10.5.2

[bbloke]

Originally Posted by Mikuro

Ahhh, I think I see the difference now, looking at your screenshows. It looks like with your hardware, it's not only translucent, but it blurs what's behind it, too, which must use Core Image. I didn't know they used Core Image for that on supported hardware. I guess they do that for the menu bar, too, otherwise they would've made it translucent on all hardware.

Yes, the image behind the menu bar is blurred, as is anything behind a menu under 10.5.1. I did think the menu bar did not look the same on all hardware, but had not heard anything to confirm this, so I didn't think much more of it. I felt the transparent menus, complete with blurring effect, under 10.5.1 looked a little bit more elegant than the current ones, but I guess it is a matter of opinion!

Originally Posted by Mikuro

Seems to me like Microsoft and Apple keep copying each other's worst ideas.

Awww, I actually quite liked the menus under 10.5.1, actually!

What I'd prefer is that Apple lets users sets level of transparency (for the menu bar and the menus) via a slider, rather than making it on/off for the menu bar and not giving the user any choice over the menus. I suppose the counter-argument could be that it starts to make all the settings within the OS more cumbersome to some.

[Satcomer]

Originally Posted by bbloke

What I'd prefer is that Apple lets users sets level of transparency (for the menu bar and the menus) via a slider, rather than making it on/off for the menu bar and not giving the user any choice over the menus.

Apple's Mac OS X Feedback

[bbloke]

*smirk*

Fair enough!

[Rhisiart]

Originally Posted by Lt Major Burns

InDesign CS3 is unusable, with Open, Save As, Place and Export dialogues causing hard crashes of indesign. fine under 10.4, fine with InDesign CS1. this is more adobe though.

No problems with InDesign CS3 on my Mac Mini.

[Lt Major Burns]

indesign problem sorted. it was a known problem when version cue autoupdater gt corrupted. a simple apple script fixed the corruption and it's all dandy now.

itunes screen saver still bloody annoying. seeing if there's any fix for it yet...

[fryke]

Originally Posted by bbloke

*smirk*

Fair enough!

Actually: No, certainly not "fair enough". Because, well: Apple had it right with Rhapsody's detail of adjustability regarding the interface. But when Steve Jobs saw how people chose veeeeeeeeeeeery strange colour schemes, he probably freaked and went with the whole "the user doesn't have to care" thing.

The way Apple has treated the interface regarding user-changes, I'd say we have to be *VERY* grateful about this one control. It's there, it works, don't complain, or it'll go away in 10.5.3.

[ElDiabloConCaca]

I, for one, am satisfied with the number and level of interface adjustments Apple lets us have. Apple is poised in a position where they're gaining marketshare very rapidly, and a lot of those users are either new to Apple or new to computers in general. Vast amounts of options, for someone who doesn't know too much about computers, could scare them off -- how are they to know that the option to change their DNS servers could potentially render their internet connection kaput, versus a simple option like menu transparency that doesn't affect the underpinnings of the computer at all? The less options there are, the more rapidly people become familiarized with the operating system. It's like trying to remember a series of numbers. 1, 7, 9 = easy. 1, 6, 5.4, 1001, 546, pi, 7 4/9 = hard.

Try throwing a windowing system like KDE at a new computer user, and see exactly how much they WANT to use that computer. Even GNOME's window manager has some strange options placed in strange places. I, for one, am extremely pleased with Apple's stance of only including the options that are really relevant to making the computing experience enjoyful.

You can always tweak the interface, if you're a power-user, via the command line, or via 3rd-party software... for example, for control over the shape/alpha/positioning of the menubar, try this:

http://homepage.mac.com/mdsw/md%20softworks.html

I do realize that people are extremely picky and particular about how they want their desktops and GUIs to look. But I take the stance that these tweaks and modifications should remain out-of-the-way and should not be included in the appearance System Preference pane, simply because too many options would scare off too many people.

Besides, really and honestly, does the menubar translucency or opacity REALLY make you work any faster or slower? Back in Tiger and Panther, did the fact that you couldn't adjust the grid spacing on the desktop make it a deal-beaker for trying to get any work done? Are people so inflexible that the switch from folder-style menus to Stacks in the dock made it extremely difficult to adjust? I can't shake this image in my head of someone coming home from work and parking their car rear-first in the driveway... then waking up the next morning to find their car facing the opposite direction in the driveway, and them standing there... scratching their head... not knowing what to do next... being so perplexed by and affixed on a simple change that they're unable to proceed with simply getting in the car, BACKING out, and heading off to work.

Apple didn't design their interface for you... nor you... nor you either. They designed it, as did Microsoft, as did the GNOME team, as did the KDE team, for the majority of users they thought would be using the system. If we all got our wishes and saw our feature-requests and interface-tweaks implemented, Mac OS X would be one, big, steamy pile of you-know-what. I know we all think that what we each individually want is the one, big, important feature that Apple's just missing out on and refuses to implement, but it's simply not true. You can work around it, or without it, and it doesn't affect your productivity as much as a lot of people like to think it does.

[Lt Major Burns]

still a slider'd be nice. one for menu bar, one for menus.