old code name for Mac OS X.
[ 10-13-2002: Message edited by: Brad ]</p>