Is the OS 9 finder carbonized? if it is forget Aqua!!

csajovic

Registered
I was wondering if anyone knew if the OS 9 finder was carbonized. If it is than apple could just bring finder over to OS X and scrap aqua. It sounds to me like very few people like aqua. Additionally if the OS X interface was good OS 9 finder than there would be very little distinction between running a classic app and a native app (a big plus in my mind)

In the end I think what users wanted was a modern operating system with preemtive multithreading, protected memory and a decent virtual memory system. I don't think users were asking for a new interface. Actually if my judgement serves me people were using the Mac OS with all its short commings because of the Interface.

remember: If it ain't broke don't fix it
 

endian

Dis Member
scrap aqua??? LOL!!!! Do you have any idea how ludicrous that sounds? OSX is getting a fair amount of press coverage (much of it in places that haven't bothered to write about Macs in years) and EVERY article talks about Aqua & shows a screenshot. And you want Apple to suddenly shrug and say "oh well, we changed our minds." (yet again)

The distinction between running classic apps and native apps is important because a) if a classic app crashes, it may take down other apps, and b) users can only pester developers to make native apps ASAP if they know which apps aren't native.

In the end I think what users wanted was a modern operating system with preemtive multithreading, protected
memory and a decent virtual memory system. I don't think users were asking for a new interface.
What users wanted is a Mac that doesn't crash and doesn't hang the entire system when Netscape decides it has to refresh its windows. They (we) are getting that.
I don't think users were asking for a new interface.
Except one follows from the other... Why shouldn't I be able to close a background window? Why cant the mail progress window pop up without interrupting the window I'm typing into? To take advantage of the multitasking, etc. changes in the interface are necessary.

Besides, Aqua is far more pleasant and Mac-like than the gray, dingy windoze-esque OS8-9 interface.

remember: If it ain't broke don't fix it
DOS users said the same thing.
 

MasonMcD

Registered
I don't understand how the finder in OS 9 is any better (or that much different, come to think of it) than Finder.tiff on my homepage. It's 800K, just to let you know.
 

iamnoel

Oh no!
Once again, it's an issue of "out with the old" vs. "in with the new." I like the idea of giving it as an _option_ on 1st login. If I like the OS 8/9 Finder, it gives me that instead. Otherwise, I'll get the new one: it's included. &, if I like, I go in General Controls, etc. later on in order to get from one to the other. It ought to be inclusive, too...: I love the overall whiteness of the new interface, & Graphite, the icons, etc. only I'm not into the lack of other things from OS 8/9. In other words, I'm 100% into the "in with the new" in OS X; I'm only opposed to its "out with the old..."
 

AdmiralAK

Simply Daemonic
I think Aqua roX as an interface, and should be left alone, well,
it should be left alone but users should have a little more control over it ;)

long live Aqua
 

wmoss

Registered
If what you really want is a "Classic" Mac OS style Finder and no Aquafied interface then the product you want has already been released. It's called Mac OS X Server and has been out for what will be about two years when Mac OS X client actually ships.

It's not the Finder as we know it today, but it has a LOT of the same look and feel. No button bar in the windows. Apple menu. Application menu. Platinum style interface (Dark platinum I think it's called). Trash can and hard disks on the desktop.

It still doesn't "feel" like the Finder I'm used to, even without the features like tab windows and spring loaded folders it seems just a little bit "phlegmatic".

I think I'd like the option of running the Mac OS X Server "Finder" or the new Desktop mangager, but I don't think it's a good idea to integrate the two of them together. Stuff like the column view and the button bar seems to be the antithesis of the "move the icon to exactly the right pixel" fussiness of the classic finder.


Oh and one last point... Aqua has nothing to do with the Finder. Aqua replaced only the "Platinum" look and feel; not the Finder.
 

amosb

Registered
You've mistakenly targeted Aqua.

Aqua is the entire graphical toolbox for UI in OS X. Aqua itself is extremely powerful, and the only consistent complaint I've heard about it is that it is processor intensive. And anyway, any Carbon app is still running in Aqua, it just doesn't get access to all its cool features.

What it sounds like is that you don't like the Desktop and Finder in OS X. I'm sure for any complaint you can find a thread already that you can metoo on.

To address a different point, you say
Originally posted by csajovic
Additionally if the OS X interface was good OS 9 finder than there would be very little distinction between running a classic app and a native app (a big plus in my mind)
I completely disagree. Apps running in Classic are not protected from each nor the Classic environment from them. Therefore, if a Classic app crashes, it can bring all the other Classic apps with it, even the entire environment. If it wasn't visually clear to me that an app was in Classic, and it crashed, bringing with it half the apps I was running, I would be very worried for the stability of my system (even though it wasn't actually in jeopardy), and OS X would quickly lose its reputation for stability (even though it shouldn't). Whereas if the distinction is clear, and people are constantly annoyed that their Classic apps can crash each other, it will be that much more pressure on vendors to Carbonize or Cocoaify their apps. IMHO.
 

MasonMcD

Registered
You're thinking Quartz. Aqua is the GUI. The pinstripes, the throbbing blue, etc. Not the antialiasing, PDFizing of Quartz.
 
Top