Can Apple ever make up for the big mistake?

fryke

fryke

Moderator
Staff member
Mod
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
I totally disagree to this comment!!!:eek: :mad:

Windows ahead of OS X???

BAH!:eek: :mad:

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!:mad: :eek:
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
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 :eek:)
 
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.
 
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
 
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...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
But only 2 out of 10 GUI features are better in OS X than in OS 9. Or less.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top