Can Apple ever make up for the big mistake?

[simX]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I have a knack for being ignored...

 

[RacerX]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

I just want to clarify some points:

* window maximize button - behavior is inconsistent
try it using the Finder, BBEdit, and Terminal; each has a different idea of maximum window size. And the Finder does not respect the Dock on the right side of my screen!

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)
* ability to get a ctrl-click on a folder in the Dock to see its contents

I have a feeling that many useful features can still be added (or brought back) to this OS.

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]

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.