Reason #6: Non-Apple applications rarely if ever have auto-update capabilities.
This is one is really unfathomable to me: how can so many apps on the Mac still not have auto-update capability in this day and age?
Apple's auto-update is a fine piece of software alright, but why oh why can't they share the same mechanism with third parties?? It would make the whole Mac experience soooo much sweeter.
Granted, most apps do have the ability to automatically check for updates, but if it's only to tell me to go download the update myself and replace the application with the downloaded one manually... yuck. So much 20th century drudgery!
The funny thing is even Apple's apps do the same on their own if you don't update to the latest through Software Update: iTunes for example will notify you of a new version and will open the iTunes website for you for manual download.
On the Windows side of things, it seems to me pretty much all the apps I use have had this capability for a long time. Not sure what's the hold-up on the Mac side.
Reason #7: The never-ending "Optimizing system performance..." makes updating system components through Software Update unbearably slow.
We're all familiar with this one. Software Update gently informs you of new updates to your system software, and you gleefully start your updates... and glee turns into anger... as you realize that once again, that heinous "optimizing system performance" step is taking forever to complete, consuming a whole lot of CPU and making your system almost unusable due to the high level of IO activity.
This is by far one of the most frustrating thing about Mac OS X: totally unique to OS X, unfathomable to the user, and horribly slow. I know and don't care for the technical explanation, there is absolutely no excuse for this on a modern OS. Fix the damn thing Apple!
On the Windows side of things, it seems to me pretty much all the apps I use have had this capability for a long time. Not sure what's the hold-up on the Mac side.
Um, like what? Firefox? I don't think I've ever had MS Office ask me to update it on Windows. Windows itself auto-updates but that's just the same as what OS X does.
Let's see:
WinZip doesn't auto-update last I checked
PowerArchiver doesn't auto-update
7zip doesn't
WinRAR doesn't
AutoCAD doesn't to my knowledge
I don't believe that the Adobe products do, except for maybe Adobe Reader
WinSCP doesn't
GAIM doesn't
AIM only notifies you last I recall
PuTTY doesn't
WinAMP might just notify you
I don't know about Skype
Nero doesn't
No clue on Picasa though
Maybe all of the apps you use on Windows have this functionality, but I just don't see it. "Look, two apps on Windows auto-update themselves without putting the burden on you," seem like a rather flimsy argument for moving back to Windows. It might be a legitimate gripe about OS X, but not a compelling argument for its abandonment. Especially just basing it on what third party developers are doing. "Apple sucks because their 3rd party developers are lazy." I just find it rather odd how some people will blame a company for what other people are doing. Things like "Nintendo sucks because they don't have enough 3rd party games." What is Nintendo supposed to do? Threaten developers to develop GameCube games... or else?
Reason #7: The never-ending "Optimizing system performance..." makes updating system components through Software Update unbearably slow.
Well, now you seem to be trying to hard to find something to complain about ... it's something that's got to be done. How could it possibly be "fixed" ?
The only reason I have a Windows machine in my house is to access a training web-site for my work very occassionally. It, unfortunately, uses code that is proprietary to Windows (directx maybe, or something else, i don't know.) So Apple couldn't make it work on a Mac even if they wanted to.
Most of the other complaints seem to center around "standards", or rather the lack of standards. Which would indicate that most of our compaints aren't Apples fault... or even M$'s .... but rather the fact that the industry as a whole refuses to adopt standards and stick to them.
Even on Windows, It'd be nice to just have a clean efficient program for running chat, rather than some bloated piece of code that has to support 20 different services and dozens of codecs just to maintain the appearance of being a "universal" client.
If you like Windows, then use Windows.
If you like OSX, then use OSX.
Each has it's own problems, pick the one that gives YOU fewer headaches and run with it.
We're all familiar with this one. Software Update gently informs you of new updates to your system software, and you gleefully start your updates... and glee turns into anger... as you realize that once again, that heinous "optimizing system performance" step is taking forever to complete, consuming a whole lot of CPU and making your system almost unusable due to the high level of IO activity.
You could always wait until you have finished your work before updating. Or do you find that simply unacceptable?
The never-ending "Optimizing system performance..." makes updating system components through Software Update unbearably slow.
This is nothing compared to the "progress bar" (what a joke) in Windows. It isn't a progress bar because the percentage of the bar filled in has absolutly nothing to do with the actual progress. It's just a moving bar to make you think it's doing something.
This is nothing compared to the "progress bar" (what a joke) in Windows. It isn't a progress bar because the percentage of the bar filled in has absolutly nothing to do with the actual progress. It's just a moving bar to make you think it's doing something.
I hear ya, the progress bar cruises to 99%, then hangs there for a good 10 minutes. That last 1% must be one heck of a nut to crack.
I hear ya, the progress bar cruises to 99%, then hangs there for a good 10 minutes. That last 1% must be one heck of a nut to crack.
I am sorry but I have no idea what progress bar you guys are talking about. All progress bars in Windows? A particular instance? I honestly haven't noticed this problem, if it exists.... maybe because everything is so fast in Windows, you never really have to wait long for anything...? (kidding, kinda)
I OTOH was talking specifically about the fact that every time you install/update software through Apple's Software Update (or sometimes otherwise), you have to go through that excruciatingly long "system performance optimization" (way to turn a negative into a positive, that) step.
You could always wait until you have finished your work before updating. Or do you find that simply unacceptable?
Sure, I could. I could also just keeping using my old trusty Mac Plus with its lovely unitasking System 6. NOT. My point is: sure we could all come up with thousands different excuses for limitations of our favorite OS, but why should we? Because we care? Do you think the 98% of non-Mac users care? No they don't. And neither should I have to.
For every single item I am pointing out, one can always come up with lots of compromises or kludgy workarounds. But there comes a point where you have to stop, and wonder about your choice of tool or technology: maybe I don't have to put up with this stuff after all, maybe the tradeoffs are simply not worth it. This, my friends, is what I would rather this discussion be about.
The mac just lacks a few titles imo, such as Battlefield 2 and Half Life 2 and perhaps Far Cry. All what Apple needs are the triple AAA must have titles, and there aren't many. The new iMac has a decent graphics card in it now, something that can play these games pretty easily.
Well, now you seem to be trying to hard to find something to complain about ... it's something that's got to be done. How could it possibly be "fixed" ?
*sigh* If "it's something that's got to be done," then why doesn't Solaris need it? Why doesn't Linux need it? Why doesn't Windows need it? 'nuff said.
ps: please do not take the above literally! I do not mean to say that Linux/Solaris/Windows/whatever is better than Mac OS X. I am just saying that such a statement could only come out of the mouth of a Mac geek, like me, you, and probably most people in this forum. However again, I am asking you, no, I am pleading you, to think like a normal user, who only cares about the fact that "it just works." The fact that we even know about things like library prebinding (performed by that step) is an anomaly in the grand scheme of things.
*sigh* If "it's something that's got to be done," then why doesn't Solaris need it? Why doesn't Linux need it? Why doesn't Windows need it? 'nuff said.
ps: please do not take the above literally! I do not mean to say that Linux/Solaris/Windows/whatever is better than Mac OS X. I am just saying that such a statement could only come out of the mouth of a Mac geek, like me, you, and probably most people in this forum. However again, I am asking you, no, I am pleading you, to think like a normal user, who only cares about the fact that "it just works." The fact that we even know about things like library prebinding (performed by that step) is an anomaly in the grand scheme of things.
Which 'average users' are you talking about? Graphic designers? I spend about 6 months as a systems administrator at a small graphic design firm. The designers didn't even have permissions to do the updates (no admin access), and we never did updates until they weren't working at their station. This goes for the Macs and the PCs.
Home users? I think that home users would do something else while it's updating. Even if they don't, I've never had a performance hit to web browsing while an update was running. And that's what the 'average' home user uses their computer for.... Web pages, Email, Photos, maybe MS Office, and Instant Messaging. I've never noticed a serious hit to performance while doing any of those things during an update, and I'm on a 667MHz G4. Even if home users are forced to wait, I don't think that they will view it has a huge deal. I don't see many people demanding that body shops allow them to multi-task by fixing the car while it's being driven to work, etc.
I think that most people would just do something else while it is updating. Especially since most of the updates that will require heavy "Optimizing System Performance" waits are on updates that require a reboot. People are told about the reboot that will be required. So I think that a lot of people will just ignore if they are in the middle of working and it pops up notifying them of an available update. If anything, they might be annoyed that it popped up at all.
Edit: I forgot to add. I think that it is an area that could use improvement. Elimination of waiting times like this would be a benefit to the entire platform, but you attack it like it raped your sister or something.
This is by far one of the most frustrating thing about Mac OS X: totally unique to OS X, unfathomable to the user, and horribly slow. I know and don't care for the technical explanation, there is absolutely no excuse for this on a modern OS. Fix the damn thing Apple!
There is no excuse for a modern OS to optimize its performance so itworks with the computer? Are you also upset that some updates require you to restart (I'm being serious...)? When I got my new iMac G5, before I installed the extra RAM, the first this I did was take it out of the box, hook it up to my ethernet line and run software update twice. It took *maybe* 20 minutes to process 11 updates the first time around and less than 2 to process 3 updates the second. And all the while, I had my old G4 set up in target disk mode copying over my documents. Next time you run software update, open up the Activity Montior utility and check out how much of your CPU is going to SU, as opposed to the other apps you have open. You'll be surprised. The computer is also designed to take advantage of extra CPU power if it has it. If you're running nothing but software update and the OS, then of course it'll take more CPU ... the program has it at its disposal and will use it.
On the gaming comment that was stated in a later thread ... yeah, the Mac isn't for HARDCORE gamers, but like someone else stated, it really suffers from a lack of titles and the fact that the games are more expensive (Usually $10 - $20 more). With my new iMac though, I've been running UT 2K4 and Halo and it looks NICE, runs smooth ... much smoother than running off the GeForce 4 MX that was in my old G4.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but from my own user experience, I like the look, feel and overall use of a Mac ... enough to where I'll never go back. My roommate at college got so fed up with windows randomly restarting and crashing and quitting that he moved over to Ubuntu. He tried to move back to XP for a while yesterday to install router drivers and it wanted him to reactivate his legit copy of XP, then the computer didn't like his activation number so he tried calling MS's automated activation support. The number they gave him didn't work, and reformatting didn't work. It was like MS was telling him ... no, you REALLY, REALLY don't wanna come back to us...
If Flash sucks, it sucks. Did you not read the beginning of this thread pyr3? Your ENTIRE response is an apology.
I don't want apologies. I want iChat to not be the absolute WORST instant messenger client on our platform. It's interface is retarded, its functionality works 10% of the time, and...so it sucks.
Safari is half baked. It's like they had great ideas, at .8, and then...Haven't updated it since they added Tabs like years ago. Ouch.
And people don't switch Users in the real world. They just don't. It's inconvenient. Hell, I find it inconvenient and I use computers all the time. People that casually use computer certainly don't want to be bothered with it. Apple needs to grapple with this. One problem that this has caused is that I can't lock folders. I want everyone to be able to use my Administrator account but have a folder of some, let's say, sensitive stuff, (ok yeah pics of my girlfriend) in a locked folder. I mean...XP does it. OS X doesn't. How embarrassing.
There are many flaws in OS X that Apple refuses to admit are there. That is unhealthy. I mean the Finder, for example, has been a mess for so long, and yet they refuse to do anything about it. Ever since they half added FTP, they have refused to go back and make it real FTP support. Make up your mind, either include it or don't, you know? Same for iChat, it's just half baked. Actually it's still in the mixing bowl.
I mean sure OS X is better. It just has a few rough edges that are real problems, that for some reason, Apple refuses to fix.
And people don't switch Users in the real world. They just don't. It's inconvenient. Hell, I find it inconvenient and I use computers all the time. People that casually use computer certainly don't want to be bothered with it. Apple needs to grapple with this. One problem that this has caused is that I can't lock folders. I want everyone to be able to use my Administrator account but have a folder of some, let's say, sensitive stuff, (ok yeah pics of my girlfriend) in a locked folder. I mean...XP does it. OS X doesn't. How embarrassing.
Are you still on this? I switch users. My Wife, Me, and my oldest daughter. A user account for each of us. We use iChat with no problem. Mail, Address Book, Safari, etc too. You know what, my wife can't see my "sensitive stuff" in my Documents folder either. If you were properly using the computer you wouldn't have your problem.
Well without being quite so rude, I'll chime in that if my 65+ year old in-laws can figure out Fast User Switching and multiple accounts, anyone can. It's their first computer. In my mind, it's kind of like complaining that you have to turn the wheel to make the car turn. Pretty basic stuff. The tools are there to do what you want, so use them. They work well.
Are you still on this? I switch users. My Wife, Me, and my oldest daughter. A user account for each of us. We use iChat with no problem. Mail, Address Book, Safari, etc too. You know what, my wife can't see my "sensitive stuff" in my Documents folder either. If you were properly using the computer you wouldn't have your problem. No shut up already!
Why don't you *read* what he said instead of being a condescending apologist?
He's not talking about different users; he's saying OS X should be able to put a key on one specific folder - a password-protected folder so others can log in with *his* account but not be able to open that one folder. He's not talking about different accounts,, he's talking about *one* (1) account.
FWIW, I use iChat to videoconf with some friends a couple states over on a pretty regular basis - once they upgraded to AIM 5.5, no problems. And I'm sorry, but if you're going to say that AIM isn't widespread enough to be a viable option, you're not going to get much further response.
Quote:
Originally posted by cygsid
ok.. misunderstanding here: I never said - or even meant to say - that AIM wasn't widespread (although it seems to me its spread is rather US-centric, unlike say MSN Messenger... everybody I wants to communicate with uses the latter but not the former).
This is a major issue for me right now. Out of the 100+ people on my contact list, I don't know a single person who uses AIM, so it must be a US thing. Here in Australia, MSN is the standard.
In the future, I would love to get a 2nd gen Intel Mac to replace my Powerbook (hopefully people have worked out how to install Windows by then), but if I can't use the built in camera, then that would be enough to make me not get the Mac.
Comments
Reason #6: Non-Apple applications rarely if ever have auto-update capabilities.
This is one is really unfathomable to me: how can so many apps on the Mac still not have auto-update capability in this day and age?
Apple's auto-update is a fine piece of software alright, but why oh why can't they share the same mechanism with third parties?? It would make the whole Mac experience soooo much sweeter.
Granted, most apps do have the ability to automatically check for updates, but if it's only to tell me to go download the update myself and replace the application with the downloaded one manually... yuck. So much 20th century drudgery!
The funny thing is even Apple's apps do the same on their own if you don't update to the latest through Software Update: iTunes for example will notify you of a new version and will open the iTunes website for you for manual download.
On the Windows side of things, it seems to me pretty much all the apps I use have had this capability for a long time. Not sure what's the hold-up on the Mac side.
We're all familiar with this one. Software Update gently informs you of new updates to your system software, and you gleefully start your updates... and glee turns into anger... as you realize that once again, that heinous "optimizing system performance" step is taking forever to complete, consuming a whole lot of CPU and making your system almost unusable due to the high level of IO activity.
This is by far one of the most frustrating thing about Mac OS X: totally unique to OS X, unfathomable to the user, and horribly slow. I know and don't care for the technical explanation, there is absolutely no excuse for this on a modern OS. Fix the damn thing Apple!
Originally posted by cygsid
On the Windows side of things, it seems to me pretty much all the apps I use have had this capability for a long time. Not sure what's the hold-up on the Mac side.
Um, like what? Firefox? I don't think I've ever had MS Office ask me to update it on Windows. Windows itself auto-updates but that's just the same as what OS X does.
Let's see:
WinZip doesn't auto-update last I checked
PowerArchiver doesn't auto-update
7zip doesn't
WinRAR doesn't
AutoCAD doesn't to my knowledge
I don't believe that the Adobe products do, except for maybe Adobe Reader
WinSCP doesn't
GAIM doesn't
AIM only notifies you last I recall
PuTTY doesn't
WinAMP might just notify you
I don't know about Skype
Nero doesn't
No clue on Picasa though
Maybe all of the apps you use on Windows have this functionality, but I just don't see it. "Look, two apps on Windows auto-update themselves without putting the burden on you," seem like a rather flimsy argument for moving back to Windows. It might be a legitimate gripe about OS X, but not a compelling argument for its abandonment. Especially just basing it on what third party developers are doing. "Apple sucks because their 3rd party developers are lazy." I just find it rather odd how some people will blame a company for what other people are doing. Things like "Nintendo sucks because they don't have enough 3rd party games." What is Nintendo supposed to do? Threaten developers to develop GameCube games... or else?
Originally posted by cygsid
Reason #7: The never-ending "Optimizing system performance..." makes updating system components through Software Update unbearably slow.
Well, now you seem to be trying to hard to find something to complain about
The only reason I have a Windows machine in my house is to access a training web-site for my work very occassionally. It, unfortunately, uses code that is proprietary to Windows (directx maybe, or something else, i don't know.) So Apple couldn't make it work on a Mac even if they wanted to.
Most of the other complaints seem to center around "standards", or rather the lack of standards. Which would indicate that most of our compaints aren't Apples fault... or even M$'s .... but rather the fact that the industry as a whole refuses to adopt standards and stick to them.
Even on Windows, It'd be nice to just have a clean efficient program for running chat, rather than some bloated piece of code that has to support 20 different services and dozens of codecs just to maintain the appearance of being a "universal" client.
If you like Windows, then use Windows.
If you like OSX, then use OSX.
Each has it's own problems, pick the one that gives YOU fewer headaches and run with it.
We're all familiar with this one. Software Update gently informs you of new updates to your system software, and you gleefully start your updates... and glee turns into anger... as you realize that once again, that heinous "optimizing system performance" step is taking forever to complete, consuming a whole lot of CPU and making your system almost unusable due to the high level of IO activity.
You could always wait until you have finished your work before updating. Or do you find that simply unacceptable?
Originally posted by cygsid
The never-ending "Optimizing system performance..." makes updating system components through Software Update unbearably slow.
This is nothing compared to the "progress bar" (what a joke) in Windows. It isn't a progress bar because the percentage of the bar filled in has absolutly nothing to do with the actual progress. It's just a moving bar to make you think it's doing something.
Originally posted by fahlman
This is nothing compared to the "progress bar" (what a joke) in Windows. It isn't a progress bar because the percentage of the bar filled in has absolutly nothing to do with the actual progress. It's just a moving bar to make you think it's doing something.
I hear ya, the progress bar cruises to 99%, then hangs there for a good 10 minutes. That last 1% must be one heck of a nut to crack.
Originally posted by PBG4 Dude
I hear ya, the progress bar cruises to 99%, then hangs there for a good 10 minutes. That last 1% must be one heck of a nut to crack.
I am sorry but I have no idea what progress bar you guys are talking about. All progress bars in Windows? A particular instance? I honestly haven't noticed this problem, if it exists.... maybe because everything is so fast in Windows, you never really have to wait long for anything...?
I OTOH was talking specifically about the fact that every time you install/update software through Apple's Software Update (or sometimes otherwise), you have to go through that excruciatingly long "system performance optimization" (way to turn a negative into a positive, that) step.
Originally posted by Aubec
You could always wait until you have finished your work before updating. Or do you find that simply unacceptable?
Sure, I could. I could also just keeping using my old trusty Mac Plus with its lovely unitasking System 6. NOT. My point is: sure we could all come up with thousands different excuses for limitations of our favorite OS, but why should we? Because we care? Do you think the 98% of non-Mac users care? No they don't. And neither should I have to.
For every single item I am pointing out, one can always come up with lots of compromises or kludgy workarounds. But there comes a point where you have to stop, and wonder about your choice of tool or technology: maybe I don't have to put up with this stuff after all, maybe the tradeoffs are simply not worth it. This, my friends, is what I would rather this discussion be about.
I am not the devil here, just its advocate.
Originally posted by mattyj
Reason 101: Battlefield 2.
I wouldn't have brought this one up because it's so obvious and on-controversial but just to generalize a bit:
"Reason" #100: Macs are NOT for hardcore gamers.
I don't expect much controversy here: few games, way behind their Windows counterpart, often with worse performance, etc. etc.
However this one doesn't bother me too much, I can definitely live with it, although I am sure it must be hold-up for some people.
Originally posted by KingOfSomewhereHot
Well, now you seem to be trying to hard to find something to complain about
*sigh* If "it's something that's got to be done," then why doesn't Solaris need it? Why doesn't Linux need it? Why doesn't Windows need it? 'nuff said.
ps: please do not take the above literally! I do not mean to say that Linux/Solaris/Windows/whatever is better than Mac OS X. I am just saying that such a statement could only come out of the mouth of a Mac geek, like me, you, and probably most people in this forum. However again, I am asking you, no, I am pleading you, to think like a normal user, who only cares about the fact that "it just works." The fact that we even know about things like library prebinding (performed by that step) is an anomaly in the grand scheme of things.
Originally posted by cygsid
*sigh* If "it's something that's got to be done," then why doesn't Solaris need it? Why doesn't Linux need it? Why doesn't Windows need it? 'nuff said.
ps: please do not take the above literally! I do not mean to say that Linux/Solaris/Windows/whatever is better than Mac OS X. I am just saying that such a statement could only come out of the mouth of a Mac geek, like me, you, and probably most people in this forum. However again, I am asking you, no, I am pleading you, to think like a normal user, who only cares about the fact that "it just works." The fact that we even know about things like library prebinding (performed by that step) is an anomaly in the grand scheme of things.
Which 'average users' are you talking about? Graphic designers? I spend about 6 months as a systems administrator at a small graphic design firm. The designers didn't even have permissions to do the updates (no admin access), and we never did updates until they weren't working at their station. This goes for the Macs and the PCs.
Home users? I think that home users would do something else while it's updating. Even if they don't, I've never had a performance hit to web browsing while an update was running. And that's what the 'average' home user uses their computer for.... Web pages, Email, Photos, maybe MS Office, and Instant Messaging. I've never noticed a serious hit to performance while doing any of those things during an update, and I'm on a 667MHz G4. Even if home users are forced to wait, I don't think that they will view it has a huge deal. I don't see many people demanding that body shops allow them to multi-task by fixing the car while it's being driven to work, etc.
I think that most people would just do something else while it is updating. Especially since most of the updates that will require heavy "Optimizing System Performance" waits are on updates that require a reboot. People are told about the reboot that will be required. So I think that a lot of people will just ignore if they are in the middle of working and it pops up notifying them of an available update. If anything, they might be annoyed that it popped up at all.
Edit: I forgot to add. I think that it is an area that could use improvement. Elimination of waiting times like this would be a benefit to the entire platform, but you attack it like it raped your sister or something.
Originally posted by cygsid
This is by far one of the most frustrating thing about Mac OS X: totally unique to OS X, unfathomable to the user, and horribly slow. I know and don't care for the technical explanation, there is absolutely no excuse for this on a modern OS. Fix the damn thing Apple!
There is no excuse for a modern OS to optimize its performance so itworks with the computer? Are you also upset that some updates require you to restart (I'm being serious...)? When I got my new iMac G5, before I installed the extra RAM, the first this I did was take it out of the box, hook it up to my ethernet line and run software update twice. It took *maybe* 20 minutes to process 11 updates the first time around and less than 2 to process 3 updates the second. And all the while, I had my old G4 set up in target disk mode copying over my documents. Next time you run software update, open up the Activity Montior utility and check out how much of your CPU is going to SU, as opposed to the other apps you have open. You'll be surprised. The computer is also designed to take advantage of extra CPU power if it has it. If you're running nothing but software update and the OS, then of course it'll take more CPU ... the program has it at its disposal and will use it.
On the gaming comment that was stated in a later thread ... yeah, the Mac isn't for HARDCORE gamers, but like someone else stated, it really suffers from a lack of titles and the fact that the games are more expensive (Usually $10 - $20 more). With my new iMac though, I've been running UT 2K4 and Halo and it looks NICE, runs smooth ... much smoother than running off the GeForce 4 MX that was in my old G4.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but from my own user experience, I like the look, feel and overall use of a Mac ... enough to where I'll never go back. My roommate at college got so fed up with windows randomly restarting and crashing and quitting that he moved over to Ubuntu. He tried to move back to XP for a while yesterday to install router drivers and it wanted him to reactivate his legit copy of XP, then the computer didn't like his activation number so he tried calling MS's automated activation support. The number they gave him didn't work, and reformatting didn't work. It was like MS was telling him ... no, you REALLY, REALLY don't wanna come back to us...
If Flash sucks, it sucks. Did you not read the beginning of this thread pyr3? Your ENTIRE response is an apology.
I don't want apologies. I want iChat to not be the absolute WORST instant messenger client on our platform. It's interface is retarded, its functionality works 10% of the time, and...so it sucks.
Safari is half baked. It's like they had great ideas, at .8, and then...Haven't updated it since they added Tabs like years ago. Ouch.
And people don't switch Users in the real world. They just don't. It's inconvenient. Hell, I find it inconvenient and I use computers all the time. People that casually use computer certainly don't want to be bothered with it. Apple needs to grapple with this. One problem that this has caused is that I can't lock folders. I want everyone to be able to use my Administrator account but have a folder of some, let's say, sensitive stuff, (ok yeah pics of my girlfriend) in a locked folder. I mean...XP does it. OS X doesn't. How embarrassing.
There are many flaws in OS X that Apple refuses to admit are there. That is unhealthy. I mean the Finder, for example, has been a mess for so long, and yet they refuse to do anything about it. Ever since they half added FTP, they have refused to go back and make it real FTP support. Make up your mind, either include it or don't, you know? Same for iChat, it's just half baked. Actually it's still in the mixing bowl.
I mean sure OS X is better. It just has a few rough edges that are real problems, that for some reason, Apple refuses to fix.
Originally posted by Aquatic
And people don't switch Users in the real world. They just don't. It's inconvenient. Hell, I find it inconvenient and I use computers all the time. People that casually use computer certainly don't want to be bothered with it. Apple needs to grapple with this. One problem that this has caused is that I can't lock folders. I want everyone to be able to use my Administrator account but have a folder of some, let's say, sensitive stuff, (ok yeah pics of my girlfriend) in a locked folder. I mean...XP does it. OS X doesn't. How embarrassing.
Are you still on this? I switch users. My Wife, Me, and my oldest daughter. A user account for each of us. We use iChat with no problem. Mail, Address Book, Safari, etc too. You know what, my wife can't see my "sensitive stuff" in my Documents folder either. If you were properly using the computer you wouldn't have your problem.
Edit: Niced it up a bit.
Originally posted by fahlman
Are you still on this? I switch users. My Wife, Me, and my oldest daughter. A user account for each of us. We use iChat with no problem. Mail, Address Book, Safari, etc too. You know what, my wife can't see my "sensitive stuff" in my Documents folder either. If you were properly using the computer you wouldn't have your problem. No shut up already!
Why don't you *read* what he said instead of being a condescending apologist?
He's not talking about different users; he's saying OS X should be able to put a key on one specific folder - a password-protected folder so others can log in with *his* account but not be able to open that one folder. He's not talking about different accounts,, he's talking about *one* (1) account.
Geez.
FWIW, I use iChat to videoconf with some friends a couple states over on a pretty regular basis - once they upgraded to AIM 5.5, no problems. And I'm sorry, but if you're going to say that AIM isn't widespread enough to be a viable option, you're not going to get much further response.
Originally posted by cygsid
ok.. misunderstanding here: I never said - or even meant to say - that AIM wasn't widespread (although it seems to me its spread is rather US-centric, unlike say MSN Messenger... everybody I wants to communicate with uses the latter but not the former).
This is a major issue for me right now. Out of the 100+ people on my contact list, I don't know a single person who uses AIM, so it must be a US thing. Here in Australia, MSN is the standard.
In the future, I would love to get a 2nd gen Intel Mac to replace my Powerbook (hopefully people have worked out how to install Windows by then), but if I can't use the built in camera, then that would be enough to make me not get the Mac.