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.
MSN is pretty much the standard outside of the US. Most people I know use AIM, and the few people I know (from the US) that use MSN is usually because they know people outside the US that use MSN. That said, this is what people get for going with a Microsoft solution. Hell will freeze over before Microsoft will allow videochat to interoperate with an OS X program. Not because of Apple, not because of OS X sucking so much that it can't be done, but because Microsoft doesn't want to move people away from the Windows platform. Sure they do things like Office for Mac. That's because if Apple dies then Microsoft can't point to them and say, "Look! We aren't a monopoly! Really!"
That said, why are you basing a $2000 purchase on the ability to use the built-in camera? Is the built-in iSight really the only reason for you to spend $2000 on a new laptop? Personally, I want one of the new MacBook Pros, and the iSight camera is just a second thought to me. I could really care less about it compared to the other features is has over my 3.5 year old PowerBook (667MHz). In my opinion, either you're really rich and can afford to spend $2000 just because you like the built-in iSight, or you're being pretty picky. It's obviously your opinion and your choice, but to me it's like not buying a certain car because you don't like the brand of tires that come standard.
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.
You're talking about people in the 'real world' and how they use their computers? People in the 'real world' don't open even 20-30 pages in a web browser at once. The only time I've had near that many pages open was when I was loading a bunch of images into tabs. And even then, I didn't see my 667MHz PowerBook slow down to a crawl. (Granted displaying an image is less intensive than rendering an HTML page)
I'll agree that FTP support in Finder is a joke. But it *is* better than it used to be. And at that, I think that most people use an FTP client anyways. I've never used the FTP support in Windows either. Why? Because FTP support in Windows Explorer sucks too.
As far as Safari goes... Why is it half-baked to not add 10 million new features every release? You're complaining that Apple isn't fixing old flaws in other software, and yet here you don't care about them fixing old flaws, just adding new features every release. C'mon. How many new features can you add to a web browser? Personally, I think that improving the Webkit engine is a good thing. My online banking site used to be unusable in Safari (mostly because they did some funky crap with Javascript files that I don't even think is part of any web standard), but now I can access it and bank online in Safari. Thus far, I've been happy with Safari's progress.
Guess what? Flash sucks. So what? You are trying to blame Apple for the failure of Adobe-Macromedia. Blame Adobe-Macromedia, and then call it a gripe. The thread is about compelling reasons to switch to Windows. Not "Every small gripe I have with OS X." One that note, even your FTP gripe doesn't qualify. "I think that the built-in FTP support in OS X sucks, so I'll switch back to Windows where the built-in FTP support sucks?"
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.
The weird thing is, OS X lets you do this with a very secure AES-128 encryption scheme ... here's how it works:
1) Go into disk utility and click new image
2) Pick a name and pick a location for the new image
3) Under size, select on appropriate for the size of all the files you're trying to protect (you can sleect your own size if you're not happy with the standard sizes apple provides)
4) Click on encryption and pull down to AES-128
5) Select read/write disk image
6) Click OK ... while it's creating the image it'll ask you for a password and to verify ... click OK again and you're done
7) It'll create a .dmg, just click on it, authenticate with your password, it'll mount the image, drag your dirty pictures to it, authenticate again so it'll copy them over, you can now Secure Delete the originals since you've copied them to the disk image.
8) Unmount the disk and hide the .dmg in an obscure place if you're REALLY paranoid
I don't understand why this is so hard? It's not a failure of OS X ... it's actually something that works quite well. I have several encrypted .dmgs on my HDD with confidential research on them ... just in case. I chalk it up to user ignorance. Before you come back and say ... that's more complicated, I just want to key *one* folder and make it easy for *me* to access ... you wanted security right? Password protecting something is *NOT* security. Its a band-aid. Its like you saying, I don't wanna get the flu, so I'm just going to stay in my house and hole up for a while instead of saying, well, I'll just go get the damn shot and be okay. So for the extra 3 or 4 minutes creating an encrypted disk image takes, you can sleep better at night and be sure NO ONE but YOU can access that information. It's not embarassing that OS X does it this way ... its quite reassuring actually...
And Fast User Switching is a concept most people are not familiar with. I mean know thousands of people. 95% them, although vaguely familiar thanks to "logging on" on Windows, and using a User on a lab computer, do not switch users on their home computer. This is a real issue. iChat NEEDS to be designed for multiple AIM accounts on the same OS X Users. Do you see what I am saying? More than one person usually uses the admin account of OS X. An entire different user is a little beyond what most people need or want. They just want a few things set up for more than one user, basically email and IM. Most people use the Web for email now though, so that takes care of that. But people still use IM clients (I would like to see them use the Net for that too a la AIM Express...perhaps someday). So, iChat needs to be redesigned.
pyr3 this is what this thread is for. Not for excuses as to why something is wrong, but how it is wrong, and how it can be fixed.
PDF and Flash in Safari slow Safari down hardcore. This needs to be fixed. Maybe not by Apple, but it does need to be fixed as it is a serious issue, and effects the web browsing experience.
Just today I was looking at 20 pages. That's not exorbitant. I had restart Safari as it got sluggish. Why does this happen? I thought KHTML or whatever was supposed to be efficient.
I hate to say it but FireFox on Windows just browses faster, and never seems to bog down. Nor does Explorer, really. And of course Flash and PDF are way faster. We are second-rate Net citizens. This is unfortunate. Back in the 90s we were on par or ahead.
And Fast User Switching is a concept most people are not familiar with. I mean know thousands of people. 95% them, although vaguely familiar thanks to "logging on" on Windows, and using a User on a lab computer, do not switch users on their home computer. This is a real issue. iChat NEEDS to be designed for multiple AIM accounts on the same OS X Users. Do you see what I am saying? More than one person usually uses the admin account of OS X. An entire different user is a little beyond what most people need or want. They just want a few things set up for more than one user, basically email and IM. Most people use the Web for email now though, so that takes care of that. But people still use IM clients (I would like to see them use the Net for that too a la AIM Express...perhaps someday). So, iChat needs to be redesigned.
Wait, wait, wait .. are you saying you can't use multiple AIM accounts in iChat under the same OS X User account? This is absolutely false!!! I've got 3 different AIM accounts in my OS X admin accoun, two for me and one for my bother. Mail works the same way? They all operate off of the cards in address book anyway. I don't see how this is a problem???
In iChat, go to prefs, click on the accounts tab and make a new account. You don't even have to log in with a particular account if you don't want to. You can easily switch between the accounts by going to the iChat / Switch to menu. What's wong with this????
In mail, go to accounts, create a new mail account. I have 3 mail accounts in mail right now. One for school, one for home and one for professional use. They are all listed as different mailboxes within Mail itself. If whoever wants to be able to check their mail from your admin account, just create a new mail account for their e-mail address. Again, what is hard about this??? Also, why would you use the internet to check your e-mail? It's slower ... you could just get it all by throwing mail in the dock, and whenever you wanna check your e-mail, making one mouse click...
All of the names and addresses used in iChat and Mail are directly tied to your address book. If someone else is going to be using your admin account for mail or iChat, you'll have to put their contact into your address book, but no problem, you can always make groups within address book to differentiate between them. OS X is made for multi-user simplicity. I don't get how you can say multiple people can't run stuff off the same admin account because they can. You just have to create accounts within the apps for them and add contacts? What is so damned hard about it???
You might want to read what he said again. What's his first sentence in the fifth paragraph?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
I even quoted the whole papragraph in my responce.
So he clearly says that he doesn't want to switch users, and that his only issue is with creating password-protected foldrers, yet you tell him, even though you quoted the entire paragraph that you and your wife do it just fine - and tell him to "no shut up!" in the end too.
Did you not read what he said? He doesn't care if you are doing it just fine - he doesn't want to do it. He wants to be able to use *his* account for *everyone*. But he also wants to be able to protect those folders he deems necessary to be protected.
It doesn't get much clearer than that.
Quote:
The weird thing is, OS X lets you do this with a very secure AES-128 encryption scheme ... here's how it works
Oh yeah, and how many steps is that: eight? Why not make it a little more consumer friendly, say, right click and 'password protect' or even use Keychain for that thing instead of Disk Utility and some 8 steps of something your average Joe will never know/care for?
Oh yeah, and how many steps is that: eight? Why not make it a little more consumer friendly, say, right click and 'password protect' or even use Keychain for that thing instead of Disk Utility and some 8 steps of something your average Joe will never know/care for?
You know... that is a good idea, I'll bet you could probably work something with Automator and save it as a Finder plugin.
Speaking of things I dont like about Mac... FTFF for a start. Also, fix automator too, I had an honest to goodness all night play with it a couple of weeks ago and I've come to the conclusion that it's buggy beta software. It shows some real potential and I love the fact you can save automator scripts as Finder plugins.
Safari... it's not just flash that can kill Safari, javascripts too. I can't use my universities distance ed. website with Safari, only Firefox and that other browser (when I'm not at home).
I wish a safe and compatible substitute for ActiveX could be created. It's next to impossible to use most websites in Korea (and other countries too I'm sure) because of the lack of ActiveX. I'm not a web developer mind you so I might have my assertations mixed up on that one but basically, my wife can't use a mac because it doesn't fulfill her internet requirements (Hangame etc. for those of you who might know it).
I dont like Versiontracker very much, it's not automated enough for me and "emerge sync" or "yum update" etc. is so much more convenient, updated software all the time, no worries (well for those who know... it's not always that simple ).
I dont like the fact Terminal can't automatically load X11 and start forwarding SSH sessions, gotta load X11 separately and use the X11 terminal. I dont like not being able to cut and paste into or out of the X11 terminal. I dont like the fact Quartz windows can't be forwarded through SSH.
I dont like the fact xcode 2.0 project files are uncompatible with xcode 1.5. I dont like the fact cocoa documentation sucks (IMHO compared to java api reference). I also don't like the fact interface builder is unwieldy... I need to click the classes tab to active the classes menu item, even though I might have a particular object selected in the instance menu. I dont like the fact Apple didn't port java 5 to panther.
I dont like the Home/End buttons jumping around the document either, this should be a no brainer to include in System Prefs. Also, I dont like System Prefs.
I dont like how calc quits when you close it.
I dont like not being able to open items when they are in the trash.
I dont like that mail doesn't have secure authentication.
Oh yeah, and how many steps is that: eight? Why not make it a little more consumer friendly, say, right click and 'password protect' or even use Keychain for that thing instead of Disk Utility and some 8 steps of something your average Joe will never know/care for?
The way I explained it was eight. I can make it 4 or 2 or 1 ... you're arguing semantics. It's not hard to do either. No longer than "Password Protect" having to encrypt everything the folder. Unless you're saying you don't want the encryption ... then I don't see the point of password protecting it? You want it secure, those extremely simple steps that any joe user that searched through Apple discussion boards or AI (like I do...) can do. Really ... it takes 3 mouse clicks. You can add the dmg to your keychain as well, but again, what's the point, anyone that double clicks on it automatically has access to it? Could Apple do folder encryption? Sure ... they had it as an option on OS 9 in the menu bar and did away with it. Why? Because going through disk ustility to make a secure image allows you to encrypt multiple files and folders instead of individual files one at a time. It is a MUCH better system than simply PW protecting a folder or encrpyting individual files from the menu bar...
So he clearly says that he doesn't want to switch users, and that his only issue is with creating password-protected foldrers, yet you tell him, even though you quoted the entire paragraph that you and your wife do it just fine - and tell him to "no shut up!" in the end too.
Did you not read what he said? He doesn't care if you are doing it just fine - he doesn't want to do it. He wants to be able to use *his* account for *everyone*. But he also wants to be able to protect those folders he deems necessary to be protected.
It doesn't get much clearer than that.
You're right, it doesn't. He wants to do something that appears to be working against how the tool was designed. "By golly, I love driving screws with my hammer! Dammit, why don't they change hammers so they make driving screws easier!?!"
Think about what he, and you, are saying... he wants security for files so multiple users on a machine don't have access. That sounds an awful lot like a need for individual accounts. And I'm sorry, but FUS is brain-dead easy. Seriously, if someone has a problem with the basic concept of 'these are mine, those are yours', then they need to step away from the keyboard. FUS is the *simplest* way to ensure file security on per-user basis, bar none. No pesky messing with permissions, it just works. The question is... is FUS the right solution for the scenario, which it *seems* to be, but...
I'm trying to figure out why the resistance to a simple, easy solution for multiple user permissions on the same machine.
Two issues come to mind: a stated desire to let everyone have the capabilities of an admin account, and a non-stated possible desire as to *WHY* let everyone use the same account.
If you want everyone to have admin rights, just click the little box in System Preferences -> Accounts. Done. They're all admins.
I'm still stuck on why force everyone to use the same account. Is it to monitor what the kids are doing? (System Preferences -> Accounts -> Parental Controls) Is it share common files? (/Users/Shared) Seriously, why?
And no, "because it's what he wants to do, dammit" is not a reasonable answer. See above hammer/screw analogy. If someone wants to use a tool in a way other than how it was designed, they better have a good reason to think that the tool manufacturer needs to cater to their wants. Personal whim doesn't cut it, IMO. In my experience, that only indicates that the person hasn't clarified what they want to do, are unaware of the capabilities and options available to them, and/or are stuck in a track of behaviour for no logical reason. There are a lot of tools and solutions in MacOS X, and no single combination is going to solve everyone's problem, but I'm still trying to puzzle out why a single account for everyone.
So... why the fascination with everyone using one account? What problems do you see that *that* solution solves, that multiple accounts don't?
As a side note, I'd like to hear about 'password protect this folder' solutions, but for a different reason. I have sensitive info on my laptop that would be problematic if it were stolen. (I see this as quite different than a situation with shared users, however.)
So he clearly says that he doesn't want to switch users, and that his only issue is with creating password-protected foldrers, yet you tell him, even though you quoted the entire paragraph that you and your wife do it just fine - and tell him to "no shut up!" in the end too.
Did you not read what he said? He doesn't care if you are doing it just fine - he doesn't want to do it. He wants to be able to use *his* account for *everyone*. But he also wants to be able to protect those folders he deems necessary to be protected.
He wants to lock a folder because he insists on improperly using the OS. OS X is a multi-user OS and if he were using it like one he wouldn't have to lock his folder 'o porn so his sister wouldn't see it. There is no reason to lock a folder if he were using it properly because the entire user account would be restricted to just him. Problem solved.
He wants to lock a folder because he insists on improperly using the OS. OS X is a multi-user OS and if he were using it like one he wouldn't have to lock his folder 'o porn so his sister wouldn't see it. There is no reason to lock a folder if he were using it properly because the entire user account would be restricted to just him. Problem solved.
Er, even I'm not willing to say he's using the entire OS improperly. Wanting to lock down a specific folder is a fine need, and one I'd like to see a good solution for.
BUT...
Given what we've heard about what he's doing, we haven't heard *why*... it may be that there are other, alternative, solutions to what he wants to do, given the plethora of solutions in OS X.
At first glance, FUS seems like by far the easiest solution to the basic problem of 'each user has privacy'. I want to hear more about what he wants to do, and why, first, before saying it's the only solution for his needs. There may be something we're not aware of that has been yet unsaid. And no, I'm sorry, "It's too hard" isn't a reasonable justification for not using it, IMO. Like I said, if my techno-illiterate elderly in-laws can figure it out, anyone can. It's easy and slick... *if* your problem is partitioning out user spaces. If that's not the problem at hand, then there are other solutions to offer.
Well FAS is cool and all, and I like it, but I *never* use it. Want to know why? Because I too have sensitive info that I don't want other people (and that includes possible intruders/theives) to see. I want to be able to put a password on one folder. I also want to be able to use just one account. Sometimes my brother, who's 14 now, wants to use AIM for 15 minutes.
I want him to be able to use iChat, the same iChat that I use, without a different account. It's just a matter of preference, not something that is supposed to adapt to my workflow. And the wider issue is that almost all OSs do it. Windows has it on a right click, Linux has it in permissions (you can assing different permissions to different folders using all kinds of combinations.)
You can, for example, tell the system to let just the root open X folder. So even though you *are* an admin, and you *created* the folder, you can't open the folder unless you acquire root privileges (sudo or su). Why not offer this solution as well? Different levels of permissions for different things. It could be even disabled by default - put it in System Preferences so only those who need it - see it and use it.
*nod* Like I said, I definitely see the utility of it - in a situation where someone is *only* going to be using one or two apps on a very rare basis, then FUS is overkill. If instead it's an ongoing thing, FUS is a much better solution. It's all about context and problem parameters. From what was originally said, *I* got the feeling that it was a regularly shared computer, in which case FUS just seems obvious to me, but I'm open to new data about the situation.
So... okay, I can make a folder, and make it so I can't get access to it. Interesting. However, when I double-click it, I *don't* get a privilege request from the Finder, just a 'not allowed' dialog. Hmm. I thought that when a user attempted a disallowed action, the Finder would ask for an admin password. Curious. Of course, I'm logged in as an admin, soooo...
Well FAS is cool and all, and I like it, but I *never* use it. Want to know why? Because I too have sensitive info that I don't want other people (and that includes possible intruders/theives) to see. I want to be able to put a password on one folder. I also want to be able to use just one account. Sometimes my brother, who's 14 now, wants to use AIM for 15 minutes.
I want him to be able to use iChat, the same iChat that I use, without a different account. It's just a matter of preference, not something that is supposed to adapt to my workflow. And the wider issue is that almost all OSs do it. Windows has it on a right click, Linux has it in permissions (you can assing different permissions to different folders using all kinds of combinations.)
SO again, what's wrong with creating a seperate account in iChat and then when he wants to use it, going to iChat/Switch To/Screen Name??? Is it really that hard???
Also to everyone wanting to password protect folders so intruders or thieves can't access the info, is there something I'm missing with the encrypted disk image??? I use this a TON for sensitive research material. I feel a lot more secure using this ... do people here know something about the method I don't? Am I missing something????
Encrypted disk images work great. After all, if you don't want people the access the files in the directory, it's probably the kind of stuff you want encrypted, too. If it's stuff that you don't want other users to access, that's what fast user switching and permissions are for.
Fast user switching is really nice, easy to use and fast, so I honestly don't understand the resistance to using it. Each user gets to have his or her own desktop, dock, user folder, menu items, etc, and can have their own documents open without affecting one another.
Also to everyone wanting to password protect folders so intruders or thieves can't access the info, is there something I'm missing with the encrypted disk image??? I use this a TON for sensitive research material. I feel a lot more secure using this ... do people here know something about the method I don't? Am I missing something????
I think it's more the functionality than the approach. Say, for example, that you wanted to Zip up the files into an archive, but you had to go to File Archiver.app, make an archive, then drag the files to it.
Instead, we just right-click, and "Create Archive of foo" is right there. If there were an "Encrypt and Protect foo" in the same list, that did, behind the scenes what you currently have to do manually, I think this would be a non-issue.
I think it's more the functionality than the approach. Say, for example, that you wanted to Zip up the files into an archive, but you had to go to File Archiver.app, make an archive, then drag the files to it.
Instead, we just right-click, and "Create Archive of foo" is right there. If there were an "Encrypt and Protect foo" in the same list, that did, behind the scenes what you currently have to do manually, I think this would be a non-issue.
Ah, I see ... its doable, we just want it in a right-click menu. Makes sense. Someone earlier mentioned an automater workflow. I dunno, is it something you could Apple Script? In any case, the functionality is there. The way I understood it in an earlier post, there was complaint that the concept of locking or encrypting a folder was non-existent in OS X. That's not the case, you just have to use Disk Utility because as you pointed out, I can't right click and do it.
MSN is pretty much the standard outside of the US. Most people I know use AIM, and the few people I know (from the US) that use MSN is usually because they know people outside the US that use MSN. That said, this is what people get for going with a Microsoft solution. Hell will freeze over before Microsoft will allow videochat to interoperate with an OS X program. Not because of Apple, not because of OS X sucking so much that it can't be done, but because Microsoft doesn't want to move people away from the Windows platform. Sure they do things like Office for Mac. That's because if Apple dies then Microsoft can't point to them and say, "Look! We aren't a monopoly! Really!"
Well I really hope this isn't the case. It means that iChat is a useless app for me. I guess I can just hope
Quote:
Originally posted by pyr3
That said, why are you basing a $2000 purchase on the ability to use the built-in camera? Is the built-in iSight really the only reason for you to spend $2000 on a new laptop? Personally, I want one of the new MacBook Pros, and the iSight camera is just a second thought to me. I could really care less about it compared to the other features is has over my 3.5 year old PowerBook (667MHz). In my opinion, either you're really rich and can afford to spend $2000 just because you like the built-in iSight, or you're being pretty picky. It's obviously your opinion and your choice, but to me it's like not buying a certain car because you don't like the brand of tires that come standard.
Well I'm certainly not rich enough to be buying laptops just for fun
The reason why it's so important to me is that I do a lot of video conferencing. My other choice is to get a PC laptop with a built in camera that would definitely be compatible with all the different messenger clients. So that makes the iSight's lack of compatibility a bit of a deal breaker. In fact, it's one of the reasons why I need Windows on the Mac (I use a separate Mac and a PC, which was a pain in the arse, so these intel Macs are a dream for me).
The reason I buy Macs is because I'm pedantic about my machines, and Apple make the most integrated and well thought out machines.
The reason why it's so important to me is that I do a lot of video conferencing. My other choice is to get a PC laptop with a built in camera that would definitely be compatible with all the different messenger clients. So that makes the iSight's lack of compatibility a bit of a deal breaker. In fact, it's one of the reasons why I need Windows on the Mac (I use a separate Mac and a PC, which was a pain in the arse, so these intel Macs are a dream for me).
Amen brother!
Quote:
The reason I buy Macs is because I'm pedantic about my machines, and Apple make the most integrated and well thought out machines.
Comments
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Why don't you *read* what he said instead of being a condescending apologist?
You might want to read what he said again. What's his first sentence in the fifth paragraph?
Originally posted by Aquatic
And people don't switch Users in the real world...One problem that this has caused is that I can't lock folders.
I even quoted the whole papragraph in my responce.
Originally posted by dojobi
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.
MSN is pretty much the standard outside of the US. Most people I know use AIM, and the few people I know (from the US) that use MSN is usually because they know people outside the US that use MSN. That said, this is what people get for going with a Microsoft solution. Hell will freeze over before Microsoft will allow videochat to interoperate with an OS X program. Not because of Apple, not because of OS X sucking so much that it can't be done, but because Microsoft doesn't want to move people away from the Windows platform. Sure they do things like Office for Mac. That's because if Apple dies then Microsoft can't point to them and say, "Look! We aren't a monopoly! Really!"
That said, why are you basing a $2000 purchase on the ability to use the built-in camera? Is the built-in iSight really the only reason for you to spend $2000 on a new laptop? Personally, I want one of the new MacBook Pros, and the iSight camera is just a second thought to me. I could really care less about it compared to the other features is has over my 3.5 year old PowerBook (667MHz). In my opinion, either you're really rich and can afford to spend $2000 just because you like the built-in iSight, or you're being pretty picky. It's obviously your opinion and your choice, but to me it's like not buying a certain car because you don't like the brand of tires that come standard.
Originally posted by Aquatic
Safari chokes Macs even with 20 or 30 pages open.
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.
You're talking about people in the 'real world' and how they use their computers? People in the 'real world' don't open even 20-30 pages in a web browser at once. The only time I've had near that many pages open was when I was loading a bunch of images into tabs. And even then, I didn't see my 667MHz PowerBook slow down to a crawl. (Granted displaying an image is less intensive than rendering an HTML page)
I'll agree that FTP support in Finder is a joke. But it *is* better than it used to be. And at that, I think that most people use an FTP client anyways. I've never used the FTP support in Windows either. Why? Because FTP support in Windows Explorer sucks too.
As far as Safari goes... Why is it half-baked to not add 10 million new features every release? You're complaining that Apple isn't fixing old flaws in other software, and yet here you don't care about them fixing old flaws, just adding new features every release. C'mon. How many new features can you add to a web browser? Personally, I think that improving the Webkit engine is a good thing. My online banking site used to be unusable in Safari (mostly because they did some funky crap with Javascript files that I don't even think is part of any web standard), but now I can access it and bank online in Safari. Thus far, I've been happy with Safari's progress.
Guess what? Flash sucks. So what? You are trying to blame Apple for the failure of Adobe-Macromedia. Blame Adobe-Macromedia, and then call it a gripe. The thread is about compelling reasons to switch to Windows. Not "Every small gripe I have with OS X." One that note, even your FTP gripe doesn't qualify. "I think that the built-in FTP support in OS X sucks, so I'll switch back to Windows where the built-in FTP support sucks?"
Originally posted by Gene Clean
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.
The weird thing is, OS X lets you do this with a very secure AES-128 encryption scheme ... here's how it works:
1) Go into disk utility and click new image
2) Pick a name and pick a location for the new image
3) Under size, select on appropriate for the size of all the files you're trying to protect (you can sleect your own size if you're not happy with the standard sizes apple provides)
4) Click on encryption and pull down to AES-128
5) Select read/write disk image
6) Click OK ... while it's creating the image it'll ask you for a password and to verify ... click OK again and you're done
7) It'll create a .dmg, just click on it, authenticate with your password, it'll mount the image, drag your dirty pictures to it, authenticate again so it'll copy them over, you can now Secure Delete the originals since you've copied them to the disk image.
8) Unmount the disk and hide the .dmg in an obscure place if you're REALLY paranoid
I don't understand why this is so hard? It's not a failure of OS X ... it's actually something that works quite well. I have several encrypted .dmgs on my HDD with confidential research on them ... just in case. I chalk it up to user ignorance. Before you come back and say ... that's more complicated, I just want to key *one* folder and make it easy for *me* to access ... you wanted security right? Password protecting something is *NOT* security. Its a band-aid. Its like you saying, I don't wanna get the flu, so I'm just going to stay in my house and hole up for a while instead of saying, well, I'll just go get the damn shot and be okay. So for the extra 3 or 4 minutes creating an encrypted disk image takes, you can sleep better at night and be sure NO ONE but YOU can access that information. It's not embarassing that OS X does it this way ... its quite reassuring actually...
And Fast User Switching is a concept most people are not familiar with. I mean know thousands of people. 95% them, although vaguely familiar thanks to "logging on" on Windows, and using a User on a lab computer, do not switch users on their home computer. This is a real issue. iChat NEEDS to be designed for multiple AIM accounts on the same OS X Users. Do you see what I am saying? More than one person usually uses the admin account of OS X. An entire different user is a little beyond what most people need or want. They just want a few things set up for more than one user, basically email and IM. Most people use the Web for email now though, so that takes care of that. But people still use IM clients (I would like to see them use the Net for that too a la AIM Express...perhaps someday). So, iChat needs to be redesigned.
pyr3 this is what this thread is for. Not for excuses as to why something is wrong, but how it is wrong, and how it can be fixed.
PDF and Flash in Safari slow Safari down hardcore. This needs to be fixed. Maybe not by Apple, but it does need to be fixed as it is a serious issue, and effects the web browsing experience.
Just today I was looking at 20 pages. That's not exorbitant. I had restart Safari as it got sluggish. Why does this happen? I thought KHTML or whatever was supposed to be efficient.
I hate to say it but FireFox on Windows just browses faster, and never seems to bog down. Nor does Explorer, really. And of course Flash and PDF are way faster. We are second-rate Net citizens. This is unfortunate. Back in the 90s we were on par or ahead.
Originally posted by Aquatic
And Fast User Switching is a concept most people are not familiar with. I mean know thousands of people. 95% them, although vaguely familiar thanks to "logging on" on Windows, and using a User on a lab computer, do not switch users on their home computer. This is a real issue. iChat NEEDS to be designed for multiple AIM accounts on the same OS X Users. Do you see what I am saying? More than one person usually uses the admin account of OS X. An entire different user is a little beyond what most people need or want. They just want a few things set up for more than one user, basically email and IM. Most people use the Web for email now though, so that takes care of that. But people still use IM clients (I would like to see them use the Net for that too a la AIM Express...perhaps someday). So, iChat needs to be redesigned.
Wait, wait, wait .. are you saying you can't use multiple AIM accounts in iChat under the same OS X User account? This is absolutely false!!! I've got 3 different AIM accounts in my OS X admin accoun, two for me and one for my bother. Mail works the same way? They all operate off of the cards in address book anyway. I don't see how this is a problem???
In iChat, go to prefs, click on the accounts tab and make a new account. You don't even have to log in with a particular account if you don't want to. You can easily switch between the accounts by going to the iChat / Switch to menu. What's wong with this????
In mail, go to accounts, create a new mail account. I have 3 mail accounts in mail right now. One for school, one for home and one for professional use. They are all listed as different mailboxes within Mail itself. If whoever wants to be able to check their mail from your admin account, just create a new mail account for their e-mail address. Again, what is hard about this??? Also, why would you use the internet to check your e-mail? It's slower ... you could just get it all by throwing mail in the dock, and whenever you wanna check your e-mail, making one mouse click...
All of the names and addresses used in iChat and Mail are directly tied to your address book. If someone else is going to be using your admin account for mail or iChat, you'll have to put their contact into your address book, but no problem, you can always make groups within address book to differentiate between them. OS X is made for multi-user simplicity. I don't get how you can say multiple people can't run stuff off the same admin account because they can. You just have to create accounts within the apps for them and add contacts? What is so damned hard about it???
Originally posted by fahlman
You might want to read what he said again. What's his first sentence in the fifth paragraph?
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.
I even quoted the whole papragraph in my responce.
So he clearly says that he doesn't want to switch users, and that his only issue is with creating password-protected foldrers, yet you tell him, even though you quoted the entire paragraph that you and your wife do it just fine - and tell him to "no shut up!" in the end too.
Did you not read what he said? He doesn't care if you are doing it just fine - he doesn't want to do it. He wants to be able to use *his* account for *everyone*. But he also wants to be able to protect those folders he deems necessary to be protected.
It doesn't get much clearer than that.
The weird thing is, OS X lets you do this with a very secure AES-128 encryption scheme ... here's how it works
Oh yeah, and how many steps is that: eight? Why not make it a little more consumer friendly, say, right click and 'password protect' or even use Keychain for that thing instead of Disk Utility and some 8 steps of something your average Joe will never know/care for?
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Oh yeah, and how many steps is that: eight? Why not make it a little more consumer friendly, say, right click and 'password protect' or even use Keychain for that thing instead of Disk Utility and some 8 steps of something your average Joe will never know/care for?
You know... that is a good idea, I'll bet you could probably work something with Automator and save it as a Finder plugin.
Speaking of things I dont like about Mac... FTFF for a start. Also, fix automator too, I had an honest to goodness all night play with it a couple of weeks ago and I've come to the conclusion that it's buggy beta software. It shows some real potential and I love the fact you can save automator scripts as Finder plugins.
Safari... it's not just flash that can kill Safari, javascripts too. I can't use my universities distance ed. website with Safari, only Firefox and that other browser (when I'm not at home).
I wish a safe and compatible substitute for ActiveX could be created. It's next to impossible to use most websites in Korea (and other countries too I'm sure) because of the lack of ActiveX. I'm not a web developer mind you so I might have my assertations mixed up on that one but basically, my wife can't use a mac because it doesn't fulfill her internet requirements (Hangame etc. for those of you who might know it).
I dont like Versiontracker very much, it's not automated enough for me and "emerge sync" or "yum update" etc. is so much more convenient, updated software all the time, no worries (well for those who know... it's not always that simple
I dont like the fact Terminal can't automatically load X11 and start forwarding SSH sessions, gotta load X11 separately and use the X11 terminal. I dont like not being able to cut and paste into or out of the X11 terminal. I dont like the fact Quartz windows can't be forwarded through SSH.
I dont like the fact xcode 2.0 project files are uncompatible with xcode 1.5. I dont like the fact cocoa documentation sucks (IMHO compared to java api reference). I also don't like the fact interface builder is unwieldy... I need to click the classes tab to active the classes menu item, even though I might have a particular object selected in the instance menu. I dont like the fact Apple didn't port java 5 to panther.
I dont like the Home/End buttons jumping around the document either, this should be a no brainer to include in System Prefs. Also, I dont like System Prefs.
I dont like how calc quits when you close it.
I dont like not being able to open items when they are in the trash.
I dont like that mail doesn't have secure authentication.
I dont like textedit.
I dont like that I can't beat chess.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Oh yeah, and how many steps is that: eight? Why not make it a little more consumer friendly, say, right click and 'password protect' or even use Keychain for that thing instead of Disk Utility and some 8 steps of something your average Joe will never know/care for?
The way I explained it was eight. I can make it 4 or 2 or 1 ... you're arguing semantics. It's not hard to do either. No longer than "Password Protect" having to encrypt everything the folder. Unless you're saying you don't want the encryption ... then I don't see the point of password protecting it? You want it secure, those extremely simple steps that any joe user that searched through Apple discussion boards or AI (like I do...) can do. Really ... it takes 3 mouse clicks. You can add the dmg to your keychain as well, but again, what's the point, anyone that double clicks on it automatically has access to it? Could Apple do folder encryption? Sure ... they had it as an option on OS 9 in the menu bar and did away with it. Why? Because going through disk ustility to make a secure image allows you to encrypt multiple files and folders instead of individual files one at a time. It is a MUCH better system than simply PW protecting a folder or encrpyting individual files from the menu bar...
Originally posted by Gene Clean
So he clearly says that he doesn't want to switch users, and that his only issue is with creating password-protected foldrers, yet you tell him, even though you quoted the entire paragraph that you and your wife do it just fine - and tell him to "no shut up!" in the end too.
Did you not read what he said? He doesn't care if you are doing it just fine - he doesn't want to do it. He wants to be able to use *his* account for *everyone*. But he also wants to be able to protect those folders he deems necessary to be protected.
It doesn't get much clearer than that.
You're right, it doesn't. He wants to do something that appears to be working against how the tool was designed. "By golly, I love driving screws with my hammer! Dammit, why don't they change hammers so they make driving screws easier!?!"
Think about what he, and you, are saying... he wants security for files so multiple users on a machine don't have access. That sounds an awful lot like a need for individual accounts. And I'm sorry, but FUS is brain-dead easy. Seriously, if someone has a problem with the basic concept of 'these are mine, those are yours', then they need to step away from the keyboard. FUS is the *simplest* way to ensure file security on per-user basis, bar none. No pesky messing with permissions, it just works. The question is... is FUS the right solution for the scenario, which it *seems* to be, but...
I'm trying to figure out why the resistance to a simple, easy solution for multiple user permissions on the same machine.
Two issues come to mind: a stated desire to let everyone have the capabilities of an admin account, and a non-stated possible desire as to *WHY* let everyone use the same account.
If you want everyone to have admin rights, just click the little box in System Preferences -> Accounts. Done. They're all admins.
I'm still stuck on why force everyone to use the same account. Is it to monitor what the kids are doing? (System Preferences -> Accounts -> Parental Controls) Is it share common files? (/Users/Shared) Seriously, why?
And no, "because it's what he wants to do, dammit" is not a reasonable answer. See above hammer/screw analogy. If someone wants to use a tool in a way other than how it was designed, they better have a good reason to think that the tool manufacturer needs to cater to their wants. Personal whim doesn't cut it, IMO. In my experience, that only indicates that the person hasn't clarified what they want to do, are unaware of the capabilities and options available to them, and/or are stuck in a track of behaviour for no logical reason. There are a lot of tools and solutions in MacOS X, and no single combination is going to solve everyone's problem, but I'm still trying to puzzle out why a single account for everyone.
So... why the fascination with everyone using one account? What problems do you see that *that* solution solves, that multiple accounts don't?
As a side note, I'd like to hear about 'password protect this folder' solutions, but for a different reason. I have sensitive info on my laptop that would be problematic if it were stolen. (I see this as quite different than a situation with shared users, however.)
Originally posted by Gene Clean
So he clearly says that he doesn't want to switch users, and that his only issue is with creating password-protected foldrers, yet you tell him, even though you quoted the entire paragraph that you and your wife do it just fine - and tell him to "no shut up!" in the end too.
Did you not read what he said? He doesn't care if you are doing it just fine - he doesn't want to do it. He wants to be able to use *his* account for *everyone*. But he also wants to be able to protect those folders he deems necessary to be protected.
He wants to lock a folder because he insists on improperly using the OS. OS X is a multi-user OS and if he were using it like one he wouldn't have to lock his folder 'o porn so his sister wouldn't see it. There is no reason to lock a folder if he were using it properly because the entire user account would be restricted to just him. Problem solved.
Originally posted by fahlman
He wants to lock a folder because he insists on improperly using the OS. OS X is a multi-user OS and if he were using it like one he wouldn't have to lock his folder 'o porn so his sister wouldn't see it. There is no reason to lock a folder if he were using it properly because the entire user account would be restricted to just him. Problem solved.
Er, even I'm not willing to say he's using the entire OS improperly. Wanting to lock down a specific folder is a fine need, and one I'd like to see a good solution for.
BUT...
Given what we've heard about what he's doing, we haven't heard *why*... it may be that there are other, alternative, solutions to what he wants to do, given the plethora of solutions in OS X.
At first glance, FUS seems like by far the easiest solution to the basic problem of 'each user has privacy'. I want to hear more about what he wants to do, and why, first, before saying it's the only solution for his needs. There may be something we're not aware of that has been yet unsaid. And no, I'm sorry, "It's too hard" isn't a reasonable justification for not using it, IMO. Like I said, if my techno-illiterate elderly in-laws can figure it out, anyone can. It's easy and slick... *if* your problem is partitioning out user spaces. If that's not the problem at hand, then there are other solutions to offer.
I want him to be able to use iChat, the same iChat that I use, without a different account. It's just a matter of preference, not something that is supposed to adapt to my workflow. And the wider issue is that almost all OSs do it. Windows has it on a right click, Linux has it in permissions (you can assing different permissions to different folders using all kinds of combinations.)
You can, for example, tell the system to let just the root open X folder. So even though you *are* an admin, and you *created* the folder, you can't open the folder unless you acquire root privileges (sudo or su). Why not offer this solution as well? Different levels of permissions for different things. It could be even disabled by default - put it in System Preferences so only those who need it - see it and use it.
So... okay, I can make a folder, and make it so I can't get access to it. Interesting. However, when I double-click it, I *don't* get a privilege request from the Finder, just a 'not allowed' dialog. Hmm. I thought that when a user attempted a disallowed action, the Finder would ask for an admin password. Curious. Of course, I'm logged in as an admin, soooo...
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Well FAS is cool and all, and I like it, but I *never* use it. Want to know why? Because I too have sensitive info that I don't want other people (and that includes possible intruders/theives) to see. I want to be able to put a password on one folder. I also want to be able to use just one account. Sometimes my brother, who's 14 now, wants to use AIM for 15 minutes.
I want him to be able to use iChat, the same iChat that I use, without a different account. It's just a matter of preference, not something that is supposed to adapt to my workflow. And the wider issue is that almost all OSs do it. Windows has it on a right click, Linux has it in permissions (you can assing different permissions to different folders using all kinds of combinations.)
SO again, what's wrong with creating a seperate account in iChat and then when he wants to use it, going to iChat/Switch To/Screen Name??? Is it really that hard???
Also to everyone wanting to password protect folders so intruders or thieves can't access the info, is there something I'm missing with the encrypted disk image??? I use this a TON for sensitive research material. I feel a lot more secure using this ... do people here know something about the method I don't? Am I missing something????
Fast user switching is really nice, easy to use and fast, so I honestly don't understand the resistance to using it. Each user gets to have his or her own desktop, dock, user folder, menu items, etc, and can have their own documents open without affecting one another.
Originally posted by AgNuke1707
Also to everyone wanting to password protect folders so intruders or thieves can't access the info, is there something I'm missing with the encrypted disk image??? I use this a TON for sensitive research material. I feel a lot more secure using this ... do people here know something about the method I don't? Am I missing something????
I think it's more the functionality than the approach. Say, for example, that you wanted to Zip up the files into an archive, but you had to go to File Archiver.app, make an archive, then drag the files to it.
Instead, we just right-click, and "Create Archive of foo" is right there. If there were an "Encrypt and Protect foo" in the same list, that did, behind the scenes what you currently have to do manually, I think this would be a non-issue.
Originally posted by Kickaha
I think it's more the functionality than the approach. Say, for example, that you wanted to Zip up the files into an archive, but you had to go to File Archiver.app, make an archive, then drag the files to it.
Instead, we just right-click, and "Create Archive of foo" is right there. If there were an "Encrypt and Protect foo" in the same list, that did, behind the scenes what you currently have to do manually, I think this would be a non-issue.
Ah, I see ... its doable, we just want it in a right-click menu. Makes sense. Someone earlier mentioned an automater workflow. I dunno, is it something you could Apple Script? In any case, the functionality is there. The way I understood it in an earlier post, there was complaint that the concept of locking or encrypting a folder was non-existent in OS X. That's not the case, you just have to use Disk Utility because as you pointed out, I can't right click and do it.
Originally posted by pyr3
MSN is pretty much the standard outside of the US. Most people I know use AIM, and the few people I know (from the US) that use MSN is usually because they know people outside the US that use MSN. That said, this is what people get for going with a Microsoft solution. Hell will freeze over before Microsoft will allow videochat to interoperate with an OS X program. Not because of Apple, not because of OS X sucking so much that it can't be done, but because Microsoft doesn't want to move people away from the Windows platform. Sure they do things like Office for Mac. That's because if Apple dies then Microsoft can't point to them and say, "Look! We aren't a monopoly! Really!"
Well I really hope this isn't the case. It means that iChat is a useless app for me. I guess I can just hope
Originally posted by pyr3
That said, why are you basing a $2000 purchase on the ability to use the built-in camera? Is the built-in iSight really the only reason for you to spend $2000 on a new laptop? Personally, I want one of the new MacBook Pros, and the iSight camera is just a second thought to me. I could really care less about it compared to the other features is has over my 3.5 year old PowerBook (667MHz). In my opinion, either you're really rich and can afford to spend $2000 just because you like the built-in iSight, or you're being pretty picky. It's obviously your opinion and your choice, but to me it's like not buying a certain car because you don't like the brand of tires that come standard.
Well I'm certainly not rich enough to be buying laptops just for fun
The reason why it's so important to me is that I do a lot of video conferencing. My other choice is to get a PC laptop with a built in camera that would definitely be compatible with all the different messenger clients. So that makes the iSight's lack of compatibility a bit of a deal breaker. In fact, it's one of the reasons why I need Windows on the Mac (I use a separate Mac and a PC, which was a pain in the arse, so these intel Macs are a dream for me).
The reason I buy Macs is because I'm pedantic about my machines, and Apple make the most integrated and well thought out machines.
Originally posted by dojobi
The reason why it's so important to me is that I do a lot of video conferencing. My other choice is to get a PC laptop with a built in camera that would definitely be compatible with all the different messenger clients. So that makes the iSight's lack of compatibility a bit of a deal breaker. In fact, it's one of the reasons why I need Windows on the Mac (I use a separate Mac and a PC, which was a pain in the arse, so these intel Macs are a dream for me).
Amen brother!
Quote:
The reason I buy Macs is because I'm pedantic about my machines, and Apple make the most integrated and well thought out machines.
Amen to that too!
great - composed and succint - post!