Slashdot Mirror
Maya for Mac OS X
drc writes "I http://www.macnn.com/feature.php?id=344noticed on MacNN that 'Maya 4.5 for Mac OS X was announced this morning when Steve Jobs revealed that the Maya update would offer feature parity in OS X when compared to other platforms. Jobs also mentioned that Alias|Wavefront has seen the Mac OS X version of Maya grow to 25% of their total market. I'm suprised that the Mac OS X version has such a market share in such a short period of time."
I don't know anybody who uses maya on mac.
I do think it will be a viable alternative some day, from what I understand, it is a bit slower still than it is on PCs.
Most Maya users I know are on SGIs or PCs (Linux or Windows).
-Tim
-I just work here... how am I supposed to know?
You're not serious, are you?
Mac 3-button mouse support explained:
1. Go to store.
2. Buy 3-button USB scrolling mouse.(Intellimouse explorer, etc.)
3. Plug mouse in.
Just because Apple ships a one-button mouse with Macintosh computers (ostensibly for newbie users, the core consistuent of their user base) doesn't mean mice with n buttons aren't supported. Dell ships machines with two-button mice. Does that mean that 3-button scrolling mice aren't supported on Dell machines?
I'm hoping you're not just trolling. Anyone who reads any story about Apple on slashdot inevitably runs across the whole multi-button mouse thing - and every single time, it gets explained that yes, OS X does support multi-button mice quite nicely right outta the box. I think it's been explained here about 100 times in the past month. Sheesh.
I've been dealing just fine with one mouse button, myself. With the combinations of 'shift', 'ctrl', 'alt', 'command', and pairs of these, I find I have access to 9 virtual mouse buttons.
And if I need more... I buy a three button mouse.
Your asking why Macs don't ship with more? The average consumer probably still doesn't need a second mouse button yet. If you're paying for Maya, a $30 USB mouse is small change.
GPL Deconstructed
First off, I'm not a Mac zealot. I've been very critical of Apple in the past, especially when I worked there. I never claimed anything about one-button mice being "better" because of some percieved lack of flexibility. It seems as though you'e the one with a problem.
/. I'm not trying to change your mind, but to explain WHY Apple continues to ship a one-button mouse. It's obvious you don't agree, but it's also obvious to me that Apple takes the least objectionable road to providing effective interaction with the interface for the majority of users.
Paying $15.00 for another button on the mouse? What's wrong with it? Nothing. I think Apple should offer a 2-button Apple-branded mouse as an option at the Apple store. I think it's a bit dunderheaded to offer only a one-button mouse.
However, most tasks in the classic Mac OS can easily be accomplished with one mouse button; the compliment of contextual menus is a recent (1998) addition, and a welcome one - but the goal at Apple has always been to deign the simplest interface to the task at hand, and one button is the simplest interface to most action tasks.
This changes in software like Maya, where contextual menus can be and are heavily used. The second and third buttons allow quick and easy access to commands too numerous to be assigned easy key combinations of one-click buttons. Apple shows their extensive interface knowledge here too; they don't handicap the user by requiring a one-button mouse, but instead allow users with more experience and knowledge to easily add pointing/action devices that take advantages of additional software capabilities.
I think a lot of people fall into the trap of thinking that Apple is heavy-handed in all respects - in some ways they are, such as their refusal to move to more, uh, accessible and commoditized processors. The one-button mouse isn't an example of this though - for the past 18 years, they'e used a one-button mouse. Most Macintosh customers are repeat customers. Switching to a two-button mouse requires a complete re-intuiting of the interface to these new users (what's the second button for?).
It's easier for Apple and Macintosh users to allow the user's knowledge to supercede the interface and included hardware than to supercedee the user's knowlegde with additional hardware that isn't _needed_. That's why they still ship a one-button mouse.
In fact, Apple has evaluated adding buttons to the standard Apple mouse many times over the past several years. The conclusion has always been that doing so would add too much complexity for the basic user.
Allow the user to make the choice to take advantage of additional capabilities; don't foist extra mouse buttons onto people who don't need them, but make sure that people who do need those extra buttons are able to take advantage of them easily.
I personally like having one button on my PowerBook G4, as I have to keep my left hand on the keyboard anyway; amaking he modifier Control an easy target. On my desktop machine, I use a two-button scroll wheel mouse from Logitech.
Apologies for misreading your question; it's the sort of thing one sees so often on
It's either (1) retrain every Mac user on the hows and why od two mouse buttons, or (2) provide the flexibility to use more mouse buttons at a slight extra cost when the user's needs call for that extra button. The choice seems simple to me.
I'm suprised that the Mac OS X version has such a market share in such a short period of time."
A killer app comes out for a killer OS running on just about the sweetest hardware most people are willing to pay for.
What this really points out is how we've come to expect that mediocity sells and state-of-the-art often goes unnoticed. e.g., pop quiz: Palm or Danger?
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
the compliment of contextual menus is a recent (1998) addition
Four years would be recent in some industries. Personal computers is not one of them.
the goal at Apple has always been to deign the simplest interface to the task at hand, and one button is the simplest interface to most action tasks.
With a one button mouse, you have to control-click to get the popup menu. With two buttons, you just click. Now which is more complicated? Not only is the right-click easier on the wrists and less error-prone, but it is a de facto standard across most Unix GUIs as well as Windows.
This changes in software like Maya, where contextual menus can be and are heavily used. The second and third buttons allow quick and easy access to commands too numerous to be assigned easy key combinations of one-click buttons. Apple shows their extensive interface knowledge here too; they don't handicap the user by requiring a one-button mouse, but instead allow users with more experience and knowledge to easily add pointing/action devices that take advantages of additional software capabilities.
Finally, someone answers my original question! I have to say, that's about the best solution I could come up with.
Most Macintosh customers are repeat customers. Switching to a two-button mouse requires a complete re-intuiting of the interface to these new users (what's the second button for?).
This is just an excuse for stagnation. What else has Apple done that required a reintuiting of the interface? MultiFinder, System 7, Copland, OS X...
In any case, we are in agreement on the ideal solution. I don't want to force people to have more mouse buttons than they can handle. But Apple should offer more than one mouse, at least both a single- and a double button. I am not the hugest fan of the scroll wheel, but it seems to be very popular, so maybe they should have one of those, too.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
Jobs also mentioned that Alias|Wavefront has seen the Mac OS X version of Maya grow to 25% of their total market. I'm suprised that the Mac OS X version has such a market share in such a short period of time."
Well, duh... either he's lying, or everybody who's not being forced to upgrade by a new OS isn't upgrading. Windows guys can keep using their old versions, Mac guys really can't. And don't say Classic. It's not funny anymore.
I know, I know, I love Stevo too. But really, he's the top dog at an aggressive multinational. He's probably lying. We've all caught him "misrepresenting" the truth hundreds of times, and this is probably one of them - it's his job to hype OS X in any way he can. Look at the way he and his lawyers treat people, he's not a nice guy when he's not selling something. Nicer than Billg and monkeyboy, but they've probably never fired somebody for using cheap cologne and "stinking" up the office....
But we'll forgive him for this lie, just like we forgave him for screwing us with .Mac yesterday, and just like we'll forgive him for putting backdoors in Aqua tomorrow. We've gotta stop being Fanboys; blind faith and adoration is more harmful than sheer hatred. We've got to use our clout as customers to force positive change in Apple. If Steve doesn't hear any complaints about how he does business, he'll assume he's doing everything right. And he's not. Or am I the only one who can admit Apple's not perfect?
MokMok
No functionality is lost, simplicity is gained, BUT speed is lost. What was once a right click context sensitive option is now up at the top of the screen buried in a menu.
In the graphics market "apple once dominated" we are all using Wacom tablets. Photoshop (and most other graphics programs) without a pressure sensitive tablet is almost unusable (If you've gotten used to it without a tablet you just don't realise you're missing some basic functionality).
On the occasions we use a mouse the one that comes with the tablet has two buttons & a scroll wheel.
As for "maybe it will reign again" I think it's still dominating that market. Granted the it's not been strong in 3D. But in just about every other creative niche it either dominates (photography, art, design, advertising, pre-press) or has a very respectable presence (film/video, music and increasingly 3D)
TPS, you old troll...
In the PC world, since they were able to choose which mouse came with their computer. I have thrown away a handful of 1-button Mac mice, but when I get a PC I just get the mouse I want in the first place.
To each their own. I've replaced every mouse that
has come with my PCs with a Logitech Trackman
Marble FX (the old PS2 version) I hate stock PC
mice. and use them almost exclusively as doorstops.
I don't understand why people won't accept multiple buttons as an optional feature. It's flexibility: you don't have to use it, but someone might want to.
Some people do, those people simply buy new mice.
Why aren't you people complaining when Apple introduces a 17" iMac? After all, who needs a 17" iMac? Just get a 15" iMac and stick a 17" monitor in front of it!
Because iMacs can't have their monitors switched
out, perhaps? But you knew that, you just threw
that in in the hopes someone would bite. You win.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine...
In addition to being smarter, I've found that in my experience, my mac using friends are far more likely to actually pay for software than my windows using friends. This may account for the sudden numbers A\W is seeing, and why Adobe and Macromedia continue to see the mac market as being more important that its market share would indicate, despite the fact that just about everybody you know probably has a copy of Photoshop on their desktop somehow. Not a troll, just a thought. :)
___
Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.
Apple would increase the memmory bandwidth on the G4 desktops( ie ddr ram ). 64bit PCI on G4's would also be a plus. I'll bet a rack of G4 Xservers would make amazing render servers though.
I do not see 3D going the same route as video editing & 2D editing, simply because of the current road that most 3D studios are following. Increasingly linux is being used instead of NT or SGIs in these studios. Why? Because they're cheap. No licensing for the OS, great remote administration support, amongst other things. Macs do not succeed at the efficientcy vs money contest anywhere as well as a linux box would. Another issue is that Macintosh has yet to get a highend 3D development card where as the selection is quite large for PC. I am not talking about GF4's here, but about Wildcats, Quadros, Glorias, etc. Only recently did Apple finally get a real GF4 and not the hobbled GF4 MX, and a GF4 is far from a highend 3D development card. I will be surprised if Apple takes over the 3D development market unless they start trying a new strategy.
"What can a thoughtful man hope for mankind on Earth, given the experience of the past million years? Nothing." -Bokonon
you couldn't be more right!
I plugged in a logitech two button mouse on MacOS X and right off the bat I could use the 2nd mouse button to do what would previously had required a control-click (which was a replacement for the 2nd mouse button).
.
-
... I support Apple whole heartedly. I can understand why the .Mac venture began. But, what sickens me, recently, is none of the profit making methods they've been concocting. No, what bothers me is Sherlock 3. Obviously, the idea came from a company who once was a "privileged developer" of Apple's: Karelia . They made this amazing internet tool, called Watson, which does exactly what Sherlock 3 plans on doing. Apple stole their idea and has not, in any way, compensated them. I admire Apple, up to a point. But, pulling Microsoftian shit on a privileged developer does not bode well for me or for them.
"With a one button mouse, you have to control-click to get the popup menu. With two buttons, you just click. Now which is more complicated?"
it's not a matter of which is more complex, it's a matter of comfort, versatility and simplicity. I've ALWYAS preferred the modifier key approach, and I'll never understand why people draw such a large distiction between Apple's approach and the multi-button mouse approach - it's just not that big a deal.
That was classic intercourse!
While this is a bit of a troll, it sure sums up my fealings for that guy.
Years ago, I tried to set him straight- explainign physics, how microprocessors are made, and urging him to use some common sense and past history (also known as judgement) before posting his rantings.
Finally, it was the constant "sources are certain that Apple will, introduce iMacs with 22 inch screens at an upcoming trade show- thought to be Sybold, and while this looks totally for sure, you never know and merely the mention of it here might make Steve Jobs pull one of his famous last minute switches and change the machine to a 21 inch display. Our source has seen the product, but Apple can turn its entire component supply chain on a dime so if it doesn't happen, its becuase steve heard we knew-- not becuase I'm pulling this rumor out of my ass!"
Not that the other rumor sites are much better. Think Secret at least nailed it so far-- but their'; idiots who think Apple's engaging in "censorship" by not giving people like ryan meaders a free ride and other goodies.
The state of mac fanboy sites has never been worse.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
nothing is hidden in menus - you must try to understand that the Mac operates as if it has 3, 4 or 5 mouse buttons sometimes - CLICK, CONTROL-CLICK, OPTION-CLICK, COMMAND-CLICK. If you are familiar with Photoshop, you'll know that holding the various modifiers changes the behaviour of your clicking and dragging - this type of behaviour is global in the MacOS. It distinguishes things like a copy from a move etc etc etc - it really is a beautifully considered approach ONCE YOU'RE USED TO IT, if you're conditioned to Windows behaviours, it's bound to seem strange. As it stands, a Windows right click is virtually identical to a MacOS CONTROL-CLICK.
That was classic intercourse!
First context menus have only been around for a little while, first appearing in OS8 IIRC. Secondly the design of context menus in Mac apps have usually been in line with MacOS command keys. Since Mac developers have been using one button mice for a million years they know how to design their context menus.
Most of the important Finder commands are on the left side of the keyboard, your left hand is typically on the keyboard while you're using your mouse. Apps that have commands dealing with mouse operations keep their hot keys on the left side of the keyboard so they are easily accessible when holding the shift, option(alt) or Apple keys with your thumb. When context menus were introduced the modifier keys were made to be the CTRL and Option keys which made using context menus in programs like Photoshop fairly quick for old Mac users.
Because the keyboard shortcuts are well in line with modifier keys extra mouse buttons would be quite a shift in many users workflows. People who come from backgrounds using X or Windows like to pick up multi-button mice and are greeted with context menus. Old skool Mac users don't need extra mouse buttons in most cases. They're comfortable using the keyboard/mouse combination because context menus have been designed to well compliment keyboard shortcuts. I think some hardcore Photoshop and Illustrator users would much rather just have a programmable keypad than a full fledged keyboard. I've seen some guys with some crazy deterity on the keyboard. I make it a rule to never play video games against such people.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
With a one button mouse, you have to control-click to get the popup menu. With two buttons, you just click... Not only is the right-click easier on the wrists...
What exactly are you doing with your other hand that makes the control button so inconvenient? Is it related to your concern about wrist problems?
-- if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic - Lewis Carrol
Actually, the average consumer is a Windows user and they're familiar with using more than one button on their mice.
;)
"This is your life, good to the last drop. It doesn't get any better then this." --Tyler Durden
Notice I said *need*?
:)
Does the average user, which you said was Windows, need a second mouse button?
Then you can extrapolate: Do they use the second mouse button?
Most folks I know don't, including my Dad
GPL Deconstructed
Then you can extrapolate from that: Do they even know enough about Windows to know they're wasting effort by NOT using their right mouse button for context sensitive pop-up menus? ...Do they know enough about computers to have a preference to be using Windows in the first place or the brand of box they own? ...Do they even really need a computer? ...Do they really need as much computer as they have?
This is fun!
"This is your life, good to the last drop. It doesn't get any better then this." --Tyler Durden