OS X.2 What do YOU want??

[roger]

i second that one about the back button.

R.

[james23]

These are the things I'd wish for...

1) a decent ATI Rage Pro driver for my PowerBook G3 (Lombard)

2) Give me back a way to better force quit an app, instant response none of this [command]-[option]-[escape]-[wait]-[spinning-cursor]-[wait].

Look at Window's ctrl-alt-delete, or the shell's ctrl-c. I mean even OS 9 down had the option of MacsBug which allowed you to instant take control of the machine down to assembly programming - I want that, atleast give me a way to instantly open up a session for the can't be forced quitted programs, like games which take over the screen resulting in rebooting for no reason. I'd prefer a shell prompt anyday as oppose to the force quit window - kinda Kernel Panic Mode screens, ones in which draws right on top of Aqua!, To some may not like it but I'd bet it be faster. And yes I know you can ssh to the stalling computer, but sometimes that doesn't even work.

3) I want the alerts/warnings to speak again like in OS 9.

[rinse]

in the force quit dialog....

i wish that it would list the status of app, similar to Windows "Not Responding" feature. That way you could tell if the app truly was locked up or if it was just being a bit sluggish.

[JohnnyV]

i second that rinse

[Tesseract]

A preference so I can use [Shift] for noncontiguous multiple selection and [Command] for contiguous selection, like in MacOS9, rather than the other way around (like in Windows). I get the impression Apple changed this so Windows converts would fell more at home. I happen to think that [Shift] for noncontiguous selection is better, as noncontiguous selection is used more often and the [Shift] key is bigger (and thus easier to find and press). (Not to mention the fact that I'm just used to using [Shift]).

<< Yes, I know it's a little thing, but the bigger things have already been mentioned. >>

[Tesseract]

And the ability to organize the Dock like is possible with the Finder toolbar. So I can use, like, 3 separators with apps in one section, documents/folders in another, and minimized stuff in a third, with the Trash in a fourth section all by itself. (Or better yet, put the Trash on the desktop, it belongs with the HDD's/removable media and not minimized windows.)

[Tesseract]

And an Aqua interface for Cron (call it the Timer or something)...

And an interface for server clustering in OS X Server (I understand Apple has kick-*ss clustering technology, and they just haven't built an interface yet)...

[kilowatt]

Speaking of OS X Server...

Here's what I would like:

1) go back to the non-opengl non-aqua interface of OS X Server 1.0. Who needs an extremely fancy GUI on a pure-server OS?

2) Build GUI tools for everything. Like apache config, DNS, etc. Most mac users who are considering using mac os x server don't know how to use vi.

3) Stability. Rumor has it that mac os x server has some major stability probs.

4) Just for Mac OS X Server, how about some *real* server computers? I mean the +20 processor ones with three 220v outlet lines. Like what Sun has had for years.

honestly, who is going to take a macintosh-based server solution seriously? Current Mac OS X Server-ready computers still use PC-133 ram. WTF? And, ata/66 drives. What a joke. (Yes I know you can get scsi... still.... why even bother with ata/66?).

Besides, Apple doesn't currently make a rack-mount server (although the 'G-Rack', rack ears for g4 computers is an option from a third party).


Apple, get it together. The real server world uses industry-standard scalable solutions. Rack mounted or refigerator sized. Not mini-towers with GeForce 2mx graphics cards.


Just my $.02. I've never admin'd a mac os x server enviroment before, just read about it.