# Can Apple ever make up for the big mistake?



## fryke (Mar 3, 2002)

Apple clearly made a mistake by 'reinventing' the wheels with OS X. Not only did it take half a decade to make the codebase of OpenStep into Mac OS X, it's also already taken almost a year to convert the Mac users (!) to the new system. This could have well been avoided by further improving the GUI of Mac OS 9 instead of supplanting it with the chimera (no, not the browser) that Aqua developped into. Instead of further developping the gap between Mac and Windows, this gap has vanished in a poof of smoke.

I'm a fan of OS X by the way. I've adopted the new features of the GUI very fast and I'm actually more efficient on X, but mostly on the underlying structure and stability and the speed of the OS, not because of the GUI - but inspite of it.

Now. A year has passed. The 'newness' of Aqua has gone down the marketing drain. Windows has better antialiasing throughout the system while OS X has a bit of it in a few apps only. Most Mac users still use OS 9 in hope that Apple will lead its way back, so they don't lose all of their productivity at once. But can that happen? Will Apple strip off their pride and do the right thing this time?

I don't believe so. They want to show the users how great Aqua really is, although they must have gotten a billion comments about how it actually sucks in most aspects. Translucent menus? Argh. Sheets? Great. Overall appearance? Gets in the way most of the time compared to Platinum. They invented Quartz. Great thing, I must admit. But did they have to use every f...ing feature of it in the UI? My graphical work would certainly suffer if I always were to use all the filters Photoshop offers (and then some third party filters).

Basically, Apple fucked up big time. Yes, Aqua is 'different'. But *no*, it doesn't really help the users.

Apple could have delivered Rhapsody 2.0 with Carbon API and the improved Platinum appearance of Rhapsody. Performance of the system would have been much better. Performance of the USER would have been infinitly better. And they could have delivered the system like 3 years earlier and be *well* ahead of Windows XP by now.


----------



## RacerX (Mar 3, 2002)

> _posted by fryke_
> *Apple could have delivered Rhapsody 2.0 with Carbon API and the improved Platinum appearance of Rhapsody. Performance of the system would have been much better. Performance of the USER would have been infinitly better. And they could have delivered the system like 3 years earlier and be *well* ahead of Windows XP by now.*



On this point I would have to disagree. Aqua was not the reason for the delay, it was Carbon. Aqua was something to do while passing the time waiting for Carbon to be finished enough to at least release it to the public. Quartz was a great way to get out from under the thumb of Adobe (who charged a ton for the use of Display Postscript). Considering that, did Apple make a mistake not sticking closer to the OPENSTEP/Rhapsody model... yes and no. Given the choice between a very responsive system with hardly any apps or a slower system with a ton of apps, I'll take the one with more apps. I currently use Rhapsody daily to make sure I can deal with problems that come up in Mac OS X Server 1.x and Mac OS X without being able to fall back on the Mac OS of old. Even on my very slow ThinkPad it is quite responsive, so I do know what you mean in that way, but I do miss the app selection (which is even less than the selection for Rhapsody/Mac OS X Server 1.x for PPC). We shouldn't forget that developers basically told Apple that they woulld not rewrite their apps for Rhapsody, that set us on the 5 years quest for Carbon, not Aqua.


----------



## BBenve (Mar 3, 2002)

I don't see X as a big mistake and as said previewsly ..Aqua is more than eyecandy ...and definetly it is worthed... X is great and it is not a mitake.. i thank apple every day... no more crashing..real Multitasking and all this.... THANKS APPLE


----------



## Alexandert (Mar 3, 2002)

I totally disagree to this comment!!!  

Windows ahead of OS X???

BAH!  

First think than type man! I love OS X. It has some anoying bugs but its only 10.1!

Apple needed 9 steps to develop a system that really rocks! OS X is not the 10th step, its the first step into the future! I'm sure we wont have to wait for 10.9 or 19. But give Apple some time to develop!   

AND IF YOU DONT LIKE IT GO BUY A PC!


----------



## vanguard (Mar 3, 2002)

If Apple followed your suggestion by doing nothing but improving the OS9 gui I would have never bought my first mac.

To people who care/know about technology, OS9 is a toy.  I lack the time to really get into this but I'll say this, it was a good decision to move away from OS9.

Vanguard


----------



## Boyko (Mar 3, 2002)

He's right, you know.  If apple was still using System 9.1, I'd never consider, even for a moment, using Apple. 

It just was a simple thing for me, MacOS(X) started getting good around the time that Windows(XP) started to get too bad to use.

Brian.


----------



## themacko (Mar 3, 2002)

I concur with boyko and vanguard.  One of the main reasons why I got an iBook instead of a Toshiba laptop (the two brands our college bookstore sells) is because of OS X.  Granted, I stayed in 9 for the first 4 months after I got the book because it was faster and thats what all my class software ran on, but now I'm in X and I have no problems with it all.

I believe that OS X may  have helped convert MANY mediocre Windows users who wanted something different, like me.  I know I always have people come up to me while I'm typing a report in the library or something, and they start asking me questions about my iBook.  It's a bit bothersome but it's also pretty cool.

OS X may have been a definately step backward in a few catagories, but overall it's gotta be the best thing since .. well .. the original iMac.


----------



## Zenzefiloan (Mar 3, 2002)

I am using three systems and i have to say that i started of with an Amstrad 646 back in 1982 and at the momment i am using MAC OS X,Linux and WIN XP! 

I started using OSX in August 2001 so i am new to the system it took me just half a  month to learn it and i have to say it is the most stable system i have ever used! My pc with WIN XP crashes almost twice a day and i am not happy!!! The use of antialising in Win is very nice but to me it does not make any difference i prefer to have something stable and secure than to have something which i dont know how long it will go on for!

I would be happy to swap my pc with a  mac at anytime but unfortunately i cannot because at my work(phd student)everything is UNIX or WIN based!


----------



## bighairydog (Mar 3, 2002)

Are you guys forgetting how bad 9.x was? a modern OS shouldn't lock up when you keep a menu held down!

fryke - you say Apple reinvented the wheel - the wheel needed reinventing. OS 9.x and before was a crappy system, made up for by an awesome UI. The UNIX base of OS X is soo much better for developers to work with.

Sure, aqua is ugly to us techies - but most of the PC users I've met love it, and if you don't you can always replace it with sosumi.

Bernie     )


----------



## fryke (Mar 3, 2002)

again it seems that only Racer X reads my posts carefully. 

You're of course right, Racer. But I'd have to partly disagree. And let's lay out why...

The usability of OS 9 (not its stability, I'm just talking GUI here) was tested and proved. The two things Macintosh lacked in order to succeed against Windows AND Linux was application compatibility and stability. A complete reinvention of the GUI was not needed at all. But if Apple chooses to do just that - and that's what they did - they should have done better. OS X should have been a win-win situation, because the combination of NeXT (power of UNIX with a smooth surface) and Apple Macintosh (power of efficient user interfaces) should have led to a simple, efficient user interface on top of a rock solid base.

We've got the rock solid base. Can't argue with that. But only 2 out of 10 GUI features are better in OS X than in OS 9. Or less. Maybe a bit more, depending on where you're standing (I'm not talking to Windows and Linux converts, just to OS 9 converts right now). But the Mac OS X user interface lacks efficiency compared to OS 9 in many, many aspects.

I've been a defender for OS X against OS 9 for a long, long time now, but my main points always were stability and power, never simplicity, design or GUI at all. Of course, column view is great. That could've been added to OS 9's GUI.

So I repeat, after having read some posts that are in favour of OS X: Apple had a point in stating that they were well ahead of any competition with their user interface. Mostly because it didn't get in the way of how users worked (the best GUI does NEVER get in your way). But OS X gets in the way users work. We've exchanged GUI for UNIX power, we didn't add UNIX power to the GUI, which should have been the case.

All said, I'm still quite a happy OS X user. I've used 'em all, you know, and I'm quite comfortable right now with my OS X setup. But Apple is playing catchup in so many places right now. We need popup folders, we need spring loaded folders. We need better scrolling, we need more Finder speed. All these are things we're missing from OS 9. They were 'postponed', I guess.


----------



## BBenve (Mar 3, 2002)

Apple is not really catching up.... apple is adding old feature.. the old Spring loaded folder .. was substituted by a new feature.. the Copy and Paste...yo can copy and paste and UNDO from the finder.. pretty cool.... then of course some people started complaining about Srping loaded folder...and they have to add them... personally i don t use them anyway ... copy and paste is so much fun  and so for other things...
Regarding UNIX vs Gui... for as much as i know.. NOW i am using a UNIX system.. without having to bother installing driver form a specific developer (like it used to be in Linux) ... Apple did an Awesome Job...i am glad they  "re invented the wheel" even if i consider it more as an evelution not a reinvention... again the Aqua is more than eyecandy .. and it definetly does not kill the UNIX part... just use Darwin or terminal more...that's it


----------



## simX (Mar 3, 2002)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *again it seems that only Racer X reads my posts carefully.
> 
> You're of course right, Racer. But I'd have to partly disagree. And let's lay out why...
> ...



Wow, fryke.  Have YOU ever tried to put a user interface on UNIX?  I thought not.  So you're not one to talk.

OS 9 was definitely the end.  You can't add a UNIX underbase to OS 9.  You have to START with UNIX and build from the ground up.  That's why OS 9 was abandoned.  And if Apple decides to build a new interface, then so be it.

And you know what, OS X is actually a better interface.  Not much has actually changed, except that you have to get used to the way it works.  I like things opening in the same window.  If I don't, I can just hide the toolbar, and the Finder works exactly like OS 9.  I like column view, which is a great way of navigating.  The Dock, while arguably annoying when switching applications, is great for being a launcher and holding oft-used documents and folders.  If you want an OS 9 style application menu, just install ASM.  But the Dock helps ENORMOUSLY for things like Dock Menus, and Docklings.  They, combined with menu extras, effectively replace the Control Strip which is one thing I actually don't miss from OS 9.

Other than the fact that we use the Dock to switch applications and that folders open in the same window (unless you have the toolbar hidden), there really isn't that much difference to OS X.  Sure, the window widgets are all on the same side of a window, but that's not a problem as they're far enough apart that you can't accidentally close something you only wanted to minimize.  Probably the only other thing I can think of is WindowShade is gone (unless you install WindowShade X), replaced with minimization.

Seriously, fryke, the only problem with the interface is its speed, and spring-loaded folders.  But all of the "translucencies" and other "eye candy" serves a purpose.  Sheets are great.  Translucencies help you to see things behind what is in front, and let me tell you, it's really helped me, because there are so many times that a menu gets in the way of what I want to see.  And popup and spring-loaded folders?  I don't really miss popup folders, and spring-loaded folders are probably the only thing that is really lacking in the interface.

Fryke: OS X isn't that much different from OS 9.  It's the "aqua" that takes getting used to.  I'm sorry you can't appreciate it.  When I use Windows, even Windows XP, I still have problems with it, because of the interface.  OS X is still years ahead of Windows XP, and that's a fact.  As you can see from the posts above, many people came to the Mac BECAUSE of OS X, and if they really hated the GUI so much, they wouldn't have.


----------



## senne (Mar 3, 2002)

short message:

Copy/paste sucks, i need Cut/Paste!!


SENNE


----------



## dlookus (Mar 3, 2002)

> But only 2 out of 10 GUI features are better in OS X than in OS 9. Or less.


Can you expand on this please?
I agree there are some rough edges to OSX, but I think you're being a bit harsh without really explaining what it is that bothers you.


----------



## BlingBling 3k12 (Mar 3, 2002)

Without OS X, there would be absolutely no reason I would EVER buy a Mac... sorry guys, but I never really liked their old interface and that was the major part of why i didn't want one.

When did I want a Mac... January 2001... after I heard of Mac OS X on a Tech News website... since then, that's all i've wanted.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Mar 3, 2002)

It seems that over 100,00 WinXP users feel quite differently about Aqua than you do.

You see, until Apple put their legal hounds on the case, there were over 100,000 downloads of a various Aqua ripoff themes for WinXP. It was one of the most popular themes out there. So if Aqua is so bad, why are all these people going out of their way to make their PC look like a OS X Mac? Hell, ask ~~Neyo~~ - his desktop looks just like OS X!

OS 9's usability was tested and scientificaly created - OVER 18 YEARS AGO. In those 18 years, what came to be the Mac OS (OS 9), breaks many of those convention s and rules. Many of those rules don't even apply anymore. 
I would have been really bummed had Apple just taken the OS 9 interface and grafted it as is on OS X. 

That said, I do believe Apple should have provided a choice (ala WinXP) to revert back to an OS 9 _like_ appearance.

If you really feel that Apple took a major step backwards with Aqua, all I have to say is you haven't dived in far enough yet to figure it out (sorry for the pun). I can navigate MUCH faster through the OS X Finder than I can under OS 9. The dock, for all it's problems, has no equivilent in OS 9 (3rd party utils not withstanding). Column view is ultra speedy. I can copy files and paste them (FINALLY!). I can navigate easily through windows without leaving a mess of open windows around (no need to hold down command as you click as in OS 9).

Sure, there are a few missing pieces right now (finder labels, spring loaded folders, better organization of System Level apperance options). But these are minor and are getting addressed slowly but surely.

Simply put, OS X is the ship that came to Apple's rescue. No amount of killer hardware would have mattered had OS X not have been released. The old Mac OS was outdated, creaky and unstable. And the UI wasn't all that. After 18 years, it was in serious need of improvement.

Another point - OS X was not held up because of Aqua. RacerX is correct - the holdup was Carbon, and without Carbon, the Mac OS would surely be dead. Apple needed a way to bring developers along to the new OS without forcing them to completely recode their applications, and Carbon was it.

Anyways, from the responses to your post, you can see that most people don't agree with your point. Sorry...


----------



## AdmiralAK (Mar 3, 2002)

It seems to me, fryke, that you are arguing about how used to you are to the OS 9 look, features, and what-nots that you just dont like how Aqua is becuase you are not used to aqua.

I too like the OS 9 interface because of teh fact that I can use my computer blind folded, because I know where things are and how they work, because I have been working with the mac interface since 94.

The point is that UI and the undepinnings go indeed, to some degree, hand in hand.  The UI of OS 9 (control panels, extensions etc -- NOT the windowing system) went with the undepinning of OS 9, and Aqua (the improved version of the NeXT UI) goes with OS X.  You can't take the face (UI) and transplant it on teh body (underpinnings) without MAJOR changes and major work  being done for all that.  Major changes take time, and time is something apple did not have because they were under pressure to get a MODERN OS out teh door, cause they did not want another copland fiasco hitting them.


The only thing I dont like about Aqua is its speed, it needs hardware acceleration, other than that it's as customizable as OS 9 to me.



btw Zenzefiloan, kalos irthes.



Admiral


----------



## Koelling (Mar 3, 2002)

I never thought it would happen but it did. I used to swear up and down about the interface of 9 and I wasn't mistaken. But if you asked me to go back I wouldn't simply because I get so much more done in Aqua. For at least 6 months before X was released I was using the option key all the time and now that collumn views came along I realize that it's exactly what I was trying to immitate. How in the world do you close a window under a window with Platinum? The colors and shading are just plain intuitive and I would get more lost going back than I did moving here Mozilla is quasi depressing because even "modern" is too grey.


----------



## fryke (Mar 3, 2002)

Okay, I've had it. 

To the one who's talking his sh* about Windows 'Aqua' themes: I'm NOT bloody talking about the colors and stripes, I'm talking user interface design, which is much, much more than eye candy. It's about how things work (or are supposed to).

To the one who calls me an OS 9 misser: I bloody *SAID* I wouldn't want to go back, but not because Mac OS X user interface is that great, but because the REST of the system is so great and I actually *DON'T* hate the look of Aqua.

Please: *DO* read posts before you answer in anger. I wanted to point out that Apple could have had an easier job without reinventing the wheel and without taking so much time. And Racer X put me straight about the time factor, which was clearly because Blue- and YellowBox wasn't enough for Microsoft and Adobe (and others).

Someone asked for it - I'll lay out my concerns a bit more.

In OS 9 I could (I'm not using it any more) save a file to the Desktop and put it where it belonged at a later time with much less hassle. I would just grab the file and hold it over a folder icon, the folder would spring open and I could decide at the end of the dragging (through all the folders on my harddisk) where to drop it. Yes, that's spring open folders and we talked about this and it WILL be back by 10.2 and everything. And YES, there's column view and I like it fine and am using it, so please shut up, already.  My point is that Apple wouldn't have had to strip features that are well and loved. Also the point that they had to start from scratch with the OS X interface isn't altogether true, because the design concepts that were valid for so many years in both Classic Mac OS and NeXT-Step/OpenStep were already there! And the people who made them were *bright* people, as there were many people happily enjoying those interfaces much, much more than anything Microsoft has ever come up with. (Not more people, but people liking it more.)

Okay, on to other stuff. The Dock. It's a great dock. I like it more than any other dock I've ever used, except DragThing (and I bloody *KNOW* I can get DragThing for OS X), but I think if features are not broken, they shouldn't have fixed or replaced them. The Apple Menu was a great, great feature of Mac OS up until OS 9 and it served the task of starting applications so well. You could add your own stuff and organize yourself like YOU wanted, not like Apple wants you to. Also *switching* applications via the App Switcher Menu was great. The minute you learned that you switch apps there, you never missed the right one with the mouse. Now you do (okay, maybe not you or me, but *some* do! More than with ASM, and I *know* there's third party freeware and I'm using it...).

Still more stuff. The translucent menus might have some points when you really have to see what's behind a menu. Most of the time you don't. But what's really important is that the translucent menus above text make the menus much more unreadable than opaque menus would. Now don't come and tell me 'it's still quite readable', because clearly it's *LESS* readable. I'm not saying you CAN'T read them, because if I couldn't, I would have thrown the OS out of many, many, many windows up until now. My friends' windows, my mom's windows, my own windows and my company's windows. And I'm *NOT* a fan of Windows as you can see from every post in this thread. I actually HATE Windows. But I'm still standing and defending something *you* didn't think about.

Still more. Latency. In OS 9, a menu snaps open when you click on it. In OS X you wait. Not for a second, maybe not even for 10 milliseconds, but you *DO* wait. In OS 9 you hit Apple-'s' and a save box opens. Yes it's a modal dialog and I *TOO* like the sheets very much, but they also *DO* slide open and need TIME for this. Yes, it's nice, but clearly it's taking too long. (Btw, don't take my word: Go to OS 9 and test this.)

Want still more? Maybe you now can grasp what user interface design means, you who were talking about Aqua-themes for Windows... Yes, there's more: Window resizing. Yeah, we talked a lot about it, I know. But think about it! We've finally got G4s that are breaking the GHz barrier. And scrolling through a Word document takes longer than a 500 MHz PowerBook on OS 9? And no this is NOT MS's fault, because the same thing can be shown in AppleWorks, Illustrator - even TextEdit vs. SimpleText if you want!

I could add more, but I don't want to right now. And that's because my first post in this thread was to ask a simple question. I think Apple could have made this OS not only powerful and stable, I think they could have also made it much, much more useable and fast. Maybe they will. But my wild guess is that they're trying to teach users to adapt to new ways and only reluctantly add missing features (think file extensions, think printer setup - holy cow!, think Dock, think folder hierarchy, think volumes management etc.).

After all is said and posted, I *still* love OS X. I'm not the one who can't handle the OS or can't find free- or shareware to bring back missing features. I'm also - as one user posted - not the one who conceptualises, designs and codes a completely new interface for a UNIX derivate (but also, there's not only one person doing this at Apple...). All I say is that Apple could have done much better, that they made a big mistake by making the switch from OS 9 to OS X so hard and so on. And again, I *know* that OS X is still attractive from a Linux and Windows point of view. I also know that it's still got its advantages. I use this baby every day, you know, and I like it. But in spite of most of its GUI features & bugs instead of BECAUSE of them.

Long post, sorry, but I hate people who jump to red when they read a critical post about Apple without actually THINKING. Thank you.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Mar 3, 2002)

CHILL! You brought up points - we countered with our points. It's called discussion, debate, etc, and it's what goes on here...

I'm the one who as you say, "talking his sh* about Windows 'Aqua' themes". If you know what you are talking about, these themes don't just mimic the colors and widgets, they also mimc some of the behavior of OS X. 

And you do yourself no service by attacking those who respond to your post. I read your post twice, and I think I **get** what you're talking about. But just because we **get** what you're talking about, doesn't mean we agree with it.

Jeesh. If you don't want to discus it, why did you post in the first place?


----------



## BlingBling 3k12 (Mar 3, 2002)

as a viewer... well said serpicolugnut...

it's a discussion/debate... not a place for anger...


----------



## fryke (Mar 3, 2002)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *CHILL! You brought up points - we countered with our points. It's called discussion, debate, etc, and it's what goes on here...*



You're right. I didn't want to attack those who really answered to my original post. Just those who missed my point. Sorry that you've been among them.



> I'm the one who as you say, "talking his sh* about Windows 'Aqua' themes". If you know what you are talking about, these themes don't just mimic the colors and widgets, they also mimc some of the behavior of OS X.[/B]



I do know them. They don't mimic the parts that are important to me, though, just the part that Windows or a third party utility like WindowBlinds allow to be 'skinned'. The term very much shows what I mean.



> And you do yourself no service by attacking those who respond to your post. I read your post twice, and I think I **get** what you're talking about. But just because we **get** what you're talking about, doesn't mean we agree with it.[/B]



Of course not. And I didn't mean you should all agree. 

An example (again, *sigh*): Racer X found an error among my list. The Carbon question. And I certainly agreed in one (two?) of my later posts. But I also stated things like that I'm not talking about Windows or Linux converting, but people stated 'I come from Windows and would never have bought a Mac with OS 9' all the same. This is all well and great, but not what I was talking about. If someone wants to talk about how cool OS X is for Windows or Linux converts, they should start a thread on their own and not put the comment into a thread where I specifically (and understandably) targetted OS 9 converts/upgraders.

If you reread my first post, you can see that I tried to avoid exactly some things that have happened later on, and that's what makes me angry. I know, it's my fault that I take myself so seriously, but I think it's our job as human beings to try and understand each other.

The reason why I started this thread was because I value many people on this board as intelligent and insightful. I wanted to hear their opinions about my opinion, but even more I wanted to debate what the title of the thread suggests: Whether Apple can/will/can't/won't ever make up for a big mistake. And still nobody has targetted my basic message, that they have made a big mistake by reinventing the wheel where there already was one.

And I think that's more of a sign about the repliers than about me, although I must admit that my previous post is quite harsh to those people. My apologies, but I was looking for something else than a 'Themes for Windows'-answer.


----------



## Ricky (Mar 3, 2002)

Let's think about this logically for a second.

Apple wouldn't jump into something without thinking carefully about it first.  Let's not forget that Apple spent ten years developing OS X.  Something has to be said for that.  And why do you think Windows XP looks so much like OS X, sans color?

Microsoft also knows what they're doing.

Otherwise, they wouldn't have copied Mac all through the years!  

The power of OS X is amazing.  I have only experienced one crash on it that wasn't a kernel panic.  What do you think of that?  XD  I crash every single time I go into OS 9.  Also, everyone is converting their apps over to OS X.  They must feel that the OS has strong potential.  And it does.  I can't think of a single time that the software industry has made one gaping mistake.

Anyone want to battle me on these points?  I'll stand firm.  I contrast the point that Apple made a horrible mistake with the new OS, and say that OS X is the best thing they have ever done, only second to RELEASING THE ORIGINAL MACINTOSH!

VIVA LA MACINTOSH!  VIVA!


----------



## fryke (Mar 3, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ricky _
> Let's think about this logically for a second.



Finally. 



> Microsoft also knows what they're doing. Otherwise, they wouldn't have copied Mac all through the years!



Perfectly right. Someone else misunderstood me. I didn't say WinXP was ahead of Mac OS X, I said the gap was getting smaller.



> The power of OS X is amazing.  I have only experienced one crash on it that wasn't a kernel panic.  What do you think of that?



I think you're another one *NOT* getting that I'm talking GUI and not power/stability and anything else. Which is a pity. I strongly suggest anyone posting here reading the whole thread, as it seems to become a poster child thread for how people don't read them most of the time. Or not carefully enough.


----------



## Ricky (Mar 3, 2002)

> Now. A year has passed. The 'newness' of Aqua has gone down the marketing drain. Windows has better antialiasing throughout the system while OS X has a bit of it in a few apps only. Most Mac users still use OS 9 in hope that Apple will lead its way back, so they don't lose all of their productivity at once. But can that happen? Will Apple strip off their pride and do the right thing this time?
> 
> I don't believe so. They want to show the users how great Aqua really is, although they must have gotten a billion comments about how it actually sucks in most aspects. Translucent menus? Argh. Sheets? Great. Overall appearance? Gets in the way most of the time compared to Platinum. They invented Quartz. Great thing, I must admit. But did they have to use every f...ing feature of it in the UI? My graphical work would certainly suffer if I always were to use all the filters Photoshop offers (and then some third party filters).
> 
> Basically, Apple fucked up big time. Yes, Aqua is 'different'. But *no*, it doesn't really help the users.



Do you think Aqua was Apple's top priority?

Once OS X gets into later releases, I'm sure they'll either speed up the interface or make an option to make it look like the old Mac OS (ala XP.  )

Personally, I like the new look.  It's very nice, and I like to brag to my fellow Windows users about how good it looks.  But it's a bit too slow for me.  I'd like to see it bumped up a notch in terms of responsiveness.

Patience.  They want this to be great for everyone.


----------



## ZeroAltitude (Mar 4, 2002)

Would it be fair to say that this is what has happened so far?:

---
one dude: OSX is powerful, but something is wrong with the GUI.

other dudes:  But man, OSX is *powerful*!

one dude:  Right, but, something is wrong with the GUI.

other dudes:  I like the GUI!  Man, OSX is powerful!

one dude:  I know, but...
---

 an oversimplification, I know 

Well, anyway, it's nice when everyone can be right.  Not that there isn't some genuine disagreement.  I remember seeing on another thread someone made the point that OSX strays much more from the Human Interface Guidelines that Apple itself wrote, than does OS9.

My own take?  I, too, adopted OSX for the power and stability.  I do find myself putting up with latency and GUI issues, but, my hope is that as obsessively as Apple worked on OS x-9, they will do the same to OSX until it's just as snappy (it really is amazing that they have gotten the speed and the GUI so far as they did, and the point of some other posters that when you compare this to X-windows/CDE, it is just a quantum leap forward, is absolutely right -- and all this, with an admittedly large penalty in speed going with a Mach- instead of a monolithic- kernel; seriously, that's amazing).

So, I found this thread valuable, and I know why fryke was frustrated, and I know why others were, too.  

OSX power > OS9 power
OSX speed < OS9 speed
OS9 GUI > OSX GUI (arguable, but reasonable opinion)

OSX GUI > X-Windows/CDE GUI
OSX power <= generic Unix power
OSX speed < generic Unix speed

A controversial matrix, that hopefully stimulates effort and discussion around features to improve and be happy about.

-0


----------



## mindbend (Mar 4, 2002)

Have hope, remember we're still early in this transition. At least that's what I keep reminding myself.

There are defintely some things that need tweaking, but overall I am very pleased with the added productivity X has given me. It has been a very rough transition for me personally as the apps SLOWLY trickled in and some apps got dumped and replced for other and some things I simply had to let die with no replacement. Even with all that, X has proven itself to be a very impressive foundation.

As for it being a mistake, absolutely not. At first I thought so, but I was wrong. I also thought APple should have bought Be Inc., but I was wrong about that too. That's why Steve's the man and I'm not. He has vision. UNIX as a foundation is a brilliant move. You immediately open yourself up to the best of the best in the programming world. If you can have them on your side, it's all good from there. What good is a great computer and its OS without the software? None. Application programmers determine all our fates and APple doesn't have the resources to create an entire line of applications. 

Slap a beautiful GUI like Aqua (we can argue over whether it's beautiful or not later, let's agree that it's better than a terminal interface) and now all of a sudden you've got the consumer world on your side too. OS X is a brilliant marriage or power and aesthetics.

As readers on this board now, I have been bitching about X's speed in the graphics layer for months. I'l continue to do so here. It is a weakness right now. I have to believe it will be resolved. I still don't know who to blame. People want me to blame app developers, but EVERY SINGLE DEVLOPER has been proven to not be able to come up with an app that rivals OS 9's speed. The only exception that I have found? Apple's own software, especially Final Cut Pro which glides along every bit a smoothly as in 9.

Here's some other annoyances that bug me:

spring loaded folders (looks like it's unanimous that we all want em)
labels (a very powerful underrated feature)
a cursor you can see as you arrow around when renaming files (is anyone else totally annoyed by this?)
hot-keying to file name in dialog windows by pressing the first letter in its title doesn't work (zoinks!)
slow resizing of windows and other screen graphics in many Carbon apps

But here's just a few of the very, very good things that the UNIX decision gives us:
long file names
fast network speed (I've got an iMac serving up files faster than our dedicated Windows2000 Advanced Server!)
very stable as you well know
NO MORE MEMORY ALLOCATION!!!!!!
built-in server
potential access to a boatload of high end database, 3D, engineering, etc, applications just waiting to be ported

My friend, OS X may have its issues, but it is very far from a mistake. It may be Apple's salvation.

As for interface design, which was the main point of your statement. Obviously, it's subjective. For me, I like it. It's much cleaner and beautiful. But so what? How about INTERFACE? Again, other than a few caveats as mentioned above, I prefer X's approach. I like column view, very cool. I like transparent windows (not sure why there's a growing aversion to this). I love single window view. I like the folder view options for constraint and size. I find the red, yellow, green Aqua system a bit odd and unintuitive, but I like that I can click on a window that's four layers deep to close it without effecting the front windows, nice. I freaking love the dock, though I'd like to see some slightly better solutions for when you try and hide it, but it keeps popping up as you're working (ever try and edit in Final Cut Pro with a hidden dock?). I like having higher quality icons. I like long file names. I like how I can get to where I need to quicker via the dock or Finder. I DON'T like where some things are, like fonts and buried preferences and techno files that I don't understand and such. I also DON'T like seeing what should be hidden files in some cases (temp files in particular. DO NOT show me these, Apple, what's the point?). These are just a few examples of why, for me, Aqua and X is indeed a better interface.


----------



## fryke (Mar 4, 2002)

Just a short interruption from the 'bad guy'.  NOW this is getting more to the point. btw: good points, mindbend. transparency gets its aversion from the fact that screen clutter leads to total confusion now. and you (and someone else) said mac os x was not a mistake but apple's saviour. i didn't mean they should have done nothing since 9.1, but should have concentrated more on their strengths as a company who did THE great user interface in the eighties.


----------



## simX (Mar 4, 2002)

> _Originally posted by simX _
> *
> 
> And you know what, OS X is actually a better interface.  Not much has actually changed, except that you have to get used to the way it works.  I like things opening in the same window.  If I don't, I can just hide the toolbar, and the Finder works exactly like OS 9.  I like column view, which is a great way of navigating.  The Dock, while arguably annoying when switching applications, is great for being a launcher and holding oft-used documents and folders.  If you want an OS 9 style application menu, just install ASM.  But the Dock helps ENORMOUSLY for things like Dock Menus, and Docklings.  They, combined with menu extras, effectively replace the Control Strip which is one thing I actually don't miss from OS 9.
> ...



Fryke: In addition to this quote that you seemingly overlooked (it deals with the GUI), I wanted to add something: I find myself working much faster in OS X than OS 9.  That's not only because of the pre-emption features and other stuff, but because of the GUI.  I can have windows from different applications interspersed between each other, which is a great thing.  The Dock really does help me with its dock menus (I particularly like SlashDock, and SETIDockling).  Column view is much better.  Menu extras rock.  I like being able to access the shut down, restart, login, and recent items as well as the location from any application.

I could keep on going, but OS X really does have a good GUI.  I have to admit that, yes, I would love spring-loaded folders, and that yes, the speed of the Finder does still need a good speed boost, but OS X definitely has a better GUI, IMHO.  I don't think Apple made any mistake at all.

Oh, and translucent menus are not harder to read at all.  They are only slightly translucent, making it hard to read stuff BEHIND the menu, but you can read it nonetheless.  Stuff IN the menu is just as readable, and the black of the text is still pure black, so I don't understand you're argument at all about how translucent menus make it harder to read.  Also, OS X's menus open just as fast as OS 9's do -- maybe they don't on your system, but they do on mine.


----------



## Ricky (Mar 4, 2002)

Amen!

Now we're getting somewhere.  I also find myself much more productive with X, basically because it doesn't crash  .  But seriously, all those features that SimX mentioned are all helpful.  The Dock is great for the GUI; it keeps all the apps I frequently use right there, and it's much better (and more sensible) than the Launcher in OS 9.  I used to use the Launcher because it did all the things that the Dock does; keep my files and apps organized and within easy reach, and I can get it out of my way when I need to.

Recent items:  Some of the apps that I don't use very often don't go in my Dock, but whenever I quit them I lose them out of my Dock.  I just go to the Recent Items, and BAM!  There they are.

I don't find the translucent menus a problem.  I know they're a bit on the slow side in terms of appearing, but I don't know if that happens on all Macs.  On my dad's G3's they're pretty snappy.  I don't think they're unreadable either.. and I have bad eyes.  XP

The red-yellow-green thing can be fixed by choosing a Graphite scheme.  

I like being able to close a window without having to make it active.  That is the best feature for me.  Switching apps is kind of slow too.

Apple revolutionized the computing world with the release of Mac OS 1.0.  (I had that on my first Mac!)  Windows adapted to look a lot like it.  Apple's still the company that revolutionized the GUI.  If you look at Windows XP, it looks a lot like Mac OS X.  This is solid proof that Apple has changed the face of computing forever.. because Windows copied them.  Once Microsoft copies something, they don't let go.  

There's been a trend of Microsoft copying Apple.. time for a lawsuit!  

Now, I also realize that this isn't the perfect system release.  OS X is still very slow.  But keep this in mind:

*10.0 was around 75% slower than 10.1.*

They're working on this.  Yet again, be patient.  They'll come through, they always have.


----------



## phatsharpie (Mar 4, 2002)

I have to admit I LOVE Mac OS X. I used NeXTSTEP as my first Unix operationg environment when I was still in high school and instantly fell in love with it. Thus I was completely gun-ho about OS X. However, I have to admit that Aqua is FAR from perfect in many aspects. First of all, I am not an OS 9 fan, I used Macs for a few years (when 7.5 first came onto the scene), but I was never a zealot when it came to Mac's UI. I thought it was nice, but I didn't think Win9x was all that far behind (ducking from flames). However, my main draw to Mac OS was simply the fact that the OS architecture itself was simpler (at least on the client side). I was able to drag and delete applications without worrying about shared libraries (ala Win9x), and the idea of configuring the OS via draggable control panels and extensions was great too. In other words, the actual management of the OS itself was what set Mac OS (pre X) apart from the Windows crowd.

There is no doubt Mac OS X is an amazing achievement. I love it. I am a J2EE developer and I have an iBook with OS X as my own personal development environment. I even installed WebLogic onto it to develop EJB's (despite what BEA says, you CAN install WebLogic on OS X). Finally I have a Unix based OS that allows me to run all the Unix apps I need and a polished UI. However there are many "features" of Aqua that IMHO un-necessarily slows the system down without providing much value to usability. For example, what's with all the transparency? Sure, it looks cool, but does drop-down menus really need to be semi-transparent? It's not transparent enough for me to read what's underneath it (why would you need to, I don't know), yet it's not opaque to hide completely what's under it. Secondly, if you have multiple windows open, and when the windows are not in focus, the titlebars become transparent. At first, it seems like a logical way to differentiate between foreground and background windows, but when you have multiple background windows, the titlebars layer each other so you can't really tell the layering anymore. Why? What's the point? These issues and such animations as "genie effects" for minimizing windows are all just eye candy without adding value. And these eye candy sucks processing power!

There is so much about Mac OS X that I love. In fact, without OS X, I wouldn't have even came back to the Mac platform, but some of the Aqua UI design decisions really doesn't make much sense. It sometimes sadden me to think the potential that is underneath the gooey layer that is Aqua. I like the PDF-esque rendering and I agree that staying with Display PS would've been a bad choice (the technology is expensive and outdated), but I feel that so much of Aqua is implemented with a "this would be cool" mindset, rather than "this would be helpful".

Just my humble opinion.

-B


----------



## Dradts (Mar 6, 2002)

actually, the one thing thats really getting on my nerves is the os x finder. it is sooooooooo buggy and sooooo slow. its not even multithreaded, copying files sucks big time, list view sucks, and so on and so on. i hope they will soon get the functionality of the old os 9 finder into os x. but i don't really think this will happen soon as they havent updated the finder since 10.1.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Mar 6, 2002)

if you don't like the OS X Finder, you can replace it with Snax. Snax is Cocoa based, and has some really nice features.

http://www.cocoatech.com/products/


----------



## BackInMac (Mar 30, 2002)

Just out of curiosity, how many of you people use Macintosh/Windows/Linux/Unix simultaneously?

I run a medium-sized multimedia design shop, and funny enough we're all about Windows 2000 Pro , and various flavors of Linux, and one solitary OS X machine. For all thee who wonder, our Windows 2000 Pro setups *don't crash*. period. We also use Windows 2000 Servers, and they *don't crash*. period. Linux is a sweetie too. 

At home I have a couple of Macs (cube and g4 866) running OS X 10.1.3, and I use a new ibook for my personal work, and for shuttling data back and forth . I've rarely used os 9, let alone 8, since i defected from the Mac OS to Win 95 back in August of '95. Again, for anyone who cares, I've been using computers heavily since 1984, and I was onboard wit the first PCs, Apples, and even the very first Macs, through the SEs, and the SE30s, and the IIcx-es and the IIci-s, and the IIfx-es, and the Power Computings, etc...Now that I live, breathe, work and sleep with all of these OSes, and I've been back with the Mac again for close to a year --and this is a very personal and subjective opinion--I have to say that what I feel is that OSX is fun, pretty, sexy, slick, but if you wanna get some real work done, then roll up the sleeves and sit in front of a Windows 2000 Pro/Server machine or Linux machine and kick some work-ethic ass. 

Yes, I like OS X, but at the moment its really not that practical, and in rendering that lovely interface, it puts millions of processor cycles to complete waste. Its bad enough that GUIs like Windows 2000 Pro already rob your CPU as much as they do, why waste more?

I can be suckered into OS X, whole heartedly, if one single windows feature that I really really really love makes its way in: Resizing a window from any corner or edge! Sounds fickle, but as far as I know its the most convenient way to manage multiple windows on the screen at any given time. Is there a way to currently achieve this?

Anyway, i recommend that everyone stay as platform agnostic as possible, because they're JUST F***** OSes! There are more significant things in this world. Like washing machines: I think General Electrics rock, all you Maytag lovers suck balls!

BackInMac


----------



## fryke (Mar 30, 2002)

hmm... it's nice that you get your work done in windows 2k. super. i'm getting my work done with mac os x, so i guess there are different opinions around. (my windows 2k box is running linux most of the time because i'm a web developer. can't use win 2k for that.)

but this thread was not 'your moma's os flame war'. it was about OS X and what was left behind with OS 9.

i think it's clear as water: linux for webservers (and development), macintosh for graphics design (and development), windows for microsoft office. really, office v.x is nice and all, but if you're a secretary, there's nothing like a cheap wintel box running microsoft office.


----------



## Valrus (Mar 30, 2002)

BackInMac, your last paragraph made me laugh out loud.

I would like to be more platform-agnostic, but at this point I'm just too set in my ways. I have never had a purely positive experience on a Windows machine, and for that reason I'm afraid I'm going to have to stay a Mac zealot who can use Windows when he absolutely *has* to. But I can respect and maybe even envy your position.

-the valrus


----------



## simX (Mar 30, 2002)

> _Originally posted by BackInMac _
> *I have to say that what I feel is that OSX is fun, pretty, sexy, slick, but if you wanna get some real work done, then roll up the sleeves and sit in front of a Windows 2000 Pro/Server machine or Linux machine and kick some work-ethic ass.
> 
> Yes, I like OS X, but at the moment its really not that practical, and in rendering that lovely interface, it puts millions of processor cycles to complete waste. Its bad enough that GUIs like Windows 2000 Pro already rob your CPU as much as they do, why waste more?*




Interesting quote, but I actually find that I get much more work done on OS X.  And yes, I've been immersed in Windows both at work during last summer and over the 4 years at high school.  I think I'm pretty much as platform agnostic as you can be.

However everyone's biased.  You know why?  Because everyone's used some operating system before and so they are going to be used to using that operating system.  It's no different from the switch to OS X from OS 9.  I STILL have some habits that I fall back to that just don't work in OS X yet (one example is the annoying open/save dialog boxes... you used to be able to use the keyboard to navigate around in there, but now it just chokes -- I hope that gets fixed).  So if you come from a Windows environment, you're probably going to like Windows better.  It sounds to me that you've been predominantly in Windows in UNIX until Mac OS X came around, so you've got a bias there.

However, it's basically a fact that a new user who has never used a computer can get more done on a Mac than they can on any other platform, just because it is more intuitive and more easy-to-use, especially when you factor the iApps into the picture.

As for me?  My productivity goes waaaaay down the drain when I get onto a Windows machine.  It's just completely unintuitive.  I absolutely CAN'T STAND applications that have an enclosing window and then several windows inside that window.  That just limits the usability so much (one example used to be Hotline on Windows).  And the fact that the menu bar is not ALWAYS on the top of the screen just halves my productivity right there.  These are fundamental user interface flaws, and you might have gotten used to them, but I haven't.



> *I can be suckered into OS X, whole heartedly, if one single windows feature that I really really really love makes its way in: Resizing a window from any corner or edge! Sounds fickle, but as far as I know its the most convenient way to manage multiple windows on the screen at any given time. Is there a way to currently achieve this?*



Again, an opinion based on habit (I'm not bashing you here, I'm trying to point it out).  I can't stand this feature in Windows and I will vehemently express my opinion to PREVENT it from coming into Mac OS X.  I really do hate it.  It doesn't save time at all, and I rarely have to resize a window just vertically or horizontally, so I'll have to go to the corner anyway.  Plus, it's just another thing that can get in the way, and I really hate that about Windows -- it gets in the way a lot of the time (yes, this is an opinion based on my habits too).

I'm just trying to point out that's it's very hard to be platform agnostic even if you live in a place where there are multiple operating systems.  You end up preferring one, and yours happens to be Windows 2000.  I, on the other hand, am much more productive in OS X.


----------



## RacerX (Mar 30, 2002)

> _by BackInMac_
> *Just out of curiosity, how many of you people use Macintosh/Windows/Linux/Unix simultaneously?*



I for one have all of those platforms currently running here at my home (clockwise around the room: Irix 5.3, Solaris 7, A/UX 3.0, Irix 6.2, Mac OS 8.6, Mac OS X 10.1, Mac OS 8.1, Irix 5.3 [yes another one], Rhapsody 5.1, OPENSTEP 4.2/Red Hat 6.2, and Windows 3.1/95/98/NT4.0sp6/ME/2000Pro in VPC and another Rhapsody 5.1 [my ThinkPad in my bag by the door]). I currently do consulting, and the ratio of Macs to Windows systems used by my clients is better than 4:1 (though currently only one person is using Mac OS X). There are very few systems that I would not be able to be productive on (or fix for that matter), but the Mac OS is just the best there is (and that is a very experienced opinion).



> *I run a medium-sized multimedia design shop, and funny enough we're all about Windows 2000 Pro , and various flavors of Linux, and one solitary OS X machine. For all thee who wonder, our Windows 2000 Pro setups *don't crash*. period. We also use Windows 2000 Servers, and they *don't crash*. period. Linux is a sweetie too.*



Funny is right, your description would have me thinking that you had a _small_-sized multimedia design shop (I know of very few people who use Windows for anything _multimedia_ because Microsoft is working so very hard to remove the _multi_ part from Windows ability to work with media).



> *At home I have a couple of Macs (cube and g4 866) running OS X 10.1.3, and I use a new ibook for my personal work, and for shuttling data back and forth . I've rarely used os 9, let alone 8, since i defected from the Mac OS to Win 95 back in August of '95....*



So you left the Mac platform (that is bought a new system) so you could use a version of Windows so bad that many users quickly ran back to Windows 3.1? The first version of Windows that even held a candle to the Mac OS (even 7.5 and 7.6) was Windows NT 4.0 sp3 (and that was just because it didn't crash, the GUI was still a weak link). And Windows is still plagued with but not having rootless applications (like simX brought up), even on my SGIs I don't have to have all the windows of a given app limited to one window. Talk about a productivity killer, that alone kept people from moving from the Mac OS even though Windows NT seemed much more stable. As for not having used Mac OS 8/9, you missed out. When set up correctly, those systems could actually give NT a run for it's money for uptime when being used as a workstation (I know this from personal experience having had a Windows NT 4.0 sp5 system and a Mac OS 8.6 system sitting side by side on my desk at my last job.



> * ...but if you wanna get some real work done, then roll up the sleeves and sit in front of a Windows 2000 Pro/Server machine or Linux machine and kick some work-ethic ass.*



Then why do you use a Mac at all? You are completely off base when talking about users in general (productivity has more to do with what environment you are more comfortable working in), but I am guessing that you seem to believe that you can get more done on these other systems. So what do you think you (on Windows or Linux) can do that others (happy with their Macs) can't do? That is really the question, isn't it? What is it that you are doing so much more productively on your choice of systems that I could not do (and be as productive) on my choice of systems?



> *Yes, I like OS X, but at the moment its really not that practical...*
> 
> _and_
> 
> *I can be suckered into OS X, whole heartedly, if one single windows feature that I really really really love makes its way in: Resizing a window from any corner or edge!*



First you say that you have three Macs (two at home, and an iBook) and that you only use Mac OS X on them, then you don't think they are practical? What? It took you buying three systems to decide they are not _practical_? And then you say that the resizing of windows is the feature that ... what, makes them _practical_? Do you read this stuff before posting? From what you have posted, I would have to conclude that you are either masochistic or don't really own a Mac (actually I figure you do own a Mac, so I'm leaning towards masochistic  ).


----------



## serpicolugnut (Mar 30, 2002)

I use Windows2000 and Mac OS X. At my office (which I have to go to every other day), it's all Windows2000/NT4. At home, I have two Macs (see below), and one PIII/800, which is basically used only when there is something that I can't do on the mac (or via VPC). It's a last resort box, that occassionally gets used to run Spinner, again, something not available for OS X (at least until Real gets off their arse with a OS X version).

I've used many OS' from 1979 on. Win3.1 was my first "GUI" system. I used it for about 1 year until I discovered the real thing - a Mac running System 7. I looked at Win95 when it came out and yawned. I re-evaluated Windows again when Win98 came out. Another yawn. When I switched jobs in '99 from desktop publishing (all mac) to web design, I found myself at a job that used nothing but NT4. I adapted (still used my Macs for freelance and work at home) and solidered on NT4. Let me say this about NT4 - it's stable. That's about all you can say about it, because other than that - it sucks. The GUI is horrible, it's unintuitive, and very hard to use.

In 2000, I was getting very disenchanted with Apple's continued delay in producing a next generation OS. I took a real hard look at Windows2000, and liked what I saw. It's rock solid, has tons of apps, and addresses a few of the problems I had with NT4's GUI. It's still not half as easy to use as a Mac, but it was good enough that I couldn't dismiss it anymore. I got a PIII and used it, thinking that I may one day migrate completely from the Mac to Windows.

All that changed when Apple shipped OS X. Sure, the first version lacked in many things, but it addressed my number one problem with the Mac OS of old - stability - even when using Classic applications. The promise upon OS X's release was finally becoming a reality, and I gave Apple another 6 months to get the last pieces fixed. They did, and 10.1 was released. It was what OS X should have been from the start (I forgive Apple for shipping 10.0 as it was - if they didn't, the apps would haven't appeared until late 2002). 

OS X has been my daily OS since it's release. Since 10.1's release, I have only booted back in to 9 (from my Norton CD) to run SpeedDisk. I'm currently running the PS7 betas (anxiously awaiting the shipment of my own copy), and the Dreamweaver beta (again, anxiously awaiting my copy), FlashMX, Illustrator10, Office v.X,  and Lightwave 7 (best 3D app available). I do web design every day, along with video editing & compositing.

OS X is a leap frog over the current Windows offering. Apple is firmly back in the driver seat. I'm not slagging XP, because it looks like it has some nice improvements  over Win2000, but I will not be upgrading for two reasons - 1) the licensing agreement, and 2) the 4 item limit on changing out a component before Microsoft tells you to stop and call them to ask if it's OK. 

Anyway - the point of this diatribe is that many of us use OS X as our daily OS, and don't suffer in the least because of it. Some of us even do it with a fully capable Win2000 machine on the same desk....


----------



## phatsharpie (Mar 30, 2002)

> _Originally posted by BackInMac _
> *There are more significant things in this world. Like washing machines: I think General Electrics rock, all you Maytag lovers suck balls!*



Maytag rocks so much harder than General Electric.

-B


----------



## BackInMac (Mar 31, 2002)

Wow!

All you forum pros! So much to respond to, so little time. 

True, its all habit and personal opinion.
True, its not a 'what you can do versus what you can't do in each OS': all these OSes are pretty darn capable. What you can do on any computer today, makes computers 10 years ago look like a joke.
True, I have 4 Mac OS Xes in my life, and I like the OS, otherwise I wouldn't have bought that many. More importantly, my wife likes the OS-- sysadmin at home making sound technical decisions 
True, I have a masochistic streak
True, our production computers and servers *never crash*. Small/Medium/Large its all relative, in my case Medium is 29 or so, Production workstations. 11 Servers (some live, some experimental) and one Mac OSX machine. Actually, now that you bring it up, i quite like the way OS X interoprates within our Windows/Linux/Solaris enviroment...

but i'll hold steadfast, General Electric with Tide, kicks all other washing-machine butt

BackInMac


----------



## pkollias (Mar 31, 2002)

Maytag, GE, whatever.  All the rage these days are the frontloaders. Someone's actually figured out that gravity is of useful assistance in beating the crud out of clothing, (Europe).  Man, they do a great job. Use whatever soap you want, too.  But back to the idea at hand...

I want to ask something... and it's 'cause I don't know but I've heard...

When Intel gets to 10.832 Ghz on their processors, what is our PowerPC going to be at?  I know that Mhz or Ghz labels don't absolutely define the effectiveness of a chip, but given this thread, it put thoughts in my head. (Like exercise, a novell experience...)  Complaints about latency; complaints about usability and GUI; complaints on crashing, stability and transparency.  Really, Unix is the right underpinning; most of these complaints can be sorted out by well-compensated folks at Apple or the community at large.

What about our chips?  Where is the next G5, 6, or 8? It seems to me that the sheer volume of Wintel machines out there adequately funds further develpment of the Pentium lines.  There's a need.  

And now to prepare myself for the onslaught....


----------



## serpicolugnut (Mar 31, 2002)

Kenmore ROCKS!


----------



## simX (Apr 1, 2002)

Maytag?  GE?  Kenmore?

HAH!

Frigidaire is the best brand of washers AND driers, especially since both are front-loading (go gravity!).


----------



## twyg (Apr 1, 2002)

> _Originally posted by BackInMac _
> Anyway, i recommend that everyone stay as platform agnostic as possible, because they're JUST F***** OSes! There are more significant things in this world. Like washing machines: I think General Electrics rock, all you Maytag lovers suck balls!
> 
> BackInMac [/B]



That's your first and final warning man. 

Don't swear on this board again!

(I figure w/ 13 posts you're sorta new, so I'm assuming you missed the "don't swear in here" posts.)

Thanks.


----------



## buggs1a (Apr 3, 2002)

fryke-
windows does NOT have AA text throughout the system better then OSX. no OS in the world does that i know. OSX flat out kiss ass over any OS in the world when it comes to how good the text looks. So that's funny you say windows looks better with text. i think it's ugly big time compared to os x.


----------



## Securion (Apr 6, 2002)

Im getting my Mac this summer BECOUSE of OS X.
No OS X, No Mac for me. The old system you had was, and im not exagerating here, just plain ****

But I wont be forgiving to Apple if they dont let the user (read me) customize the system to the users needs. (witch Mac isnt known for really) often the user is considered an idiot... hehe.

Basicly, im looking for a new Amiga in the year 2002... Fast, reliable, good looking, customizable and way ahead of the competition.
Apple are very close to that now.

And sorry for my english...


----------



## RacerX (Apr 6, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Securion _
> *The old system you had was, and im not exagerating here, just plain ****.
> 
> And sorry for my english...  *



I have found that people who try to use other operating systems the same way as the ones they are currently using seem to have the most problems. I would suggest, and I'm not exaggerating here, that you learn how to use a system before making judgments about it. My guess is that you'll be just as unhappy with Mac OS X if you find the old Mac OS not to your liking. I can't remember the last time I had any problems with Mac OS 9 on any of my systems, but then again, I know how to use it.

Please be sure before you buy a Mac. Macs are not Windows systems, they are not Linux, they are _in the end_ just Macs.


----------



## Hypernate (Apr 6, 2002)

OK, I'm not sure if this was addressed later on that I read (My eyes are hurting so I skimmed from about 3/4 onwards...) but all people mentioning slow responsiveness in OS X seem to be using G3 systems. Remember, OS X was actually designed for the G4, and actually works faster than OS 9 on these systems. Of course, I'm not saying you're wrong by saying it's slower. On your systems it slower, but that's not Apple's fault. 

Note: I am not saying this with anger or anything, and I am definately not discriminating against G3 users


----------



## Hypernate (Apr 6, 2002)

> _Originally posted by buggs1a _
> *fryke-
> windows does NOT have AA text throughout the system better then OSX. no OS in the world does that i know. OSX flat out kiss ass over any OS in the world when it comes to how good the text looks. So that's funny you say windows looks better with text. i think it's ugly big time compared to os x. *



Actually, I hate to admit it, but Windows XP actually does have fully anti-aliased test throughout. I've been using my sister's Toshiba laptop for a while, and it does actually do a pretty damn good job at it. Even on it's low resolution screen, some of the test looks better than my iMac, and also, OS X doesn't AA lower than size 9 (maybe 8 can't remember) while ALL test is AA in windows. Sorry, had to point that out.


----------



## Hypernate (Apr 6, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Dradts _
> *actually, the one thing thats really getting on my nerves is the os x finder. it is sooooooooo buggy and sooooo slow. its not even multithreaded, copying files sucks big time, list view sucks, and so on and so on. i hope they will soon get the functionality of the old os 9 finder into os x. but i don't really think this will happen soon as they havent updated the finder since 10.1.
> -----
> iMac DV SE 500 / 256 MB RAM / 30 GB HD / 8 MB ATI RAGE PRO 128 / MacOS 9.2.2 / MacOS X 10.1.2 *



Now, have a look at your system specs, and I'm sure you'll find your iMac is using a G3 processor. Mac OS X incorporates Velocity Engine technology... found only in the G4 chip... wonder why it's not that fast for you? It's not Finder's fault.


----------



## nkuvu (Apr 7, 2002)

> _From RacerX:_
> My guess is that you'll be just as unhappy with Mac OS X if you find the old Mac OS not to your liking.


In most cases I might agree with you.  But I really don't like working in OS9.  I *love* OS X.


----------



## RacerX (Apr 7, 2002)

In another thread you said that you hadn't worked in the Classic OS since System 7. But to continue on with your point, what is the difference between the two as you see it?

From my point of view, the layout is pretty much the same. All the major interface features are still there (though I still like Rhapsody better because of the Apple Menu). What was so different that you _didn't like_ Mac OS 9 but *love* Mac OS X?


----------



## phatsharpie (Apr 7, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Hypernate _
> *OK, I'm not sure if this was addressed later on that I read (My eyes are hurting so I skimmed from about 3/4 onwards...) but all people mentioning slow responsiveness in OS X seem to be using G3 systems. Remember, OS X was actually designed for the G4, and actually works faster than OS 9 on these systems. Of course, I'm not saying you're wrong by saying it's slower. On your systems it slower, but that's not Apple's fault. *



Considering that until January of this year, all "consumer" Macintosh models were G3 machines, and considering that Apple has been bundling and moving users to OS X for the past year or so, OF COURSE it's Apple's fault for making the Finder so slow on the MAJORITY of its user base! In fact, Apple has been telling its users that Mac OS X would run well on all G3 and up machines since day one.

Look, I know Apple still has ways to go in terms of optimization, and I know OS X is still in its infancy, but the fault for the Finder for being so slow and buggy on G3's is COMPLETELY Apple's fault. It's certainly ridiculous to point fingers at G3 users and tell them to get G4's when there weren't even consumer G4 machines until January! In fact, there isn't even a G4 consumer laptops!

-B


----------



## bookem (Apr 9, 2002)

> _Originally posted by phatsharpie _
> *
> 
> Maytag rocks so much harder than General Electric.
> ...





The UI of the Dyson is far superior to these, plus it never crashes, and has an Aqua theme.


----------



## fryke (Apr 9, 2002)

> _Originally posted by buggs1a _
> *fryke-
> windows does NOT have AA text throughout the system better then OSX. no OS in the world does that i know. OSX flat out kiss ass over any OS in the world when it comes to how good the text looks. So that's funny you say windows looks better with text. i think it's ugly big time compared to os x. *



Windows XP uses ClearType, subpixel-based antialiasing, which looks extremely good on LCD (TFT) screens and also gives better results than 'normal' (grayscale) antialiasing on CRT monitors. Adobe has developped a similar technology called 'CoolType' which you can turn on in Acrobat Reader. Look through its preferences, you'll find it.

The antialiasing used in Mac OS X is nothing to be so happy about. It's yesterdays technology sold to you as new. CoolType has been around, and I guess Apple would just have had to license it from Adobe but didn't want to so far. Or maybe it would make the system even slower, then maybe Adobe does something wrong there.

Other topic: Mac OS X faster on G4 than OS 9.x. Please notice that people who state that OS 9 feels faster don't mean application speed. They mean the sluggishness of menus, the wait time browsing a harddisk and the like. Of course there are fields where OS X is actually faster or lets you work faster. But coming directly from OS 9, almost *everything* on OS X feels quite slow, whether you're using a G3 or a G4. Also there's no fast way to put stuff from several locations to several other locations. This will be addressed in Mac OS 10.2 with spring-open folders, but that's a feature from OS 9. Read the first posts about those things.


----------



## nkuvu (Apr 9, 2002)

> In another thread you said that you hadn't worked in the Classic OS since System 7. But to continue on with your point, what is the difference between the two as you see it?



Dang it, you keep catching my slip ups!  Knock it off!   The last real experience I had with a Mac was in fact System 7.5.  But when my roommate first got her iMac I played around in System 9 before going to OS X.  So I dabbled in System 9, and didn't see a _lot_ of difference between that and System 7.



> From my point of view, the layout is pretty much the same. All the major interface features are still there (though I still like Rhapsody better because of the Apple Menu). What was so different that you didn't like Mac OS 9 but love Mac OS X?



The command line.   The Unix base (read: Stability).  Aqua.  The multiple views from within the Finder.  The dock.

All of these things are what I miss when using OS X.  I installed FruitMenu, so I have similar functionality to the original Apple menu (which I think was a good thing), but it's still not quite the same.


----------



## fryke (Apr 9, 2002)

Platform agnostic. That's a subject.

I may not be agnostic, but I tend to use the right system for each task. For a long time I just *needed* both a Linux box and a Mac box, because on one platform (Linux) I couldn't get graphical work done as fast as needed, and I lacked the support and development Adobe provided me with. On the other platform (Mac) I lacked stability and a testing environment for web development. Mac OS X is the answer here, so I gladly switched when it arrived. I still have a Linux box, because I like to work on two computers at the same time, but I could replace the Linux box with a G4 now. Only, there's no need to, because I don't want to work on two copies of Photoshop (let alone own two).

But the initial thread was about the step from OS 9 to OS X. The transition - which is often compared to the transition from 68k based Macs to PPC - wasn't as smooth as possible. Apple decided to try a fresh start. Apple was a GUI leader forever, it seems. With Mac OS X they killed many features OS 9 users learned to love (and work fast with). I think this was a mistake, because it makes the decision of a Mac OS 9 user to switch to OS X more difficult than needed. In many ways, Mac OS X 10.0 felt like a beta to many OS 9 users. In many ways, OS 10.1 *still* feels like a beta to OS 9 users, mainly because there are still features missing, still apps that are not ported (although that's not really Apple's fault). And the UI has rough ends that just don't fit Apple, which was very well known for UI excellence. That's why I asked, whether Apple can ever make up for the big mistake.

Maybe the answer is 'yes', and 10.2 will provide it. Maybe it's 'no' and the world is just going down a different path from now on.

If I had been 'Apple', I'd have taken the best of both worlds (OS 9 and OpenStep) and combined them to a truly modern, rock-solid and fast OS. 10.0 was *not* what I (personally, of course) saw as the best of both worlds. It was a strange new breed, and although it was (almost) truly modern, although it was rock-solid, it wasn't actually very fast compared to its parents. It was a slow child with a strange haircut.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 19, 2002)

Okay, fryke, let me ask you this then.

*Do you hate OS X?*


----------



## RacerX (Apr 19, 2002)

> _by fryke_
> *If I had been 'Apple', I'd have taken the best of both worlds (OS 9 and OpenStep) and combined them to a truly modern, rock-solid and fast OS. 10.0 was *not* what I (personally, of course) saw as the best of both worlds. It was a strange new breed, and although it was (almost) truly modern, although it was rock-solid, it wasn't actually very fast compared to its parents. It was a slow child with a strange haircut.*



I think I have to agree with fryke here. Having worked with all the systems (NEXTSTEP, OPENSTEP, Rhapsody, Mac OS X, Mac OS 8/9), I would have to say that Mac OS X is slow by comparison to the systems that led up to it. I have work with NEXTSTEP, OPENSTEP and Rhapsody 5.1 on Pentium 133 systems and found them to actually be quite responsive. I now have Rhapsody 5.6 (Mac OS X Server 1.2) on a PowerBook G3 266, and it is very nice. But Mac OS X 10.1 on a G3 350 is not nearly as fast as my PowerBook with Rhapsody on it.

Somewhere things changed. Mac OS X DP3 & 4 both needed only 64 MB of RAM, but now we consider someone with 256 MB to be handicapped. I don't know what the problem is (though I would guess Carbon), but I've been getting the feeling that Apple feels the solution is to put out faster systems that cost less (but still cost something compared to using someone's existing system) rather than to invest in cleaning up the code.

I do like Mac OS X, but I look at OPENSTEP, Rhapsody and Mac OS 8/9, and I have to say that I think Apple may have missed the mark (though they seem to be correcting the problems each update and 10.1 seems pretty close).


----------



## simX (Apr 19, 2002)

Let me just say this:

Why don't YOU guys try and put a nice, easy-to-use interface on top of UNIX.

OS X is more than an interface, and it is more than UNIX.  I know of no other UNIX system where you can plug in a monitor, and a dialog pops up asking if you want to mirror/extend your desktop  where you plugin a firewire drive and it pops up on the desktop  where you can plug in a camera or CD burner and have the OS *INHERENTLY* recognize it and burn to it  where you can attach mice and have it immediately recognize two buttons and a scroll wheel  where a NEW COMPUTER USER CAN SIT DOWN .

You guys used to be talking about solely the interface, and yes, it lacks some things.  But when you talk about OS X as an operating system altogether, you have to include everything -- all of the plug-and-play features, as well as the stability and the lovely interface.  It takes a lot to do all this kind of stuff, and I'm not surprised that at this early stage it's slower than its parts.  (It certainly is more than the sum of its parts altogether, though.)

I'm not saying Apple should be given a break  yes, they need to get on the ball and start making things faster and reimplementing some handy UI features  but they've just about done the impossible, and I don't think it could have been any better at this point in time.

Know also, that Apple had to make a gamble.  Should it make users wait another 3 more years for OS X and get everything right, after which it would have to wait another 3 years for everything to get ported (since, doubtless, developers will wait until the OFFICIAL release of the operating system to start supporting it), or should Apple release it early and unpolished, allowing developers to throw their support early, and develop OS X as Apple went along?  Apple made the right decision to release OS X early, because if they didn't, we probably wouldn't have had OS X OR an OS X native Photoshop at this stage.


----------



## mindbend (Apr 19, 2002)

Wow, finally someone who agrees with me that OS X, quite simply, is unacceptably slow. I am lucky enough to own the fastest machine Apple makes, and it's STILL too slow on many graphics layer things. I've been harping on this for months, but I just can't let it go. I don't know how people can tolerate glacial screen panning in AI and InDesign or window resizing in the finder or resizing in any web browser or connecting to a network, etc. All of these things are slower in X. 

I have to assume that Apple has plans to resolve this, here's why. It's not even because the current Apple audience is demanding it (look at this board and how many people, strangely, find OS X perfectly acceptable in terms of performance). Apple needs to fix this ASAP for the potential Windows converts. Anyone using even a PII or PIII can get WAY faster screen performance and as soon as they see OS X snail through something, Apple just lost a customer. It doesn't matter that OS X is rock solid and very stable and you can actually be more productive even with the areas of sluggishness. 

A book is only as good as its cover in this case.


----------



## mindbend (Apr 19, 2002)

These reponses are just for fun. Some I actually care about, others I don't:

My comments will be in caps since I'm lazy.

testuser wrote:

Problems:
* documents in the Dock
If I have 10 web pages minimized in the Dock, I cannot tell which is which. I need to scrub the mouse over all of them. A big waste of time.
YOU CAN TELL BY THE ICON IT MAKES AND BY SCRUBBING, I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE YU WOULD WANT. PLUS, WHY WOULD ANYONE NEED TEN WEB PAGES IN THE DOCK? TO EACH HIS OWN I GUESS.
* Maximize button
Click the button, and it will make your window smaller or larger. Sort of random sizes. And no full screen windows. It should have some sort of predictable and useful behavior.
YEAH, IT'S A BIT FLAKY. I THINK I PREFERRED THE FULL SCREEN DEFAULT.
* Windows hard to resize at times
If a window opens larger than the screen, it is impossible to get to the resize tab in the lower right corner. If the resize tab is under the dock, you have to waste time hiding the dock, or moving the window by the title bar in order to grab the resize tab.
CANT ARGUE WITH THAT.
* Filename length
This is still limited to 32 characters in the Finder (although the underlying filesystem can handle 255 characters)
HERE'S MY THEORY: APPLE PURPOSELY CONSTRAINED THE CHARACTER LIMIT FOR A TRANSITIONAL PERIOD FROM OS 9 TO X SO THAT CAUTIOUS USERS WOULD NOT SCREW UP THINGS LIKE INDESIGN LINKS, FINAL CUT PRO LINKS, WEB LINKS, ETC. IN PRODUCTION WHILE USING 9/X SYSTEMS. JUST A GUESS. ENGINEERS AT QDEA HAVE TOLD ME THAT THE LIMIT WAS IMPOSED BY APPLE AND THAT THEY EXPECT IT TO BE "FIXED" IN UPCOMING RELEASES. NONETHELESS, I THINK IT'S S STUPID REASON AND I WANT MY 255 CHARACTERS RIGHT NOW!
* Poor design
Try this: open a Finder window in icon view, and then change the background color to black. You can no longer read the filenames of the icons. This has been reported to Apple a year ago, and they still have not fixed this very ugly bug.
THAT'S REALLY REACHING! I WOULD HARDLY CALL THAT A BUG. IF ANYTHING, I WOULD CALL IT A HARSHLY IMPOSED COURTESY TO COMMON SENSE UGLINESS RESTRICTION. BESIDES, WHAT ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO DO, COME UP WITH SOME ARBITRARY CODING DECISION THAT TURNS THAT TEXT TO LIGHTER COLORS RELATIVE TO HOW DARK A BACKGROUND IS? I'M FINE WITH APPLE'S DECISION TO IGNORE THAT FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.
* File extensions
They are hidden by default. This is so ugly and Windows-esque. Change an extension and the app may not open correctly. Ugh.
YUP, IT'S AWKWARD, BUT I CAN'T THINK OF A BETTER WAY.
* Incorrect permissions errors
Why can't the operating system work correctly to allow people to empty the trash? to delete something they installed? to delete an old user account? using Terminal commands to perform mundane tasks is ugly.
PERMISSIONS/GROUPS/PRIVS IS CURRENTLY A TOTAL MESS AND BETTER GET CLEANED UP IN 10.2.
* More clicks to accomplish the same task
Change the background picture in OS 9? just ctrl-click on the Desktop. In OS X you must click System Preferences, click Desktop. The extra clicks, coupled with the slower response of OS X, makes these tasks take 5 times longer than they did under OS 9. 
TRUE IN THAT EXAMPLE, BUT FOR EVERY ONE OF THOSE EXAMPLES, I COULD PROBABLY NAME TWO TIME SAVERS IN X (1. SINGLE CLICK SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR SPOTS IN ANY WINDOW, 2. MULTIPLE VIEW/NAV OPTIONS FOR ANY USER'S PREFERENCE)

ONE OF MANY LITTLE THINGS THAT IRKS ME IN X (AND IN 9) IS THE SYSTEM'S LACK OF CONSISTENT SUPPORT FOR KEYBOARD SHORTCUTS IN DIALOG WINDOWS. EXAMPLE, WHEN I QUIT A HALF-FINISHED FILE AND HAVE THE "DON'T SAVE" OPTION, I WANT TO HIT "D" TO NOT SAVE. THIS WORKS IN A FEW APPS, BUT MOST DO NOT.


----------



## RacerX (Apr 19, 2002)

> _by simX_
> *Why don't YOU guys try and put a nice, easy-to-use interface on top of UNIX...*



See there is the problem. Like I said, I have used almost every version of operating system leading up to Mac OS X. That in and of itself gives me the ability to compare what there is now and what came before (and that is not even bringing up all the other UNIX based operating systems I've used).

Here is my take on what most likely happened:

Rhapsody was ready to go as a desktop operating system for both Intel and PPC systems and Yellow Box as a runtime environment for Windows 95 and NT 4. Apple hit (what has been call in the DOJ's case against Microsoft) an Applications Barrier. Developers would not develop for a system that has no users, and no users are going to use a system where no one is developing apps. Adobe, Microsoft, Macromedia and other big name Mac developers said out right that they would _not_ convert their apps to Rhapsody's Yellow Box (originally OpenStep, later to be called Cocoa). Apple sacks everything but the Server version for PPC.

Realizing that they have a wonderful operating system that no one wants, they decide to create an application environment that would be easier to port existing Mac apps to. The environment, called Carbon, was going to take a number of years to make, so the first thing they do is _change the name_ (so that it would no longer be the project that all the developers rejected) to Mac OS X. Secondly, rename the one version of Rhapsody that they were going to release to match the new project name by calling it _Mac OS X Server_, so it looks like they have released something on time.

Now we come to this time period were the only thing that is being worked on is Carbon. The first thing they realized was that they were not going to get people to write for this environment if Apple didn't use it themselves, so that is why over the period of three developers previews a Carbon Finder slowly started to take over for the Cocoa Workspace Manager. The second thing to realize is that they had time to kill, so they developed the Aqua interface during this period. And the third thing to realize is that they also developed Quartz (with Display PDF in it) to replace Adobe's ultra expensive Display Postscript (which didn't make Adobe all that happy, I can tell you).

Does this have anything to do with putting a GUI on UNIX? Not really, no. You are kidding yourself if you think so. 

Does this have anything to do with making big name developers happy enough to write for Mac OS X? You better believe it! 

Did Adobe hold back Photoshop to hurt Apple for not using Display Postscript? I would say _yes_, they did. Think about this, Adobe could have asked for $50.00 per copy of Mac OS X if Display Postscript was used in stead of Display PDF (I believe that they actually asked more than that from Sun for Solaris, NeXT for OPENSTEP and Apple for Mac OS X Server 1.x). That accounts for a large amount of lost revenue for Adobe.

As for the _plug-and-play_ ability of Mac OS X, that could have been added to Rhapsody without paying a speed fine, and it was included in Mac OS X without one either. So that really is not an excuse. None of that would have an effect, so you really can't use that to hold up any type of argument here. And the stability of the system is the one thing that has taken a hit from Carbon.

Mac OS X is really _OS by committee_. No one was willing to wait on adding their pet feature, so Apple added them all at once with poor integration on top of an untested application environment. Honestly, knowing the history of all this, I am surprised at how great this OS is! The Gods of Computing must really love Steve Jobs, that is all I can say.

And testuser, why do you think Mac OS X's interface has anything to do with OPENSTEP's interface? OPENSTEP had one of the best interfaces in computing history, with as many features copied from it as had been copied from the Mac OS. Be was at best a poor copy of the Mac OS that they couldn't give away, and half the stability of the BeOS was that you didn't have any apps to run on it (Windows Me is almost stabile by those standards).


----------



## Ricky (Apr 19, 2002)

I have a knack for being ignored...


----------



## RacerX (Apr 20, 2002)

> _Originally posted by testuser _
> *I have read that the Openstep dock was superior to the Dock in OS X.  This coupled with your adulation of the Openstep interface, leads me to believe that human interface did take a back seat during development of the Finder for OS X.*



One of the things I didn't miss moving from OPENSTEP to Rhapsody was the dock. I love the Apple Menu and Application Menu, I like Window Shade, and I have all that in Rhapsody. From a user point of view, what cared over to Mac OS X from Rhapsody was column views and the terminal. Rhapsody feels very much like Mac OS 8.5 (the version it was modeled after).


----------



## lethe (Apr 23, 2002)

this was quite a thread.

forgive me for saying this, but i think the first couple of pages really highlighted how bad message boards can be.  all the people don t read the thread, and respond with flame attacks, until fryke got defensive, and then got flamed for being defensive.  he brought up some good points,  and no one listened to him.  bad message board habits really annoy me to no end.

no one except RacerX.  he had good points from the beginning, and i think he really understands what is going on with the progress of OSX.

testuser and racerX have some of the most intelligent posts on the boards, and it is usually enlightening to read their posts.

anyway, to the matter at hand, it was very interesting to hear why you think adobe didn t want to release photoshop on time.  but isn t PDF (which OSX uses instead of PostScript) also an adobe technology?  perhaps it has looser licensing, or what?

so from reading RacerX, we can understand why the GUI is not as cleanly put together as it might be.    i m sure apple will fix quirks in the UI as time goes by.  but they still probably have other things to work on.

do you think we will get a Cocoa finder soon?


----------



## simX (Apr 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by testuser _
> *OS X was a big step backwards in terms of evolution of the human interface.  There have been improvements, and hopefully many more to come.*



*sigh*  I wonder why I always get things done faster in OS X than I did in OS 9, then...



> *Problems:
> * documents in the Dock
> If I have 10 web pages minimized in the Dock, I cannot tell which is which.  I need to scrub the mouse over all of them.  A big waste of time.*




How else would you do it?  I agree that WindowShade should not have been tossed out the window, but you can't have the names of all your Dock stuff always present.  That would be a disaster, especially for me, since I have 80 things in my Dock.



> ** Maximize button
> Click the button, and it will make your window smaller or larger.  Sort of random sizes.  And no full screen windows.  It should have some sort of predictable and useful behavior.*




Actually, it does have a predictable function, except in the Finder when auto-arrange is on.  What it does is it toggles between the largest possible size, and the user-set size.  With the auto-arrange thing turned on, it's really unpredictable because of a bug in how they implemented it.



> ** Windows hard to resize at times
> If a window opens larger than the screen, it is impossible to get to the resize tab in the lower right corner.  If the resize tab is under the dock, you have to waste time hiding the dock, or moving the window by the title bar in order to grab the resize tab.*




I agree with you here, this is very annoying.  But more and more apps are respecting the Dock's space, so that they are less and less being obscured by the Dock.



> ** Filename length
> This is still limited to 32 characters in the Finder (although the underlying filesystem can handle 255 characters)*




Heh, right.  Like you want the whole 255 character filename displayed?  Seriously, THAT would be a mistake.  But here's the catch: move your mouse over the filename and press option.  If it's longer than the displayed characters, a tooltip will pop up showing you the full name.  This is not bad design.



> ** Poor design
> Try this: open a Finder window in icon view, and then change the background color to black.  You can no longer read the filenames of the icons.  This has been reported to Apple a year ago, and they still have not fixed this very ugly bug.*




PEBKAC (problem exists between keyboard and chair).  That's a user problem.  It's YOUR fault for putting on a black background when all filenames are clearly black.



> ** File extensions
> They are hidden by default.  This is so ugly and Windows-esque.  Change an extension and the app may not open correctly.  Ugh.*




Um, HELLO?  It's GOOD to hide them by default.  Normal users shouldn't need to see these filename extensions.  And Mac OS X gets around the ugly Windows bugs that make you have multiple extensions; it always warns you when you're changing file extensions about the fact that it might change the application that opens it.  Plus, the user has COMPLETE control over what application opens a file: through the "Open with Application" tab in the Finder Inspector window.  And Mac OS X uses ALL forms of metadata  it shouldn't have made the filename extension the most important one, though.

Plus, if you want to see all filename extensions, just go to Finder preferences (from the Finder, not System Preferences), and check "Always show file extensions".  Problem solved.



> ** Incorrect permissions errors
> Why can't the operating system work correctly to allow people to empty the trash?  to delete something they installed?  to delete an old user account?  using Terminal commands to perform mundane tasks is ugly.*




There is no way to solve these problems, because of the inherent UNIX underpinnings.  Like you pointed out in another post, the Users folder is owned by root, so you can't change anything in it: thus you can't delete old user accounts because of this.

I take that back, there IS a way to solve these problems: implement an option-empty trash thing that allows you to put in your administrator password to empty the trash.  Let's hope Apple does this.



> ** More clicks to accomplish the same task
> Change the background picture in OS 9?  just ctrl-click on the Desktop.  In OS X you must click System Preferences, click Desktop.  The extra clicks, coupled with the slower response of OS X, makes these tasks take 5 times longer than they did under OS 9.*




True, but would you give me other examples?  This instance isn't THAT bad.



> ** Open/Save Dialog
> Only two columns wide.  Makes it difficult to navigate.  The OS 9 dialog was MUCH better and easier to use.*




Um, there's something called a resize box.  It works in open/save sheets too, and you can even control the size of the columns by option-resizing.  One problem that Apple has yet to rectify, though, is that sometimes this doesn't work in Carbon applications; it works in all Cocoa applications.



> *Note:  I'm not complaining about the overall speed (slow is good as long as there's stability).  I am not complaining about technology (it's great to have unix, Apache, perl, JAVA, etc).  OS 9 looked better and had many convenient and easy to use features that have been stripped from OS X:
> * tabbed windows (this was superior to the dock for launching commonly used apps, yet keeping the screen uncluttered)*




HOW in the world is tabbed windows different from Dock auto-hiding?  Oh, yeah, tabs always stay on the screen so your screen is still cluttered.  I don't see your point here, except for the fact that you can drag things to the tabs (which you can't in the Dock, but I hope it will get implemented).



> ** spring loaded folders*




Yes, this is a needed feature, but will be in in Mac OS X 10.2.



> ** the control strip*




Not necessary anymore.  Every heard of things called Menu Extras and Dock Menus?  Dock Menus are much more versatile, and I totally don't miss/need the control strip.



> ** folder labels (green, blue, brown, etc)*




Yes, another needed feature that needs to be reimplemented.



> ** multiple and redundant ways to accomplish the same task*




There are plenty of redundant ways to accomplish the same task.  Give me some examples of what problems you're having.




> *Why did they not make other improvements over OS 9?
> Hiding all of an application's files in a package is a good start.  But more could be done now that we have great 128x128 icons.  But why not use this icon to convey some meaningful information?  Mail.app and PrintCenter are good examples because they show the number of emails and pages, respectively.  But this could be done on a system wide basis.  For example imagine an icon for a text document that shows:
> * number of pages (single page, multiple pages, book)
> * age of document (cobwebs?, date stamp)
> * content (show the first few words of text)*




This would be cool, but might get a little confusing.  But plenty of applications use the dynamic Dock icons feature.



> *simX,
> No one held a gun to Apple's head and forced them to use unix.  They could have bought BeOS, which had the same stability as NeXTstep, but a decent interface.  After all, Mac is not selling to enterprise users (obvious by their hardware lineup), they sell a consumer OS.  They chose to run with BSD, but that doesn't mean throwing human interface design rules out the window.  If you look at my complaints about the Finder, you will see that they all could be fixed by additional coding.  This should not be necessary if they had paid attention to detail in the first place.*




Many of the features that you are complaining about are not things to be complaining about.  You seem to be holding onto OS 9 more than you are accepting better features in OS X.  I find that many people who complain about OS X's interface are still trying to accustom themselves to OS X's slightly new interface.



> * *snip* and as a result the human interface has suffered.  OS 9 was very polished and easy to use.  OS X might be easy to use, but is very crude. *



I refer you again to the statement I said at the top of the page.  Why in the world is OS X crude if I can get stuff done much faster in OS X?  I really don't get your argument.  Yes, Apple has had to invest time in the technologies, but the interface hasn't suffered too much, and has even improved in some areas.

Furthermore, OS X isn't yet polished because it is scarcely 1 year old.  The Classic Mac OS is over 17 years old.  You can't just take the interface and slap it on top of UNIX!  It has to be integrated, and integration takes time.

Some of you guys seem to think that Apple could have just copied and pasted the code from the Classic Mac OS and put it in Mac OS X, and have a working interface.  Heh, fat chance.  Apple had to recode the whole thing from scratch, and as a result there will be some rough edges as well as some new features that need to be refined for them to be more useful.  But Mac OS X does have a good interface, and it's NOT that much different from Mac OS 9.

RacerX: Like I said, I'm not trying to excuse Apple from the slowness of OS X, but I don't think you have enough intimate knowledge about OS X to say that it could have been faster at this stage in development.  I'm not saying I have any knowledge in the area either, and I'm sure you have more.  What I am saying is that you weren't on the Mac OS X development team, and so you don't know where they went wrong.

I hope that none of you construe this post as an attack.  I just feel that Mac OS X isn't as crude as you all make it out to be.


----------



## mindbend (Apr 23, 2002)

I already said my two bits, but I fell like blabbing some more, so...

A UI is clearly a subjective issue, so we can argue endlessly about little details. People have forgotten or failed to mention the simple fact that the entire Apple culture was based on a firm adherence to what started off as subjective design desicions.

To some extent, I agree with people's desires to have a UI that is 100% completely customizable to every degree that one could imagine. On the other hand, I respect Apple's long held history of saying "This is how we like it. Deal with it." Kind of the way a chef at a fancy restaurant refuses to cook a meal any way but his own.

That's what third parties are for (silly things like reversing text out of dark backgrounds, etc.)

For me, "crude" is the last word I would use to describe OS X. DOS is crude. OS X is art. There are issues and wish lists, I have my own extensive one. But "crude"? If I get spring loaded folders, color labels and a faster UI, you will never hear a peep of complaint out of me again. OS X is that close to perfect for me and how I use it (lots of keyboard macros).

But again, to TU's point, Mac OS as we know it survived and prospered with only marginal interface changes for 17 years. That is amazing. Astonishing. They obviously did something right. OS X is still better though (subjectivity rating:10).


----------



## dricci (Apr 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by testuser _
> *I have a feeling that many useful features can still be added (or brought back) to this OS. *



Only if we keep sending in feedback on the feedback page. The more they hear what we want from large numbers of people, the more we'll get. I send in feedback about once every two days.


----------



## simX (Apr 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by testuser _
> *simX,
> 
> Thanks for the tip about resizing the open/save dialog boxes.  I had assumed it always stayed at two columns (partly because of the small size of my iBook's 800x600 screen).  When I drag it out as large as it can go I can get 3 to 4 columns.  This makes it more useful.
> ...




The buttons can actually be overridden by programmers making the applications, I believe.  That is why you can have WindowShade X which changes the function of the minimize button, and why the maximize button in iTunes changes the window drastically instead of just changing its size.  So I think it's more of the developers' fault about the inconsistency.  It's a mixed blessing.  But, yes, you're right about the Dock on the right side thing; they just quickly added that (since it was already a hidden option) and didn't think about Finder windows.



> ** can't read filenames in dark windows - PEBKAC
> Well, Windows XP can do this (reversing the text color).  It's ridiculous to call this a user error when it can be handled easily on Apple's part.*




Well it might be nice to be able to reverse the text color, but I don't think many people will be using black backgrounds on their windows, so it's not "poor design", it's just a minor, minor flaw.



> ** filename length
> You asked me why I would want 255 characters instead of only 32.  Well, sometimes I actually want to make a long filename, and it won't let me!  Also if you download files (like mp3's) it crops the filenames.  This is extremely annoying, and incorrect behavior on the Finder's part.*




If you're referring to the fact that some applications don't allow you to make 255 character filenames in save dialog boxes, that's a different problem entirely.  And the fact that downloaded mp3s have their filenames cropped is the DEVELOPER'S problem.  The Finder inherently supports 255 character file names, and you can view the whole name with the option-hover-mouse-over-truncated-name trick.



> *It's great that you are more productive under OS X.  Some people are, some people aren't.  It depends on what types of applications and hardware you need to routinely use.
> 
> Many people preferred Macs because they had excellent hardware/software integration (attach a SCSI drive and it was recognized out of the box), and intuitive interface (HD icon on the desktop, CD icon appears when you insert a CD), and their attention to detail (everything looks nice and works harmoniously).*




As you just mentioned, all of these things are also included in OS X.  It's little interface problems and the rare major thing that have been left out, but I would hardly construe Mac OS X as "crude" because of these things.



> *It's this type of attention to detail that is important to user experience.  Apple has made many technological improvements over OS 9, but the interface to OS X is not as nice.  It is complaints from old-time Mac users like us that resulted in:
> * return of the apple menu (instead of a blue Apple logo in the middle of the screen)
> * return of date to upper right corner
> * monitor resolution and volume control in menu bar (to replace their loss in the control strip)
> ...



Like many have pointed out, it's your opinion that the interface in OS X is not as nice.  I think it's ahead of OS 9 in terms of usability even with all these little bugs.  No doubt they will be worked out.  But Mac OS X is still an easy-to-use operating system, and often times new computer users find that Mac OS X is easier to use than the Classic Mac OS.

Of course old-time Mac users have helped bring interface improvements, and it's this feedback that will help OS X come to have a better interface.  But the solution is NOT to make OS X's interface just an aquafied Platinum interface.  There needs to be improvement, and I think the Dock is a very nice improvement; I never used the Launcher thing in OS 9 because it was severely hampered.  Apple's implementation of Menu Extras is very nice too, because developers can make their own (I have 8 menu extras installed right now).  And I'm glad that I can log out, shut down,  and force quit from any application via the new Apple Menu.

I will not say that I never modify the Mac OS X interface.  I am very partial to ASM and FruitMenu.  But there are many improvements in OS X, like the fact that you can browse your whole hard drive via one window, the toolbar (including the ability to add folders/files directly to the toolbar), column view, and improvements like sheets.  I don't know about you, but I really love column view, sheets, the toolbar, and the browse via one window.  I don't think I could live without those.


----------



## dlookus (Apr 24, 2002)

> _Originally posted by mindbend _
> [BTo some extent, I agree with people's desires to have a UI that is 100% completely customizable to every degree that one could imagine. On the other hand, I respect Apple's long held history of saying "This is how we like it. Deal with it." Kind of the way a chef at a fancy restaurant refuses to cook a meal any way but his own.[/B]


This is not really the case. They keep it from being customizable to keep the user experience consistent. it's not enough that you can buy a new Mac and be able to use it right away, you also have to be able to use any other Mac that you encounter.

Personally I would really like to be able to change colors of more interface elements, and maybe replace those damn horizontal lines with some other texture or no texture, but actually changing the way the widgets look (aside from color) is really not in Apple's best interest.


----------

