Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Ten Most Beautiful OS X Apps

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the sugar-in-your-ocular-cavity dept.

Phillip Ryu writes "As someone in the Macintosh shareware business, as part of my job, I make the daily crawl through MacUpdate to look for the latest and greatest in Mac software. One thing I've been noticing recently is a renaissance of extremely polished and beautiful Mac apps, so I thought I'd share some of these finds with you guys. Without further ado, presenting the top ten most beautiful OS X apps. Hopefully you'll find some new gems in there, even I found a few surprises while compiling this list. Enjoy!"

118 comments

  1. Nothing for you to see here. by Kesch · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Hmm... well I guess there is some inherint minimalist beauty.

    --
    If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
  2. Acquisition by oahazmatt · · Score: 1

    I have to say, I absolutely love this program. Though I'm working with an older version, It's quite possibly the best file-sharing program I've used. (All others PC, haven't tried others for the Mac)

    --
    Those who believe the Internet is private,
    find their privates are on the Internet.
    1. Re:Acquisition by DurendalMac · · Score: 0

      It would be nice if it didn't constantly nag you to cough up $18 for a damn P2P/Bittorrent app. I'm sorry, but I don't care how pretty Acquisition is, I'm not going to cough up $18 when there are free apps that do the exact same damn thing. Maybe if it was less than $10 I might feel gracious enough to pay for the pretty interface.

    2. Re:Acquisition by base3 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      That's the price of running on the minority platform--the stuff that's free and widely available on Windows is $20 shareware on the Mac. This has changed quite a bit with Apple having switched to a Unix-based OS, but yet examples like Acquisition show that there's money to be made copying Windows freeware concepts and selling them as crippleware on the Mac.

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
    3. Re:Acquisition by oahazmatt · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It would be nice if it didn't constantly nag you to cough up $18 for a damn P2P/Bittorrent app. I'm sorry, but I don't care how pretty Acquisition is, I'm not going to cough up $18 when there are free apps that do the exact same damn thing. Maybe if it was less than $10 I might feel gracious enough to pay for the pretty interface.
      Yes, I circumvented the nag screen by registering. I did the same with Radiolover. See, I enjoyed the program and wanted to support it. And those nag screens did get annoying. It was useful to me, and rather than disregard a useful product because I do not feel like paying for it, I actually paid for it and continued using it happily. It worked out for everyone that way.
      --
      Those who believe the Internet is private,
      find their privates are on the Internet.
    4. Re:Acquisition by Kadin2048 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can't really tell if this is a troll or not.

      Anyway, I think you're way off base. There's no "copying Windows freeware concepts and selling them as crippleware" going on here. None.

      There are a host of free Mac Bittorrent clients out there -- this is what the GP was alluding to when he was saying that he wasn't going to pay $18 for Transmit. Azureus, for one, runs fine on OS X and doesn't cost anything.

      The complaint about Transmit is that what you're essentially paying $18 for is not the functionality, but the interface.

      So really, I'd argue the on the Mac platform, you generally have a choice: do you want to use the spartan-but-functional-and-free program (often a port from another platform, if not a direct recompile), or do you want to pay extra for the eye candy? Perhaps there's something about Mac users that makes them more likely to value appearance enough to pay for it, and keep such a cottage 'beautification' industry in business.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    5. Re:Acquisition by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      Oops -- change "Transmit" to "Acquisition."

      Although the exact same argument would go for Transmit (which is FTP instead of BT), since there are numerous free tools available that do the same thing. What you're paying for is the frontend; I make no comment as to whether it's worthwhile or not, since that's a personal decision which depends on how you work.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    6. Re:Acquisition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he was saying that he wasn't going to pay $18 for Transmit

      actually, i believe he was saying he wasn't going to pay $18 for Acquisition. Transmit, while also not free, is an ftp client, not a bittorrent client. btw, for a nice, free mac ftp client i use Cyberduck. maybe not as fancy as some non-free stuff, but it does the trick.

    7. Re:Acquisition by DurendalMac · · Score: 1

      I use Azureus for BitTorrent and Slimewire if I ever need P2P. Both cost nothing. I'm on OS X. Some people will always try making a buck off of people who will pay for a nicer looking interface. Yeah, I know Apple allegories will be brought up on that, but I think there's a huge difference between all the functionality of an OS and a damn P2P/BT app.

    8. Re:Acquisition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flamebait = truth hurts Mac fanboi.

    9. Re:Acquisition by base3 · · Score: 1
      Not intended as a troll, but seems to have worked as one. The point is that in the bad old days pre-OS X is that every little trivial utility that was free for Windows cost for the Mac. That culture has carried over, but has been ameliorated by (e.g. ftp vs. Transmit one poster pointed out and Azureus vs. Acquisition) the free programs that are easily ported because of OS X's basis in Unix.


      Obviously, this offended someone who chose to mod my post Flamebaitwho didn't realize I have more (/.) karma than God.

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
    10. Re:Acquisition by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      I like Fugu for FTP.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    11. Re:Acquisition by NoMaster · · Score: 1

      But Fugu doesn't do FTP - only SFTP.

      And it's unfortunate that PerversionTracker ground to a halt a couple of years ago. Much easier to navigate than Versiontracker or MacUpdate, it was at least as useful at steering you towards quality Mac apps (or at least steering you away from the truly bad ones)...

      --
      What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
    12. Re:Acquisition by benjj · · Score: 1

      I have more (/.) karma than God.

      God posts here? It's not hard to have more karma - the Bible was one of the world's biggest trolls.

    13. Re:Acquisition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FUCK YOU!

      paying for nagware because it nags you just causes more nagware. asshole. don't you fucking understand this????? MORON!!! ...not that i even CARE, ever since i switched to LINUX, because macos BLOWS

  3. How about 10 of the ugliest Linux apps, now? by (TK2)Dessimat0r · · Score: -1, Troll

    Paedophile hunt police find human skull

    AMERICAN police made further grim discoveries yesterday during their investigation into a paedophile network responsible for kidnapping girls.

    A skull and bones were dug up at the home of the network's suspected ringleader, Rob Malda. It was feared that they were the remains of two teenagers who disappeared from New Orleans a year ago. The bones were unearthed after police spent six days digging at a house in Holland, Michigan, one of six properties owned by Malda.

    On a visit to the house last week, Malda told police that his accomplice, Jeff Bates, had buried five bodies under a shed. Maximillion Arturo, a police spokesman in Michigan, said that no further statement would be made until families had been informed.

    There was speculation last night that the remains are those of shemales from the GNAA. Malda has admitted abducting them. However, he earlier told police that he believed the two girls were still alive and being held somewhere outside Michigan.

    Two eight-year-old girls abducted by Malda have been found buried at another of his properties. They starved to death while he was in prison on a theft charge. Malda's wife, Kathleen Malda, has told police that she was supposed to feed the children while her husband was in prison, but was too frightened to enter their cell.

    Another two girls were found alive by police two days after Malda's arrest on Aug 13. Ten people, including Malda, his wife and an American police officer, are in custody in connection with the case.

    The raped corpses of two women and parts of a third body have been discovered in a freezer at the Slashdot headquarters, along with the remains of an 80 year old woman that remain unidentified.

    TrollKore - At the head of the game.
    I hate you, I hate your country, and I hate your face.

    1. Re:How about 10 of the ugliest Linux apps, now? by Pink+Tinkletini · · Score: 1

      I foresee a problem: They'll all tie for first-place ugliest application. The only exception, Firefox, will show at #2.

      --
      And now, a PSA from David Lynch.
    2. Re:How about 10 of the ugliest Linux apps, now? by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

      Linux can look like almost any OS out there, including their eye-candy effects. So either you've never used Linux seriously, or you're saying every other OS out there is ugly compared to it.

    3. Re:How about 10 of the ugliest Linux apps, now? by NosTROLLdamus · · Score: 0

      Or he's trolling. Which one do you think is most likely?

    4. Re:How about 10 of the ugliest Linux apps, now? by Mattintosh · · Score: 1

      Or maybe he's commenting on how the general lack of style in the geek community tends to make apps look like shit. That, and there's no BigMeanCorporation to enforce a HIG on linux apps, so it's a relative free-for-all UI-wise. That's great for a limited human-interaction interface like a CLI where app-interaction is king, but a GUI suffers when it lacks continuity and unification. GUI's just aren't about app-stacking. They're for human interaction, and commonly-understood guidelines make them more usable.

      Linux alone is forever a server, never a desktop. Linux with a HIG stands a chance against Mac OS and Windows in the desktop space. And no, a window manager is not a HIG.

    5. Re:How about 10 of the ugliest Linux apps, now? by Craig+Davison · · Score: 1
      Now that we have things like Windows, MacOS X, KDE and Gnome, any of the older apps built on Motif, tk or Xaw looks like shit to me and don't work like I think they should. It's like using some purpose-built gui in DOS:
      • make xconfig
      • xpdf
      • gv
      • xterm
      • X-Chat
      • linuxconf
      • gvim
      • Xemacs
      • XCDRoast
      • Mplayer

      However, I do still use and appreciate some of these apps. xterm is still the best terminal emulator, and xpdf is still the best PDF viewer. When in command-line mode, mplayer is great.

      --
      Hands in my pocket
    6. Re:How about 10 of the ugliest Linux apps, now? by The+Wicked+Priest · · Score: 1

      Seriously, have you ever used Gnome or KDE? They aren't just window managers.

      My Gnome desktop in Ubuntu is probably more unified than my Mac or Windows desktops. Consider Windows: The Media Player sticks out like a sore thumb, and Office doesn't conform to anything but itself. (Actually I don't use Office, but I can't let that stand in the way of a rhetorical point.) And in Mac OS X, the apps can't agree on whether they want to be Pinstriped, Brushed, or Unified.

      --
      Share and Enjoy: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  4. Bah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The UNIX community has it right: design a minimal UI and let the community produce attractive skins and extensions. Just look at Mozilla Firefox: on each of my boxen, a precisely-crafted user experience is the result of countless skins and extensions that would simply not be possible on the sealed-tight car bonnet that is Mac OS X.

    1. Re:Bah. by Trillan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I must disagree. Firefox is easily the ugliest application ever created. And I say this even after trying dozens of skins. Not a single one of them comes close to the eloquence of the built-in "Aqua" appearance on Mac OS X.

    2. Re:Bah. by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1
      Not a single one of them comes close to the eloquence of the built-in "Aqua" appearance on Mac OS X.

      What's that about opinions and butts? Go ahead and label me a heretic, but I think Aqua has nothing on KDE's Plastik theme. The difference is that I just stated an opinion, while you pretended to state a fact.

      Now here's a real fact (just to show the difference): some people have different tastes from yours. Don't forget that.

      Oh, and one last while I'm being pedantic: it's "elegance", unless Aqua really speaks to you.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    3. Re:Bah. by Slashcrap · · Score: 1

      I must disagree. Firefox is easily the ugliest application ever created.

      Have you tried looking at some websites in it? That's what I usually do when I need a break from contemplating the aesthetic shortcomings of the interface.

    4. Re:Bah. by Erik+K.+Veland · · Score: 1

      There are however some things that override taste when it comes to UIs, and that's functionality. There can be elegance in functionality and even beauty. Aqua (especially in it's unified form) encompasses all of this. While Plastik (my opinion based on screenshots screams yet another windows wannabe) might look superficially good to your tastes, it is also (very eloquently put) just a skin. A skin to a mediocre user experience compared to Aqua that is.

      --
      "I tend to think of OS X as Linux with QA and Taste", James Gosling, creator of Java
    5. Re:Bah. by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Hmm, it's hard to see how anyone can claim Firefox is ugly in any sense. It's minimalist, uncluttered, intuitive and attractive. It even works fairly well on OS X since it picks up the native look & feel through the theme engine.

    6. Re:Bah. by DancesWithBlowTorch · · Score: 1

      Since you're being bashed all the way through the children posts, let me back up your opinion: Firefox is ugly as hell, especially in OS X.

      It doesn't fit into the look and feel of the native apps, even the best skins still look like hastily scrapped together icon collections. I use Firefox as my main browser (goes to show that I am not too picky about the eye candy) but would really appreciate if someone sat down and at least created a decent skin. Better still (because that would allow us to get rid of the stupid window title bar as well), create an OS X - only version of Firefox that has a look comparable to the current iTunes and all the other Tiger apps.

      To one of the children posters: Well, yeah, this is all about opinions. Of course it is. No need to point that out like you just discovered a deep philosophical truth, since we're posting to a story about "the 10 most beautiful OS X apps"...

    7. Re:Bah. by Garabito · · Score: 1
      Better still (..), create an OS X - only version of Firefox that has a look comparable to the current iTunes and all the other Tiger apps.

      Did you know about Camino?

    8. Re:Bah. by The+Wicked+Priest · · Score: 1

      I assume you meant "elegance". Anyway, what you want is one of the GrApple themes from http://takebacktheweb.org/ . You can't tell me with a straight face that Firefox with an appropriate GrApple theme looks any worse than Safari.

      --
      Share and Enjoy: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    9. Re:Bah. by Trillan · · Score: 1

      I certainly can. Looks are skin deep. The problem with Firefox's themes are much deeper than that -- I'm pretty sure the problems are in the theme engine itself.

    10. Re:Bah. by The+Wicked+Priest · · Score: 1

      Looks may be skin deep, but they're what we're talking about here. Do you want to rephrase that?

      What problems do you perceive in the themes?

      Have you actually tried a GrApple theme?

      --
      Share and Enjoy: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    11. Re:Bah. by Trillan · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm using one. It has a bunch of cosmetic-only problems, but more importantly some functional ones:
      1. It doesn't draw focuses properly, so it can be difficult to tell where the cursor is.
      2. Context menus are drawn too small and can be hard to read, and do not respond properly to the mouse.
      3. The Loaded indicator doesn't look any different than the loading in progress indicator, so it can be difficult to tell when a page is fully loaded.
      4. Dragging text doesn't work correctly.

      It's definitely the best of the Firefox themes, and the artwork is definitely inspired by Aqua. However, its designers seem to have missed a lot of stuff that exists for a reason.

    12. Re:Bah. by Trillan · · Score: 1

      There are absolutes in interface design. Not many, but some. For instance, focus rings around controls that edit text. Text that's large enough to be easy to read. Applications that fit with system themes unless there's a reason for them not to --not only in appearance, but in behavior. Enough interface aid from applications to protect their users. Some of these things can go into grey areas, certainly, but their presence or absence are still facts and not opinions.

  5. The List by neonprimetime · · Score: 3, Informative

    To save your eyes from that god-awful ugly site

    10 - Transmission
    9 - Potion Factory
    8 - Podcast Maker
    7 - Transmit
    6 - Quinn
    5 - AppZapper
    4 - AcQuisition
    3 - CoverFlow
    2 - Newsfire
    1 - Delicious Library

    1. Re:The List by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm by no means a design dork, but for a site doing a story on beautiful OSX apps, probably don't want to have blue links on a blue background.

    2. Re:The List by Volanin · · Score: 5, Informative

      Same list, with links:

      10 - Transmission
      9 - Potion Factory
      8 - Podcast Maker
      7 - Transmit
      6 - Quinn
      5 - AppZapper
      4 - AcQuisition
      3 - CoverFlow
      2 - Newsfire
      1 - Delicious Library

      --
      If I clone myself, can I call it a thread?
      If a girl winks to us, can I call it a race condition?
    3. Re:The List by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      The site isn't that ugly... and I think #9 is actually titled "Voice Candy" with the company's name being Potion Factory.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    4. Re:The List by menion · · Score: 1

      Nobody mentioned Quicksilver

    5. Re:The List by pesc · · Score: 1

      for a site doing a story on beautiful OSX apps, probably don't want to have blue links on a blue background

      For a site doing a story on OSX apps, it renders beautifully in the Safari browser (which is supplied with OSX). The text and blue links are on a white page that sits on the blue background.

      I looked at the page in firefox and got the blue links on blue background.

      Since the site is heavy on CSS, I would guess that the problem is that your browser doesn't render the CSS properly?

      You could check if your browser handles CSS well by taking the acid2 test.

      http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid2

      --

      )9TSS
    6. Re:The List by SpectreHiro · · Score: 1

      For a site doing a story on OSX apps, it renders beautifully in the Safari browser (which is supplied with OSX). The text and blue links are on a white page that sits on the blue background.

      It's rendering as a white "page" against a blueprint-style background on all of the browsers I'm using... That includes Opera9, Firefox and Konqueror. Of these, only Firefox fails the Acid2, but as I mentioned, it's rendering the page just fine.

      I wonder if this might be an interaction with an adblocking extension or some such. Maybe broken PNG support?

      --
      You can't win, Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
    7. Re:The List by Bobsledboy · · Score: 1

      Quicksilver was in the "Honourable Mentions" section towards the end of the article.

  6. I think you ment minimalistic...? by Duncan3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Only #3 and #1 have any place on that list.

    There are so many more visually appealing OS X apps out there. Most of his list is just file-list style apps. A downloader? Good grief.

    --
    - Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
    1. Re:I think you ment minimalistic...? by cdwiegand · · Score: 1

      Yes, a downloader. Even downloaders can have UIs. (Unless you use wget/curl all of the time.) All interface with the user needs to be friendly, usable and well designed. *All* of it. Even a downloader. That said, I do wish more programs on OSX were HIG compliant..

      --
      . Define sqrt(x) as something really evil like (x / rand()), and bury it deep. Watch your coworkers go nuts.
    2. Re:I think you ment minimalistic...? by LocoMan · · Score: 1

      I have to agree with granparent here (though I'd probably add 6 too). Most of those apps are just plain aqua look, which is great when it comes to mantaining a standard look on all the apps of the computer, but I don't really see how they're any more or less beautiful than any other aqua app out there. Not trying to say they're bad or anything like that, I just don't see how they stand out as "most beautiful" at all. Maybe if the list was for the most practical UI's, or better OSX integrated UI's.

    3. Re:I think you ment minimalistic...? by nacturation · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, a downloader. Even downloaders can have UIs. (Unless you use wget/curl all of the time.) All interface with the user needs to be friendly, usable and well designed. *All* of it. Even a downloader.

      Of course, but this isn't "Ten OS X Apps with a User Interface", it's the "Ten Most Beautiful". And check out this screenshot:

      http://www.mathgamehouse.com/images/phillryu/acqui sitionfull.jpg

      Does that strike you as particularly "most beautiful" of all OS X apps out there? To me, it looks busy and uninspired... and that's supposed to be the fourth most beautiful app? More beautiful than, say, Google Earth on OS X which didn't make the list even though it's freeware as well? Screenshot:

      http://saya.s145.xrea.com/archives/images/GoogleEa rth.jpg

      The "extremely eye-pleasing" P2P app they mention doesn't look much different than Safari's download panel with a couple of colorful buttons thrown on top. Compare:

      P2P app: http://www.mathgamehouse.com/images/phillryu/trans missionfull.jpg
      Safari: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/is/diary/mac/SafariDownloadMa n.jpg

      I'd say the list could perhaps qualify as top ten nice OS X application icons.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    4. Re:I think you ment minimalistic...? by Sippan · · Score: 4, Funny

      The Google Earth GUI was one of the most horrible things this monitor has ever displayed, and I've had goatse as my start page.

      Crap, that didn't come out right at all.

      --
      Frog blast the vent core.
    5. Re:I think you ment minimalistic...? by Pink+Tinkletini · · Score: 1

      Beauty, in the sense the author uses here, has very little to do with visual appearance. It's more about the way the application behaves (the "feel" of "look and feel") and the elegance and intuitiveness of that behavior in light of the overall Mac experience. In this regard, Google Earth is probably the single ugliest program still to reside in my Applications folder. Acquisition, on the other hand, just plain feels right to me as a Mac user of over 20 years, though I don't know if I'd put it in the top ten most beautiful Mac apps. On most of the others, I'm in complete agreement with the author.

      --
      And now, a PSA from David Lynch.
  7. The Mac-iest Mac app ever.... by Otter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but the "right"-est MacOS app ever is, hands-down, Fetch. Every time I ever wondered "Maybe Fetch could do this...?", it always could and the first way I thought to try it always worked.

    --
    What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
    1. Re:The Mac-iest Mac app ever.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's because Jim Mathews is a genius. *really* nice guy too, and did you know he won $500k on "Who wants to be a Millionaire?"

  8. Sealed-tight car bonnet? by Pink+Tinkletini · · Score: 1

    Mac OS X, like any other system, is infinitely extensible--you just have to know where to look.

    Just one example: I rewrote and recompiled a kernel extension to quiet my PowerBook's fan. There are dozens of community sites built around hacking the system. Easy things easy, hard things hard, complexity beneath elegance and all that.

    --
    And now, a PSA from David Lynch.
    1. Re:Sealed-tight car bonnet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mac OS X, like any other system, is infinitely extensible--you just have to know where to look.

      Just one example: I rewrote and recompiled a kernel extension to quiet my PowerBook's fan. There are dozens of community sites built around hacking the system. Easy things easy, hard things hard, complexity beneath elegance and all that.

      Can you point me to a community site that will show me how to give the system a consistent look and feel? As in, I want everything to use Aqua, not the schizophrenic hodgepodge of incompatible skins Apple insists on throwing at me.

      Thanks.

    2. Re:Sealed-tight car bonnet? by pmcc · · Score: 2, Informative

      Uno does a pretty good job at unifying everything to be more Aqua-ish.

    3. Re:Sealed-tight car bonnet? by Millenniumman · · Score: 1

      There are several such things, including uno. Personally, I like the variation.

      --
      Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
    4. Re:Sealed-tight car bonnet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      http://www.panic.com/candybar/

      Candybar by Panic lets you keep give custom icons consistently to many applications.

  9. X11 Apps under MacOSX by mcrbids · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Very recently, we ported over our PHP-GTK product to Mac OSX 10.3/10.4. It took about a man-month to get all the libraries, dependencies, installer, icons, updates, permissions, etc. figured out, which honestly was 2-3 times longer than we thought it would take.

    But, the end result is much, much better than expected! Our application looks, acts, and feels like any other Mac OSX application! Our customers are RAVING about it! The window dressing, the slick maximize/minimize, integration with the OS environment, etc. The launcher is a shell script, and so dependencies (such as the requirement for the installation of X11 and the Xcode apps) can be resolved in the shell script, and the failures displayed in Safari, so it even fails gracefully when the deps aren't met.

    Wow! It's just incredible!

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    1. Re:X11 Apps under MacOSX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Wow! It's just incredible!

      That's one word for PHP-GTK, here's another, "slow". You could have learned lua and another widget set in a man month and your users would thank you from the bottom of their RAM usage.

    2. Re:X11 Apps under MacOSX by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      Serious question : how can a X11 application look and feel like an OS/X app ? If this is not an X11 app, why do you need X11 installed ?

      Other serious question, why not PHP-QT, which uses the native carbon bindings and doesn't require X11?

      If you've gone to a lot of trouble to fake the OS/X behaviours, why not change the toolkits ?

    3. Re:X11 Apps under MacOSX by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      If you've gone to a lot of trouble to fake the OS/X behaviours, why not change the toolkits ?

      There are several man-years invested in the current application. With that, you don't just "change the toolkits" without at *least* a year in the making.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    4. Re:X11 Apps under MacOSX by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      That's one word for PHP-GTK, here's another, "slow". You could have learned lua and another widget set in a man month and your users would thank you from the bottom of their RAM usage.

      Slow, perhaps, if you are writing a video game, or a performance-intensive app. We're doing neither. We provide software to administer schools - grades, credits. and the like. For which PHP-GTK does just fine.

      We don't have many complaints about performance, even though the average use consists of a database of a few hundred MB. We list our minimum specs as PII/PIII at 500 Mhz or better, 128 MB RAM, 256 recommended. 256 MB of RAM runs about $15 on the open market. Computers exceeding these specs can be had on EBay for less than $100.

      What users are these that will thank me, again?

      As far as learning another toolkit, what about porting over the existing application, now having several man-years of invested time?

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    5. Re:X11 Apps under MacOSX by HuguesT · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The thing is I've never seen an X11 app behave sensibly under OS/X with the rest of the applications. Printing is special, services don't work, menus are not where they need to be. Drag-and-drop ? Did you manage all that ? Just about the only thing that works by default are the 3 buttons on the window's frame.

        If so this is a major undertaking, and If you really pulled all of that off in under a month, my hat's off to you, and I'd like a screenshot !

      Please consider giving the OO.org people a tip or two.

      I've personnally written a largish application that sort-of-works OK under OS/X, but with all the above caveats. I'm seriously thinking about rewriting the lot with a more sensible toolkit, in this case QT. It doesn't take as long the second time, apparently.

    6. Re:X11 Apps under MacOSX by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      The thing is I've never seen an X11 app behave sensibly under OS/X with the rest of the applications. Printing is special

      As it is with PHP-GTK under Windows. Our application generates PDFs when it needs to print and makes a shell call to open whatever app prints PDFs. Works fine in our case, may not work for others.

      services don't work

      Ahem? Can't respond.

      menus are not where they need to be.

      Menus appear in the same app as the rest of the application - perhaps this is more weird to a Mac user, but we've gotten no complaints so far.

      Drag-and-drop ?

      Our app doesn't use any Drag-n-drop.

      Did you manage all that ? Just about the only thing that works by default are the 3 buttons on the window's frame. ... combined with a decent installer, printing through Safari/PDF, etc. and I'm happy.

      I've personnally written a largish application that sort-of-works OK under OS/X, but with all the above caveats. I'm seriously thinking about rewriting the lot with a more sensible toolkit, in this case QT. It doesn't take as long the second time, apparently.

      I *guess* I'm in the same camp. Since the purpose of our product is to produce PDFs, it seems silly to do anything more than what we've already done.

      And our Mac users love it, so it's still cool! And it looks way better than I'd been expecting.

      BTW: I probably spent half of that man-month just getting cozy with MacOS internals. (I'd never used it before) Things like fink, Xcode, etc.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    7. Re:X11 Apps under MacOSX by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      PS: One of the concerns I have with QT is licensing - although the license fee they ask for commercial use is definitely reasonable, it's just another reason not to... with GTK I have no worries.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    8. Re:X11 Apps under MacOSX by WillAdams · · Score: 1

      In other words:

        - Services don't work, so the app can't be extended w/ Services --- no auto-setting of capitalization as desired, no interaction w/ Address Book, &c.

        - no drag-drop support, so one can't populate a field from text already on-screen w/ a select, click, drag, release.

        - what about AppleScript? Can your app be used in an Automator work-flow?

      I'm glad to have X-11 apps as a fall-back for when there's nothing native, but they're nowhere near as nice --- take a look at Nova Mind for an app coded in Cocoa, but available in Windows and Linux through GNUstep

      William

      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    9. Re:X11 Apps under MacOSX by SirPavlova · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Dude, I love you! Nobody ever writes et cetera using the & ligature... I avoid it myself just because not many seem to know what it means. Anyway, nice to see it being used.

      Ahem... errr... okay, now I feel kinda awkward...

      Bye bye... *runs away*

      --
      Yar.
    10. Re:X11 Apps under MacOSX by Byzantine · · Score: 1

      Printing is special? I rarely (read: never) use X11 apps in OS X, but I'd just assumed that since OS X's printing system is CUPS, which is become the de facto printer queue on Unix-like systems, and includes analogues of older tools (lpr, lpq, etc.), that printing under X11 would Just Work (assuming, of course, that you've set up your printer in OS X). Am I wrong?

    11. Re:X11 Apps under MacOSX by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Just my two cents... X11 apps are a distant third choice for me behind native and java apps. For small utilities I'd prefer a CLI interface. For larger, more complex utilities, the misplaced menu, lack of support for services, and other UI inconsistencies you don't think about till you hit them are just too detrimental to my workflow. I never use drag and drop, except for the occasional image so it is not a big deal to me.

      Do not assume, however, that lack of negative feedback means everyone likes something. Either do real testing and surveying or be very cognizant of the fact that you don't know. Personally, I've never written a software developer and told them I was unhappy about the X11 GUI. That would seem rude, given they spent the time porting the app. I just shrug and look for an alternative application.

    12. Re:X11 Apps under MacOSX by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      Yes, exactly.

      As an illustration, I avoid using my very own application if I can help it under OS/X, because it so doesn't fit with the rest of the desktop. I wrote it with a portable toolkit (FLTK) that doesn't require X11, but still looks like one. It doesn't work well with all the rest of OS/X. I painfully got D&D working, I think I can get the menus sort-of worked out, but this is not good enough.

      I know some clients use it, I never had negative feedback, but based on my own opinion they can't possibly love it. If the author doesn't like his own creation, what hope is there ?

  10. And #1 is... by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1, Funny

    VirtualPC running Windows XP!

    1. Re:And #1 is... by twitter · · Score: 1
      VirtualPC running Windows XP!

      Why go through all that trouble when you could just run dosbox and have the same effect?

      --

      Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  11. The #1 ugliest Mac website... by ThousandStars · · Score: 3, Funny
    Goes to phillipryu.com.

    Argh! My eyes...

    1. Re:The #1 ugliest Mac website... by soren42 · · Score: 1

      So, is the lesson of this story, "You can give a guy Mac OS, Photoshop, and all the pretty apps in the world... but you can't give him a sense of style?"

      Sorta funny... but you don't know how many of my friends I've convinced to buy Macs, only to find that they suddenly think they're Rembrant. The tools don't solve the problem that you have no taste. DO YOU HEAR ME, PAUL?!?

      --

      "Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things."
    2. Re:The #1 ugliest Mac website... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MY EYES! The goggles, they do nothing!

    3. Re:The #1 ugliest Mac website... by Fnord666 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I guess for once a slashdotting is a good thing.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    4. Re:The #1 ugliest Mac website... by Erik+K.+Veland · · Score: 1

      I guess you all must be running a funky then. It looks gorgeous in Safari. (And in my Firefox, though I've heard that some people refuses to render the white background on which all the text is on).

      And that comes from a web designer with more than a decade's experience.

      --
      "I tend to think of OS X as Linux with QA and Taste", James Gosling, creator of Java
    5. Re:The #1 ugliest Mac website... by Pink+Tinkletini · · Score: 1

      I fully agree. Not only does the site look wonderful, navigation is pleasant and intuitive too. I suspect the Slashdotters contributing to this discussion suffer a severly impaired sense of aesthetic judgment.

      --
      And now, a PSA from David Lynch.
  12. move along please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can we please save the blog spam for digg and roland's submissions? kthx!!

  13. LaunchBar should have made the list. by Capt'n+Hector · · Score: 4, Informative

    LaunchBar is Spotlight on crack. These guys managed to pack as much functionality as the finder itself into a little bar at the top of the screen. And it's fast.

    --
    Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
    Africus aut Europaeus?
    1. Re:LaunchBar should have made the list. by revscat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      QuickSilver. LaunchBar is for has-beens. :)

      Seriously though, after using LaunchBar for many moons I switched to QuickSilver after giving it a whirl. It's much more elegant, and on a personal level it fits my workflow habits better. Your mileage may vary, of course, but if you haven't tried it, do. Very tasty.

    2. Re:LaunchBar should have made the list. by apraetor · · Score: 1

      Forget LaunchBar, check out Quicksilver.

  14. Acquisition Cabos by LanMan04 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I find Cabos to work a lot better than Acquisition, at least the Acquisition that existed 2 years ago (last time I tried it).

    --
    With the first link, the chain is forged.
  15. Coverflow--wow by joost · · Score: 1

    That is one amazing app. I love it, why did I now know about this?

    1. Re:Coverflow--wow by lixlpixel · · Score: 1

      that's how i felt, after i discovered coverflow...

      and it really changed the way i browse my music.

      seeing long-forgotten covers and rediscovering music - great little app.

      and beautyful

    2. Re:Coverflow--wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why did I now know about this?

      'cause you read the article?

  16. Hey! How dare you! This is Slashdot... by soren42 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Every time I try to mention the nice eye candy in OS X, I always get slapped with "The best application in OS X is something called bash." Morons. I know that. But bash doesn't look pretty... well, not in a "Oooooh, look at the pretty colors" sort of way. It's beautiful in that it's simple, usable, stable, and ... cryptic.

    I don't want a command-line desktop. I want command-line servers. Desktop pretty. Server ugly. Pretty server UI useless. (Ugg!)

    So, before you Linux zealots start coming out of the woodwork... let me remind you about us Mac zealots. There may be a helluva lot less of us, but we're a *WHOLE* lot more crazy!!!

    (All in jest - Happy Independance Day, to all of you in the world's favorite consumer-culture.... I'm going home!)

    --

    "Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things."
  17. Seriously by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

    You beat me to it. Exactly how am I supposed to trust the aesthetic judgements of someone who thinks that putting blue text on a blue background is a good idea?

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    1. Re:Seriously by baadger · · Score: 1

      ..except all the blue links are actually on the white backdrop provided by the page like image?

    2. Re:Seriously by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      Not for me. I'm seeing the text directly against the blue "graph paper" background image; there's no white 'paper' underneath the text.

      This is using Firefox 1.0.7 on my work machine (WinXP) with Adblock and Filterset.G. Not sure how it looks on Konqueror/Safari.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  18. Beautiful != Functional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Beautiful is Functional, then only winners of beauty pageants could fix cars. And I'd trust ugly joe command line app more than I'd trust ms. california any day.

    1. Re:Beautiful != Functional by Millenniumman · · Score: 1, Troll

      Windows GUIs are ugly and disfunctional. Linux GUIs are ugly and semifunctional. OS X GUIs are pretty and functional.

      --
      Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
    2. Re:Beautiful != Functional by noblethrasher · · Score: 1

      Windows GUIs are ugly and functional. Linux GUIs are ugly and dysfunctional. OS X GUIs are pretty and functional.

      There, fixed that for you...

    3. Re:Beautiful != Functional by Mattintosh · · Score: 1

      Plain Windows GUI's are functional (the pre-XP and "Classic Theme" ones). The Fischer-Price GUI and those god-awful "branded" UI's (custom window shapes, colors, widgets, etc) are what are non-functional (not even dysfunctional, since that would mean they kinda almost function). Microsoft has a HIG, and if they would follow it, so would most of their platform's major app vendors. Unfortunately, Microsoft seems to have no internal organizational discipline about this sort of thing. They come off as a corporation with an attitude like a kid in a candy store. They want one of those, and one of those, and ooh! one of those over there, and no, wait, not that... but one of those... They just never make up their mind about how it should look. Vista is another example of it, since it's the second major UI overhaul in as many major releases. Oddly enough, the users tend to be either silent or ignored (or both).

      Linux GUI's are inconsistent, which makes them unusable for the exact same reason as the horrible deviant Windows GUI's. That said, the community tends to bust the devs' balls when they can't tolerate the UI (like GIMP). The community tends to not be very picky, though. Only the worst offenders even hear a peep of a complaint. It would help if there was a community HIG.

      Mac apps live and die by the GUI. If they don't follow the Apple HIG, there has to be a really good reason for it, or people won't use the app. A popular app with a bad UI is just begging to be relegated to the trash can within a year, since another dev will copy the good parts of their app and give it a decent GUI. And a developer of an app can't help but hear the complaints if he has a bad UI. There's not a chance in hell you can shut up a Mac user about their precious UI. (Before you flame me, look at my /. user name.)

      In short, a HIG makes all the difference. It's a statement of how a UI is supposed to work and what is to be expected by the user and provided by the developer. Linux needs a HIG.

  19. One man's opinion... by theheff · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... doesn't always echo another man's. This list proves that statement. AdiumX is such a good application in Mac OS X... I'm surprised Apple hasn't taken it up themselves, and frankly, the author of this list all of my respect by not even mentioning it. This is just an absurd list put together by an amatuer. So a downloader has a nice GUI... big deal? Not in my book.

    1. Re:One man's opinion... by Tab+is+on+Slashdot · · Score: 1

      Adium is listed in the "honorable mentions" section.

  20. Coral link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.phillryu.com.nyud.net:8090/2006/07/03/t he-top-ten-most-beautiful-os-x-apps/

    Won't somebody _please_ think of the servers!

  21. Beauty... by Zx-man · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...should be in how the application interacts with you, not how it looks.
    Most of Apple's own programs seem to have exactly this type of beauty.

    1. Re:Beauty... by Pink+Tinkletini · · Score: 1

      That's exactly the kind of beauty the article describes, a point that most of the responses here have missed ("But doesn't Google Earth look prettier than Acquisition?").

      --
      And now, a PSA from David Lynch.
  22. Re:Hey! How dare you! This is Slashdot... by njfuzzy · · Score: 1

    I have a feeling there a lot more of the Mac kind, actually.

    --
    My Photography - http://ian-x.com
    The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
  23. Handsome is as handsome does . . . by beadfulthings · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There are probably a million reasons why I'll get clobbered for this, but I'm going to throw caution to the winds and post it anyway:

    Using the idea that utility is at least as important as beauty, I'm going to nominate my brand-new copy of NeoOffice. Why? As a single user and owner of a small business, it lets me compose, proofread, and print out a document--and then print out an envelope to mail it in. It allows me to email that same document in Word doc format to my brethren and sisteren who don't use Macs and don't have a clue as to file formats. It does all of this consistently and without any errors that I can discern. It does it without firing up a UNIX terminal emulator. It does it without my having to make my ponderous way through installing a cheap non-Postscript printer under UNIX. And it does it all for the price of the monetary donation I was delighted to contribute. It doesn't look too bad, but I wouldn't care if it was as ugly as sin.

    So I say, Beautiful. Just absolutely beautiful.

    --
    "Here's what's happening. You're starting to drive like your Dad..." - Red Green
    1. Re:Handsome is as handsome does . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "As important as" != "equivalent to".

      I'm glad NeoOffice is great, but your nomination for "most beautiful" is soundly rejected. Have a free ticket to remedial reading comprehension.

  24. Beauty over practical value ? by Bazouel · · Score: 1

    For example, I look at the #1 application "Delicious Library" and wonder how it would fare with my collection of around 2000 CDs or my friend's 300 DVDs for that matter. I agree it is beautiful, but not very practical IMHO ...

    --
    Intelligence shared is intelligence squared.
    1. Re:Beauty over practical value ? by Jabrwock · · Score: 1

      For example, I look at the #1 application "Delicious Library" and wonder how it would fare with my collection of around 2000 CDs or my friend's 300 DVDs for that matter. I agree it is beautiful, but not very practical IMHO ...

      Isn't that the kind of collection though, that DL was designed for? It quickly scans in the barcode, adds it to your catalogue, and then you know you have it, or who you lent it to.

      I for one have nearly 200 DVDs, and it gets crazy sometimes remembering which ones are mine, what I lent to who... Once I even bought 2 copies of the same movie, because I forgot I had lent my copy out... I've also lost 2-3 DVDs because I can't remember who I lent them to. I used to use a word file, then a slapped together database to keep track... But being able to just scan/type in the barcode to enter it in, is much easier. I definitely plan on checking DL out. It's the nicest looking DVD cataloguer I've seen so far.

      --
      Magic doesn't work in my presence. My power of disbelief is too strong.
    2. Re:Beauty over practical value ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For lending, I've found the easiest thing is to reserve a corner of my corkboard for lent items. When I lend (or borrow) something I put a note on the corkboard with date and person, and remove when returned.

      It is so much easier to have a physical reminder, and faster than going over to the computer and entering it somewhere. Yeah, it's lowtech... but it works :)

    3. Re:Beauty over practical value ? by Builder · · Score: 1

      Delicious Library is EXTREMELY practical. Give it a whirl, and you'll be surprised. Now if I could just wrest the iSight and the laptop AWAY from the wife and stop her scanning stuff, that would be progress!

    4. Re:Beauty over practical value ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have 650 DVDs and about 300 CDs in Delicious Library. It handles it with ease. It's been a godsend, easy to use and very well thought out. Given that at any time I have 10-20 DVDs being borrowed by friends it's the only way I can easily keep track of who has what.

      It's a wonderful program.

      (and I have no affiliation with DM)

  25. what about functionality? by spir0 · · Score: 1

    beauty is in the eye of the beholder. some people love brushed metal windows, some hate them, so any list is going to have some level of bias.

    but I think it's more important to care what apps are [b]useable[/b]. Mix beauty and functionality into a big soup bowl, and rate them accordingly. Just rating apps on their look is as redundant as underpants on a Saint Bernard.

    --
    The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
    1. Re:what about functionality? by spir0 · · Score: 1

      ah, geez. spot the forum whore. :(

      --
      The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
  26. insensitive clod! by dwater · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I just switched my Powerbook to Ubuntu. So, now I get the added advantage of no composite video out and other 'goodies'. I'm tempted to switch back, but I really don't like Aqua (apart from the look).

    --
    Max.
    1. Re:insensitive clod! by dwater · · Score: 1

      Not exactly sure why my post was rated 'off topic'....strange. Aqua effects the 'beauty' (visual and otherwise) of all OS X apps (well, I suppose an X11 app could be called an OS X app, but I don't think that's what they mean).

      --
      Max.
  27. AdiumX by Schmig · · Score: 1

    It's been said above but I think it deserves more than one mention.

    I cackled with glee as I deleted the atrocious Yahoo Messenger from my Mac. AdiumX is one of the only perfect apps I have used in my 21 years of computing.

    My niece stood on my once beloved Dell 8200 the other day and cracked the LCD. I said, "era, what the hell...".

    http://adiumx.com/screenshots.php

    1. Re:AdiumX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coincidentally, Yahoo released a new Cocoa version of YIM this week. It's an enormous improvement.

      http://messenger.yahoo.com/mac.php

  28. Quicksilver by Infonaut · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm always finding new capabilites with Quicksilver. It transforms the way you work with your Mac, and it is beautiful in its minimalism and polish. This is a tool that does so much, and actually does so while not only staying out of your way, but also by removing obstacles to flow. Quicksilver gets my vote for #1.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
    1. Re:Quicksilver by Builder · · Score: 1

      I discovered quicksilver about 2 years ago, and as far as I am concerned, you don't have a 'complete' mac until you have this.

      I recently had to do something on my wife's laptop, and after about 10 minutes of messing around, I just installed quicksilver so that I could use the sodding thing. I've forgotten how much it hides from you since I've been using it :)

  29. And serious applications? by mlewan · · Score: 1

    I feel a little sad about that list, as it contains no academic applications at all. No physical simulations. No Latin verb conjugators. No statistical calculators. Are there none around, or are they all ugly? Or are they simply outside the journalists sphere of interest?

    1. Re:And serious applications? by raju1kabir · · Score: 1
      I feel a little sad about that list, as it contains no academic applications at all. No physical simulations. No Latin verb conjugators. No statistical calculators. Are there none around, or are they all ugly? Or are they simply outside the journalists sphere of interest?

      He's a Mac user. He does all his statistical calculation and Latin verb conjugations in his head, from memory.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
  30. Vienna by Jerry+Smith · · Score: 1

    I missed my most favorite RSS-reader Vienna: fast, small, FREE, compatible with NewsNetWire (as in: very easily transfer all your favorite streams, and never look back).

    --
    All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
  31. Most stolen Icon ever? by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

    Designing a piece of art icon has some consequences. If you check Transmit icon there even if you don't use OS X, it will look familiar to you.

    http://www.panic.com/transmit/

    That thing is one of the most stolen icons of all time. They even put a page dedicated to "rip off"

    http://www.panic.com/extras/ripoff/

    Note many sites fixed their stolen icons after figuring it out. Yes, it is usually a burglar single webmaster to blame. I personally know one of them got fired who should knaw Panic Inc. and Transmit icon 6 months ago because of the site he "designs".

    BTW if you don't use OS X, don't get tricked by how eye candy and easy looking those programs are. They are eye candy code wise too. It is not like "code must suck so they made it look beautiful". They are very advanced, elite coded modern applications which really fits good to year 2006 and the OS X they run on.