Slashdot Mirror
Detailed Reviews of Mac OS X "Tiger" Preview
An anonymous reader writes "AppleInsider has been publishing some very detailed articles on Apple's new Mac OS X 10.4 'Tiger' operating system, which include numerous screenshots of the system. So far the publication has discussed overall installation and Spotlight search technology, Safari with RSS, a new Mail revision with
Smart Mailbox technology, and a websearch enabled Mac OS X Help application."
From the appleinsider link:
Interestingly, sources noted that while the Tiger Finder interface contains no noticeable changes from Panther, Spotlight uses its own sleek window interface design, which is only accessible from windows that are spawned from Spotlight searches. The interface features windows with a smooth, grey-colored titlebar, with sharp webpage-like table results on one side, and an html-style control bar on the other. Details of these new webpage-like Mac OS X windows were first report by sources in an earlier report, though sources described them as Mac OS Finder windows.
If you look at the screen shots you will notice weirdly blue colored bars, but just in that one application. Honestly I thought Macs were supposed to have a consistent UI. If I wanted a mish mash of colors and widgets I would just get a Windows PC.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Why would you pay premium for a closed source operating system and handicapped hardware (one button mouse)?
It's cheaper than XP, it's mostly open (it's not Free, but that doesn't bother me), and my three-button+wheel mouse works just fine, thanks.
Oh, and by the way - 1994 just called. They want their FUD back.
Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
Where are the free software projects investigating next generation UI concepts? Is Linux too wedded to the old ways of doing things to compete with commercial vendors like Apple? It seems to me that the Linux UI community has been very busy trying to emulate the functionality of yesterday's commercial desktops, when it should be pioneering new approaches and UI innovations, thus leap-frogging Apple and others.
Lots of people talk about how the Windows version of iTunes is a trojan horse idea, i.e., it gives Windows users a taste of the usability and flexibility of software designed by Apple, and so inspires them to switch. Looks like Apple's been using iTunes as more than a switching device, though - they've been training their user base. Everything's going to be smart in the Tiger, and it won't matter where the files are - just what you want to use, when you want to use it. iTunes is already like this - I can say I want all the movie music by John Williams, in addition to including all the classical titles he ripped off, and it will give it to me in a playlist. So, no massive shift for Mac users or Windows users who have iTunes - they already know exactly how to speed through and take advantage of this UI. Smart.
There's only one upgrade a year, if that. The last upgrade was in late 2003 and the new upgrade is in early to mid 2005.
Six year cycle at one upgrade a year is $774. However, during that time you're likely to buy at least one new Mac, which would eliminate the need for one of the upgrades.
If you're really keeping your computer for six years, that's a solid testimony to the quality of the Mac platform. You really need a new PC for every new major version upgrade since the system requirements change so radically. It's torture running Windows XP on a low-end machine designed for 2000. I bought a used two year old 400mhz PowerBook G4 about a week ago and am very impressed by how well it runs in Panther. It was a slowpoke in the version of MacOS X available at the time, but now it's a more than acceptable performer for most things I need to do with it.
The reality is that the Mac platform's pretty cost-effective if you want to keep your machine running well. The horrors of dealing with Windows virus attacks easily make up for the price difference between Mac and PC.
D
Damn ungrateful end users always expecting flashy crap to get them excited. Why do you have a copy of the developer preview anyway? You don't sound like a developer to me.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
The problem was some of the reporters started touting about it like it was a new thing (it wasnt) and it gained this HUGE following from a lot of people who dont know the history of the app so they all think Apple ripped it off, which is not the case, it was the reverse, but apple stopped using it when it didnt see a market for it, as did microsoft.
The biggest problem is the the guy who created it is now making himself out to be a shareware martyr whos fighting the man who stole his app.... which is bogus and just downright stupid cause he didnt make anything new, he just reused a old idea in a new package
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
Given that so much of OS X is built upon the NeXTStep code base, and that the NeXTStep code base was (from what I understand) amazingly well-designed from a software engineering point of view, and that Objective-C really is an incredibly powerful, easy to use object-oriented extension of C, I wonder of the rapid output of new stuff from Apple research is just proof of what can happen when you've got well-engineered software libraries with good RAD tools in the hands of extremely capable programmers.
That's not intented to read like an Apple fanboy post (although it does). But it does seem that Microsoft "innovation" moves more slowly than Apple. And some of Microsoft's innovation just, well, sucks eggs. (MFC, anyone? Bob?)