a Switcher... (story after the switch!)

[Snowball]

Originally posted by fryke
The delay in the get info box stems from 'getting info'. The Finder can't (and SHOULDN'T) keep a database of every possible folder information at all times. So it has to compute the size, for example.

Yes, I agree it would be ridiculous for the Finder to calculate a database of all the folder information. But I think the delay is caused more by bad programming than the Finder actually taking that long. For example in OS 9 or 10.1 (don't remember 10.0) that window came up very quickly, basically instantly. Think about it, what exactly is that window getting in 10.2? Less information than before; you have to click on the triangles to see the extra items, but it still takes almost a second on this dual 1Ghz I'm using.

The 'messed up' Aqua stems from the fact that not all and everything is multithreaded. And in some cases it would make things worse. Creating threads for each and every bit of the UI would use too much memory in the end.

Could you elaborate further? (Not trying to be sarcastic or anything, I'm really interested in what you mean.) The only way Apple could implement something like what I quoted above about the drawer is by creating more threads? I thought it would be possible to just stop the animation once Esc was pushed.
There are some really nice parts of Aqua though, like holding down Cmd and resizing Cocoa app windows in the background. That can be really useful.

On the way, they can give the users a choice to turn off all transparency effects. Let _us_ decide what's good and what's not. At least to some extent...

Exactly! Options are always good, and it's really a shame that Apple doesn't give us more control. For example: letting us turn off font smoothing (the main reason my parents won't use X), turning off transparency to reduce processor usage (you have to use themes), and not relying on the drop shadow as a window border instead of a real 9 or Windows-style border. Sure, it looks good, but try running Let 1K Windows Bloom in both X and 9 and the difference between benchmarks gets depressing. Window spawning is maybe the most frequent event the interface engine does, and the speed, frankly, stinks. An option for a normal opaque border would be SO great! (http://www.vgg.com/rob/WindowsBloomUsers.html) (By the way, on this Dual 1Ghz model I'm using, I get 32 secs in OS X for 1K Bloom and 11 in Classic (I didn't boot in real OS 9)).

Unfortunately, I don't hold a lot hope for Apple either in terms of interface customization because there have already been 3 OS X releases, and each of them have not had significant changes to the problems of the original interface. Quartz Extreme really didn't do much other than take some load off the CPU. It didn't do much to make the interface faster.

It's strange that Apple is so slow with interface improvements because they already had a lot of features built-in. (For example, the Dock hidden features that _should_ have been in 10.1 but were only activate-able by TinkerTool.) I just find it kind of sad that priorities have changed so much at Apple. More and more I get this feeling that I am being pressured into upgrading my old PowerBook because Apple doesn't let me turn things off when it would be trivial for them to program in - or already exist, but be disabled. Third-party solutions are really not adequate (themes like Rhapsodized, ShadowKiller, etc) because the rest of the interface engine is simply too processor intensive.

(By the way, did you guys notice that the Cocoa toolbar system is a direct ripoff of IE5's toolbar system? Maybe MS ripped it from NextStep though, I don't know.)

And I just remembered another interface slowness test...Try opening lots of windows in IE or similar, and hitting Cmd-H. On this dual 1Ghz I'm using now it's acceptable speed, but on my powerbook with 10 windows open it literally goes SBOD for about 15 seconds, 1.5 secs to close each window


Anyway, sorry if this sounds like an anti-Apple rant, it's not supposed to be against Apple but rather against the missed chance they had to make OS X's interface amazing. It's good, yes, but there are some real flaws with it that should have been addressed by now, the Finder being one of many.

 

[habilis]

AMEN TO THAT Snowball. That's the kind of criticall thinking we need more of. Spread the truth. You see, I just bought the same dual 1GHz machine you have about 2 months ago and I've never been so depressed about a purchase in my life. It's a total disgrace that this OS ever left the ground.
The sad thing is that a lot of us are still in denial and don't want to be honest about how bad osx sucks.
Looking around I see a lot more rants abou how bad osx is rather then how good it is. Amen to asking the fundemental questions like "duh, uh, shouldn't this new improved OS be improved??"
And don't be a fool and go look at any of those Macintosh magazines like Mac Addict or Macworld. Their very existence depends on Apple's further colonialization of the PC world so those mags are in total denial at best and blatently extorting you at worst, knowing that the better review they give, the more macs get sold, the more mac magazines get sold, the better SUV, stock options, and beachside Aromatherapy sessions they get.

 

[RacerX]

by habilis
The sad thing is that a lot of us are still in denial and don't want to be honest about how bad osx sucks.

The truth is you are unhappy with your purchase and should look for something else. The fact that you spent your money and are now depressed about it only shows that you didn't take the time to find out what you were getting before putting your money on the table. You knew what would make you happy, you didn't make sure that what you bought would fulfill that, and now you seem to be the one in a true state of denial.

If you believe Mac OS X sucks, then find something better! Who is more in denial, someone who is happy with the system they are using or someone who is unhappy but doesn’t go looking for something better? This is exactly what I was talking about. Why do you think less of other people who are happy with what they have (or are at least constructive in their criticism)? The fact that you are so unhappy and are continuing to be masochistic about this is more troubling than others not agreeing with your assessments.

As for me, I find what works and stick to it until I find something better. For me, Rhapsody was the operating system that did all that I wanted. Up to last summer my Rhapsody systems out numbered my Mac OS X systems 3 to 1. With the release of Mac OS X v10.2, another consultant and I took my PowerBook, put a spare hard drive I had into it and started testing installations (we did 4 that first day). I left the spare drive in to test it for a week after being surprised at how good it ran that first day. After 3 weeks, I reinstalled my original hard drive with Rhapsody on it, backed up all the information I needed off it and installed Mac OS X v10.2 on it.

If I'm a fanatic about anything, it is Rhapsody. And for anything to replace Rhapsody on one of my systems is nothing less than amazing.

Also, working with a number of magazines and having met a few people who have worked at Mac Addict over the years, I can tell you that you are very off base with your portrayal of them. Most are very under paid and end up moving on quickly because they can't afford to keep working for next to nothing.

by Snowball
(By the way, did you guys notice that the Cocoa toolbar system is a direct ripoff of IE5's toolbar system? Maybe MS ripped it from NextStep though, I don't know.)

Actually IE5 was developed using the Aqua Interface Guidelines. Just because IE5 was released before the Public Beta, doesn’t mean that Apple didn’t already have those guidelines in place (going back to at least Mac OS X DP3 as I recall which predates IE5’s development and release for the classic Mac OS). I’m sure MS has had some good ideas that they came up with on their own... I just don’t know of any.

 

[fryke]

RacerX said: "I’m sure MS has had some good ideas that they came up with on their own... I just don’t know of any."

Good ideas Microsoft had...

1. The Taskbar
It was superior to the Mac's 'Application Switcher Menu', as you had an overview of what was already opened and what not. On the Mac, you'd head to the ASM and then realize you hadn't opened an app, so you had to go to the Finder (or your preferred launcher). It's of course not like there hadn't been some Dock or anything before, but still.

2. Microsoft Word 5.1a
It was - in my opinion - the first really usable word processing application. It had far more features than any other but was still no bloatware. It was just a professional version of what was around (MacWrite Pro et al.).

3. Internet Explorer
Before IE, there was Netscape. And only Netscape. Netscape was, like, the only application that was allowed to crash every five minutes. Because everyone wanted the 'net and there was no alternative. IE, whatever one wants to think about it, kickstarted web development. - And with version 5.0 for Macintosh, there was the first really standards-compliant webbrowser on any platform. It may not be the best browser today, but as much as I credit Netscape for being a part of the 'internet revolution', I also have to name IE. If Microsoft had released source to IE at version 5, there would be no Mozilla project. Because however bad you think Microsoft's people code, Netscape's were worse.

Wow. Now that makes for an opinion thread, eh?

 

[RacerX]

Originally posted by fryke
Good ideas Microsoft had...

1. The Taskbar
2. Microsoft Word 5.1a
3. Internet Explorer

I'm not so sure about the Taskbar, but as the only system of mine that has a copy of MS Word on has 5.1a (and it is still in use today, my wife is using it as I type this), I'll have to agree with you on that one. Also, for almost a year after Netscape came out I was still using Mosiac (actually xmosiac on a Sun) which seem to have become Internet Explorer, I'll agree that it too has some merritt (though the credit should go to NCSA and the guy who started Netscape who developed it to begin with before starting up Netscape). I stopped using IE on Mac OS X long ago because it seem to be very unstable (and I am a big support of Omni). My wife uses Netscape in her account and I use OmniWeb in mine, so I does see IE on Mac OS X that much any more.

 

[jesustoast]

Originally posted by fryke
RacerX said:
... If Microsoft had released source to IE at version 5, there would be no Mozilla project. Because however bad you think Microsoft's people code, Netscape's were worse.

Wow. Now that makes for an opinion thread, eh?

Mozilla would still exist because of Netscape's license. Microsoft wouldn't have used a license like Netscape did to release their source code.

Let's say that both projects released their source code around that same time. The quality of the code would have very little to do with starting a new open source project. The majority of programmers would only contribute to a project with a free license.

 

[fryke]

No, I meant *IF* Microsoft had done that before Netscape could have done it... I was only talking 'if'. I know that Microsoft isn't exactly willing to give out their source code, and I guess that's why it didn't happen, anyway. I only wanted to say that if MS wasn't so tight about their IE source (_before_ Netscape unleashed Mozilla Source), they could have erased Netscape/Mozilla completely (99.9%).

 

[Snowball]

Originally posted by RacerX
(and I am a big support[er] of Omni)

I'm not surprised you support OmniGroup, RacerX (and welcome back to macosx.com by the way) ! As far as I know they are one of the few former Rhapsody developers that have "made it" with Mac OS X. (Actually I don't know that much about Rhapsody as I'd like to but I see from Omni's old stuff on their website that they used to develop for NS).

It works well for them that OS X has so many roots in what they already worked on, because they can have better, more, and higher quality apps out sooner than the competition because the hard parts are already done!

Out of curiosity, I know they wrote OmniWeb originally for Rhapsody, but what else did they write for Rhapsody that's on X right now?

P.S. Is the interface in Rhapsody so needlessly glitzy as it is in X right now? Or is there at least the option to turn effects off? I seem to recall that Rhapsody had a sort of OS 9 interface so I guess not...but it at least has to be faster than X's interface I imagine? Oh yeah, and with Rhapsody, there is a classic through Blue Box or Yellow Box or whatever Box . How does that run in terms of speed? Because if Rhapsody is as stable as X but has a faster interface, I could easily see myself switch back until I get a new PowerBook . Call me crazy, but when I boot Mac OS X it's a bittersweet moment: stability for huge speed loss and excessively cute interface. Or what about the way RAM disappears in OS X? You launch a program then quit it, and it doesn't seem to return all of the RAM it used. Geez, here I go again listing all of my gripes with X... sorry X lovers , just looking for options.
What was it about Jaguar that merited you installing it next to Rhapsody?

My problem is, I really want to like Jaguar. I was so hopeful when I installed it last summer that it would finally be usable on my Wallstreet. Well, I am sad to say it, but unfortunately, priorities at Apple are apparently the finances. They have had 3 revisions (more including betas) to make the interface run at a decent speed, but in it's current state it's frankly unusable on any computer speed like mine - I feel like I'm being forced to upgrade. Apple is screwed in a sense because they are losing the processor race too, and when applications like iPhoto suck up processor cycles like there's no tomorrow (try resizing it's window), things get even worse. They have this privelege of controlling hardware and software, as very few companies do, but somehow they managed to screw up some very important parts of OS X. The stability is great but when things like the interface are so slow or not well thought-out after 3 revisions I question my former die-hard Apple loyalty.

This is why I am interested in Rhapsody, the last viable OS that the "old" Apple made when priorities were different.

 

[RacerX]

Omni Group started out with NEXTSTEP. They made OmniWeb, OmniPDF (though I actually don't use it, I like PDFview better), OmniImage, and some other apps. They also have ported games over. Doom for NS/OS (the Rhapsody port was done by Eric Peyton), Quake II for Rhapsody (only worked for the PPC version of Rhapsody), and Quake III for Mac OS X DP 4 & PB (they stopped after Id took the porting back in house).

I have also supported (paid for shareware) Caffeine Software, maker's of TIFFany3 (for NS/OS/Rhapsody/Mac OS X), PixelNhance (Rhapsody/Mac OS X) and Curator (Mac OS X). Other long time developers include Stone Design (Andrew Stone helped me with many of my early questions) and Object Farm.

As for Rhapsody on my PowerBook, it was replaced with Jaguar completely. I have no need to run two operating systems on that computer (nor do I have the space).

The Classic environment for Rhapsody was Blue Box (Yellow Box is now known as Cocoa). It was actually quite nice, with little or no speed loss that I could tell (I never had the classic OS running on that system any other way though). It was completely self contained, was running Mac OS 8.6 (and could not be upgraded beyond that) off a disk image. The default image was a little small (like 250 MB as I recall) so I replaced it with one that was 2 GB in size. It ran most everything that a normal Mac could (but games), but that didn't matter much to me as I had a ton of games that were native to Rhapsody.

Yes, generally the interface was faster. And yes, I completely believed that there was no way I would be able to run Mac OS X on my PowerBook G3/266 at any where near the speeds that I would need to be productive. My primary apps are Acrobat (full version), Photoshop, TextEdit, OmniWeb and AppleWorks. In Rhapsody I was running Acrobat 4, Photoshop 6 and AppleWorks 6 in Blue Box, and used Omniweb, TextEdit, PDFview, PixelNhance, Cutting Room, ToyViewer, ToyAlbum (like Curator and iPhoto) and HTMLedit in Yellow Box (which kept me out of Blue Box most of the time actually). As I said I was only testing the installation process for Jaguar so I would have experience before being asked to do it on someone else's system. I was surprised (to say the least) that it ran quite nicely. I installed Acrobat 5 and Photoshop 7 on the systems, and Quake II (I couldn't have lived with out at least one first-person-shooter on my system) with some other games that had been ported over from Rhapsody (my wife has her favorites too). And gave it a try for what was supposed to be a week. It wasn't long before I found that I was doing everything I could in Rhapsody and without any hardship. So after running the test installation continuously for 21 days (and no, I didn't notice any loss of memory) without shutting down or restarting, that was enough for me.

Major plus for Mac OS X: Power Management. Though Apple made drivers to run Rhapsody on some PowerBooks, Rhapsody had no idea what power management was or that at times the system was running off the battery. Under Rhapsody I was able to keep it up and running off the battery for about 45 minutes, with Jaguar I have gone as long as 2 hours before I plugged it in (it was reading that it was down to about 35% battery power at that point). And with Rhapsody on my ThinkPad I have only gotten about 15 minutes off the battery before it shuts off (very old battery though).

Oh, and thank for the warm welcome back.

(image is of the interface of one of my Rhapsody systems as it looks right now)

 

[RacerX]

It should be noted that I don't use iPhoto, I use Curator ($19 for the full version). And like wise I don't use Sherlock 3, I use Watson ($29). I don't know if this or the fact that I have 512 MB of RAM in my system have anything to do with my perceived performance, but I was originally setting a side money to get a G4/500 upgrade for my Wallstreet. I can tell you that I have used that money for other things as I have no feeling of a need for more speed at this time.

Actually I sort of feel sorry for Sonnet, they lost out on like $500 I had set aside for the upgrade.