Slashdot Mirror


Apple's Illuminous (Aqua v2) to Compete with Aero

tovarish writes "According to Apple Gazette Apple will replace Aqua with a new name (and hopefully looks) called Illuminous. Is Jobs scared of Aero?, does it make sense to go for a new UI now?, has Aqua run out of steam? The answers will probably come later next month(year)."

377 comments

  1. Aero? by B00yah · · Score: 0, Troll

    Ok, can we do something about these headlines that do absolutely nothing to explain what they're talking about? It might as well have said "Apple's new FSM (formerly Buddha) to replace Jeebus", because that would have just as much sense. I know we're supposed to RTFA, but the headline is supposed to at least explain it enough that we WANT to.

    1. Re:Aero? by Aladrin · · Score: 1

      It was assumed that you'd know that since Apple was competing against it, it was a Microsoft thing. As the only thing we talk about that has to do with Microsoft is Vista, that was assumed as well. Since everyone knows Aqua is the window style that Apple uses, Aero must be MS Vista's window style.

      That, or you could read ANY article about Vista, there they talk about it like it's the best thing since sliced bread.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    2. Re:Aero? by sottitron · · Score: 3, Informative

      I guess /. assumes you know about current technology since you are browsing its pages... Aero is a set of GUI features from Microsoft's new OS, Vista.

    3. Re:Aero? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Do a Google search if you do not know the meaning of the technical term you encounter while reading Slashdot. That would be more productive than bitching. Thank you.

    4. Re:Aero? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      OS?

      Enough with the technical terms, Pointdexter.
      Just say its the clicky thing that lets you do stuff on the whatchamahoo.

    5. Re:Aero? by Shea_Butter · · Score: 1

      Since when has posting on /. been productive?

    6. Re:Aero? by jdray · · Score: 1

      What if you generally ignore articles about Vista because it's Microsoft's opertating system and you don't really care what features it has? OTOH, I'm interested in new Apple developments, so I was reading the article. The OP's point stands, to my way of thinking. And yeah, I picked up on your sarcasm.

      --
      The Spoon
      Updated 6/28/2011
    7. Re:Aero? by alexhard · · Score: 4, Funny

      I know we're supposed to RTFA You must be new here..
      --
      Infinite time means everything that can happen, will. You being you is absolutely incidental. You do not exist.
    8. Re:Aero? by tezbobobo · · Score: 1

      Maybe; news for nerds is a big area to cover. As an Apple user I knew instantly what that meant. I may though be less inclined to know what the "Rails Recipe" article was about. I think the alternatives aren't very desirable. Extremely verbose and long winded titles on one hand -

      e.g. Apple's Illuminous (Aqua v2 - the style and gui interface for OS X - the operating system which powers Apple computers (Apple was a computer company started in XXXX) to Compete with Aero (the alternative from windows) - a contraversial article because windows is starting to try to compete with apple on their own terms

      or we demote every article that isn't completely universal.

      Sure people could restructure their preferences to highlight and demote sections as required, but the payoff is less new users because of the added layer of complexity.

    9. Re:Aero? by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Slashdot also assumes a completely unconfirmed rumor from a site with a low historical accuracy is front page news.

      The last thing Apple is afraid of is the abortion of interface design that is Aero and its five different menu styles and embarrassing shut down menu--only Microsoft could spread out "turn off computer" into nine or so redundant menu options.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    10. Re:Aero? by jdray · · Score: 1

      I think it's fair to assume that anyone reading an article on Slashdot should know what Aqua is, so saying, "Apple's Illuminous, the follow-on to Aqua..." seems like a reasonable approach. In that same vein, the author could have said, "...compete with Aero, the follow-on to Windows Explorer..." (or the Windows GUI or whatever). Yeah, a certain amount of base knowledge is more or less required to read here. If you don't know what Linux is, go somewhere else. And you'd better know that PSP stands for "Playstation Portable." But tell me, how long did it take for your brain to learn that WGA had to do with Microsoft's licensing rather than a new graphics standard?

      I'm just sayin'...

      --
      The Spoon
      Updated 6/28/2011
  2. scared? by toQDuj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've never really considered Steve Jobs to be fazed by anything really.

    He knows he has a decent group of followers, ever growing in these times, and he must bless his decision to stick with providing a complete solution instead of just an OS, every day.

    All in all, I don't think he should be scared of this, because it is not only about the looks of the interface. It also depends on whether operations will continue to produce the desired result fast and reliable. Mac OS has the advantage there.

    B.

    --
    Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
    1. Re:scared? by double-oh+three · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Honestly, why does it need to be a response? Aqua's great, but it's a few years old at this point. Is there any evidence that this isn't just a v2 with new features for Leopard? Seriously, Apple can do something without it being a response. I mean, we're not saying that Photoshop CS3 is a response to GIMP (which personally I think is a valid comparison for Aqua/Aero (no offense to GIMP, it's good for what it is, it just isn't there yet)), so why does Illuminous have to be anything other than an upgrade to a well-liked existing product?

      --
      "For years, I struggled with reality... but I'm happy to say I finally won out over it." -- Elwood P. Dowd
  3. Boring and Unoriginal by Nick+Fury · · Score: 0, Troll

    What was that about MacOS being boring and unoriginal?
    Seriously though.. I wouldn't be surprised if this was true. Leopard has a while to go and Apple will pull out "one more thing" before developement is done.

    1. Re:Boring and Unoriginal by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1
      What was that about MacOS being boring and unoriginal? Seriously though.. I wouldn't be surprised if this was true. Leopard has a while to go and Apple will pull out "one more thing" before developement is done.

      I think this is just an example of bad analysis. After all, we can only guess at the motivations of a decision of another unless that person(s) divulges their reasoning. And Apple is notorious at being secretive so we'll never really know why Apple is replacing Aqua.

      My take on this is different. Aqua is over 5 years old. Apple was going to replace it eventually. If it is going to be shown next month, that means Apple has been working on it already (possibly for years). So in my view, this isn't a reaction to Aero but a pro-active enhancement to Aqua. Just my 2 cents.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  4. It helps by mwvdlee · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you're a computer newbee, the only thing you can judge a computer on is how it looks.
    So just like with the iMac craze a number of years back, updating the look and feel of an OS every now and then, is a good idea from a commercial point of view.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    1. Re:It helps by prodangle · · Score: 3, Insightful
      If you're a computer newbee, the only thing you can judge a computer on is how it looks. So just like with the iMac craze a number of years back, updating the look and feel of an OS every now and then, is a good idea from a commercial point of view.
      Looks aren't only important for newbies. I've using computers for many years, but I prefer a user interface which feels modern and fresh, as well as one which takes advantage of the computer's graphic capabilities. Just as I feel happier working in an bright office environment in an interesting building. Aesthetics aren't important for everyone - as many sysadmins working on command lines in dingy basements will attest to - but to many others, visual aesthetics are vital for a good user experience.
    2. Re:It helps by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Why can't a newbie try out a system, to see how well it performs the tasks that s/he wants to accomplish? How about reading reviews and journals? Newbies have plenty to go on besides looks.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    3. Re:It helps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But those alternate methods of judging a new product are too much like work for all too many people.

    4. Re:It helps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey! My linux framebuffer based command-line has ansi colored text and can display inline images. But even if it didn't: ask -- why is there a dollar or hash sign? Why not an asterisk or an ampersand? Is the extra stuff before the command prompt *really* just to give you information? Sure, the gamut of OS X's gui is better, but if gamut made beauty, structured poetry would be awful.

      Seriously, if flashiness, good color, lots of motion, dimensionality, etc made beauty, Orson Welles would be eclipsed by the modern commercial. My UI has a stark simplicity which OS X can't match.

  5. New Name by DLG · · Score: 3, Funny

    I believe the new name is really going to be Nullity.

    Or maybe Aquality.

    Or Aquainess.

    This could be the least content of any story I have read.

    1. Re:New Name by sharkey · · Score: 4, Funny

      This could be the least content of any story I have read.

      You must be new here.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    2. Re:New Name by Fred_A · · Score: 2, Funny

      iQua gets my vote.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    3. Re:New Name by dalerb · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe they'll go with ADEQUITE.

    4. Re:New Name by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      You've obviously never read this story also, as fate may have it, posted by Hemos.

  6. Pinstripes by ahknight · · Score: 4, Funny

    NO MORE PINSTRIPES!!! For the love of Steve, PLEASE kill them. And brushed metal. Dead, dead, dead.

    Oh, how I hope it's true...

    1. Re:Pinstripes by SydBarrett · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just make everything transparent. Windows, scrollbars, pointer, and fonts. All transparent.

    2. Re:Pinstripes by hullabalucination · · Score: 5, Funny

      NO MORE PINSTRIPES!!! For the love of Steve, PLEASE kill them. And brushed metal. Dead, dead, dead.


      The new look will be translucent fur.

      * * * * *

      You can't depend on your eyes, when your imagination is out of focus.
      --Mark Twain

    3. Re:Pinstripes by phorest · · Score: 1

      I'm still partial to faux-bamboo.
      Loungie-retro ROCKS!

      --
      God: When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
    4. Re:Pinstripes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      And brushed metal.

      Brushed Metal is nonexistent in recent Leopard seeds. Even the WWDC build hinted at this with iChat now sporting the 'unified toolbar' look. Now iCal is the same way, and certain other apps are either unified or iLife-style unified.

      There aren't any massive sweeping changes -- just an evolutionary move -- the kind where you can tell from a screenshot whether someone is running Leopard, Tiger, Panther, Jaguar, or Puma. Pinstripes are still there, but for fuck's sake they're like 90% white anyway, and if you notice them you're paying too much attention.

    5. Re:Pinstripes by jbrader · · Score: 3, Funny

      Huh, but then wouldn't you just be looking at the inside of the monitor?

      --
      You are so boring that when I see you my feet go to sleep.
    6. Re:Pinstripes by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if you were joking or not (I'm also on the "please no more pinstripes!" side), but always look at iTunes to know where OS X is heading. It's not brushed metal, it's more of a clean, extremely streamlined look with no textures, only lines, colors and shadings.

    7. Re:Pinstripes by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nah, it'd look like this! : )

      (Of course, a wallpaper showing the circuitry on the inside of my iMac would be really cool... I wish I could find one.)

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    8. Re:Pinstripes by GlassHeart · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Look near the bottom of this page.

    9. Re:Pinstripes by Judge_Fire · · Score: 1

      "The new look will be translucent fur."

      The superb DragThing has something fabulous you might enjoy.

      J

    10. Re:Pinstripes by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Cool, thanks! I really wanted one without the blue swoop overlay, but this is great too.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    11. Re:Pinstripes by Angostura · · Score: 1

      Sigh. Remember when Aqua first came out. The big message was "no more grey". I liked Aqua. The idea of brushed metal was sort of OK when it was restricted to windows emulating physical devices.

      But the unified look? We're back at the old grey interface. I'm not a fan.

    12. Re:Pinstripes by cypherz · · Score: 1

      macgeekery: Nice website Adam!

      --
      This sig kills fascists.
    13. Re:Pinstripes by mh101 · · Score: 1

      It's also possible that they've deliberately left the new look out of all the Leopard seeds being distributed outside of Apple, until it's officially unveiled. It wouldn't surprise me. How many people outside of Apple knew about the parallel x86 builds going on until Steve mentioned it in the keynote?

      --
      Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together.
    14. Re:Pinstripes by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      I can't find any pinstripes in 10.4, but do remember them being kinda bad with 10.1. Haven't they been gone a while now?

    15. Re:Pinstripes by VTBassMatt · · Score: 1

      Pull down any menu from the menubar... pinstripe-y goodness abounds.

    16. Re:Pinstripes by jojo1835 · · Score: 1

      Not really worth commenting on, but that is freaking awesome. You get credit from me for the site of the day!

      Tim

      --
      See... and you thought your sig was boring - TT
    17. Re:Pinstripes by mutatedmonkey · · Score: 1

      I hope you mean translucent... or are joking.

      A totally transparent interface would be... confusing.

  7. Aqua (2001-???) by richdun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is Jobs scared of Aero?, does it make sense to go for a new UI now?, has Aqua run out of steam?

    How old is Aqua? Perhaps they're just wanting to update it to add new features, take advantage of dual/quad/bajillion core CPUs, etc., etc. A lot has happened since Aqua debuted, and Apple has rarely been one to simply sit on a good product and not try to continue to make it better/newer.

    1. Re:Aqua (2001-???) by Bastian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Indeed, Aqua has been tweaked at least a little bit in every release of OS X since 10.1. As you mentioned, Quartz has gone through some major overhauls. Apple tweaking Aqua yet again is not news. It doesn't indicate a response to Aero, it just indicates that Apple is doing what Apple always does.

    2. Re:Aqua (2001-???) by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't know about that, but I do know that Aqua has been undergoing a lot of "enhancements" that, over time, have detracted quite a bit from the look.

      Jaguar had the first "Brushed metal" windows. This looked "ok", but still a little strange. Panther then downplayed a lot of the pin-striped look, which helped make the UI a little less distracting, but at the same time also made the look rather less attractive. Tiger has gone further, with squared off windows and the (non-brushed) metal look.

      Each iteration has undermined the over-all elegance of the visuals (though in Jaguar's defense, they did make the buttons look more elegant.) That's not to say they weren't necessary, early Mac OS X was so full of stripes and other distractions that it was even more horrible to use than the poor graphics accelleration resulted in. But there's little doubt that a simple comparison of Jaguar, sans-metal, and Tiger, shows the former with a much more attractive looking (whether usable or not) UI than the latter.

      This rumour doesn't surprise me really. What'll be interesting is to see whether it's a complete break with Aqua, or just an upgrade. I seriously doubt this has anything to do with Aero though: Steve Jobs is going to be concerned with the look of Mac OS X regardless of whether they have ten competitors or none.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:Aqua (2001-???) by KonoWatakushi · · Score: 0, Troll

      ... Apple has rarely been one to simply sit on a good product and not try to continue to make it better/newer. This may or may not be a good thing. Apple is also one to sit on a bad product, and let it stagnate. The Finder desperately needs attention, and improvements to it could profoundly improve the MacOS experience. Darwin (the core of MacOS) is also a similar case. I think most would agree that Aqua is very good already, and as such, Apple should focus its efforts elsewhere. (In the case of Darwin, they should embrace a successful open source *nix instead of wasting their efforts. However, I think they will stick with Darwin so that they have the opportunity to force DRM down our throats.)

      Too many critical things have been ignored for far too long, while Apple implements features and eye-candy which often provide no utility. Features are not necessarily a bad thing, but Apple keeps on adding new ones without ever really finishing any of them. MacOS today is a mess, and has none of the consistency or polish that it once did. As a *nix, it is also half-baked, and severely lacking.

      I keep telling myself, "I have had enough" with each release, but 10.5 may be the last. (Though, I hope not, since the Cocoa/NeXT dev model is excellent.) If Apple does not embrace a more OSS friendly (read: community friendly) development model though, I feel that they will relegate themselves to irrelevance. Similar things can be said about their hardware business--currently every computer they sell is priced outside of > 90% of the market. Not that they are not competitive on price; they simply ignore almost the entire market. This is not sustainable...
    4. Re:Aqua (2001-???) by ElephanTS · · Score: 1

      Apple has rarely been one to simply sit on a good product and not try to continue to make it better/newer.

      You weren't around in the 89-95 period then. Apple rested on it's System7 laurels as it was so far ahead for years. By about 98 even Widows had caught up. Just sayin'.

      --
      spoonerize "magic trackpad"
    5. Re:Aqua (2001-???) by ObiWanKenblowme · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not to pick on you specifically, but just what is it people expect the Finder to do? Is it a performance issue, or just a dislike regarding the way the interface works?

      I'd also question the need for Apple to embrace a more OSS-friendly dev model. They seem to be doing just fine the way they're going now, even better than they were when they released 10.1.

      --
      Obvious exits are NORTH, SOUTH, and DENNIS.
    6. Re:Aqua (2001-???) by ElephanTS · · Score: 1

      I agree with you that OSX has lost a little of the elegance - there seems to be some quite deep confusion about how the apps look now. I don't much like the new darker metal windows like iPhoto but thank god the pinstripes are fading away. If you look at 10.0 it was ludicrous how heavy they were. However, I do think it's to do with Aero, there's no point standing still waiting for Windows to catch up again. This way just as Windows is looking 21stC Apple will move it on again showing the market they're still ahead. It has to be this way when you think about it.

      --
      spoonerize "magic trackpad"
    7. Re:Aqua (2001-???) by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You weren't around in the 89-95 period then. Apple rested on it's System7 laurels as it was so far ahead for years. By about 98 even Widows had caught up. Just sayin'.

      Those of us who are not complete macintosh fanboys will have noticed that this is the time at which Apple dropped from having something like 11% market share to having about 3% market share. There were two reasons. One is that Apple computers were still running on 68k processors well into the age when the intel chips were whipping Motorola's ass. The other is that System 7 was a festering piece of shit. No Apple operating system has ever been as unreliable as System 7. While Windows was going towards protected mode all the time (NT did it already; ME doesn't use real mode, which is why compatibility was hurt; Windows 98 is MOSTLY 32 bit) Apple was still using their MMU (when present, which was not always) for virtual memory, and virtual memory alone. A lack of memory protection made MacOS as unreliable as AmigaDOS, with applications stepping on each other constantly. The difference is that AmigaDOS can be rebooted in just a few seconds, even from floppies.

      If you remember Mac OS 7 with nostalgia then you clearly have some sort of memory disability.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Aqua (2001-???) by eldepeche · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Personally, I hate the way it drops .DS_Store files every-fucking-where.

    9. Re:Aqua (2001-???) by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, there are a series of serious problems with Finder.

      Serious Issues:
      1. No write access on remote FTP sites. That's pretty ugly. KDE/Gnome/Explorer can all do this, why not Finder? On OS X, default, to upload files to an FTP site you have to use the Terminal; and the way finder works it makes it look like a permissions issue rather than an inbuilt limitation.
      2. Nasty locking on loss of network shares. This can render your laptop unusable unless you are careful to eject all network shares each and every time you suspend. Loss of network connectivity should not cripple your desktop. KDE/Gnome/Explorer get around this by using multiple instances; a particular Konqueror window might freeze, but you don't loose everything.
      3. Locking issues on copying large numbers of files. This can slow Finder down to a crawl, even though everything else is perfectly responsive.
      Minor Issues:
      1. Copying a Folder to a directory with a Folder of the same name results in the existing contents of that Folder being overwritten, rather than the merged contents of the two Folders. This makes it annoying to move around large trees of files, if you like to "sync" things manually.
      2. No Packet CD-RW support. It's _really_ nice to have re-writable CDRWs that work like large floppy disks. Makes life easier. Not essential, though. More worrying is Finder's inability to not finalize a CD; sometimes I like to have multisession disks.
      3. Serious performance issues with using Spotlight in Finder Windows. I've got a Dual G5 2.7 Ghz, and a MacBook Pro. Why is Spotlight on these Finder windows so slow? Why do I have to type one character at a time, and then wait for the search? Why do I have to wait 5 seconds to backspace over my typos? It's not like I'm running the bottom of the barrel configurations here.
      4. Flaky MIME type recognition. No matter how many times I try to force ALL pdfs to open on Preview, I keep finding pdfs that open on Acrobat. Acrobat takes so long to open, so I really want that to be my secondary option; but no, it doesn't work like that.

      For the most part, these issues aren't that severe, and (except for the FTP issue) only affect power users like me. Most people don't know (or ceonceptualize) multisessions CDs, and most people don't use network shares that IT doesn't setup for you. Still, it's very annoying that these issues have persisted through 4 iterations of OS X, and I'd much rather see someone work these out then a new version of Aqua.

      Finder is stagnating, and it really is pretty crappy compared to some of the alternatives out there. KDE's Konqueror, with KIO-Slaves is _vastly_ superior.

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    10. Re:Aqua (2001-???) by richdun · · Score: 1

      True - the NES was my home computer of choice during those years. :) Wasn't paying attention to much else.

    11. Re:Aqua (2001-???) by KonoWatakushi · · Score: 4, Informative
      Not to pick on you specifically, but just what is it people expect the Finder to do? Is it a performance issue, or just a dislike regarding the way the interface works?
      I expect the Finder to allow me to quickly and efficiently manage my files, with a minimum of surprise, that is all. If you work with a lot of files, you will notice the severe deficiencies in the Finder, especially on network volumes. It can't even keep the contents of a folder straight, with items disappearing, reappearing, and resorting themselves for no apparent reason. You can't move two items from the same folder to different destinations at the same time. Folders don't remember their configuration properly or consistently. Constant hangs with the Spinning Wheel of Death. Double-clicking an item to open it causes a resort on the first click, and then you may open the wrong item. There is even a data loss bug, where you might unknowingly send something to the trash, even when nothing is selected. Really, the list goes on and on, and it is full of serious problems and inconveniences alike. Every time I report these bugs, they are closed as duplicates, and simply ignored.

      I'd also question the need for Apple to embrace a more OSS-friendly dev model. They seem to be doing just fine the way they're going now, even better than they were when they released 10.1.
      If they could maintain maintain a competitive *nix, this wouldn't be as much of an issue. Look how much development goes into just the Linux kernel; Apple can't even hope to compete on a technical basis, and will only fall further and further behind. This means things like scalable SMP, efficient threading, network file systems, disk drivers (NCQ anyone?), networking, and many other technical things which while not sexy have a great impact on performance. This work simply isn't getting done. Their low-level OS effort would have a much greater benefit if expended on the GUI and interface instead; these are the areas which distinguish MacOS. Microsoft can't even competing with Linux in these areas, and Apple has but a small fraction of their resources.

      As it is now, there are an immense amount of bugs, not to mention very poor performance, and it is basically impossible to even contribute fixes to Apple, which is very frustrating. Apple's uncooperative attitude is simply not productive.
    12. Re:Aqua (2001-???) by dbrutus · · Score: 1

      The MIME types complaint is a feature, not a bug. Apple permits the creator of a file to encode in the file what application it will be opened by. It always has. You can create an applescript to go through and have that information conform to what you want it to be but the behavior isn't going to change because a significant number of people like that.

    13. Re:Aqua (2001-???) by thestudio_bob · · Score: 1

      For the FTP issue. You can FTP easily with OSX by using "Connect To Server". Basically pop in your info and it mounts just like a volume on you desktop. You can read/write files etc. Is this not what you mean? I use it all the time to connect to my printer to FTP the files to them.

      --
      The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains /.
    14. Re:Aqua (2001-???) by chaosmind · · Score: 1

      Minor Issues: 1. Copying a Folder to a directory with a Folder of the same name results in the existing contents of that Folder being overwritten, rather than the merged contents of the two Folders. This makes it annoying to move around large trees of files, if you like to "sync" things manually.
      I'd upgrade that to a major issue. In fact, since so many Mac users are design folks pushing around huge numbers of files, maintaining websites, etc., I call that "Finder bug number one."
    15. Re:Aqua (2001-???) by Squozen · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't have the Spotlight issues you're seeing. My old 15" PowerBook and Intel iMac are both perfectly responsive when making searches - perhaps you have a corrupted index or something?

    16. Re:Aqua (2001-???) by hr.wien · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dear god yes. I let my friend and his mac loose on my fileserver once and the place was absolutely littered with files afterwards. Windows' Thumbs.db is also rather annoying, but at least they only show up where there's media to be thumbnailed.

    17. Re:Aqua (2001-???) by git68 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Off topic but found this (haven't tested yet but intend to...)

      http://www.zeroonetwenty.com/blueharvest/

      Hopefully a cure for those annoying "Finder turds"!

      --
      sigpending(2)
    18. Re:Aqua (2001-???) by Rosyna · · Score: 1

      Well, there are a series of serious problems with Finder.

      So why don't you list them...?

      Except for the minor issue #1, this list has nothing at all to do with the finder. Hell, Three of them are diskarb/FS issues.

    19. Re:Aqua (2001-???) by NaughtyNimitz · · Score: 1

      I agree with that completely: As an Apple user since 1983, I regard the MacOS Classic-era as something that needs to be forgotten fast. Happily, all my customers have migrated to MacOS X and forgot how to use the Classic-option in the System preferences. The Mac then had no reall ace to pull, while now, my Intelmac running OSX/WinXP/Linux/... at the same time is damn killer!

    20. Re:Aqua (2001-???) by Anarchitect_in_oz · · Score: 1

      I would have thought Resolution Independance was a segnificant change that it demand a new name.

      Mostly likely applications will need some degree of rework to take full advantage of such technology, sure the aqua layer in the new "Illuminus" system will probably offer some improvement for free, having two names to refer to the new and the old would avoid confusion as well as making a nice marketing name to tie the some what technical concept to.

      --
      "Call us when the New age is old enough to drink" Beck
    21. Re:Aqua (2001-???) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Major:
      1. Explorer's FTP support is barely functional, it has a horrible habit of completely forgetting it's using FTP
      2. If there's one thing that Explorer fucks up, it's networking. When there's a slow or non responding network share, your ENTIRE FUCKING DESKTOP locks up, from the Start Menu, to the desktop itself.

      I'll definitely agree that Konqueror and Nautalis are probably better, but Explorer is by far the worst of the four.

    22. Re:Aqua (2001-???) by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      For the FTP issue. You can FTP easily with OSX by using "Connect To Server". Basically pop in your info and it mounts just like a volume on you desktop. You can read/write files etc. Is this not what you mean? I use it all the time to connect to my printer to FTP the files to them.

      Yes, this is what he was talking about, except that I've never gotten uploading to work at all, and browsing and downloading doesn't work very well for me. Not to mention that SFTP isn't supported at all.

      I heard a rumor that suggests this will all be fixed in 10.5, which would be a very good thing.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    23. Re:Aqua (2001-???) by ElephanTS · · Score: 1

      I agree but don't forget at the time it was incredible. No, really. Most PC people were on DOS when Macs had 24-bit color. I know looking backing it looks like a crock but that's hindsight.

      --
      spoonerize "magic trackpad"
    24. Re:Aqua (2001-???) by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1

      It's a bug; it's a feature. seriously. That's the way it's always worked with Mac OS. I understand why it would seem buggy to a Windows user (don't know default KDE/Gnome behaviour), but it was a design decision a long time ago on the Mac. Change it and you'd have a lot of users thinking that a bug has been introduced.

    25. Re:Aqua (2001-???) by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1
      In the case of Darwin, they should embrace a successful open source *nix instead of wasting their efforts.

      Maybe there aren't any *nixes that doe exactly what they want? And there's a reasonable amount of FreeBSD and NeXT stuff flaoting around in there already.

      However, I think they will stick with Darwin so that they have the opportunity to force DRM down our throats.

      Whoever's fording DRM down your throat, it isn't Apple. I've a few songs I bought off iTunes, but I wasn't forced to and can use plenty of non-DRMed media on my Mac.

      As a *nix, it is also half-baked, and severely lacking.

      As a desktop OS, most *nixes are half-baked and severely lacking. As a desktop OS, there's nothing that meets my needs better than OS X and that's what it's trying to be, not just another *nix. *nix stuff is just a nice bonus.

      If Apple does not embrace a more OSS friendly (read: community friendly) development model though, I feel that they will relegate themselves to irrelevance.

      You'd think it was '96, not '06 from some of the comments you're making.

      Similar things can be said about their hardware business--currently every computer they sell is priced outside of > 90% of the market.

      Over 90% of the market for computers is under $599? News to me.

      Not that they are not competitive on price; they simply ignore almost the entire market. This is not sustainable...

      That must be why they're selling record number of computers and have a growing market share. Maybe they should just close down the company and return the money to the shockholders?

    26. Re:Aqua (2001-???) by tcc3 · · Score: 0

      You're remembering incorrectly. Apple resisted color screens for quite a while, citing it as a frivilous gimmick - much like their relentless dedication to the one button mouse.

      And to be fair PCs had color even before that. Just because DOS didnt have color doesnt mean it wasnt possible.

      Apple has brought some nice things to the table over the years, but lets not put on the rose colored glasses.

    27. Re:Aqua (2001-???) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I don't like all the new bells and whistles going into the UI now. Why does there have to be a waterdrop-ripple effect when I add a new widget to Dashboard? Why the 3D cube effect when switching users? Why does there have to be an animated starfield to simulate you going "back in time" when searching through past back-ups?

      Doesn't all this eat up resources?

      There's a difference between nice & elegant and cluttered & gaudy. That difference is simplicity, something the Apple team seems to be straying away from with each new feature.

    28. Re:Aqua (2001-???) by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

      Not that it's a good answer, but it's always been that way. That behaviour has existed since the Mac128K, and has never been any different. I think even Windows behaves the same.

      It's not a bug at all. The issue is that it doesn't behave the way you want it to. A bug is something that's not functioning as it was designed to do.

    29. Re:Aqua (2001-???) by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 1

      Try it. Writing files doesn't work.

      FTP in Finder uses the OS X volume mounting system, and Darwin doesn't support write access to FTP mounts.

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    30. Re:Aqua (2001-???) by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 1

      Huh?
      1, 2, and 3 are Finder ssues. 2, 3, and in particular minor issue 3 are finder threading issues. 4 is also a Finder issue; or does Finder not handle MIME types.
      1. No write access on remote FTP sites. That's pretty ugly. KDE/Gnome/Explorer can all do this, why not Finder? On OS X, default, to upload files to an FTP site you have to use the Terminal; and the way finder works it makes it look like a permissions issue rather than an inbuilt limitation.
      2. Nasty locking on loss of network shares. This can render your laptop unusable unless you are careful to eject all network shares each and every time you suspend. Loss of network connectivity should not cripple your desktop. KDE/Gnome/Explorer get around this by using multiple instances; a particular Konqueror window might freeze, but you don't loose everything.
      3. Locking issues on copying large numbers of files. This can slow Finder down to a crawl, even though everything else is perfectly responsive.
      Minor Issues:
      1. Copying a Folder to a directory with a Folder of the same name results in the existing contents of that Folder being overwritten, rather than the merged contents of the two Folders. This makes it annoying to move around large trees of files, if you like to "sync" things manually.
      2. No Packet CD-RW support. It's _really_ nice to have re-writable CDRWs that work like large floppy disks. Makes life easier. Not essential, though. More worrying is Finder's inability to not finalize a CD; sometimes I like to have multisession disks.
      3. Serious performance issues with using Spotlight in Finder Windows. I've got a Dual G5 2.7 Ghz, and a MacBook Pro. Why is Spotlight on these Finder windows so slow? Why do I have to type one character at a time, and then wait for the search? Why do I have to wait 5 seconds to backspace over my typos? It's not like I'm running the bottom of the barrel configurations here.
      4. Flaky MIME type recognition. No matter how many times I try to force ALL pdfs to open on Preview, I keep finding pdfs that open on Acrobat. Acrobat takes so long to open, so I really want that to be my secondary option; but no, it doesn't work like that.

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    31. Re:Aqua (2001-???) by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 1

      That's _really_ goofy.

      Here's what it says in "Get Info":

      "
      Open With:
      [Program Name Here]
      Use this application to open all documents like this.
      [Change All Button]
      "

      What part of "Use this application to open all documents like this" could be clearer? It's obviously not working correctly, because other documents like _this one_ are NOT opening up in the application that I specified for ALL such documents.

      The behavior is broken; there's nothing wrong with the default behavior being application specified, but if I specify something, particularly with a control that says, "Change All", it damn well better change all.

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    32. Re:Aqua (2001-???) by Mr+Bubble · · Score: 1

      Personally, I don't understand why I can't print out a directory listing 6 years after the debut of OS X.

      --
      "The world is a construct of forceful imagination. Those who don't know walk around in the reailties of those who do"
    33. Re:Aqua (2001-???) by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      Macs were the last major PC platform to get color. After all, Jobs considered color to be superfluous. That "clarity of thought" followed him to NeXT where, in 1990, he introduced a workstation-class machine with a megapixel monochrome display when all his competitors were already doing color. hehe

      DOS itself was text mode but that didn't mean that applications couldn't use graphics or color and IBM offered color options from day 1. In contrast, the first color mac debuted in 1987 (the same year IBM introduced the PS/2). By then, the PC had already had 3 major color graphics standards, the VGA (and XGA) had just been introduced, and PCs enjoyed a variety of TI340xx-based graphics systems as well. Far from pioneering color displays as mac "historians" like to claim, Apple was way behind.

    34. Re:Aqua (2001-???) by chaosmind · · Score: 1

      I think even Windows behaves the same. nope, and (trust me) it deeply pains me to acknowledge any benefits to the Windows UI.

      It's not a bug at all. The issue is that it doesn't behave the way you want it to. A bug is something that's not functioning as it was designed to do. I've been using Apple computers since the Apple 2e (or is that ][e?) and you're right that it's always been there since the start of the Mac GUI. So maybe it's not a bug, just a horrible user interface failure.

      Granted, that behavior has always been there, but doesn't poor design still constitute a bug, intentional or not? Let's flip that around: how do you achieve an intelligent folder-hierarchy merge in the Finder? You download a third-party utility (like Path Finder) that solves the problem. Windows 3.1's File Manager was horribly anemic, so people would download superior third-party solutions such as Becker Tools; MS paid attention and introduced that functionality with the Win95 "Explorer" (admittedly not terribly polished until Win98).

      I stand by my original assertion: there's no way to do intelligent folder-merges in the Finder, and this constitutes a horrible bug/oversight/shortcoming/SNAFU... call it what you will, the Mac OS UI has one major PITA that hits me every day. I will acknowledge that while Windows, KDE, GNOME and Enlightenment all do the folder-hierarchy merge thing nicely, they don't offer an option to do a destructive folder replace like the Mac does. But be honest now: when it's only one extra keystroke to destroy an old folder before copying a new one, is that a real shortcoming? I've spent twenty, thirty minutes or more on Macs trying to copy over only the (few hundred) changed files into a folder that runs four or more levels deep anytime my source directory doesn't contain all the subdirectory elements of the destination. Pronounced: ARRGGGHHHH!!!!!
    35. Re:Aqua (2001-???) by tyrione · · Score: 1

      Who cares? NeXTSTEP 3 was doing 4096 Colors when MacOS and Windows were limited to 256 Colors.

    36. Re:Aqua (2001-???) by ernst_mulder · · Score: 1

      What I don't like about the OS X Finder are interface annoyances, some of which were already corrected a LONG TIME ago in Mac OS 9. For instance:

      - Rename a File in a list view. Click on the next file to rename, whoa everything resorts and the selected file is not the one I clicked on.
      - When the Finder tries to create a preview of a document that's incoming (from another computer for instance) it draws its icon black or halfway. The file is now "open" and can't be edited by another application until the Finder is forefully restarted.
      - Moving large numbers of files is quite troublesome.
      - (This one really bugged me) Copy a couple of files from a CD or so. Edit the copied file. Then go back to the Finder and (accidentally) press Undo. The copy is undo and your edited file is gone gone gone.
      - I always use List view, but when I drag comething over a folder to open it up, the Finder switches to Icon view instead. Why?
      - The Finder can't print a list of the contents of a Folder.
      - When I rename my homedirectory no questions are asked (next reboot the machine will of course create a new empty homedir with the old name). This should be so easy to fix...
      - Same goes for renaming the "Library" folder in a home folder. Please warn the user, Apple...
      - And so on (I've kept a list)

    37. Re:Aqua (2001-???) by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      Just setting the record straight for those who'd say that Apple invented color. Jobs was notoriously anti-color.

      Getting software to understand more than 8 or 12 bits of color isn't hard. It was the cost of hardware at the time.

    38. Re:Aqua (2001-???) by WheresMyDingo · · Score: 1
      If they could maintain maintain a competitive *nix, this wouldn't be as much of an issue. Look how much development goes into just the Linux kernel; Apple can't even hope to compete on a technical basis, and will only fall further and further behind.

      This is an important point, though FreeBSD work makes it into OS X eventually I would think, though slowly, and that community is a smaller one. It would be a massive effort, and mentioned before with good arguments both ways, but I wonder once again about the idea of putting OS X on top of Linux rather than Darwin? Although I suppose you want what's under your high-level layers to be more slow-moving and stable than fast-moving or your upper layers will just crumble and avalanche on you. (You could insulate yourself from this by having a stable middle layer, but it wouldn't adapt quick enough either and just recreate the problem at another level)

      My choice for our new compute farm was G5/OS X rather than Opteron/Linux, though it was a close call. We access these machines completely via ssh and X11 so the Darwin layer is what I'm dealing with almost daily (or was, until I could hand that off and refocus on software development). There are times I am very glad, from a maintenance point of view, but there are certainly times when I (we, now) come up against NFS or NIS issues (or Java being on top of Aqua rather than X11-- making remote Java interfaces impossible) that are not addressed with anything like the alacrity and support you find in the Linux community, and I feel a little guilty sometimes having made life tougher for the people who wanted to go Linux in the first place (But the bonus has been the hardware-- not a single bad component in our 60+ Xserves in almost 3 years-- so I suppose Linux on the Xserves might be an option, you could say, but we depend on Matlab which doesn't have a Linux-for-PPC version.)

      Blah, blah. Sorry if this is too far afield from the subject at hand. But OS X on top of Linux is fun to think about. Maybe there's a back room at Apple looking into it.

    39. Re:Aqua (2001-???) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets not forget a basic one: in List view, there's no mouse pointer response when your mouse is at the right spot to begin dragging to widen a column. Whether you succeed or not is complete guesswork.

      Honestly, that's such a basic user interface thing to have completely missing over multiple releases. Despite the fan-weenie hype, the Finder is seriously half-baked.

    40. Re:Aqua (2001-???) by General+Lee's+Peking · · Score: 1

      You've got some seriously good recommendations here. I only hope you've submitted them to Apple's feedback for Mac OS X.

    41. Re:Aqua (2001-???) by JulesLt · · Score: 1

      The good news is that we know Apple hired someone last year to re-design Finder, because the job advert was public.

      Whether all your issues will be addressed is another matter. I'm guessing that the focus will be on making a great tool for consumers - something more like iTunes, possibly with a Core Animation powered CoverFlow style visual file browser (keep up with Vista) as that would be quite flashy.

      Not saying OS X is all flash and no substance (it's my OS of choice) but the 'out of the box' experience is definitely consumer oriented and they trust the rest of us will replace it with what we need. As you note, support of multi-session CDs is poor, but many Windows users don't 'get it' either, even where it is better supported (and memory sticks have thankfully bridged the 'capacity gap' we had between floppies and CDs).

      From what I've read, with QT4 in place the KDE for OS X project may get a lot further, so Konqueror may be an option.

      Souls for Arioch, old chap.

      --
      'Capitalists of the world, unite! Oh ... you have' (League Against Tedium)
    42. Re:Aqua (2001-???) by Rosyna · · Score: 1

      1, 2, and 3 are Finder ssues. 2, 3, and in particular minor issue 3 are finder threading issues. 4 is also a Finder issue; or does Finder not handle MIME types.

      Note, the finder doesn't deal with any of those. The same thing would happen in any application on OS X that handled files.

    43. Re:Aqua (2001-???) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My educated take on them:

      Major 1. Not Finder. FTP access is done via a mounted ftp.fs filesystem.
      Major 2. Not exactly Finder. It's complicated and wrapped up in the whole Unix model as well as the Mac model. Finder doesn't (and isn't able to) create separate processes for each window; async CarbonCore I/O is single-threaded; until recently there were huge funnels in the kernel which made it unfixable in user-space... well, it goes on from there. But these days Finder could do something to make it better. And they do, incrementally.
      Major 3. Dunno. Haven't seen it, can't comment.

      Minor 1. Finder. Design choice, historical, hard to change now, blah blah blah.
      Minor 2. Not Finder. Largely a cross-functional filesystemish issue which has nothing to do with Finder. The main reason why it hasn't happened is probably best described as cranial-rectal infixation of the manageri superiori. (Not the manageri medii; those guys are all right.)
      Minor 3. Unclear. Might be Finder or Spotlight.
      Minor 4. Not Finder. LaunchServices.

    44. Re:Aqua (2001-???) by ernst_mulder · · Score: 1

      Hell, never noticed that! Argh, thanks :-(

    45. Re:Aqua (2001-???) by dbrutus · · Score: 1

      File extensions have a lookup table associated with them. I believe that the file extension lookup entry is being changed when you set use this application to open all documents like this. The creator/type codes predate the use of file extensions in Mac OS and would have to be accessed by individual disk writes for each file. Do you really want to incur the overhead for that?

    46. Re:Aqua (2001-???) by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 1

      That's my point; its NOT being changed.

      I cannot set my PDFs to be opened by Preview, even though I vastly prefer preview to Adobe Acrobat for reading PDFs.

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
  8. Please by captnitro · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Let's do away with the files/folders/desktop/dialogs metaphor and system. It's served us well, but I'd really like to see a groundbreaking way to work with my data. One with an abstracted view system that could, as an example, bridge desktop and network applications, or let me perform actions via the mouse or via speech, or gestures, etc., without having to put any more work into the controller code. ::from back of room:: X11!

    Shut up already! :)

    1. Re:Please by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't want anyone trying to implement a revolutionary new interface metaphor in my daily OS until someone demonstrates one that's actually useful in a research setting somewhere. It's easy to talk about abstracted views and bridging desktop and network applications, but what does that mean?

      As for gestures and speech, OS X has had speech from day one (I don't know anyone who uses it, except one guy who turned it on then tried to give a presentation that way -- hilarious). You can have gestures too, but they don't seem to be very practical. They usually get turned off after the initial wow factor wears off as well.

    2. Re:Please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use a terminal and shell for my file manager you insensitive clod.

    3. Re:Please by westlake · · Score: 1
      Let's do away with the files/folders/desktop/dialogs metaphor and system. It's served us well, but I'd really like to see a groundbreaking way to work with my data.

      if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

    4. Re:Please by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      Let's do away with the files/folders/desktop/dialogs metaphor and system. It's served us well, but I'd really like to see a groundbreaking way to work with my data.
      if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

      Well, throwing it away completely would be a bad idea. There are many ideas there that work well and discarding them would be stupid. At the same time, I think it is long past time to do away with a hierarchical file system.

      It's not that it shouldn't allow you to define hierarchies, but that shouldn't be the only way to go. I'd like a more "node" based system where each node was a file itself, and each node could be the parent to several other nodes. A directory node would simply be a node with no content of its own.

      I do realize that using links you can place files in multiple hierarchies, but does it make sense to sort content that belongs to multiple categories in a hierarchy? Or does it make more sense to simply tag them?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Please by porcupine8 · · Score: 1
      Isn't that kind of what they're trying to do with Spotlight? No more need to organize your files, just keyword them all and use the magic search?

      I've used Spotlight once or twice, but only when I would normally have used Sherlock - when something accidentally got saved to some unknown place. I *like* my neatly-organized heirarchical folders, thank you very much. The reason the metaphor has lived for so long is that it's one that makes sense to many people. If they do try something "revolutionary", I hope they implement it like they did Spotlight - if you like it, you can use it, if you're perfectly happy already, you can ignore it.

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
    6. Re:Please by a.d.trick · · Score: 1

      That's a great idea, but it's not going to happen overnight. The current metaphore has it's downsides, but it's fairly well understood and supported. In order to replace it, a complete overhaul of the system is required and that will require breaking a lot of things. Most importantly it will break a lot of Human Interface Guidelines requiring users to get used the new metaphore.

      Gnome 3 is planning to do something like this, but at the moment they're still planning and brainstorming. If you want more info: google "Topaz Gnome".

    7. Re:Please by master_p · · Score: 1

      Indeed. What is needed is a relational approach to information management. Let the filesystem be there for backwards compatibility but do not make storing data on the filesystem the primary means of storage; instead, augment the file dialog with a 2nd page which proposes a database table to store the data into.

  9. Is this the new theme for iTunes 7? by jZnat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Since iTunes 7 doesn't follow the rest of the Tiger application themes, this might have something to do with that theme. Maybe they're going to make all the apps consistent regardless of use? Or maybe they're going to introduce even more categories to use when designing the UI for your app so that you Windows themers can't copy the OS X theme? :P

    --
    'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    1. Re:Is this the new theme for iTunes 7? by FFFish · · Score: 1

      Maybe they're going to make all the apps consistent regardless of use?

      God, I hope so. I *hate* the inconsistencies.

      Or maybe they're going to introduce even more categories to use when designing the UI for your app so that you Windows themers can't copy the OS X theme?

      Vista is going all Aqua, so it makes perfect sense to upgrade OSX to a new look. Vista has many features first implemented in OS X; the new Leopard release of OS X will have a ton of stuff Vista lacks. The Aqua UI is the "old" look for the "old" OS; thus the need for a "new" UI for the new OS, once again leaving Microsoft playing catch-up.

      Poor ol' Microsoft. Years late, as always.

      --

      --
      Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
    2. Re:Is this the new theme for iTunes 7? by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      Poor ol' Apple. Years late, as always.

      Give me a desktop that actually works, and not one that looks like something out of the Land of Drooling Morons (you know, the same place Vista's Aero Glass and, to a lesser extent, the Fisher-Price motif of XP), and I'm happy. OS X has a terribly unintuitive GUI for anyone who's grown up using a real OS, even if under the hood it actually is a real OS, too.

      OS 9 didn't waste time trying to be pretty. It was a utilitarian, usable GUI on top of a pretty shallow OS. Windows' old-style GUI was similarly utilitarian. And while KDE can look pretty, it comes out-of-the-box clean and clear.

      The only way I'd ever buy a Mac is if I could turn off that bubble-button, whooshing-all-over-the-place nonsense. Steve Jobs is selling a style, and it's about as "deep" as anything coming out of the popular entertainment industry.

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    3. Re:Is this the new theme for iTunes 7? by Cid+Highwind · · Score: 1

      OS X has a terribly unintuitive GUI for anyone who's grown up using a real OS

      I don't think you quite understand what "intuitive" means. (Hint: it's not "emulates the quirks I'm used to")

      --
      0 1 - just my two bits
    4. Re:Is this the new theme for iTunes 7? by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      Perhaps "configurable" is a better term, as "intuitive" means different things to different people.

      I can make my KDE machine look like some Cupertino dogshit if I choose (why I would is beyond me, but the possibility is there). You cannot make your machine function like a real OS.

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
  10. Aqua by El+Lobo · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Aqua is not a perfect UI even if some rabid mac fans would say so. The Mac Os has always had a very elegant UI and UI components. This is the strong point of the system, but the usability of it left much to be desired. MacOS is a pointer oriented system , even if you can use shortcuts for almost everything, it doesn't feel "native".

    The single main menu at the top is a thing that you love or hate, but it can feel very strange to change the focus of the application to just access a menu. Yes, I'm aware of the fact that it's "easier" to just point "right" this way, but it is more complicated and "verbose" as well.

    Hell even the single fact that when you are presented the logon screen, the pointer is on 10,10 and not at screencenter as on Windows, KDE or Gnome is an inconvenient. A little one but just a little thing here and a little thing there does a lot.

    Well, here went my karma again, just like always when a post doesn't screm how perfect Apple is

    --
    It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
    1. Re:Aqua by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      The single main menu at the top is a thing that you love or hate, but it can feel very strange to change the focus of the application to just access a menu.

      You have to do this on Windows too, you know. Even though you can see the menu of another application, when you try to click on it the first time it focuses the app rather than accessing the menu. Now, some Unix window managers (with focus-follows-mouse), on the other hand...

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    2. Re:Aqua by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ... also focus on the window, they just focus on it before you click the button.

      I do wish they'd have an option to duplicate the menu on multiple monitors, but other than that I like it MUCH better than every window having it's own menu.

    3. Re:Aqua by Bastian · · Score: 1

      The single main menu at the top is a thing that you love or hate, but it can feel very strange to change the focus of the application to just access a menu.

      I haven't actually had this problem. On virtually every Mac app I've used, the menubar is global for the whole application, so the only thing you're changing when you switch windows is the document you'll be modifying from that window. Big whoop, I can't think of a single case where the document I want to be working with has not been the document I'm currently working with.

      I'm sure there are some degenerate UI designers who might switch the menu around when you focus/unfocus a particular panel or toolbox, but I've never personally seen this and I'd suggest that blaming the operating system for crappy UI design is not particularly useful.

    4. Re:Aqua by ArcherB · · Score: 0

      On virtually every Mac app I've used, the menubar is global for the whole application, so the only thing you're changing when you switch windows is the document you'll be modifying from that window. Big whoop, I can't think of a single case where the document I want to be working with has not been the document I'm currently working with.

      I've had it happen all the time. Open a word processor and type a doc. Then open an mp3 player, web browser or whatever. Now close the window of whatever second app you opened. Now save your document. You click on file-> *wait, save isn't there*. Why? The word processor is the only thing open, the window is up front! What's the problem?

      The problem is, even though you clicked on the red circle on tool bar, it may not have closed the app you were working with. So even though all you see is your word processor, the tool bar is still from the app you meant to close.

      I worked in a "word processing lab" on campus helping students out. You'd be surprised to know how many could not grasp the fact that the red circle may not close an application and just because you can only see one window does not mean that the top tool bar is the tool bar from that particular application.

      (of course, this was back when we were using system 9, but I don't see any difference with OSX)

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    5. Re:Aqua by Bastian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ah, I see what you're saying. I thought you meant menu changing within an application, not among them.

      I've encountered the same thing. I'd posit that it can be annoying to people who aren't used to it, but it's not necessarily a huge UI failing for OS X, and many people find it useful. Personally, I like that Mac OS makes a distinction between a window and an application; it allows me to declutter my workspace a bit by closing some windows without losing the ability to use their apps, and it allows me to close an app's last window without having to, say, wait for Word to take five eons to relaunch when I decide to open another document. It's not really an instance of Mac OS misbehaving so much as Mac OS not behaving the same way that Windows does - and I don't like the idea that every UI on the planet has to behave like Windows.

      I could see arguing that, if you close the last window of an app, OS X should automatically switch to the next application in the queue. I'd want to see it in practise, though, because I'm not sure whether it would really be more or less confusing to users.

    6. Re:Aqua by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... You're simply too dense to wrap your feeble little brain around the concept that an application can be open without having a window open???

      That would be your problem... not the OS's!

    7. Re:Aqua by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The function of "the red circle on tool bar" is to close the window... not quit the app! And it's on the title bar... not the tool bar!

      There are multiple visual clues that you would not be saving the word processing document in your scenario:

      First, the name of the active application appears right next to the Apple menu. If it's not your word processor, you're not going to be able to save it until you change focus.

      Also, your word processor document appears with it's title bar dimmed. Since it's not in focus, menu actions are not going to act on it!

      You in the role of helping students out is clearly a case of the blind leading the blind!

    8. Re:Aqua by crabbz · · Score: 1

      But on OSX you still have to move the mouse back to the top of the screen to use the menu after focusing the application. On other systems when you move to the other window the menus are right there. I have not used OSX much but I can see where it would seem tedious if you were doing a lot of back-and-forth between application menus. (yes, i know about fitts law.) Of course on windows if you are using the task bar at the bottom to focus windows then you still have to move the mouse back to the menus anyway, so in that case there isn't much difference.

    9. Re:Aqua by Mononoke · · Score: 1
      Hell even the single fact that when you are presented the logon screen, the pointer is on 10,10 and not at screencenter as on Windows, KDE or Gnome is an inconvenient. A little one but just a little thing here and a little thing there does a lot.
      I've never ever used my "pointer" at the logon screen. Simply type the first letter of the user name and hit return. If a password is required the text entry box appears, empty and focused. Enter password, hit return again, and you're logged in.
      --
      NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
    10. Re:Aqua by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The problem is, even though you clicked on the red circle on tool bar, it may not have closed the app you were working with. So even though all you see is your word processor, the tool bar is still from the app you meant to close.

      This is wholly a matter of workflow. Windows users have this problem because on Windows closing a window is the same thing as quitting an application. The two have been tied. To me, that is a design flaw and I'll tell you why. I regularly run applications that have no Window and don't need one. They are only menus and a dock icon. On Windows, this type of application would confuse the crap out of people. Further, I often want to close all the documents in use by an application, but not quit the application. The reason for this is also simple, I don't want to wait for it to load again multitasking us good enough that having it open does not slow down other applications. I think this has also been an issue related to Windows since on Windows users have trained themselves to quit applications not in use, since the multitasking does not handle programs sitting idle in the background very well. It pisses me off when I'm on a Windows box and I close a file only to have reopen the program that just quit because I want to open another file using that same program. This is a common task that Windows application developers hack their way around by creating managing Windows that just sit around as placeholders with nothing in them, or useless features in them that only duplicate functionality of the menus.

      In summary, the "correct" behavior is simply a matter of perspective, but I certainly find the Mac way a lot more useful to me than the Windows way. I prefer separate granular operations rather than tying one behavior to another unrelated task.

      You'd be surprised to know how many could not grasp the fact that the red circle may not close an application and just because you can only see one window does not mean that the top tool bar is the tool bar from that particular application.

      Here's my Win2K counter-anecdote. My father is computer illiterate. He only knows how to get to documents that the application lists as the most recently used ones. He only know how to quit programs by clicking the "X" button. His computer used to regularly slow down until it was unusable and he had to reboot. The reason was not spyware, but hearts. Clicking the "X" closed the game window, but did not quit the application. Windows, however, had no way to easily get to the program again (a bug prevented cmd-tabbing). So I'd stop by and he'd regularly have 10 or more copies of hearts running on his laptop. Teaching him to use the menus proved harder than finding a better hearts game.

      of course, this was back when we were using system 9, but I don't see any difference with OSX

      There is one difference and that is the dock. If you close a window the user will notice the program is still running pretty quickly, since the dock icon remains and is marked as running. Most novice mac users use the dock to start and stop applications. It makes a lot more logical sense, in my opinion, than tying the action to having open windows.

    11. Re:Aqua by Trillan · · Score: 1

      What I find funny about this is that I have seen dozens of requests for a top menu bar option in Gnome. I've even seen patches to implement it. We're not talking a period of months, either, but years and years. If the menu bar location really is a "love it or hate it" thing (and keeping it attached to windows is not a pseudo-religious FUD "we're not Apple!" thing), where's that option? It's probably the most requested feature for Gnome. I'm sure KDE is the same.

    12. Re:Aqua by iroll · · Score: 1

      If I had points, I'd mod you down for the snide comment at the end. You turned an otherwise excellent post into a whine.

      Well-thought criticism is frequently modded up, regardless of how cliched the "apple fanbois" are supposed to be here.

      --
      Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
    13. Re:Aqua by toddhisattva · · Score: 1
      Hell even the single fact that when you are presented the logon screen, the pointer is on 10,10 and not at screencenter as on Windows, KDE or Gnome is an inconvenient. A little one but just a little thing here and a little thing there does a lot.


      The screen center is a busy place and the pointer might not be easily visible there.
    14. Re:Aqua by amliebsch · · Score: 1
      You have to do this on Windows too, you know. Even though you can see the menu of another application, when you try to click on it the first time it focuses the app rather than accessing the menu.

      Did you actually try this before you posted that "fact?" Unless the app was specifically designed to capture the focus click (e.g., MS Office and Visual Studio, for reasons unknown), it will focus the window AND drop the menu with one click. That's the standard default behavior.

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    15. Re:Aqua by Cid+Highwind · · Score: 1

      If the menu bar location really is a "love it or hate it" thing (and keeping it attached to windows is not a pseudo-religious FUD "we're not Apple!" thing), where's that option? It's probably the most requested feature for Gnome. I'm sure KDE is the same.

      The option is there in KDE.

      --
      0 1 - just my two bits
    16. Re:Aqua by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Just about everybody I know who uses a Mac uses Command-Tab to switch application focus, or they have it mapped to a mouse button.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    17. Re:Aqua by Trillan · · Score: 1

      Awesome! I'm switching when I get home. Thanks.

    18. Re:Aqua by An+anonymous+Frank · · Score: 1

      Actually, you can close a (child window) in Windows without closing the application.

      What is really missing, good or bad, is an "x" button on the application itself, as in, if I want to quit the application, I need to call the "Quit" function, however I chose to do that.

    19. Re:Aqua by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      So... You're simply too dense to wrap your feeble little brain around the concept that an application can be open without having a window open???

      That would be your problem... not the OS's!


      No, that would be the problem of the 200+ English majors that used the lab. You know, Liberal Arts Majors, the kind that Apple markets to. Personally, I got it. No big deal. The problem came with the students to couldn't save a paper after opening Netscape to research their topic.

      No wonder you posted as AC. It's one thing not RTFA'ing, but to not read a post you are responding to... You're a moron!

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    20. Re:Aqua by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you, but I just don't tend to go back-and-forth between applications that often -- and certainly not while trying to use the menus in each. Also, you have to remember that (in addition to CMD-Tab, as the other reply mentioned), there's also Exposé and such.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    21. Re:Aqua by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      The function of "the red circle on tool bar" is to close the window... not quit the app! And it's on the title bar... not the tool bar!

      There are multiple visual clues that you would not be saving the word processing document in your scenario:

      First, the name of the active application appears right next to the Apple menu. If it's not your word processor, you're not going to be able to save it until you change focus.

      Also, your word processor document appears with it's title bar dimmed. Since it's not in focus, menu actions are not going to act on it!

      You in the role of helping students out is clearly a case of the blind leading the blind!


      Try explaining focus to a 45 yr old English major who you just taught how to hold the mouse (she was holding it upside down, with the cord coming out near her wrists, pressing the button with the bottom of her palm). Seeing that with my help, she got her paper typed, printed and saved to her network folder as well as a floppy with an hour (most of that actual typing time), I think I served my students quite well, thank you very much!

      My point is that this is not intuitive to the demographic that Apple markets to. These are supposed to be powerful, flexible, easy to use and intuitive machines. When MSWork is the only app I see on the screen, how come when I click on file, it's Safari's menu? I get it, but a first time computer user has no idea what focus and application switching means.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    22. Re:Aqua by drakken33 · · Score: 1

      I like it how it is now. If I'm working on a text file in TextEdit and I click the close button on the current TextEdit window it doesn't mean I want to stop using TextEdit. If I did I'd probably quit the whole app.

      I think that users of other systems equate the window with the app. I like that an OS X app can have no windows open but still be the current app. I'm used to it but it's very different to Windows so I can imagine some people having problems with it.

      --
      Andy.
    23. Re:Aqua by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I stand corrected then.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    24. Re:Aqua by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Windows has basically two kinds of windows, application windows (each of which shows up as a button in the taskbar, and you can alt-tab between them) and document windows (which can only exist within an application window, and can usually be manipulated via the application's Window menu, and if I remember correctly, you can ctrl-tab between them). Many apps no longer use document windows at all, and the ones that do usually downplay them, so only power users are even aware of such a thing - for example, if you open two MS Word documents, Word will normally open each of them in a separate application window, with each application window containing one maximized document window.

      The problem with this is, since the UI treats each application window the same, and each application is likely to have multiple application windows open (with one document displayed in each), you can't really group documents together, or switch between documents within an application, or switch between applications without regard for how many documents are open within each application. Microsoft tried to work around this problem in Windows XP by grouping application windows shared by the same application together into a single taskbar button, but (if all windows are maximized, as is often the case on Windows) this means you can no longer see what you have open without clicking on something.

      In contrast, on Mac OS X, each application has a single shared menubar at the top of the screen, and there are no application windows, only document windows (which aren't constrained inside of anything). You can switch between applications with Cmd-Tab, switch between documents within an application with Cmd-`, temporarily show every document window in the current application side-by-side (and scaled down to fit on the screen if necessary) with F10, hide the current application with Cmd-H (this is a relatively new keyboard shortcut that conflicts with some existing application-defined shortcuts, so doesn't work reliably from the keyboard, but the menu option is always there), hide everything but the current application with Cmd-Opt-H (ditto), or hide the current application as you switch to another one by option-clicking. Closing windows is done by Cmd-W, and quitting the application is Cmd-Q. There's a nifty shortcut if you want to quit several applications - as you switch between applications with Cmd-Tab, press Q while still holding the Cmd key, and it'll quit whichever app was selected, without interrupting your Cmd-Tab switching.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    25. Re:Aqua by toddestan · · Score: 1

      If you watch a computer novice use a Mac, or just anyone who is not used to the Mac - you'll notice that the vast majority of them have lots of application open without realizing it, as they think when they can't see the application, that it must be gone. They then wonder why their computer is running so slow. The Mac behavior is actually counter-intuitive to most people I have watched used them. The Dock improves this a bit, but most people don't connect a small, black triangle to the program open and hogging memory.

      And Windows does allow for applications to not take up space on the task bar, and to stay open when the last window is closed. They can sit in the system tray too, which is intended mostly for applications that are to be running all the time. While this is very commonly abused (even by Apple), on my Windows computer, my mp3 player, IM client, firewall, virus scanner, and BOINC all reside there without cluttering the taskbar and can stay open even when I've closed all visible windows on my desktop.

    26. Re:Aqua by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

      Lots of apps cause OS X to slow down?

      Not since the earliest days of OS X (and I'm not so sure about that either). Unused apps soon go to sleep and sit there with no appreciable processor time (looks like 0.00% in top) and are paged out of physical memory completely. They don't impact performance in any way.

      If the user launches a document or switches into the app, it pages back into RAM very quickly.

      Sounds like you're thinking about pre-OS X behaviour to me.

    27. Re:Aqua by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      On Windows, this type of application would confuse the crap out of people.

      In Windows, this type of application tends to be either run in a service, minimise to a tray icon or simply display a small window (and is extremely uncommon, in any event).

      Further, I often want to close all the documents in use by an application, but not quit the application. The reason for this is also simple, I don't want to wait for it to load again multitasking us good enough that having it open does not slow down other applications. I think this has also been an issue related to Windows since on Windows users have trained themselves to quit applications not in use, since the multitasking does not handle programs sitting idle in the background very well.

      IME Windows multitasks much better than OS X does. Firstly because OS X is so sluggish to begin with - and adding more running apps just makes it worse - that interacting with multiple tasks is discouraged, and secondly because the task-switching UI - particularly historically - isn't as good. Expose certainly added a dramatic improvement on previous versions (and cleverly hides some of the sluggishness with flashy graphics), but it becomes difficult to use with numbers of windows in the double digits, especially if they are similar (eg: terminals) or screen resolution is relatively low (a problem with most Macs).

      Interestingly (with regards to your comment) while Microsoft was doing UI research for Vista, they found that Windows users tend to "multitask" - that is, run more stuff at once - more than Mac users did. They also tended to switch between tasks more frequently. This was outlined in the Vista GUI blog that was linked from Slashdot a month or two ago. It also mirrors my experience, both as a user and observer and, in my opinion and experience, it's because Windows simply handles multitasking better and has done so for much longer. I certainly know that every Mac I've ever used has choked up under the sort of multitasking load and usage pattern even my old dual P3 could handle (running Windows or Linux). My 1Ghz iBook can't even handle as much stuff simultaneously as a Compaq 500Mhz P3 notebook, despite having ~30% more RAM and easily twice the raw processing power (although, obviously, individual processing-intesive tasks are much faster).

      It pisses me off when I'm on a Windows box and I close a file only to have reopen the program that just quit because I want to open another file using that same program.

      If you're immediately reopening an application it should be essentially instantaneous, since all the relevant data will still be cached - unless your machine is memory starved.

      This is a common task that Windows application developers hack their way around by creating managing Windows that just sit around as placeholders with nothing in them, or useless features in them that only duplicate functionality of the menus.

      What applications do this ? I can't think of any off the top of my head, so I highly doubt it's a "common task that Windows application developers hack their way around".

      There is one difference and that is the dock. If you close a window the user will notice the program is still running pretty quickly, since the dock icon remains and is marked as running. Most novice mac users use the dock to start and stop applications. It makes a lot more logical sense, in my opinion, than tying the action to having open windows.

      The Dock's indication of what is and isn't a running program is, IMHO, far too subtle. Certainly many novice users I know (including my parents) have trouble with it. Of course, IMHO the Dock as a whole is a UI train wreck, and a significant step backwards from the equivalent UI in MacOS Classic, and especially Windows. Certainly looks cool, though.

    28. Re:Aqua by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      "The single main menu at the top is a thing that you love or hate, but it can feel very strange to change the focus of the application to just access a menu. Yes, I'm aware of the fact that it's "easier" to just point "right" this way, but it is more complicated and "verbose" as well."

      You mean "used to be easier" back when every application was maximized on a small screen. With today's screens it just produces exaggerated mouse movements. Furthermore, there's nothing more infuriating than missing the menu and causing the app to lose focus (thus resulting in the menus disappearing). The top menu deserves a place right along the one-button mouse in the UI hall of shame.

      As someone who uses multiple OSes, I'm constantly amazed at the clickiness and large amounts of mouse travel required in OS X. The response to that always seems to be that I should use keyboard shortcuts, but that ignores the fact that the UI shouldn't motivate me to seek alternatives (and, of course, that OS X's competitors do keyboard shortcuts just as effectively). Shouldn't the world's best GUI not infuriate you into avoiding the mouse?

    29. Re:Aqua by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      What you describe I find infuriating, and it's made even worse by the fact that some mac apps actually do close when you click the "red circle". Absolutely awful (as is the global menu catastrophe in general).

    30. Re:Aqua by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      "I'd posit that it can be annoying to people who aren't used to it, but it's not necessarily a huge UI failing for OS X, and many people find it useful."

      It would be hard to argue that it's intuitive; odd coming from a company that prides itself on its intuitive designs. Whether it's ultimately a good design depends on how often its behavior benefits you versus gets in your way. It seems that the primary benefit is reducing restart times (which can be accomplished without the burden of a nonintuitive UI). Frankly, I think it's crazy.

    31. Re:Aqua by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      f you watch a computer novice use a Mac, or just anyone who is not used to the Mac - you'll notice that the vast majority of them have lots of application open without realizing it, as they think when they can't see the application, that it must be gone.

      The same is true on any OS. The question is do you remove functionality under the assumption they don't know what they're doing, or leave the functionality and design the system to teach them.

      They then wonder why their computer is running so slow.

      I take it you don't use a Mac regularly. I have 14 applications open right now, including three that are enormous resource hogs (Photoshop and Parallels). Even with a full version of Windows running in a VM, sitting in the background, my programs are responsive because OS X has pretty reasonable multitasking for the desktop. I don't even bother to quit my big applications when I go to LAN parties, something that always astounds the Windows only players.

      And Windows does allow for applications to not take up space on the task bar, and to stay open when the last window is closed. They can sit in the system tray too, which is intended mostly for applications that are to be running all the time.

      The system tray has always been a hack. Basically some programs that are open all the time took up too much space in the taskbar, so those applications were given smaller icons that behave differently. It is a UI disaster. So what about programs you don't want to run all the time, but that don't need any Windows to function? We all know how this is commonly handled, by creating a useless Window to get around the limitation. It also is used as a hack to avoid the problem of users who want to close a document and then open a new one in the same application. In fact, Windows tends to keep programs loaded in memory as another hack under the assumption that people do this, rather than fixing the problem. Others train themselves to always open a second document before closing the first one, resulting in systems needing more memory so they don't bog down when this is done for large files.

    32. Re:Aqua by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      In Windows, this type of application tends to be either run in a service, minimise to a tray icon or simply display a small window (and is extremely uncommon, in any event).

      Services are no good if there is user interaction. I'm talking about applications. Tray icons are a hack and confuse most users to no end. They don't behave as users expect and don't have any way to provide the normal menus. Small windows are the common hack used to get around this problem. I've seen plenty of programs that have small, useless windows that take up space but are otherwise useless. So yeah, there are ways to work around the problem, but they are just nasty UI hacks.

      IME Windows multitasks much better than OS X does.

      I wish that were the case, but it just isn't so. I've seen numbers that indicate it might handle CPU sharing as well or better, but in the real world with disk and memory and other bottlenecks I've never seen Windows win in a head-to-head competition. One of the reasons macs are so popular among graphic professionals is if you're drawing a line on an OS X system it is unlikely that a background application will ever take enough resources to make the mouse input be ignored by the system or not displayed with the cursor. This is a common occurrence on Windows systems. Maybe this will be fixed with Vista as I have not tested it extensively yet, but for WinXP, Win2K and earlier this is certainly the case.

      Firstly because OS X is so sluggish to begin with - and adding more running apps just makes it worse - that interacting with multiple tasks is discouraged, and secondly because the task-switching UI - particularly historically - isn't as good.

      Your first statement is not supported by the benchmarks I've seen. Both OS X and Windows are faster at different tasks with different applications. Now that both run on the same hardware, this is even more apparent. As for switching applications, it is better right now on OS X than it is on WinXP and historically, it has been a draw depending upon your workflow and experience. For people using the mouse as their switching mechanism, OS X is a clear win. For people using the keyboard, OS X was behind up until a couple of years ago when they extended the keyboarding and now, it is maybe a bit behind for novices and a bit ahead for power users.

      Expose certainly added a dramatic improvement on previous versions (and cleverly hides some of the sluggishness with flashy graphics), but it becomes difficult to use with numbers of windows in the double digits, especially if they are similar (eg: terminals) or screen resolution is relatively low (a problem with most Macs).

      It works fine for me with 68 windows open right now on a 17" CRT and a 13" laptop display. My terminals are color coded to make picking them out child's play. As for screen resolutions, I don't even generally use the highest available on my displays and I don't think most people with normal vision do. In any case, since the soon to be released Leopard version of OS X is resolution independent you can stop bitching about that one.

      Interestingly (with regards to your comment) while Microsoft was doing UI research for Vista, they found that Windows users tend to "multitask" - that is, run more stuff at once - more than Mac users did.

      That is interesting, but given the UI's that come out of MS I'm not sure they are a credible source of info, especially in regard to their largest "competitor."

      ...it's because Windows simply handles multitasking better and has done so for much longer...

      Nice assertion. How many programs do you have open right now? I have 12, one of which being an entire Windows install running in a VM and an entire Linux install also running in a VM. And yet, I don't notice any slowdown in using resource intensive Adobe applications. How come every time I go to a LAN party all the Windows users quit all their other programs before gaming? How come they always look sho

    33. Re:Aqua by GauteL · · Score: 1

      "MacOS is a pointer oriented system , even if you can use shortcuts for almost everything, it doesn't feel "native"."

      Windows, Gnome and KDE are all pointer oriented systems. How are the shortcuts for things any less "native" in OS X than in these systems?

      Almost every menu item in OS X has a keyboard shortcut written right next to it.

      There are plenty of things to complain about when it comes to OS X, but there are a lot less of these niggling issues than you find in either of the systems you mention.

      Windows for instance.

      1. How about the Start button in the classic interface being two pixels above the screen edge, so that it violates Fitt's law?

      2. Every program installs itself into an awfully messy directory structure $COMPANY NAME\$PRODUCT, despite the fact that you only have one product from most companies. You have to navigate through no less than FIVE submenus for a typical program (START->Applications->Company->Program->Executable ) just to get to most applications. OS X on average is three (Finder->Applications->Program) steps (and it is less if you drop the Application folder down into the dock), and this is not some flimsy submenu that you can easily drop out of if you miss with the mouse, or if some application does something while you try to navigate. This whole menu structure is also very much "non native" as it is only shortcuts to applications and not the applications themselves. This leads on to ....

      3. Deleting a program requires going into the control center and using an uninstall system that definitely feels slapped on top of the operating system like an afterthought. In OS X on the other hand you simply delete the application using your file manager.

      4. Too many ways of doing everything, which leads to too much GUI and too much complexity. There are probably at least four ways of finding your display settings.

      5. Too many wizards. While OS X mostly tries to make tasks easy by simplifying the GUI, Microsoft slaps a Wizard on top of it, creating even more complexity and ways of doing things. A wizard should be the last resort, not a crutch for not being able to create a sane dialog. Apple is guilty of this in one application afaics, namely Mail.app, which has a startup wizard that you can not skip (Doh!).

    34. Re:Aqua by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Services are no good if there is user interaction. I'm talking about applications. Tray icons are a hack and confuse most users to no end. They don't behave as users expect and don't have any way to provide the normal menus. Small windows are the common hack used to get around this problem. I've seen plenty of programs that have small, useless windows that take up space but are otherwise useless. So yeah, there are ways to work around the problem, but they are just nasty UI hacks.

      I must admit I'm struggling to see what type of application you're talking about that needs user interaction, but can't justify a small window to put it in. It's not like Windows or OS X aren't already rife with these sort of "applets", nor that they violate existing UI guidelines.

      I wish that were the case, but it just isn't so.

      Well, I wish OS X was as fast and responsive to use as Windows, so I could use it full time without becoming frustrated - but it just isn't so.

      I've seen numbers that indicate it might handle CPU sharing as well or better, but in the real world with disk and memory and other bottlenecks I've never seen Windows win in a head-to-head competition.

      What "competitions" are you talking about ? Windows runs on much, much bigger systems than any version of OS X does and has been doing it for a lot longer. That alone, suggests it is more mature at utilising hardware resources and scaling to them. Heck, it's only in the latest versions that OS X has _started_ to implement fine-grained locking in the kernel (and is not even close to completing it). From a scalability perspective, OS X would barely be on par with Windows 2000.

      One of the reasons macs are so popular among graphic professionals is if you're drawing a line on an OS X system it is unlikely that a background application will ever take enough resources to make the mouse input be ignored by the system or not displayed with the cursor. This is a common occurrence on Windows systems. Maybe this will be fixed with Vista as I have not tested it extensively yet, but for WinXP, Win2K and earlier this is certainly the case.

      Can't say I've ever experienced it, but then again I rarely draw lines with the mouse. Nor do most graphics professionals I've ever met, either, they use graphics tablets.

      Mac users have been complaining about Windows's mouse tracking for a couple of decades now. Personally, I think it's just the different methods in mouse acceleration rather than any real problem.

      Your first statement is not supported by the benchmarks I've seen.

      What cross-platform benchmark measures UI responsiveness ?

      Both OS X and Windows are faster at different tasks with different applications. Now that both run on the same hardware, this is even more apparent. As for switching applications, it is better right now on OS X than it is on WinXP and historically, it has been a draw depending upon your workflow and experience.

      I find Windows far more efficient for my usage pattern, which is lots of separate windows being switched between relatively frequently.

      For people using the mouse as their switching mechanism, OS X is a clear win. For people using the keyboard, OS X was behind up until a couple of years ago when they extended the keyboarding and now, it is maybe a bit behind for novices and a bit ahead for power users.

      Er, no. Task switching in OS X via the keyboard is demonstrably slower because it requires multiple key combinations to do so. You're either using Cmd+` to move between two windows in the same application (same as Windows) or you have to use Cmd+Tab to move to the right application, then potentially Cmd+` to move to the right window. In Windows, it's a single key combination.

      OS X's UI is application-centric. It's designed with the assumption that users will spend relatively large amounts of time using a single application, possibly interacting with multiple documents within that application, and

    35. Re:Aqua by toddestan · · Score: 1

      The same is true on any OS. The question is do you remove functionality under the assumption they don't know what they're doing, or leave the functionality and design the system to teach them.

      I guess it depends on what you are aiming for - Macs are supposed to be intuitive and easy to use, and this behavior clashes with that idea. This is something more I would expect from Linux or similar - if you want the application to do X, then click here. If you want it to do Y, then click there. If you want it to do Z, then right click there, etc. Great for power users, confusing for novices.

      I take it you don't use a Mac regularly. I have 14 applications open right now, including three that are enormous resource hogs (Photoshop and Parallels). Even with a full version of Windows running in a VM, sitting in the background, my programs are responsive because OS X has pretty reasonable multitasking for the desktop. I don't even bother to quit my big applications when I go to LAN parties, something that always astounds the Windows only players.

      Sounds like you have a pretty short term memory. It's mid-2005, and Apple's base model system came with a 1.25Ghz processor, 256MB of memory, and a 4200RPM harddrive. Even doing one thing at a time, a stock Mac Mini was slow. 14 applications open at once, and the poor thing would be unusable. Apple's entire line of laptops weren't much better. Like OSX, Windows runs pretty well if you throw enough hardware at it.

      The system tray has always been a hack. Basically some programs that are open all the time took up too much space in the taskbar, so those applications were given smaller icons that behave differently. It is a UI disaster. So what about programs you don't want to run all the time, but that don't need any Windows to function? We all know how this is commonly handled, by creating a useless Window to get around the limitation. It also is used as a hack to avoid the problem of users who want to close a document and then open a new one in the same application.

      It may seem like a hack, but I don't see what Windows would do otherwise with an application like Word with no documents. I guess now that Office sports ribbons, I guess you could just have a few ribbons sitting out there in space looking silly. And speaking of UI trainwrecks, that pretty much sums up the program menu being at the top of the main display in these days of 20"+ monitors and dual head computers. Why should I have to travel completely accross my screen, or even to a completely different monitor to interact with a program that the mouse is already over? I don't see why Apple sticks with a model that was designed for a 9" screen. Atleast the Windows model, the menu is right there.

      It also is used as a hack to avoid the problem of users who want to close a document and then open a new one in the same application. In fact, Windows tends to keep programs loaded in memory as another hack under the assumption that people do this, rather than fixing the problem. Others train themselves to always open a second document before closing the first one, resulting in systems needing more memory so they don't bog down when this is done for large files.

      I don't see it as a big problem - keeping a closed application in memory so long as something else doesn't need is smart memory management - there is no point in simply wiping the memory for the sake of it. I've found that Windows' memory management actually works quite well for 256-512MB systems, though it does fall apart for 1GB+ systems. I'm also not aware of anyone who opens a 2nd document before closing the first one - anyone who made a habit of that would probably quickly discover that it's actually slower to do so - though I'm sure there are some out there.

    36. Re:Aqua by LMariachi · · Score: 1
      "Distance of mouse travel" doesn't correspond directly to the difficulty of making that move. I find it much easier to "kick" the mouse all the way to the top and then move left or right to the desired menu than to carefully move the pointer to a precise spot, even if that spot is closer. Admittedly, this might have something to do with the way I use a mouse -- usually only touching with the thumbtip on the left and the ring and pinkie tips on the right, and little or no palm contact. Someone who grasps it with his entire hand may have a different experience.

      there's nothing more infuriating than missing the menu and causing the app to lose focus (thus resulting in the menus disappearing). The top menu deserves a place right along the one-button mouse in the UI hall of shame.

      What are you talking about? You can't miss a top menubar. I mean, I suppose you could, but you'd have to be subhumanly clumsy. And if you miss the specific menu you were going for, you don't lose focus, you get visual feedback in the form of the wrong menu popping down, feedback you can use to navigate to the correct menu. (It doesn't even take any extra clicks, as once the wrong menu has been opened, you just move left or right and the adjacent menus open automatically.)

    37. Re:Aqua by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Windows runs on much, much bigger systems than any version of OS X does and has been doing it for a lot longer. That alone, suggests it is more mature at utilising hardware resources and scaling to them.

      Well, if you've never read a book about logic, maybe it does.

      Can't say I've ever experienced it, but then again I rarely draw lines with the mouse. Nor do most graphics professionals I've ever met, either, they use graphics tablets.

      It applies to all cursor controls I've used mice, tablets, trackballs, pads, joysticks, even. If you haven't run into this, I can't imagine you've ever done graphics work.

      Mac users have been complaining about Windows's mouse tracking for a couple of decades now. Personally, I think it's just the different methods in mouse acceleration rather than any real problem.

      Yeah everyone is making it up because we're all part of a conspiracy... that's it. Anyone who has done graphics work on a Windows box and on Mac OS has probably run into this. A lot of Windows users get shoved in front of a mac, use it for a while, and then realize the problem they learned to live with was not an inherent flaw in all devices but a Windows bug that has never been fixed. Or it's all some form of mass hallucination, you pick the more likely one.

      What cross-platform benchmark measures UI responsiveness ?

      I didn't know you were referring specifically to UI responsiveness, but actually I remember seeing something (at arstechnica I think) a while back that did just that on a macbook running Windows then OS X.

      Er, no. Task switching in OS X via the keyboard is demonstrably slower because it requires multiple key combinations to do so. You're either using Cmd+` to move between two windows in the same application (same as Windows) or you have to use Cmd+Tab to move to the right application, then potentially Cmd+` to move to the right window. In Windows, it's a single key combination.

      Hahahaha! That is why it is better for power users. You see for larger numbers of windows, picking the application then the windows results in many fewer key presses and UI interactions. Think 10 applications each with 10 windows. To get from app 1 window 1, to app 5 window 5, with windows you have 50 key presses. To get there in OS X you have 10 key presses (5 to get to the right app, then 5 to get to the right window). This only applies to larger numbers of windows and has a lower learnability than the Windows version. For power users who do it a lot, changing the key you press is not really any slower but pushing it an addition 40 times is.

      It's also designed to be easily and efficiently (and completely) usable from the keyboard.

      This is sadly, not true. Because of the default setup of two button mice, it is common to find Windows applications that only have functionality within a contextual menu, not within the regular menus. As a result, those functions are unavailable to keyboard only users, and often to people using other input devices, like braille boards, styluses, etc. I know of only one application on OS X that has functions only in a contextual menu, and that application is a pro-grade ray tracing suite that is probably impossible to use without a mouse and fine motor control.

      Windows fell behind in this battle years ago.

      I find that difficult - nay, impossible - to believe. My standard desktop is two 21" LCDs @ 1600x1200, an environment in which I've used OS X fairly frequently, and I find it gets cluttered and difficult at 20 - 30 windows.

      Have you considered a decent amount of RAM? Today I only have 46 windows open, still no problem with expose handling them smoothly.

      It's got nothing to do with resolution independence in the OS, it's the fact that Macs traditionally have *physical display devices* only capable of relatively low resolutions, due to their past presence in publishing and a fixation on 72 dpi.

      I see. Let me help you. You plug the same moni

    38. Re:Aqua by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Well, if you've never read a book about logic, maybe it does.

      Maybe if you've never read a book about logic, "I've never seen Windows win in a head-to-head competition" carries more weight than "I've seen numbers that indicate it might handle CPU sharing as well or better" as well.

      Simple fact is that Windows has been tuned and developed for much bigger systems than OS X runs on, for much longer. Its current implementation has distinct technical superiorities to OS X's (eg: more fine grained kernel locking, more mature Async I/O) that result in it scaling better.

      It applies to all cursor controls I've used mice, tablets, trackballs, pads, joysticks, even. If you haven't run into this, I can't imagine you've ever done graphics work.

      I haven't, nor did I ever say that I did. I *have*, however, interacted with people who do - and none of them use the mouse for "drawing lines".

      Yeah everyone is making it up because we're all part of a conspiracy... that's it.

      Oh, grow up.

      I didn't say anything about a "conspiracy", I said Mac users have been complaining about Windows's mouse tracking since day dot and *in my opinion* it's because of the different acceleration algorithms the two OSes use. I can relate, since the mouse acceleration in OS X (and Classic) used to annoy the hell out of me as being too slow. Now I just adjust my technique to take advantage of the different acceleration curves, but it's still noticably different for a good hour of use after moving from Windows to OS X.

      A lot of Windows users get shoved in front of a mac, use it for a while, and then realize the problem they learned to live with was not an inherent flaw in all devices but a Windows bug that has never been fixed. Or it's all some form of mass hallucination, you pick the more likely one.

      I use Macs, Windows, Linux and Solaris quite frequently. I have never noticed _any_ "mouse tracking bug" in Windows on the scale you are talking about, compared to other platforms. I *have* noticed that they all have different pointer tracking characteristics, and I *have* noticed people from one platform complain about that - but that's just a matter of adjusting to something different.

      I didn't know you were referring specifically to UI responsiveness, but actually I remember seeing something (at arstechnica I think) a while back that did just that on a macbook running Windows then OS X.

      Well, I'm not sure how else you could interpret the term "sluggish" in the context of multitasking, but that's not really important.

      Ars are good for that sort of thing, but Siracusa tends to only compare to earlier versions of MacOS [Classic], not Windows. Some results from Google, like this one, do not do a lot for supporting any assertion that OS X is faster (although I believe there's recently been some patches that specifically address WoW performance).

      Hahahaha! That is why it is better for power users. You see for larger numbers of windows, picking the application then the windows results in many fewer key presses and UI interactions. Think 10 applications each with 10 windows. To get from app 1 window 1, to app 5 window 5, with windows you have 50 key presses.

      Or one, if it was the last window you used...

      To get there in OS X you have 10 key presses (5 to get to the right app, then 5 to get to the right window). This only applies to larger numbers of windows and has a lower learnability than the Windows version. For power users who do it a lot, changing the key you press is not really any slower but pushing it an addition 40 times is.

      Changing the key is important because it's not just changing the key, it's changing the mental model of what you're doing from "finding the right application" to "finding the right window". In Windows, the cognitive load is lower because you only have to be concerned about "finding the right window" - the applicatio

  11. Running scared! by Otter · · Score: 4, Funny
    Is Jobs scared of Aero?, does it make sense to go for a new UI now?, has Aqua run out of steam?

    Faced with the prospect of being "boring and unoriginal" compared to OLPC vaporware, Steve has decided to one-up the "View Source" button and make XCode the new interface.

    1. Re:Running scared! by LaminatorX · · Score: 3, Funny

      Bah! Emacs users have been doing that for ages.

    2. Re:Running scared! by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Too bad it would only work for Chess and WebKit!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    3. Re:Running scared! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Steve has decided to one-up the "View Source" button and make XCode the new interface.

      Interesting, but I seriously doubt he's going to take his inpiration from Linux.

    4. Re:Running scared! by HAKdragon · · Score: 1

      Ya know, from what I've heard, Emacs is a great OS, it just lacks a good text editor. ;)

      --
      "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs. We have a protractor."
  12. erm by racebit · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Scared of aero? Doubtful. Aqua has been around for awhile, and a gui refresh would be a crowd pleaser. The difference between aero and illuminous is that illuminous won't be the primary reason to upgrade, unlike vista.

  13. Arg?! by jrwr00 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Why? what ever happened to having a UI just simple and clean at the same time, why must they slow down the systems with these next-gen UIs what ever happened to the idea of SVG UIs

    1. Re:Arg?! by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      what ever happened to the idea of SVG UIs

      Hopefully Leopard will have a vector-based UI -- we already know it's going to have a resolution-independent one, and presumably the people at Apple are smart enough to realize that scaling bitmaps all the time would look horrible...

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    2. Re:Arg?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought quartz was postscript for displays?

    3. Re:Arg?! by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Close: it's PDF for displays, which I think means it's a subset of Display Postscript.

      But anyway, that doesn't matter -- all those little buttons (e.g. the close/minimize/zoom ones) and gradients are bitmaps regardless of the fact that they're arranged in a PDF-like way.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    4. Re:Arg?! by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      But anyway, that doesn't matter -- all those little buttons (e.g. the close/minimize/zoom ones) and gradients are bitmaps regardless of the fact that they're arranged in a PDF-like way.

      It would seem like a gradient would be easy to represent with a function, no? The StopLight brothers could be a gradients plus two lights. I'm guessing that's easy to do in OpenGL.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    5. Re:Arg?! by mabinogi · · Score: 1

      You're wanting simple and clean, and don't want slow, but you do want [i]SVG[/i]?
      You want XML in the user interface?

      I have no problem with a vector based user interface, but surely there's better ways of doing it than SVG.
      In fact, I think there's a couple of companies I've heard about that have non SVG vector based user interfaces. One of them was called NeXT, I think the other one starts with A...

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
    6. Re:Arg?! by mabinogi · · Score: 1

      it never fails - forget to preview and end up including bloody UBB tags instead of HTML. Gah.

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
    7. Re:Arg?! by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Well, I think using actual geometry and lighting (especially lighting) would be way overkill just for those, but SVG would be reasonable.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    8. Re:Arg?! by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Well, I think using actual geometry and lighting (especially lighting) would be way overkill just for those, but SVG would be reasonable.

      Oh, c'mon, what fun is gratuitous eye candy if it doesn't tax a GPU? ;)

      I seem to recall that the whole rendering pipeline goes through OpenGL anyway and window shadows are already offloaded onto the GPU.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    9. Re:Arg?! by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Well, you were talking about using an OpenGL light for each "stoplight" button. I don't know if you're aware of this, but OpenGL is only required to support 8 lights total. And for each light you use, you're doubling the number of calculations needed to draw the scene. (By the way, if you're wondering about stuff that appears to have more lights, like Splinter Cell, that all uses hacks -- those aren't really lights.)

      In other words, your suggestion would run unacceptably slow even on SLI GeForce 8800s, if you had more than a couple of windows open. (Okay, so I'm exaggerating... a little.)

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    10. Re:Arg?! by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Well, you were talking about using an OpenGL light for each "stoplight" button.

      Oh, right, that would be tough. I don't think you need two for each button - just for the whole scene. That's what the bitmapped specular highlights on the existing buttons are supposed to simulate, right? If the entire screen had two lights on it and the stoplight buttons were of the appropriate material they should look right... I think.

      You know more about openGL than I do, so I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  14. since when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since when is Aero even competing credibly with Aqua? If anyone should be scared it's Microsoft...

    1. Re:since when... by heinousjay · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Microsoft should be shaking so hard their money has fall off.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
  15. Yo ho ho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Frosty etc etc?

  16. Somehow, I doubt this .... by nbvb · · Score: 1

    There has been way, way too much work poured into Aqua to rip it out from underneath everyone right now.

    Subtle (and not-so-subtle) tweaks I can see, but actual honest-to-goodness UI replacement? That I doubt.

    Now, the Finder on the other hand .... -that- I can see a wholesale replacement of. It needs it.

    1. Re:Somehow, I doubt this .... by lisaparratt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One would imagine the object model and API would stay the same, and just the actual visualisation would change.

    2. Re:Somehow, I doubt this .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're confused. Aqua is nothing but a theme, Quartz [Extreme] is the rendering engine underneath. Replacing Aqua isn't as hard as your post seem to imply. Its actually quite simple, Aqua is nothing more than hand full of pdfs, tiffs and rsrc files.

  17. Allow to keep the old too by failedlogic · · Score: 1

    I only hope that Apple will let me choose which theme I use. Tiger only offers a few themes. I don't relly mind because the current themese are not distracting. If I don't like the new theme, at least offer my Graphite so that I can switch back.

    1. Re:Allow to keep the old too by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't care whether there's one theme or a million themes. What I want is for the user to be able to pick the them rather than the application designer so that everything will use the same one instead of being forced to see fifty different ones at once like Apple does now!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    2. Re:Allow to keep the old too by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      That's one of the things that offends me most about Apple. They don't follow their own guidelines. They don't work to unify the apparance of their OWN applications. And when it's most important to have standards, either they don't exist or they're not followed. Example: I can have three Adobe applications from the same creative suite, and they all have different shortcuts for hide application (one of them has none at all.) Why is this menu option even created/controlled by the application? That should be the same key combination every time. No matter what. The fact that it is not proves that Apple is not serious about interface homogeneity.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Allow to keep the old too by failedlogic · · Score: 1

      I have to agree. I meant to say the same thing only you wrote it more nicely. I don't care much for the fact iTunes 7 looks different than the rest of the UI. But having more consistency in the UI would be nice across all apps. Something like Shapshifter (depending on the theme used), can be really inconsistent and bring some hard to read dialog boxes.

      And for the love of god - if someone at Apple is reading this - please FTFF (fix the Finder ). At the least the Windows Explorer shortcut keys and folder organization is better than Finder (at least for Win2k don't know on Vista).

    4. Re:Allow to keep the old too by dr.badass · · Score: 1

      The fact that it is not proves that Apple is not serious about interface homogeneity.

      I think the fact that they're called "Human Interface Guidelines" and not "Human Interface Rules" is enough to show that homogeneity was never the purpose. I don't think anywhere in the HIG it is stated "There is never any reason to do anything differently. We have thought of everything." In fact, I'm pretty sure it uses the word "should" quite a bit more than "must".

      That should be the same key combination every time. No matter what.

      Not even when doing to would incur the wrath of thousands of Photoshop users who have been using Cmd-H for years as something else?
      Not even when people insane about consistency that apparently do a lot of hiding when they use CS can just use Cmd-Shift-Opt-K and change the keyboard shortcuts themselves?

      --
      Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
    5. Re:Allow to keep the old too by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      Example: I can have three Adobe applications from the same creative suite, and they all have different shortcuts for hide application (one of them has none at all.) Why is this menu option even created/controlled by the application?

      First of all, that's Adobe's problem -- if they'd used the defaults, the shortcut would be CMD-H. Second, Apple lets the developer have the ability to change it because it's possible that he might actually have a good reason for deviating from the default.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    6. Re:Allow to keep the old too by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      Apple lets the developer have the ability to change it because it's possible that he might actually have a good reason for deviating from the default.

      Yeah! If an application developer wants to confuse users, they should be able to do that!

      As much as I hate to say it, Windows provides a consistent way to do this. Why can't Apple? Even if it has to be a wacky key combination, give me SOME key shortcut to CONSISTENTLY hide applications. Why is it so hard? If Cmd-H doesn't work as a default, perhaps they could have picked something that does.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Allow to keep the old too by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I hate to break it to you, but Windows developers can override the defaults too (and yes, CMD-H is an Apple-provided default -- if you program nothing, your app can still hide). Hell, Microsoft is almost as bad as Apple in terms of breaking their own guidelines -- just look at Windows Media Player or Office!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  18. Illuminous by jimmichie · · Score: 5, Funny

    Surely you mean iLuminous.

    Anyway, how about a weekly round-up of Apple rumours rather than individual stories?

    1. Re:Illuminous by CptNerd · · Score: 1

      That was iLarious...

      --
      By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
    2. Re:Illuminous by oofoe · · Score: 1

      Anyway, how about a weekly round-up of Apple rumours rather than individual stories? Could we have a weekly round-up of Apple users instead?

      ;-)
      --
      Curse you plastic mold maker!
    3. Re:Illuminous by Daath · · Score: 1

      What can I say? iAgree!

      --
      Any technology distinguishable from magic, is insufficiently advanced.
  19. scared of aero. ha. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i think most anyone who follows the mac platform closely could have told you that a new UI was coming soon. apple has made fairly large UI updates every 5-6 years. the current version of OS X has a mish-mash of UI conventions introduced as X was refined, and looking both at the apple preview site for leopard and the refined itunes 7 UI, which is always a bellwether for OS level changes an updated UI was always in the cards.

    jobs' "top secret" comment at the WWDC confirmed, for me at least, we were going to see not only a new look, but also some fancy new effects. (hopefully fancy as in expose and spaces, not fancy as in genie effects).

    aero isn't a bad UI, it's sort of a natural progression of aqua, but as with lots of microsoft creations it's a very surface level copy. sure there are neat glossy effects and transparency, but look at the internal window layout and typography; it's anemic, simplistic and not very attractive at all. for most people those small little details won't matter, but it's those small little details that separate great design from good design. it's why driving a bmw feels better than driving a ford - attention to detail.

  20. Blind guess by hcdejong · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Given that the job posting talks about nothing more than 'enhancements' to Aqua, we seem to have basically no data to go by.

    Apart from that, I do think it's time for Apple to revisit Aqua. Not for a pointless 'replace it with another theme to keep up with Aero' exercise, though. The OS X UI needs a more fundamental redesign, to improve the way we interact with our data. The Finder is one app in dire need of an update.

  21. Resolution independence is the new game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My bet is that Apple is shooting for true resolution independence, which Aqua can't provide at this moment. Given the power that your average ATI or (proprietary) Nvidia card provides a full OpenGL desktop is the next step.

    Microsoft? They're 5 years behind Apple and FOSS offerings.

    Glass

    1. Re:Resolution independence is the new game by Oliver+Defacszio · · Score: 1

      They're 5 years behind Apple...

      Yes.

      ... and FOSS

      No.

      ... offerings.

      --

      -
      Inventor of the term 'pardon my French'.
  22. Is Jobs scared of Aero? by pubjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is Jobs scared of Aero?

    From what I can see, quite the opposite.

    Apple is I believe going to launch the next version of OSX at the same time as the public starts to get its hands on Vista. Vista is just catching up with OSX in terms of interface. It will really piss on Microsoft's fire if the "Joe Public" press review the next version of OSX at the same time as Vista and conclude that OSX is better - from a PR perspective that will be a disaster for Microsoft because it will make their claims about how Vista is the greatest OS ever much weaker. (Keep in mind that Microsoft has not yet started its marketing bandwagon rolling for Vista).

    1. Re:Is Jobs scared of Aero? by cowscows · · Score: 1

      That's exactly it. Apple definitely sets the bar in regards to style and computers. MS is just making a serious effort to catch up with OSX in terms of visuals, is anyone surprised that Steve Jobs is going to move the bar again?

      And although Apple has moved on from the "Think Different" campaign, they still want to be easily distinguishable from Windows. I expect that this next update will have some significant functional UI changes, but even if they didn't have any of those ready to go, it'd probably benefit them just to change the visual look of OS X, in order to differentiate it from everything else.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    2. Re:Is Jobs scared of Aero? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I love mac fanboys. You sit their circle jerking that mac os is so superior.
      Soon joe public will chose macos after all 2007 is the year of the linux desktop!

  23. Aqua is Ambiguous by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 0, Redundant

    The term "aqua" is used by different people to refer to different bits of OS X. In this case it seems they were using it to refer to the look and feel of the UI. Since Leopard includes a resolution independent UI and taking advantage of that requires vector graphics for elements and also may warrant some other changes to take advantage of this feature, it is almost a given that Apple will update the look and feel along with the new graphics, rather than creating vector version of the old ones.

  24. Want Finder improvements by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The Finder is the one thing I would like to see improvements in. For example rewriting it to be a Cocoa app and actually being smarter at noticing file changes, especially with SMB volumes. There is no f5 (refresh key on Windows), so I don't want to have to wait a minute until it notices.

    One other thing I would love to see, related to AppleShare volumes: server side folder size calculation, since it would be easier to cache and reduce unecessary network traffic because the client wouldn't be interogating each and every file.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    1. Re:Want Finder improvements by Michael+Odell · · Score: 1

      I believe Command-R will refresh the contents of Finder windows. I'm not near my mac at the moment, so I can't verify, but give it a shot!

    2. Re:Want Finder improvements by megabulk3000 · · Score: 4, Informative
      Here's an AppleScript which acts like a "refresh" button:

      try
          tell application "Finder" to update items of front window
      end try
      compile it, save it in one of your Scripts folders, and make the AppleScript menulet visible. You could probably also use Butler or QuickKeys or Quicksilver to assign a keyboard shortcut to it.

      HTH
    3. Re:Want Finder improvements by HAKdragon · · Score: 0

      There is no f5 (refresh key on Windows)

      Refresh on OS X is CMD+R

      --
      "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs. We have a protractor."
    4. Re:Want Finder improvements by EricTheGreen · · Score: 1

      Agreed on the Finder. I wouldn't hold my breath on a Cocoa port for Leopard, given that they just got the Quartz API's to a stable state in Tiger. I don't think they'll be able to get Cocoa-based performance near enough to the current Carbon-based one in one release. I'd love to be wrong, though.

    5. Re:Want Finder improvements by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      The Finder is the one thing I would like to see improvements in. For example rewriting it to be a Cocoa app and actually being smarter at noticing file changes, especially with SMB volumes. There is no f5 (refresh key on Windows), so I don't want to have to wait a minute until it notices.

      Maybe this is better on 10.4 but I have 10.3 and it never updates the desktop unless it thinks I am watching. When I create a PDF with acrobat, which causes it to be saved on my desktop by default, it will not appear until I click another finder window, then close it or click the desktop. No amount of simply waiting will make it appear.

      This is particularly pathetic because on windows I generally don't even need the refresh key, even when dealing with files copied to a network share. But the mac is especially obstinate. I've actually had a network filesystem window open on the mac, copied a file to it on the PC, closed the window on the mac, reopened it, and had it not refresh the contents from the last time I opened it.

      Again, I am still on 10.3, but I use Windows XP and Mac OS X side by side, all day every day (until we get Adobe CS2 and Q2ID for PC, I have to have the mac to do my graphic arts work) and I am far more frustrated by the lack in the mac.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Want Finder improvements by Drizzt+Do'Urden · · Score: 1

      10.4 is quite smarter regarding this, it's MacOS 9 level now (means, always OK).

      Yes, 10.3 had a problem with that, but now it's OK.

    7. Re:Want Finder improvements by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's too bad Apple doesn't backport their bugfixes. They have to convince me to spend $129 on a minor version upgrade somehow, though. (Not that it's working - it's convincing me to buy the software for windows and dropkick the mac.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Want Finder improvements by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      It's too bad Apple doesn't backport their bugfixes. They have to convince me to spend $129 on a minor version upgrade somehow, though. (Not that it's working - it's convincing me to buy the software for windows and dropkick the mac.)

      While this would be nice, its like asking Adobe to backport a feature of CS3 to CS2. Basically they have moved past that point and they are now concentrating their development dollars in making the next generation of MacOS X.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    9. Re:Want Finder improvements by shmlco · · Score: 2, Informative

      Command-R in the Finder is "Show Original". There is no "refresh" option.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    10. Re:Want Finder improvements by nateziarek · · Score: 1

      in panther i absolutely agree. it was awful.

      in tiger, though, much better. when they did spotlight, they added some sort of notifications to the file system so that when a file changed/was added, spotlight could index it immediately. the added side ebenfit of that, was that finder got that notification as well, and is now as quick as windows.

      it is kind of neat to have a smart folder searching for the word "foo" and then save a document with "foo" in it. You *might* make it to 1-one-thousand before it pops up, but i doubt it.

      i don't use network shares too often, so i can't comment on them...

    11. Re:Want Finder improvements by shmlco · · Score: 1

      "They have to convince me to spend $129 on a minor version upgrade somehow..."

      Apple doesn't want to give up the "OS X" moniker. It's cool. So they bump the sub-version number instead.

      Would you be happier with "OS XV"? At any rate, you pay for the new features and functionality, and not for which side of a decimal point they decide to increment.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    12. Re:Want Finder improvements by putte_xvi · · Score: 1

      I think SpotLight makes use of FreeBSD's kqueue which they ported a while ago. It provides a way for applications to receive notifications from the kernel when certain conditions change. Why doesn't Finder use this?

    13. Re:Want Finder improvements by HAKdragon · · Score: 1

      Hmm. I guess you're right, my bad. That's what I get for posting at work where I'm on a PC and can't verify.

      --
      "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs. We have a protractor."
    14. Re:Want Finder improvements by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      It's too bad Apple doesn't backport their bugfixes. They have to convince me to spend $129 on a minor version upgrade somehow, though.

      One of the other nice things about Tiger is that the unix userland tools can now handle metadata - for a lot of us that feature alone made the upgrade price worth it.

    15. Re:Want Finder improvements by Drizzt+Do'Urden · · Score: 1

      Still better than Microsoft back-porting their security vulnerabilities!

  25. Competing with XGL by miyako · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I realize that for the majority of the market, apple is competing with Vista and Aeroglass, but I think that Aqua also needs to start competing with XGL and Compiz/Beryl.
    The primary desktop in my house runs Linux, but I also have an iBook running Tiger. For a long time OS X was a lot prettier than either KDE or Gnome, and people were forever trying to emulate the Aqua look and feel on Linux. A lot of stuff like web browsing and stuff I used to do on my iBook, simply because the GUI was nicer to look at.
    Lately though, I'd say for the last year or 18 months, I've been running XGL and Beryl (and compiz before Beryl forked off) and I would say that my desktop now running XGL and Beryl looks much nicer than my iBook running Aqua.

    --
    Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
    1. Re:Competing with XGL by Stormwatch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Eye candy alone, a good interface does not make. It has to work well too. Position of elements, system-wide consistency, clarity of function: are you taking these in account?

    2. Re:Competing with XGL by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Eye candy alone, a good interface does not make. It has to work well too. Position of elements, system-wide consistency, clarity of function: are you taking these in account?

      sure, is apple?

      In case you need the answer spelled out for you, the answer is no. Let me give you some examples.

      One quicky example of how Apple's logic is poor slapped me in the face when I turned on my system. Apple is constantly giving me offers to install an iSight update. I don't have an iSight. I tried to install it once to get it to stop offering it to me - I can't, because I don't have one. Why is it that Microsoft can manage not to offer me updates I can't install, but Apple can't?

      Okay, maybe that's not the best example. Here's another not so good example: Why do we still have creator/type flags? I personally find it confusing when I have two images next to each other, both appear to be a tiff image (.tif extension) yet when double-clicked, one opens in photoshop and the other in preview. Yes, I can understand why this happens. It's still confusing. Windows does this much more consistently. (Maybe consistency isn't what you want, but it makes the whole system more logical.) It makes much more sense to have a single default application to open a single document type, and let you access alternate applications from the context menu. Then again, maybe Apple doesn't trust its users to find the context menu...

      One of my favorite examples is the application-specific menu (whatever it's called) between the apple menu and the first application menu, usually "File". This menu is apparently created by the application, not by the OS, because the key shortcut to hide the application varies from program to program. Some programs don't even have a shortcut for it! Where is this "consistency" you speak of?

      Apple is not nearly as good at this as they claim. I find that if you stick to a single environment (GNOME or KDE) then you get a very consistent, uniform appearance and set of behaviors on Linux.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Competing with XGL by miyako · · Score: 0

      I primarily use Gnome, and in my experience it's UI is quite a bit better than Apples.
      For one, I think that in many cases the eye candy is done much better. For example, both OS X and Beryl can do transparent windows, but only Beryl lets me make ANY window transparent. Further more, on Beryl I can simply hold alt and scroll the mouse to adjust the transparency- OS X requires several menus and several clicks each time I want to change it. Beryl also lets me zoom in on my desktop (I run in high resolution, so this is handy when I want to zoom in on small flash videos on the web) and to record videos (relatively) strait to xvid. Not to mention virtual desktops, being able to roll up windows, having the option to set windows to be "always on top" or "always on bottom", and actually being able to type in the path to the directory I want to get to.
      The biggest problem with OS X is that it's too click-heavy. The shortcut keys are non-intuitive and often require holding down approximately the entire left side of the keyboard.

      --
      Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
    4. Re:Competing with XGL by aJester · · Score: 1

      [quote]
      One quicky example of how Apple's logic is poor slapped me in the face when I turned on my system. Apple is constantly giving me offers to install an iSight update. I don't have an iSight. I tried to install it once to get it to stop offering it to me - I can't, because I don't have one. Why is it that Microsoft can manage not to offer me updates I can't install, but Apple can't?
      [/quote]

      Strange.
      This has never happened to me.
      I own an iMac G5 Rev B (before iSight became default)
      I am curious, does anybody else have this issue other than parent?

      aJester

    5. Re:Competing with XGL by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Just for the record, the system is a Dual G5 running 10.3.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Competing with XGL by dreamer-of-rules · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think that OS X does have a great interface in general, but I don't want to get into an argument with you about it. I do wish that I could make any window transparent, but it's not a big-enough deal for me to actually pay for an add-on. Expose and multiple desktops help so I don't feel the lack of window shading.

      However, zooming in to the desktop is very easy, built-in and intuitive in OS X. With the auto-smoothing, I think it makes for decent full screen YouTube viewing. I use it all the time to full screen whatever I'm showing to my coworkers.

      Ctrl-. You can change the behavior details in the Keyboard and Mouse preferences.

      --
      Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.
    7. Re:Competing with XGL by Drizzt+Do'Urden · · Score: 2, Informative
      I tried to install it once to get it to stop offering it to me - I can't, because I don't have one. Why is it that Microsoft can manage not to offer me updates I can't install, but Apple can't?
      In the File menu, there's an option to hide this update and forget about this update's tree
      Why do we still have creator/type flags?
      Functionnality. There's a default application for a file type, but applications can take ownership of a file. Usually, when you create a file with an application, you'll go back in it sooner or later. You can change this file's mapping in the Get Info dialog, as well as access other applications to open it with the right click
      This menu is apparently created by the application, not by the OS, because the key shortcut to hide the application varies from program to program.
      Don't blame Apple, but the application's developper. The default shortcut is Command-H, but some developpers forgot about it and used it for other functions.
    8. Re:Competing with XGL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Yep. I always got those ipod updates and ipod updater updates.

      I didn't have an ipod until a month ago, so that was pretty pointless. They just had to show up in the System Updater...

      When I got my iPod, things became better. On first time plugged in, iTunes offered me to download and install the newest firmware. THAT's how I like it.

    9. Re:Competing with XGL by Quila · · Score: 1

      Two possibilities: One, the update is so that the system will be ready should you ever install a camera. Two, it's possible that the update doesn't just address issues with iSight, but updates other programs that work with iSight -- and all of the "i" programs work together.

    10. Re:Competing with XGL by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      Don't blame Apple, but the application's developper. The default shortcut is Command-H, but some developpers forgot about it and used it for other functions.

      If Apple had taken generation of this menu away from the application developer and forced command-H to go to the hide this application, then they wouldn't have been able to use it for other functions. Apple is either concerned about uniformity, or they are not. They are not. It's all well and good to say that will alienate developers but avoiding alienating users is more important. In the end I know that I can always hide any compliant window in Windows by doing an "Alt-Space,N" which may be nonintuitive but is at least consistent. (It's true that some very wonky windows not created by the regular means do not behave this way. Some programmers just need a foot up their ass.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Competing with XGL by Drizzt+Do'Urden · · Score: 1

      Maybe you didn't notice it, but when the first carbon applications appeared, it was a problem. Since both the application AND the OS were using the same shortcut, it was leading to wierd behaviors. Since Apple couldn't rely on the developpers to fix it, or on the users to update the apps, they changed what they had control on.

      It's called backward compatibility

    12. Re:Competing with XGL by ProfessionalCookie · · Score: 1

      Select the Update, then in the Software Update Menu select Ignore Update.

    13. Re:Competing with XGL by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Great. Now if I get an iSight, I have to go remember to turn updates back on. Why can't Apple just not offer me the update unless I have the software? Linux can do it. Windows can do it. Why can't OSX do it?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:Competing with XGL by shmlco · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You could...

      1) Select the update and hit the delete key.
      2) Select Ignore Update from the Update menu.
      3) Have clicked on the Software Update Help menu to find out how to deal with the situation.
      4) Asked a Genius how to deal with it.
      5) Looked it up on the support site.
      6) Continue to whine about it, as you seem to enjoy doing.

      No one is claiming the Mac is perfect. But the bottom line is that once the problem occurred there was a good five different ways to handle the situation, and you somehow managed to ignore all of them...

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    15. Re:Competing with XGL by shmlco · · Score: 1

      If you really want it get WindowShade from Unsanity. You can roll up windows, make them transparent, make any window float, etc..

      http://www.unsanity.com/haxies/wsx

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    16. Re:Competing with XGL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am curious, does anybody else have this issue other than parent?

      PEBKAC

    17. Re:Competing with XGL by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      No one is claiming the Mac is perfect. But the bottom line is that once the problem occurred there was a good five different ways to handle the situation, and you somehow managed to ignore all of them...

      The bottom line is that Linux and Windows both manage to show me only updates which I can install, but Apple can't manage it, and you fanboy apologists are in no way changing the fact that this is pathetic.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    18. Re:Competing with XGL by shmlco · · Score: 1

      You claim to have had one (and I quote) one problem, which others claim not to have have seen, and you've also "never" had Windows offer you a a half-dozen "Critical" updates for uninstalled software and/or hardware?

      I can believe the former occurred, but the later? Someone's misrepresenting something somewhere...

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    19. Re:Competing with XGL by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I've never had windows update offer me any updates for uninstalled software or hardware. Do I get a cookie?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    20. Re:Competing with XGL by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      Haxies are known to make a few apps misbehave.

    21. Re:Competing with XGL by AusIV · · Score: 1
      Beryl is more than just eye candy. Sure windows that wobble when you move them and rain that falls on your desktop and organizing virtual desktops on a cube are more or less useless, but Beryl has some really useful features. It does take a few hours to get used to all the shortcuts, but Beryl's scale feature (similar to Expose) is quite useful and easy to use. I've also found that being able to control the opacity with Alt + scroll wheel has proved more useful than I'd expect. With Beryl, Alt - Tab becomes much more intuitive, as windows you tab to come to the front and the rest all drop to 20% opacity. Being able to zoom in on any part of the desktop can be useful at times, as can moving windows around with the number pad.

      Having never really used Aqua or Aero, I'm not trying to compare Beryl to them, but I can say that Beryl is a significant improvement to the standard Linux Desktop Environments (KDE and Gnome), and much nicer than the XP desktop.

    22. Re:Competing with XGL by shmlco · · Score: 1

      I got for the make-any-window-a-floating-window option. Makes it easy to watch TV shows and DVDs while I'm working.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    23. Re:Competing with XGL by shmlco · · Score: 1

      I suspect you've already had one too many.... ;)

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    24. Re:Competing with XGL by dr.badass · · Score: 1

      Why do we still have creator/type flags?

      We don't. We have Uniform Type Identifiers, which can be determined from file extensions, MIME types, or type/creator codes, depending on what's available.

      It makes much more sense to have a single default application to open a single document type, and let you access alternate applications from the context menu.

      It might be consistent but it's stupid. Let's say I save a file from Photoshop, close it, and then double-click on it in the Finder because I want to go back to what I was just doing with it. In your world, going back to what I was just doing takes a backseat to the "consistent" experience of having to choose Photoshop from a context menu every time I want to re-open a file that came from Photoshop in the first place. It would be a royal pain in the ass to have to constantly tell your computer that you want to do the same thing that you've always done.

      If you want things to work your way on your computer, there are plenty of ways for you to do it. I'm sure you know what some of them are. "Consistency" is not a panacea.

      --
      Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
    25. Re:Competing with XGL by MarkCollette · · Score: 1

      To be fair, I've used/setup 4 Macs that don't have iSight cameras, and this has not come up on any of them. Perhaps there's a bug that's triggered by some specifics of your system, and this is not indicative of a general problem.

    26. Re:Competing with XGL by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      It makes much more sense to have a single default application to open a single document type, and let you access alternate applications from the context menu.
      It might be consistent but it's stupid.

      The mac way of doing things made a lot more sense before practically every document got a preview. You could tell at a glance what application would open the file because it had a descriptive icon.

      If apple had put the filetype icon at the corner of thumbnails, then maybe it wouldn't be as confusing.

      Unfortunately they did it because that's the way they've always done it, but without considering if it's a good idea in this age and if not, why, and how it could be improved.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    27. Re:Competing with XGL by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      Perhaps there's a bug that's triggered by some specifics of your system, and this is not indicative of a general problem.

      What specifics of my system? It's an Apple PowerMac Dual G5 running Mac OS X 10.3. I thought the whole big advantage of apple is that their hardware and software work together, and that they can achieve a higher level of cleanliness and correctness because they control both?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    28. Re:Competing with XGL by MarkCollette · · Score: 1

      Well, that's for you to worry about, not me. But, I were in your shoes, I'd think back, if it started happenning right out of the box, or if it started after I'd installed specific software. But mostly, I'd probably not waste my time posting 20+ times to a thread bitching about one or two minor issues that simply don't matter. Granted, I am anal enough to post about it, just not so obsessively.

    29. Re:Competing with XGL by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Actually, my motivation for posting so many times was not the specific mac so much as a chance to poke fun at mac lusers who are willing to excuse away any flaw in Apple or their products because they are such fanboys.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    30. Re:Competing with XGL by dr.badass · · Score: 1

      Thank you for ignoring my entire comment. It makes it easier to determine whether you're really an idiot or not.

      The mac way of doing things made a lot more sense before practically every document got a preview. You could tell at a glance what application would open the file because it had a descriptive icon.

      Better still is if you don't even have to look at an icon to know which application a file is going to open in, because it opens in the same application that you always open it in, unless you tell it otherwise. Kind of like how it works now.

      If apple had put the filetype icon at the corner of thumbnails, then maybe it wouldn't be as confusing.

      Or maybe if idiot users like yourself would turn off those "confusing" previews if they find icons so damned important. You're given options for a reason.

      Unfortunately they did it because that's the way they've always done it, but without considering if it's a good idea in this age and if not, why, and how it could be improved.

      Your smugness is unfounded. You are wrong and I have explained why. While you may continue to believe that the rest of the world is to stupid and illogical to understand them, your ideas suck.

      --
      Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
    31. Re:Competing with XGL by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      Your smugness is unfounded. You are wrong and I have explained why. While you may continue to believe that the rest of the world is to stupid and illogical to understand them, your ideas suck.

      s/to stupid/too stupid/

      I rest my case.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    32. Re:Competing with XGL by dr.badass · · Score: 1

      I rest my case.

      Your case rests on a one-letter typo? Jesus H.

      --
      Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
    33. Re:Competing with XGL by pwhysall · · Score: 1

      Do the fonts look any better than they used to?

      That's the real draw and pleasure of OS X for me - proper-looking, beautiful fonts.

      --
      Peter
  26. As a Vista user... by moracity · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think Jobs has nothing to worry about. Aero is utter crap. I've been using Vista for the past week or so and the entire interface seems "incomplete" somehow. The learning curve for Vista is pretty steep. Everything is awkward and MS has actually made Windows harder to use. Just navigating the ile system is bizarre. There are more steps to get to anything. Don't even get me started on Office 2007. My wife is a pretty skilled Office user and she couldn't do anything with Word 2007. I've been looking for a setting to get the 2003 interface back, but I don't see one. You can't make this kind of drastic change to the interface of the most widely used office suite in the world. It's absurd.

    There is no way we will be deploying either product to our users at the office anytime soon. It would kill the productivity of our company immediately. There are some cool IT management features in Vista, but the change in the interface negates all of them.

    1. Re:As a Vista user... by cmorriss · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You can't make this kind of drastic change to the interface of the most widely used office suite in the world. It's absurd.

      OMFG!!! The interface changed!! You've got to feel a little for Microsoft sometimes. One of the few times they try to truly innovate and they get slammed because the interface actually changed. How can you innovate without changing interface at least some? If it's worse than the old interface, ok. But that's not even the complaint from a lot of people. They just don't like the fact that it changed. Oh well, I'm sure the billions they rake in despite this will keep them from taking it too much to heart.

      --
      10 minutes working on a sig. What a waste.
    2. Re:As a Vista user... by arifirefox · · Score: 1

      No, there is no setting to change it back to "Classic" Well, this will help all those Office certification training courses.

      --
      Firefox Power http://firefoxpower.blogspot.com/
    3. Re:As a Vista user... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I've been looking for a setting to get the 2003 interface back, but I don't see one.

      This is easier for people familiar with older versions of Office than Office 2007 is.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:As a Vista user... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's ironic is that Microsoft still claims that using OpenOffice on Linux requires costly 'training,' but fail to factor such costs into estimates for office. Do they just expect users to be born understanding MS Office and Windows no matter how they change them year-to year?

    5. Re:As a Vista user... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, if you have the most widely used office suite in the world, then you must be doing something right. So why the drastic changes? Quite frankly, most of the changes I have seen in Windows/Office since the Windows 2000/Office 2000 combination seems to be change purely for the sake of change, rather than for any innovative or logical reason.

      And don't forget inertia too. Office 2003 certainly is not everything it could be, but it does have the advantage that people know how to use it. Even if Office 2007 is better, is it better enough to make it worthwhile to invest the time and effoct to learn how to use it over previous versions?

    6. Re:As a Vista user... by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Don't even get me started on Office 2007. My wife is a pretty skilled Office user and she couldn't do anything with Word 2007.

      Yeah, but just imagine if she'd never used Word before, then it would be a snap!

  27. Who's responding to who? by Kadin2048 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The really odd thing I find about this article in general, is that I had always assumed -- and I don't think I was alone here -- that Aero was really Microsoft's response and attempt to leapfrog Aqua.

    Every screenshot I've seen of Aero looks remarkably...Aqua-ish. Not in the details, but I can't help thinking that someone at Microsoft took a look at Aqua, and decided that it was probably time to overhaul Windows' interface as well; not to mention doing the same sort of graphics-card offloading that Apple did with Quartz Extreme.

    I suppose claiming that Apple's "Illuminous" is a response to Microsoft's Aero, and Aero is itself at least partially response to Aqua, are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It's sort of the way of these things to respond to each other, back and forth, over and over.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    1. Re:Who's responding to who? by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 3, Informative

      I agree, Illuminous is not an answer to Aero. It's Apple using a page out of Disney's playbook: The best way to predict the future is to create it.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    2. Re:Who's responding to who? by yasth · · Score: 1

      As to the ideas being the same, eh they all look like some of the product demos various companies (including microsoft research) were putting out in the mid-late 90s, not in detail but in the general glitz and glamour. There are a lot of things that people have wanted to do for a while, but the hardware wasn't there. Apple decided to press forth ahead of the hardware (there was a fair bit of complaining at the time) so they go the prettiness first. Microsoft on the other hand had to make even their flagship OS run on a bottom end $400 Monitor included PC. That is part of the reson MS split up Vista so much, the low end was holding them back some.

      Further on the hardware Aero uses a lot more of the hardware then Quartz Extreme does, so it would make sense for Apple to come out with a quartz extreme 2 (or some such, if they kill extreme I would be happy), which would use all the pretty little shaders. They could then do all the fancy effects that hardware a few years ago simply couldn't do on the low end. I look forward to see where they push it. Apple has been ... parsimonious with gfx cards lately though, so if they really want to push it they will probably lock out a lot of the market. So expect more complaining, and visuals awesome enough to make everyone run out and buy new machines (Apple is after all a hardware company).

      --
      I'd do something interesting, but my server can't handle a slashdotting.
    3. Re:Who's responding to who? by diegocgteleline.es · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, what is really odd is that people thinks that people is "scared" of Aero. Mac OS X was released on 2000, in 2001 the interface got hardware acceleration. Vista is being released....NOW.

      In other words, while MS has player catch up, Apple has had plenty of time to think on the "Next big thing". Why wouldn't they improve Aqua? They've the lead for years so if someone can do it, that's apple.

      It's a interesting thing that they're doing it but saying that they're "scared" is stupid. It's microsoft who should be scared of needing to play catch up with the next Mac OS interfaces.

    4. Re:Who's responding to who? by fistfullast33l · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree. I think Microsoft is scared of Apple's dominance in the "public image" department as being cool. They may still have market share but that is mostly in the Business space. Apple is creeping up on the consumer space largely through the iPod and their recent marketing campaigns (the television commercials are really good). Aero definitely was in response to Aqua and I think the announcement today that Office won't support VBA on OS X definitely is a flag from Microsoft they're going to start to play tough. And of course, there is the Zune.

    5. Re:Who's responding to who? by Basehart · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      "It's microsoft who should be scared of needing to play catch up with the next Mac OS interfaces."

      I can tell you right now that Bill Gates is scared of zip.....well, maybe his next electricity bill. Have you seen how many christmas lights they have on their Lake Washington pad?People travelling eastbound on the 520 bridge have to wear blinkers to get across :-) Stick it to 'em Bill!

    6. Re:Who's responding to who? by kimvette · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In addition, Vista is a "major upgrade" which is several years late, with Microsoft's yanking features left and right, and pulling out a LOT of code changes to meet their 200th or so delayed date, while Apple has:

        - Introduced a brand-new OS
        - (as you mentioned) Accelerated their GUI
        - Refreshed the look and feel several times
        - Kept up with security patches (and no, not rushing just the DRM patches like Microsoft does)
        - Migrated to a new platform (PPC -> x86) while maintaining backwards compatibility
        - Introduced two new video NLE suites
        - Introduced an office suite
        - Introduced an IDE rivaling that of Microsoft's
        - Introduced a new method of file browsing (love it or hate it, Finder is unique and interesting)

      During that same time period, while Microsoft's upgrades to office suites have consisted largely of upgrading the GUI (ooooh, new screen-estate sucking toolbars renamed to Ribbons) while yanking key selling features (VBA).

      Microsoft is innovating how, exactly?

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    7. Re:Who's responding to who? by jimicus · · Score: 1

      I'm starting to see more Apple stuff appearing in the business space.

      A couple of years ago I interviewed with a web design company. Everyone (and I mean literally everyone, even the accounts folk) had an iMac on their desk. At my current gig, there's one chap with a mac and one or two others who bring in Mac laptops - nobody bats an eyelid. I've made clear that I have no problem whatsoever supporting Apple on the desktop (though that's mainly because I'm fairly sure I'd have to do almost zero extra work for that). In 5 years time, I can easily see people being allowed to choose in some of the smaller, less strict organisations. Larger organisations, OTOH, will probably always force their vision of a desktop on you.

    8. Re:Who's responding to who? by UnxMully · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Colour me skeptical but Illuminous is hardly a word that's in common usage unlike pages, keynote, spotlight, aperture (OK, a bit closer), finder, aqua, cocoa, carbon (that's enough, Ed,...) so the the codename alone sounds a bit suspect.

      Having said that, I'll be interested to see some form of consistency resulting from the white/brushed metal wars.

    9. Re:Who's responding to who? by Fred_A · · Score: 1
      Microsoft is innovating how, exactly?
      Well they did invent the Internet.
      Ah no sorry, that was AOL.
      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    10. Re:Who's responding to who? by kimvette · · Score: 1

      FWIW, Prodigy beat AOL to the Internet.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    11. Re:Who's responding to who? by lordmatthias215 · · Score: 1

      I dunno, I'd say Illuminous (or at least its relative illuminate) is in use probably as much as the word 'aqua'. Besides, if you think about it, it makes sense- 'aqua' is a relatively uncommon synonym for 'water', and 'illuminous' is a relatively uncommon synonym for 'bright'. Both 'bright' and 'water' are short, simple words we use on an everyday basis, but 'aqua' and 'illuminous' are more interesting, and produce better imagry. And honestly, how much does the average person use the word 'aperture' on a regular basis?

    12. Re:Who's responding to who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's not Disney, that's Xerox PARC, Alan Kay specifically.

      And Apple have a long history of taking their lead from Alan's work ;)

    13. Re:Who's responding to who? by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      I can't help thinking that someone at Microsoft took a look at Aqua, and decided that it was probably time to overhaul Windows' interface as well;

      Good design is *really* hard. Especially on as large a scale as an OS interface. OS X, which is clearly better than anything else, is still really not all that good. It might be that it's simply too hard a problem.

      And apparently nobody at Microsoft is capable of good design, and what makes it then doubly hard is it's often not really clear exactly *why* something is a good design. And so if you're in a situation where you don't really understand what you're trying to do, you have no choice but to practice "cargo cult" design and try to do the same thing that works for somebody else. Unfortunately you tend to end up with bamboo sticks in your helmet that way.

    14. Re:Who's responding to who? by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1
      I dunno, I'd say Illuminous (or at least its relative illuminate) is in use probably as much as the word 'aqua'.

      I didn't realise 'illuminous' existed as a word, let alone heard it used, unlike 'aqua' and not just in the area of computing. And regardless of how often 'illuminate' is used, 'illuninous' just plain sounds weird and made up.

      Besides, if you think about it, it makes sense- 'aqua' is a relatively uncommon synonym for 'water', and 'illuminous' is a relatively uncommon synonym for 'bright'. Both 'bright' and 'water' are short, simple words we use on an everyday basis, but 'aqua' and 'illuminous' are more interesting, and produce better imagry.

      'aqua' is considerably more common in usage, shorter, simpler and by virtue f being recognisable, arguable produces better imagery.

      And honestly, how much does the average person use the word 'aperture' on a regular basis?

      The average person? Not much. The average person in the market for the product, i.e. photographers? A lot. An awful lot.

    15. Re:Who's responding to who? by shoemilk · · Score: 1

      Personally, I think "illuminous" is more common that "aqua". When I hear "aqua" I think of some crappy pretensious bottle water commercial. Though "illumination" would have been better as it's a noun, not an adjective.

    16. Re:Who's responding to who? by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Introduced a new method of file browsing (love it or hate it, Finder is unique and interesting)

      There is nothing "unique and interesting" about Finder. In two of its three modes, it's just a (less functional in some ways) copy of the MacOS Classic Finder. In the third, it's a copy of the NeXT file browser.

      (And they all suck, IMHO, but that's not reall the question here.)

    17. Re:Who's responding to who? by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Every screenshot I've seen of Aero looks remarkably...Aqua-ish.

      Can you think of a way to implement various things like transparency and fancy effects today that *wouldn't* look "Aqua-ish" ? Follow-on competitors are always going to "look like" the first product to market they're competing with to some degree.

      Really, if you're comparing just the two of them, they're not especially alike. The way they use transparency, fading and other effects (like "sheets" rolling in and out of windows, or "Flip3D") is all quite different.

      I've been using Macs for a very long time, and Vista daily for a couple of months now, and the two have vastly more differences than they do similarities - and most of those similarities are the kinds of things that can appear even with two completely independent implementations - just like MacOS and Windows have had, well, pretty much forever.

      Not in the details, but I can't help thinking that someone at Microsoft took a look at Aqua, and decided that it was probably time to overhaul Windows' interface as well; not to mention doing the same sort of graphics-card offloading that Apple did with Quartz Extreme.

      The Windows GUI has been getting the same kind of "overhaul" it gets in Vista with pretty much every release since Windows 95 (which was the last _major_ change). It's reasonably safe to say even without the pressure of OS X, it would have gotten a similar update to the one it actually did - if only because 99% of people (even on Slashdot) don't look any further than that to see what's "new and improved".

      Moving the display system onto the video card is just a natural and obvious progression. Microsoft had been talking about doing it since before Apple did, although OS X obviously beat them to the market with an actual implementation. Saying they were "copying Apple" in this regard is specious, at best - about as accurate as saying Apple were "copying Microsoft" by implementing an OS with pre-emptive multitasking and protected memory.

    18. Re:Who's responding to who? by Tempest429 · · Score: 0

      I would like to add that a lot of Macs have popped up at my university. Last year a walk through the Engineering building you could see maybe 1 PowerBook out of 50 laptops. Now Macs make up are close to 30-40%. Just a random fact of interest for those in favor of Apple.

      --
      You have just received the Amish virus. Since we have no electricity or computers, you are on the honor system.
    19. Re:Who's responding to who? by 7Prime · · Score: 1
      And apparently nobody at Microsoft is capable of good design, and what makes it then doubly hard is it's often not really clear exactly *why* something is a good design.

      I don't think it's quite so much that no one at Microsoft is capable of good design, as the one's who are concerned with good design are passed up in favor of function designers, who are in tern pass up in favor of the developers, who are in turn are passed in favor of the coders, who are in turn passed up in favor of the sales department.

      I work at a small local network TV station as a producer. Getting a sales team to realize that clean, professional design is actually good business practice is like trying to herd cats. And convincing them is only half the struggle, getting them to actually do something about it is another thing entirely.

      Just the other day we were told that for every DVD or beta tape we gave to clients, we had to plaster a big "KTVF Creative Services: NOT FOR COMMERCIAL DISTROBUTION" watermark in the middle of the screen, which I fear may impede on our client's desire to show all their friends (potential clients) their cool ads. I wonder how many times it has been suggested, at a Microsoft board meeting, that a legality disclaimer be watermarked into the desktop wallpaper... I'm sure more than just a few.

      --
      Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
    20. Re:Who's responding to who? by Reaperducer · · Score: 1

      FWIW, Delphi beat Prodigy to the Internet.

      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
    21. Re:Who's responding to who? by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1
      Personally, I think "illuminous" is more common that "aqua". When I hear "aqua" I think of some crappy pretensious bottle water commercial.

      You actually here people use the word? At least aqua makes you think of something. Illuminous draws a complete blank here. Where do you here it used? Maybe it's a US thing.

      Though "illumination" would have been better as it's a noun, not an adjective.

      I thought they went with aqua precisely because it can be used as an adjective. Naming the look and feel of the OS with an adjective surely makes plenty of sense?

    22. Re:Who's responding to who? by Trumpet+of+Doom · · Score: 1

      You're all wrong! Al Gore did it first! ;-)

    23. Re:Who's responding to who? by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And if you follow Groklaw, you'd laugh at the fact that lead Windows guy Allchin wrote an email to Gates and Ballmer in 2004 explaining that if he didn't work at Microsoft, he'd be using a Mac...

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    24. Re:Who's responding to who? by pboulang · · Score: 1

      I think spring loaded folders are unique and interesting, and certainly useful...

      --

      This comment is guaranteed*

      *not guaranteed

    25. Re:Who's responding to who? by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      I think spring loaded folders are unique and interesting, and certainly useful...

      They certainly are - but they date to 1997 when MacOS 8.0 was released (and even earlier, IIRC, from third-party addons).

    26. Re:Who's responding to who? by lordmatthias215 · · Score: 1

      yup, illuminous is a real word, and it means bright, or revealing. And I never hear aqua used (except for the occasional reference to the color). I hear 'water' a lot, and 'aquatic' which is obviously derived from aqua, but that's it. I can't think of anybody ever telling me, "man, i sure could go for a nice bottle of aqua!" Granted, 'illuminous' isn't too common either, but I've probably heard it used about as man times as 'aqua'. And when you read the word 'illuminous' didn't you immediately make the connection to light? Maybe I'm just weird, but I did... and to rebutt your statement that aqua is more recognisable and therefore produces better imagery than illuminous, I'm not arguing against that point- I'm simply giving my take on Apple's possible logic in the new name. They're trying (if the new name is real) to portray the image of the new GUI being able to better the data and functions you need. I can't think of a word similar in meaning to 'illuminous' that would fit the bill better while maintaining a sort of chic. 'bright' just doesn't cut it as a cool name, and neither does 'revealing'

    27. Re:Who's responding to who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FWIW, Al Gore beat everyone to the Internet.

    28. Re:Who's responding to who? by SuperDre · · Score: 0

      Well, and you think Apple 'invented' the aqua interface? not a chance.. just as they have done with the first Mac, they ripped of some other product and called it their own innovation... At least the MS people don't claim it their own 'innovation'..

    29. Re:Who's responding to who? by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1
      And I never hear aqua used (except for the occasional reference to the color) I hear 'water' a lot, and 'aquatic' which is obviously derived from aqua, but that's it. I can't think of anybody ever telling me, "man, i sure could go for a nice bottle of aqua!"

      I've always assumed that Apple used it because of the colour it describes, rather than as a noun.

      And when you read the word 'illuminous' didn't you immediately make the connection to light?

      Sure, but my first thought was 'What a daft, pretentious word.' It's not snappy.

      They're trying (if the new name is real) to portray the image of the new GUI being able to better the data and functions you need.

      I'm not sure I understand. How does a GUI 'better the data and functions you need'? I'm guessing you dropped a word there - 'present' or 'display' perhaps?

      I can't think of a word similar in meaning to 'illuminous' that would fit the bill better while maintaining a sort of chic. 'bright' just doesn't cut it as a cool name, and neither does 'revealing'

      I don't think 'illuminous' does either. Doesn't have any chic as far as I'm concerned. 'Luminous' would be a better word. Maybe this all stems from my hatred of the non-word 'irregardless.'

    30. Re:Who's responding to who? by mstone · · Score: 1

      General rule: 20% of the market generates 80% of the profit. We saw that last quarter in hardware sales when Apple posted something like a $580 million profit, while Dell made a profit of $510 million selling something like five times as many units. Dell's #1 in unit sales, but Apple made more money.

      I also doubt that Microsoft is 'scared' of OS X, but Apple is getting traction in the high-profit end of the market. Microsoft is more worried by loss of proprietary format and protocol lock-in, and if OS X becomes more popular at the executive level, Microsoft's marketing team will have to work harder to sell products that don't work and play nicely in a heterogenous computing environment.

      Besides, Microsoft has a long-standing strategy of selling products by feature checklist. And like it or not, OS X defined the current checklist for user interface. Aero is a response to Aqua in the sense that Microsoft doesn't want to lose any points in the checklist comparisons tech writers are so accustomed to doing.

      As for a new UI in Leopard, it's very likely that the look and feel of the widgets will change, and Apple will probably roll out products that take advantage of all the new technology under the hood. The first reflects Apple's determination to maintain a distinct brand identity, and the second is just normal software evolution.

    31. Re:Who's responding to who? by pboulang · · Score: 1

      Ok, then you agree that there is something unique and interesting with the finder. Great. But nobody said anything about it being new. No argument there.

      Now as to replacing it, that is what spotlight will hope to be doing. Finder is certainly better than spotlight at this stage of the game. Definitely better than window explorer. At least I can drop to a real prompt and make any hierarchy I want with hard and soft links.
      --

      This comment is guaranteed*

      *not guaranteed

    32. Re:Who's responding to who? by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Ok, then you agree that there is something unique and interesting with the finder. Great.

      I agree that they're useful. They're not "unique and interesting" - firstly because they're not unique and secondly because they've been around for nearly a decade now, putting them well and truly out of the "interesting" phase.

      But nobody said anything about it being new. No argument there.

      The OP was specifically referring to the timeframe while Microsoft has been working on Vista. Which - at worst - starts around late 2001. Specifically, he said Apple "introduced a new method of file browsing (love it or hate it, Finder is unique and interesting)".

      (There were other errors in his post as well - eg. about OS X being "totally new", but the Finder one was the most conspicuous.)

      Now as to replacing it, that is what spotlight will hope to be doing. Finder is certainly better than spotlight at this stage of the game. Definitely better than window explorer. At least I can drop to a real prompt and make any hierarchy I want with hard and soft links.

      Comparing Spotlight to Explorer (or Finder, for that matter) is like comparing Word to Excel - nonsensical. While there's a slight overlap in functionality, they're meant for different things.

    33. Re:Who's responding to who? by gordgekko · · Score: 1
      Nice, you dodged answering the criticism by talking about a company that isn't either Apple or Microsoft and then you bullshitted your way through another few paragraphs talking about anything but the point of my reply. The original statement I replied to, which was pretty clear to see, was "They (Microsoft) may still have market share but that is mostly in the Business space."

      Again, what evidence is there to support this contention since Apple's own figures show no tangible growth in either the business or home space? By what metric is Microsoft's dominance now "mostly" in the business space? Is there an market shattering explosion in Mac consumer level computer sales that no one but you are aware of?

      --
      You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
    34. Re:Who's responding to who? by JulesLt · · Score: 1

      Never underestimate your enemy. At the end of the day, MS have not had to worry about the desktop for years, hence there has been no real pressure for innovation. The biggest competition for Vista is XP.

      And don't look at what MS has failed to do, but look at what they have delivered - the majority of it is technologies for developers :

      New versions of C# and .NET (you could argue Obj-C didn't need change, but Obj-C 2.0 shows it did) that have saved them losing the web app server market to Java.

      New versions of SQL Server that have continued to close the gap on Oracle and DB2. It's gone from something that was a joke to database professionals to a valid option.

      Declarative UI development (XAML) and web deployed apps (XBAP) - Next/Apple were ahead of the game on this - 10 years ago. They've stood still, while everyone else has announced XML based versions of the same idea (XUL, XAML, MXML) which makes it sound much better.

      Prevented Sony dominating the living room, with the XBox, XBox 360 and Live, and killed Sega. People say GOOD things about XBox Live.

      Killed Palm in the PDA market, and made huge inroads into the phone market.

      Started the fight with Macromedia / Adobe - they are making a serious play for the space occupied by Dreamweaver and Flash, pushing the integration of design and development teams, while Adobe go in the other direction (turning Flash into a software development platform).

      From my point of view, MS has invested it's energy and focus on the real threats to it's business. Apple's only just started to become an emerging threat again.

      Apple have done well by capitalising on a blind spot with the iPod, and are finally getting the sales they deserve for OS X -but even if Apple took the whole desktop and laptop market, MS would still be a bigger company.
      (Realistically, Apple will never get bigger than 20-25% tops. OS X might, if they licensed it - which may happen once they're reached the limits of their own growth).

      Apple doesn't strike me as offering anything really compelling in the web server space, which is the future - more and more functionality is moving away from the computer to other devices (hence the iTV and iPhone). That's a threat to Windows and OS X both, and so far I think MS have the lead in addressing it. I work in a Unix/Java house but I can see the real appeal of .NET to other companies. I can't think of a single reason to justify writing an OS X only server app - and Apple's server-side software like WebObjects or Quicktime streaming are x-platform. You might use OS X server to run a Ruby or Java based web app, but they are inherently x-platform too. In that space, all Apple can do is sell a better Unix server, rather than lock developers in to a programming language and APIs, as they are with desktop apps or .NET.

      (Apple also have nothing like the XBAP technology or Flash, both of which will allow the delivery of zero-install, sand-boxed, applications over the web. Basically what Java applets can do already. or what Active-X should have been).

      --
      'Capitalists of the world, unite! Oh ... you have' (League Against Tedium)
    35. Re:Who's responding to who? by teh+kurisu · · Score: 1

      Prevented Sony dominating the living room, with the XBox, XBox 360 and Live, and killed Sega.

      Small point - the death of Sega as a hardware manufacturer was mostly Sony's doing. Dreamcast hardware production ceased before the Xbox was even released.

    36. Re:Who's responding to who? by JulesLt · · Score: 1

      Good point - what I was really thinking of was the fact the console market seems to be able to support 3 players at any time, and XBox squeezed Sega out of third place (they chose not to pursue another hardware generation). Although that's all kind of regional (XBox was not so successful in Asian or European markets as the US market).

      --
      'Capitalists of the world, unite! Oh ... you have' (League Against Tedium)
    37. Re:Who's responding to who? by AaronBrethorst · · Score: 1
      Introduced an IDE rivaling that of Microsoft's

      Interesting. Can you tell me more about why you think that Xcode rivals Visual Studio?

      --
      No, but I used to work for Microsoft.
    38. Re:Who's responding to who? by mstone · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wow..

      Quick tip: next time shove the corncob up your ass lengthwise instead of sideways.

      To the extent that your reply was itself anything but a string of unsupported insults, the remaining two words ('market share') don't automatically lend themselves to the intepretation you suggest in your second round of verbal diarrhea.

      As for evidence that Apple's market share is growing in consumer space, Apple's market share numbers have been growing steadily for a couple of years. Granted they're still only around 4%, which makes them anything but the powerhouse in home computing, but the rise does suggest a trend toward growing popularity somewhere. A recent study of third-party resellers said that those vendors are seeing about 20-30% conversion from Windows among Mac buyers. Apple's numbers at the Apple Store run about 50%, which makes sense since the third-party vendors tend to serve more repeat and business customers, while the Apple Store gets a higher share of walk-ins. The gist of it all is that Apple's share in consumer space does seem to be growing, based on the numbers out there. That doesn't make Apple the big dog, but any growth of a competing product is something for Microsoft to take seriously.

      Now, as to my own previous post, it is in fact possible for someone to say something that doesn't fit entirely within the boundaries you expected, and still have a point. This knowledge may serve you well in the future, if and when you ever grow up.

      My point was that 'market share' is only one way to look at the market, and not necessarily the best one. Market share counts units shipped, but doesn't say anything about how much money a company made shipping those units. It's easy to gain market share by dumping products into the market below cost and eating the loss.. Microsoft has been doing that for years with the Xbox, and the entire dotcom bubble was fueled on the idea that companies would, in effect, sell dollar bills for 75 cents to generate 'brand awareness', then apply that 'brand' to some profitable (but unspecified) line of business later. The first part worked just fine, but most companies didn't survive long enough to do the second.

      Dell matters to Microsoft because 80% of Microsoft's OS sales come from OEM license deals, and OS sales are a big chunk of Microsoft's revenue. Dell makes its money in the $1.5-3K price range, and uses those profits to subsidize the low-priced machines that give Dell (and Microsoft) such a big 'market share'.

      Right now, market evidence suggests that Apple is starting to eat Dell's lunch in the $1.5-3K price range. The loss of that comparatively small chunk of 'market share' translates to a large loss of profit, which in turn undercuts Dell's ability to keep the pipeline of low-cost entry machines on life support. If Dell can't make a decent business case to continue producing its low-end machines, the loss of that pipeline threatens a large chunk of Dell's 'market share', which in turn threatens Microsoft's 'market share'. Again, that's something for Microsoft to take seriously.

      Loss of market share (or more precisely, loss of installed base) hurts Microsoft in more than just direct revenue. It also undercuts Microsoft's ability to lock customers into its OS-and-bundled-software package with proprietary formats and protocols. The more solidly Microsoft can maintain a monoculture, the easier it is for Microsoft to kill competing products simply by making its own products default to something proprietary. The more heterogenous the computing environment gets, the harder it is for Microsoft to lock out competing products that way. And if consumers are using non-proprietary formats and protocols, they have less need to stay on the Microsoft upgrade treadmill, which hits the only profitable business unit Microsoft has.

      In the business license market, where Microsoft makes most of the money it doesn't make in OEM licensing, it's easy for the IT department to blow off complaints from the guy in the

    39. Re:Who's responding to who? by ccp · · Score: 1

      Wow! You really creamed the asshole. Great explanation.

      Sorry I'm out of moderation points.

      Cheers,
      CC

    40. Re:Who's responding to who? by shoemilk · · Score: 1

      I know this response is quite late, but that's how I have to work with my respsonses. Anyway, I want to justify some of the things I said.

      I never said I heard people say the word "illuminous," but I have seen it in books and magazines. Maybe I read stuff that has a lot of crap about Xmas lights, or maybe I just read a lot of ads. Whatever the case, I don't feel that "illuminous" is that uncommon. Also, it very obviously is related to "illumination" which, to me, is easy to picture (maybe it's just because I've been living in Japan for four years and "Xmas lights" in Japanese is "illumination").

      I have to disagree, naming a noun with an adjective doesn't make much sense. Describing a noun with an adjective, now that makes sense. But on the other hand, Americans do verb nouns (like that) and name things with adjectives (Slurpy).

      As far as aqua being an adjective, in it's adjective form, it means "blue". OSX hasn't been blue in awhile. To be the liduid meaning you'd have to say, "aquatic".

    41. Re:Who's responding to who? by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1

      Re: illuminous, I guess it could be a cultural thing; you don't see the word in the UK.

      Re: aqua, I still see a fair bit of blue around the OS and when Aqua was first introduced, there was certainly plenty around. Today there's still highlights, scroll bars, apple menu, spotlight menu, dialogue box hightlights (and other controls in general) and the occassional desktop background. I'd say that blue is the dominant colour in OS X. When you start up, log in, log out connect/disconnect another monitor, there's a lot of blue on screen.

  28. Wher by Wylfing · · Score: 0, Redundant

    torrent plz kthx

    --
    Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
  29. Great... by Omestes · · Score: 1

    Now Apple can have a *NEW* UI "standard" competing with the other 6 floating around in the same UI, and perhaps even further bastardize their own usability standards...

    What is wrong with Aqua? It still looks better than Aero, and much better than the Vista UI that people not running a $6k box. If it ain't broke... (yes, it is... but the cure is bringing all the iCrap software into one unified look, like UNO does.)

    --
    A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
  30. Single menu conserves screen estate by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The thing I really like about the single menu bar is not so much that it's always in the same place (which is handy) but that you conserve a lot of screen estate when every window an app has open does not have to make room for a whole menubar.

    This is especially annoying with browser windows, which you tend to have a lot of. But many applications are prone to having multiple documents open at once and it helps there as well.

    Another problem it helps solve is visual menu clutter - sometimes in Windows when I have a lot of apps up, I go to select a menu item and find that I have hit the wrong menu, bringing a whole different window in focus that I did not mean to access! Under X-Windows the problem is in some ways worse, because you can access that menu without changing focus meaning you may not realize you are not accessing the right menu until it is too late.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Single menu conserves screen estate by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      The thing I really like about the single menu bar is not so much that it's always in the same place (which is handy) but that you conserve a lot of screen estate when every window an app has open does not have to make room for a whole menubar.

      Well, that's really the debate, isn't it? Do you want to save a few pixels, or save a few mouse movements? Neither one is all that arduous really. My only problem is that I find it confusing to have to pick an application to get the menu right. If I have two versions of the same application open (sometimes necessary to bring a document into a new program, there's tweaks to be made in the old one) then it can be really confusing.

      This is especially annoying with browser windows, which you tend to have a lot of. But many applications are prone to having multiple documents open at once and it helps there as well.

      I tab my browser windows, so I don't have this problem. I seldom if ever have more than two browser windows open at once and if I have that many, one is probably minimized.

      Another problem it helps solve is visual menu clutter - sometimes in Windows when I have a lot of apps up, I go to select a menu item and find that I have hit the wrong menu, bringing a whole different window in focus that I did not mean to access!

      I don't know what you mean by this at all.

      In Windows menus are on the windows themselves, so you can't possibly make this mistake unless you're not looking where you're clicking, in which case you just might format your hard drive.

      Under X-Windows the problem is in some ways worse, because you can access that menu without changing focus meaning you may not realize you are not accessing the right menu until it is too late.

      Again, keeping your eyes open when you click goes a long way toward solving this problem.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Single menu conserves screen estate by porcupine8 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is why I like it, as well. Not everyone has a nice 30" widescreen monitor - or even a 17". I was working on a 15" monitor using Windows at my last job, and there was just no room, especially since I often had 5-6 Word documents open as well as a couple browser windows and 1-2 excel files. The tiny bit of space a shared menubar would have saved would have been much appreciated. Even if it wouldn't have given me enough space for a whole additional window, making things a bit less cluttered would have just *felt* nicer.

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
    3. Re:Single menu conserves screen estate by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Well, that's really the debate, isn't it? Do you want to save a few pixels, or save a few mouse movements?

      Pixels are more precious because they are more finite. Menu items most often can be accessed by keyboard, making slightly longer distances required to reach them irrelevant - furthermore, the extra attention required to properly hit a menu item that is in a random position on the screen means that even if the trip is shorter, it takes you longer to get there. My time is more precious than my mousepad.

      My only problem is that I find it confusing to have to pick an application to get the menu right. If I have two versions of the same application open (sometimes necessary to bring a document into a new program, there's tweaks to be made in the old one) then it can be really confusing.

      Come on, that's hardly a common case. You are making a case for software developers to possibly need this - but in all the time I've been developing software I've only had different versions of the same software running a handful of times, and we are talking a matter of decades now!

      I don't know what you mean by this at all.

      In Windows menus are on the windows themselves, so you can't possibly make this mistake unless you're not looking where you're clicking, in which case you just might format your hard drive.


      Take two browser windows, and stack them so that just the menu bar is visible behind the other one. I have this happen all the time, where I select the menu of the window behind the current one.

      And why should I *have* to "carefully look where I click*. I don't have to on a Mac, I just wander up to the menu bar and there's an entry... That's exactly what I don't like about menus attached to windows, that you have to be overly attentive to what is where.

      Again, keeping your eyes open when you click goes a long way toward solving this problem.

      Unless you have a Mac, then you don't have a problem to solve in the first place!

      At some point, if all you are doing is workarounds for problems perhaps you need to seek a more fundamental solution that actually adresses the problem instead of making it more tolerable.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    4. Re:Single menu conserves screen estate by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      "The thing I really like about the single menu bar is not so much that it's always in the same place (which is handy) but that you conserve a lot of screen estate when every window an app has open does not have to make room for a whole menubar."

      Except it doesn't save any screen real estate at all. Assuming that the top menu bar is the same height in pixels as it would be in the app, every app will be shortened by the removal if the menu bar but the screen height will be shortened by the same amount. The result is that there is no functional difference in screen real estate at all. Furthermore, the long-distance menu bar is the *opposite* of "handy".

      Certain apps have no use for a menu bar at all. For those apps, the Apple approach wastes screen real estate.

      "This is especially annoying with browser windows, which you tend to have a lot of. But many applications are prone to having multiple documents open at once and it helps there as well."

      The ammount of vertical screen height taken by the menu bar in multiple apps is NOT additive. It matters not how many windows you have open.

      "Another problem it helps solve is visual menu clutter - sometimes in Windows when I have a lot of apps up, I go to select a menu item and find that I have hit the wrong menu, bringing a whole different window in focus that I did not mean to access!"

      I think that has to be impossible. How can you possibly go to the menu bar of the wrong app? The fact is that such a mistake is far MORE likely in OS X where a misclick will change focus and you might not recognize it happening.

    5. Re:Single menu conserves screen estate by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      "Pixels are more precious because they are more finite."

      Yes, and that's the reason the mac approach is inferior. The mac design never saves pixels and sometimes wastes them.

      "Menu items most often can be accessed by keyboard, making slightly longer distances required to reach them irrelevant..."

      Ah yes, the classic example of the "world's best GUI" motivating you to avoid using your mouse.

      "...furthermore, the extra attention required to properly hit a menu item that is in a random position on the screen means that even if the trip is shorter, it takes you longer to get there."

      Of course, you will be paying that penalty on the way back on the mac (and you can be using the keyboard shortcuts on Windows as well).

      "Take two browser windows, and stack them so that just the menu bar is visible behind the other one. I have this happen all the time, where I select the menu of the window behind the current one."

      Then you are terrible. I've never come close to making this mistake. I have, however, slightly misclicked a menu on the mac and caused my app to lose focus. That problem is real.

      "And why should I *have* to "carefully look where I click*. I don't have to on a Mac, I just wander up to the menu bar and there's an entry... That's exactly what I don't like about menus attached to windows, that you have to be overly attentive to what is where."

      Bullshit. You have to be just as accurate on a mac as on windows. Finding a menu in a windows app is not a burden. What is a burden is traveling huge distances across a large OS display.

      "At some point, if all you are doing is workarounds for problems perhaps you need to seek a more fundamental solution that actually adresses the problem instead of making it more tolerable."

      Of that we agree. Hopefully Apple will see to fixing their UI mistake soon just as Jobs did when he founded NeXT. Global menu bars worked on a 9" monitor. They're a joke now.

    6. Re:Single menu conserves screen estate by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Except it doesn't save any screen real estate at all. Assuming that the top menu bar is the same height in pixels as it would be in the app, every app will be shortened by the removal if the menu bar but the screen height will be shortened by the same amount. The result is that there is no functional difference in screen real estate at all. Furthermore, the long-distance menu bar is the *opposite* of "handy".

      I don't know about you, but when a window on my screen gets shorter I can see more behind it. I make use of the windows behind the ones that are in the foreground, including widgets and clocks and access to quick search entry fields, or reference material.

      Certain apps have no use for a menu bar at all. For those apps, the Apple approach wastes screen real estate.

      Mac apps don't have to have a toolbar either, and can go full screen if they like. If they aren't full-screen the toolbar is not really wasting space...

      The ammount of vertical screen height taken by the menu bar in multiple apps is NOT additive. It matters not how many windows you have open.

      Except as I said, it hides more thigns behind the windows. It's not exactly additive, but then that depends on how much of the window you want to see and therefore leave more of the window exposed because the menubar is there.

      I think that has to be impossible. How can you possibly go to the menu bar of the wrong app? The fact is that such a mistake is far MORE likely in OS X where a misclick will change focus and you might not recognize it happening.

      What happens is the other window gains focus - so you don't really get the wrong menu, just the wrong window unless you are in X-Windows as I noted, where you can access menus in windows without focus depending on the WM).

      In OS X going for a menu will not cause a misclick, because the menu is always at the top. Talk about impossible...

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    7. Re:Single menu conserves screen estate by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Yes, and that's the reason the mac approach is inferior. The mac design never saves pixels and sometimes wastes them.

      That made no sense, unless you only ever open one window at a time.

      Ah yes, the classic example of the "world's best GUI" motivating you to avoid using your mouse.

      The worlds best gui would not require using a mouse unless it were a better choice.

      Of course, you will be paying that penalty on the way back on the mac (and you can be using the keyboard shortcuts on Windows as well).

      It's hardly a penalty when mouse movements are so quick.

      Then you are terrible. I've never come close to making this mistake. I have, however, slightly misclicked a menu on the mac and caused my app to lose focus. That problem is real.

      I can't help it if I do more with my computer than you do, and seem to have more accurate mousing skills - I can hit what I aim for, but multiple menus can cause misclicks. I guess when you move a mouse REAL SLOW LIKE you can hit targets anywhere on the screen.

      Bullshit. You have to be just as accurate on a mac as on windows. Finding a menu in a windows app is not a burden. What is a burden is traveling huge distances across a large OS display.

      Is it quicker to reach the upper left corner of a screen or pixel 768,345? Look up fitts law.

      Of that we agree. Hopefully Apple will see to fixing their UI mistake soon just as Jobs did when he founded NeXT. Global menu bars worked on a 9" monitor. They're a joke now.

      I suggest you try using a few other X-Windows window managers and the Mac GUI for longer than ten seconds so you can avoid looking like such a UI noob in the future. It's pretty obvious you lack any kind of real-world experience with a GUI and a lot of windows.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    8. Re:Single menu conserves screen estate by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      "I don't know about you, but when a window on my screen gets shorter I can see more behind it."

      The screen itself is shorter as well. The clock and search entry fields are in the title bar, and I arrange my windows mostly side-by-side on a wide screen display.

      "Mac apps don't have to have a toolbar either, and can go full screen if they like."

      All mac apps have a menu bar whether they need it or not. The menu bar wastes screen space always. Try putting a window on top of it if you don't believe me.

      "What happens is the other window gains focus - so you don't really get the wrong menu..."

      Yes you do, and you have to go back to the window and reestablish focus THEN travel back to the menu bar to try again.

      "In OS X going for a menu will not cause a misclick, because the menu is always at the top. Talk about impossible..."

      But not at the far left, where there's a menu that is unrelated to the app. Talk about non-intuitive. Furthermore, just because it's at the top doesn't mean that, by the time you hunt carefully to the right for your menu, you won't click slightly below and lose focus. It's far more likely than selecting a menu in the wrong window!

    9. Re:Single menu conserves screen estate by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      "That made no sense, unless you only ever open one window at a time."

      You need to think about it some more. One window (maximized) is the only time the mac has an advantage (because in OS X a maximize app has no title bar).

      "The worlds best gui would not require using a mouse unless it were a better choice."

      And yet OS X requires a mouse and Windows does not. Remember that Windows machines always had optional mouses, so Windows always had thorough and complete keyboard shortcuts. It was a functional requirement from the beginning.

      "It's hardly a penalty when mouse movements are so quick."

      They aren't on large displays. The mac argument (Fitt's law) was once reasonable when displays were low resolution and users typically only had one window at a time. Now, with monitors at 2560x1600 and greater (and multiple displays) large mouse movements are not always quick.

      "I can't help it if I do more with my computer than you do, and seem to have more accurate mousing skills - I can hit what I aim for, but multiple menus can cause misclicks. I guess when you move a mouse REAL SLOW LIKE you can hit targets anywhere on the screen."

      It sounds quite the opposite. You're the one that stacks windows in inconceivable ways in order to maximize the likelihood of misclicks, then for all your power-user mouse accuracy you manage to miss your menus.

      "Is it quicker to reach the upper left corner of a screen or pixel 768,345? Look up fitts law."

      Fitt's law is a myth on larger displays. Furthermore, the menu for an app isn't in the upper left corner, and you still have to travel back to the app afterward.

      "I suggest you try using a few other X-Windows window managers and the Mac GUI for longer than ten seconds so you can avoid looking like such a UI noob in the future. It's pretty obvious you lack any kind of real-world experience with a GUI and a lot of windows."

      I think if you knew me you would be more careful saying who's the "noob". I'm old and experienced enough to never consider using such a stupid and juvenile term. This "noob" was using computers when the macintosh was originally introduced.

    10. Re:Single menu conserves screen estate by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      You need to think about it some more. One window (maximized) is the only time the mac has an advantage (because in OS X a maximize app has no title bar).

      Nope, this is exactly backwards. If I have 5 windows apps open I have 5 menu sets taking up space. If I have five mac apps open I have 1 menu set taking up space. Since I have to switch apps in either OS to select ay of the menu items, the Windows setup wastes almost 5 times as much space on my screen.

      And yet OS X requires a mouse and Windows does not. Remember that Windows machines always had optional mouses, so Windows always had thorough and complete keyboard shortcuts. It was a functional requirement from the beginning.

      Sadly, Windows standardized on the two button mouse. As a result, they are now behind in the area of keyboard only use. Because of the two-button standard developers on Windows regularly put functionality in a contextual menu only and not in the regular menus at all. As a result, those functions are completely unavailable to keyboard only Windows users. Now that OS X has improved their keyboard support for the OS as a whole, this factor has become the main differentiator with Windows trailing.

      They aren't on large displays. The mac argument (Fitt's law) was once reasonable when displays were low resolution and users typically only had one window at a time. Now, with monitors at 2560x1600 and greater (and multiple displays) large mouse movements are not always quick.

      Only if you don't adjust your mouse acceleration to the proper level for your monitor resolutions. I can move from one corner of one display to the opposite corner of my second display instantly, and my settings are not even maxed out.

      Fitt's law is a myth on larger displays.

      Gee, it was mentioned no less than ten times at the usability and design conference my company sent me to last year. Sorry Fitt's law is still a cornerstone of UI design.

      This "noob" was using computers when the macintosh was originally introduced.

      Don't you think it's about time you picked up a good book on UI design then, if you're going to comment on the subject? You seem way off base IMHO and I've been studying the topic formally or informally for almost a decade now. Windows does have some UI wins over Mac OS X, but you have not mentioned any of them yet.

  31. Re:lol punctuation *BITE* by cloricus · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Gorram it! I'm going to take the bait since the editors did such a bad job on this one.
     
    Seriously, if you are going to cut some one else down on their sentence structure make sure your own is correct to start with. From a purely syntax based look at a sentence it is illegal (I've been coding C all day so give me a break) to put a comma after a question mark. You may how ever encapsulate a question mark inside quotations ('?') and then follow with a comma, exclamation mark, full stop, or even another question mark. In the context you were using the statements they were rhetorical questions which means unless they were inside inverted commas they would be a full sentence in their own right. Next, if you want to hit some one over English maybe you should replace your 'z' in recognise (I don't care if you are American) with an 's' to make the rest of the world happy first. And lastly there should be a space between 'over' and the opening bracket at the end of your last sentence.
     
    Also as I rarely put with the grammar/spelling Nazi hat on I do not defend any errors in my own post. I'm simply defending the editors which is probably a better reason to mod me down than for being a Nazi. ;)

    --
    I ate your fish.
  32. From the Waste of CPU cycles Department. by HockeyPuck · · Score: 1

    So now we finally realize why we have to have 2,4,6,8 CPU cores in a home machine that is used to surf the web and send/receive email.

    More Eye Candy.

    I need spinning cursors, zooming window boxes, document previews in every icon, 3D graphics on document to be printed on a 2D paper. All you software vendors do is force me to buy new hardware or you won't support me.

    I remember a cartoon that was published in the paper when Windows95 came out, it was a guy tossing his computer out of a window and the caption was "This is why they call it Windows.." I guess b/c you have to throw everything away just to get the latest *NEW SHINY*.

    Nobody else does this.. I can still buy air/oil filters, mufflers, tires etc for my 1995 car. But g*d forbid I try to get support for 4 year old hardware. *PCI BUS? THAT"S SOOOOoooo 1990s...*

    Somebody ought to call GreenPeace on the software manufacturers for forcing us to by new hardware which causes the old hardware to be sent to landfills. It's not Intel/AMD/IBMs fault, they don't say "Our hardware will only work in the OS that will be shipped in two years"...

    1. Re:From the Waste of CPU cycles Department. by macostech · · Score: 1

      alleluia! alleluia! alle-fucking-luia!

      I /AM/ a Mac user, but why-o-why does the GUI have to consume so many cycles that you need a high-power box and GPU to run it? Why does XP go so much faster when you revert to the Win2000 UI-styles?? I haven't tried Vista (don't want to but suppose I'll eventually be forced to in some context), but it sounds ever worse.

      I'm not advocating for 40x24 7-bit ascii, but seriously, do GUI's need SO MUCH eye-candy!?

    2. Re:From the Waste of CPU cycles Department. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know that OS X still runs on older Macs, right? It'll run on older G4s without a hitch, and I've heard that even G3s can run it. Not only that, but each successive release of the OS has gotten faster than the last.

      Quite frankly, your argument is a load of crap and you don't know what you're talking about. You obviously have an axe to grind against graphical improvements, and for some reason you've constructed a strawman argument that they're stealing your precious CPU cycles.

    3. Re:From the Waste of CPU cycles Department. by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      Actually, no.

      The point of all this eye candy is that ever since the Vista/OS X graphics libraries got rewritten, all 2-D desktop graphics functions are handled by the normally-dormant video card instead of the CPU. Because the video card typically sits around doing nothing, it can be used for all sorts of superfluous effects.

      In practice this translates to a decrease in CPU usage by the windowing interface at best, and break-even at worst.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    4. Re:From the Waste of CPU cycles Department. by toddestan · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, Apple does have a tendency to limit what you can do with older hardware. For example, you have to have built in firewire ports to install 10.4, which is a completely arbitrary restriction that Apple put into the OS, in an attempt to force people to upgrade. You can bet that 10.5 will also have some arbitrary restriction - If I had to guess it quite likely run on any G3 based computer.

      Also, that whole every release runs faster than the previous is no longer true. It was true for a while, mainly because 10.0 was such a dog, but memory and CPU hogging features Apple has added into the latest releases like Spotlight and Dashboard really tax the older machines out there.

  33. DZ by ElephanTS · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yep, Blue Steel is just one look. Where's Magnum?

    --
    spoonerize "magic trackpad"
    1. Re:DZ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but, but,... he's beautiful!

  34. Ummm by Trashhalo · · Score: 1

    Doesn't Aero exist to compete with Aqua? The title makes it seem like MS has surpassed Apple and apple needs to do something to catch up The only reason I don't own a mac right now is because everytime I try out the macmini in the store it keeps crashing like non stop. But that doesn't stop me from drooling over the UI. So I stick with KDE.

    --
    Dooom
    1. Re:Ummm by SEMW · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Doesn't Aero exist to compete with Aqua? No. Aero exists to compete with Luna. Microsoft's biggest threat to Vista adoption by far is users sticking with XP. The threat from Apple is negligible by comparison.
      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
    2. Re:Ummm by smithcl8 · · Score: 1

      I call, like, bull. In two years of, like, usage, my Mac, like, has never, like, given me a problem.

    3. Re:Ummm by Trashhalo · · Score: 1

      Then maybe you should come talk to the people at these local stores. Because their machines keep hardlocking.

      --
      Dooom
  35. The other Aqua by me.at.work · · Score: 1

    This isn't really related to the article (which isn't much of an article btw). Troll me to smithereens.

    If Apple goes from Aqua to illuminous, what's the logical progression for Microsoft and Aero?

    My guess is the next interface from Ms will be known as "Wind". Then, as we all know, Ms has a habit of getting things somewhat right and very bloated in the third generation.

    So, my prediction for the third generation of Aero is simply "Flatulence". Oddly enough, this is how the first generation of Aero has been described as well.

  36. *whoosh* by darkwhite · · Score: 3, Funny

    Do you hear that sound, Mr. Cloricus? That is the sound of inevitability. That is the sound of a joke flying over your head.

    --

    [an error occurred while processing this directive]
  37. Scaling vectors may look unacceptable too... by starvingartist12 · · Score: 1

    As Iconfactory has mentioned, "Scaling vectors that are optimized for presentation at a large size will result in images that look unacceptable at small sizes. The trained eye of a designer knows which pixels to keep and which ones to throw away--automated scaling of an image does not."

    1. Re:Scaling vectors may look unacceptable too... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      True, but who says the things will be presented at small sizes? The reason I'm most looking forward to resolution independence is that it'll allow practical use of higher DPI displays. For example, I'm planning to get a Thinkpad X60 Tablet in a couple of days, and one thing I'm really excited about is that I can order it with an SXGA+ (1400x1050) display instead of a normal XGA (1024x768) one like on my current laptop, even though they're both 12". I don't anticipate scaling things down too often, but I do anticipate possibly scaling them up.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  38. By the way, Aero sucks by Swift2001 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The translucent windows are nothing but a mighty thief of computer cycles. Only some computers can display it, while it drowns in meritriciousness even when being displayed. The proof? The little red X in the close thingy. Is it possible to make something that ugly? A number of people don't like the stop lights on Aqua windows, but at least it's well designed. The color-coding is self-explanatory, and when you hove the mouse over it, it also gives you a clue when the +, - and x appear inside the "light." By contrast, the Vista close box is a big, nasty red thing that seems pasted on. Microsoft aesthetics.

  39. OT: nitpicking 'learning curve' by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    The learning curve for Vista is pretty steep.

    I'm about to do that really annoying thing and pick on your expression, apologies.

    A "steep learning curve" means something can be learned quickly.

    I think what you are trying to say is a shallow learning curve; one that takes a while to ramp up.

    --
    If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
    1. Re:OT: nitpicking 'learning curve' by emurphy42 · · Score: 1

      This is a common enough error that it really ought to have its own term. Per Wikipedia, the original definition of "learning curve" calculated unit cost as a function of experience, while the common usage here is based on a calculation of total cost as a function of experience. Both are affected by (1) the starting point and (2) the rate of improvement; in particular, the common usage of "steep learning curve" suggests (1) high and (2) slow.

  40. No by iangoldby · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think the name gives it away. "Illuminous." That's a word that people sometimes mistakenly use when they mean "luminous."

    I don't think Steve Jobs would want a word that in many people's mind would have connotations of ignorance.

    1. Re:No by hoshizora · · Score: 1

      This is the company that brought us "Think Different" and introduced CamelCase to the marketing world. Don't kid yourself, if Steve-o thinks "Illuminous" has a great ring to it, then Illuminous it will be.

      I bet 10.5 wouldn't even mark it as a misspelling.

    2. Re:No by demallien2 · · Score: 1

      Yup, although I'd be willing to bet that if that really is the name of the new product, it would be "Illuminus", not "Illuminous". At least then it would be a noun....

  41. I can login without touching my mouse... by SuperBanana · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hell even the single fact that when you are presented the logon screen, the pointer is on 10,10 and not at screencenter as on Windows, KDE or Gnome is an inconvenient. A little one but just a little thing here and a little thing there does a lot.

    Why does this matter, when at the text login page, you can type your username, hit tab, enter your password, hit enter, and be looking at a desktop seconds later? And actually launch programs, not have those programs cancel mouse actions (I love how Windows repeatedly cancels menus you're trying to navigate. When the entire OS revolves around a giant heirarchial menu. For fuck's sake, a program loading itself into the toolbar causes this!)

    In fact, I can then hit apple-space and type "Mail", use the down arrow and enter key to select it and launch Mail.app, and read+respond to email in my inbox. Still haven't touched my (multibutton) mouse. How about that...

    1. Re:I can login without touching my mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahah, the dumb fuck pointed out his "MULTI BUTTON" mouse because he's just so damn proud of it! Finally! After all these years, everyone look at my mouse! It's the butt of a thousand jokes no longer!

      You're worthless and the fact that you use a Mac is hilarious. Not only are drive letters too complicated for you, but what's all this focus stealing about?? Wha huh??

  42. Hopefully it's NOT about eye candy, for once... by L4m3rthanyou · · Score: 1

    Perhaps Apple has decided to give it a new name because they're actually rewriting it- as in, making some backend changes instead of the normal visual tweaks. After all, OS X is a bit of a pig when it comes to resources I realize that the idea of Apple not putting form over function for once is hard to grasp, but I'm sure it could happen...

    --
    One of these days, I'm going to cut you into little pieces.
  43. Re:lol punctuation *BITE* by Macthorpe · · Score: 1

    I think I heard the 'whoosh' of that post flying over your head from here.

    1) Take all the things you pointed out that were wrong with GP's post.

    2) Re-read the original summary.

    3) Go kick yourself. Hard.

    --
    "It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
  44. Certainly not for leopard by Builder · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Apple have had their developer community working on Leopard for about 3 months now. It is very unlikely that they would rip the work these guys have been doing out from under them with just 2 - 4 months to the launch of the next OS.

    Major developers like Adobe and Microsoft may have even been working to this platform for longer.

    So if there is a new UI coming, it won't be for 10.5

    1. Re:Certainly not for leopard by Quila · · Score: 1

      "Illuminous" could just be referring to the various technologies that will show up in Leopard like Core Animation and the significant improvement in the other interface libraries. Rumor turned that into a whole new interface. The supposed announcement time is about when Leopard is expected anyway.

    2. Re:Certainly not for leopard by WheresMyDingo · · Score: 1
      perhaps it is just a new theme for iApps and other Apple apps? or, it might be a theme that doesn't break out the painstaking layout of a gui, and sticks with the same dimensions for widgets so as not to break 3rd party app look and feel, but has a different color scheme or something.

      anyway, if I were the guy/gal who thought up this rumor, I'd be getting quite a kick out of the attention I'm getting right about now

  45. Illuminati to battle Aero? by Prototerm · · Score: 2, Funny

    WTF, I've been wondering where those guys have been hiding all this time. I've got this mental image of guys in hooded robes fighting a bunch wearing Buck Rogers rocket packs.

    --
    "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
  46. Please stop! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm getting iLL

  47. Run out of steam? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    I don't even notice the Aqua interface all that much. Forgot it was even called Aqua.

    Which is sort of the point. You savvy?

  48. Mac Mini crashing by EMB+Numbers · · Score: 1

    Talk to the store manager. In my experience, Macs do not crash (much). I have only force quit an application perhaps three times in 5 years, and I have never seen a Mac OS X crash. What does it even look like ? Maybe there is something wrong with the floor demo's hardware ?

    I do a lot of software development, use Windows file shares via SAMBA, browsing the web, send email, watch video, burn CD/DVD, plug in cameras and ipods, and use all of the standard productivity applications. I don't use Haxies. My kids play a lot of grade school appropriate games on the Mac in our house. Maybe my usage patterns just don't trip up the system.

    I have heard that ssh based CVS connections and industrial strength FTP usage might stress the system. I don't do that much.

  49. They already did by Quila · · Score: 1
    After all, OS X is a bit of a pig when it comes to resources I realize that the idea of Apple not putting form over function for once is hard to grasp, but I'm sure it could happen...



    Each generation of OS X gets faster, so their are working on the innards. As it stands now, most of the UI is done on the graphics card, and as of Leopard your UI will basically be one big OpenGL scene. Yes, OS X puts a lot of computing power towards that eye candy, but Apple keeps moving the cycle and memory load away from the CPU.

  50. Scared? by dniq · · Score: 1

    I think if Apple is "scared" of anything, then it's not the Aero itself, but it's ugly looks. I was scared too the first time I saw Vista's interface - OMFG!!! I'm still having nightmares...

  51. Just look at iTunes... by Fysiks+Wurks · · Score: 1

    ...look at the album art view, the slider at the bottom. Basically black on black with highlights and white outlines.

    Look at the website http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/index.html Apple has been moving from the grey on white to black backgrounds. The icons on the shiny black background may be foretelling the future GUI look.

    --
    P226
  52. Single Menu - Bad for Big Screens by AdamSebWolf · · Score: 1

    If you throw yourself down to an Apple store, you can try out the 30" Cinema displays. Kick up quicktime to play a hd-video, and it starts up in the bottom left corner. You want to hit File->Open, so off your mouse goes, 30 inches across the screen (having to be picked up and pulled back a couple of times to get there). Once you arrive, click file->open, then haul the chap another 30" back to hit Play on quicktime, because it won't start automatically.

    Now THAT is a pain in the ass. If the small quicktime menu had been on the window itself, where would be the problem? No, I'm dead against the single menu idea. It may look more elegant, but as screen resolutions and sizes increase, the arguments FOR the single bar become less important (adding a menu per-window hardly uses much space on a hi-res screen), and the arguments AGAINST start to grow.

    I say ditch it, there's better solutions, but that does require that Apple bite the bullet.

    1. Re:Single Menu - Bad for Big Screens by DDLKermit007 · · Score: 1

      If Apple+O for open is that hard to use, you have larger issues at hand. Macs were made to handle shortcuts well, and be pretty consistent about the handling of keyboard shortcuts. Anyone using a 30" Cinema display is going to be more on the, "Pro" level so such a thing is not hard for them to adapt to (hell if you use Quicksilver you almost NEVER need touch a menu). It's a waste of time to keep hitting menus for basic commands at any resolution. It always surprises me (even though it shouldn't anymore) that so many on /. are so dependent on menus for such simple things as: open, save, close, copy, paste, etc...

    2. Re:Single Menu - Bad for Big Screens by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      Windows does keyboard shortcuts, too. Why is it that mac people always resort to keyboard shortcuts when defending the "superior ease-of-use" of their GUI? Why does the greatest GUI ever created motivate "pro level" users to avoid the mouse? Why is it so hard to believe that the global menu bar is a scourge?

      "hell if you use Quicksilver you almost NEVER need touch a menu"

      What? Quicksilver knows how to keep me from ever having to run any of my applications? Amazing!!!

      "It always surprises me (even though it shouldn't anymore) that so many on /. are so dependent on menus for such simple things as: open, save, close, copy, paste, etc..."

      Didn't realize that was the only use of menus. Since when is the frequency of menu use involved in determining where the best placement for the menu is? Is a keyboard shortcut a good justification for placing a menu in a crappy location?

    3. Re:Single Menu - Bad for Big Screens by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      Preach it. Nothing demonstrates the fallacy of "Fitt's law" better than a big display. Apple's design dates back to when the screen width was only 512 pixels and it's the last vestige of Apple's worst GUI errors. Now that we're rid of monochrome displays and one-button mice it's time for that stupid menu bar to die.

    4. Re:Single Menu - Bad for Big Screens by pboulang · · Score: 1
      It always surprises me (even though it shouldn't anymore) that so many on /. are so dependent on menus for such simple things as: open, save, close, copy, paste, etc...
      cmd-q, cmd-h, cmd-w are so ingrained in my fingers (I mean, left hand is on the keyboard anyways) and so quick. alt-f4, alt-space n, and cntl-f4 as comparable keystrokes are simply ridiculous. If I had to use them, I'd use my mouse, too. . .
      --

      This comment is guaranteed*

      *not guaranteed

    5. Re:Single Menu - Bad for Big Screens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it so hard to believe that the global menu bar is a scourge?

      Because you can come up with no solid reasons (other than 'it's not Windows' and 'I have to pick up my mouse' (a problem seemingly only experienced by yourself) ).

      Is a keyboard shortcut a good justification for placing a menu in a crappy location?

      Most of us are not at all convinced it's a crappy location, in fact I like knowing that menus will be in a CONSISTENT position on the screen at all times; please go back to using Windows, doubtless you'll be happy with it.

  53. Draw the line by ender-iii · · Score: 1

    Maybe Apple just wanted to draw a line between a major change. It could be a new-ish set of API and the name is the line between the new API and the old. This could spawn updates/re-writes of apps to take advantage of new features as well as faze out old dead apps.

    In this case it would not the name so much as the idea.

    --
    ender-iii
  54. Continuum by ribo-bailey · · Score: 0

    "Is Jobs scared of Aero?, does it make sense to go for a new UI now?, has Aqua run out of steam?" Is Apple going under? Does Jobs have cancer? Is BSD dead? IS THE WORLD ENDING?

    In other news, the MLA has created a new form of punctuation called the quomma. A portmanteau of ? and , this new "?," has been heralded as a dawn of a new era in English.

  55. Hey Apple... by imageboard · · Score: 1

    How about you let us install and change themes without buying shareware haxies?

    1. Re:Hey Apple... by argent · · Score: 1

      I endorse this PRODUCT and/or SERVICE!

  56. finally... by epsy · · Score: 1

    they finally switched to enlightenment :D .. that's great news for the E17's release date :P

  57. Obvious Deficiency by ProfessionalCookie · · Score: 1

    Well obviously you need Quicksilver That's save you like five keystrokes in your reply to mail scenario. control-space, m, enter.

    1. Re:Obvious Deficiency by pboulang · · Score: 1

      That's my #1 hope for Jaguar.. I don't want an everything spotlight, I want a configurable app launcher. QS is always the first thing I install.

      --

      This comment is guaranteed*

      *not guaranteed

  58. Resolution Independence by Setti45 · · Score: 2, Informative
    To quote the features introduced for Leopard -> http://developer.apple.com/leopard/overview/
    Resolution Independence

    The old assumption that displays are 72dpi has been rendered obsolete by advances in display technology. Macs now ship with displays that sport native resolutions of 100dpi or better. Furthermore, the number of pixels per inch will continue to increase dramatically over the next few years. This will make displays crisper and smoother, but it also means that interfaces that are pixel-based will shrink to the point of being unusable. The solution is to remove the 72dpi assumption that has been the norm. In Leopard, the system, including the Carbon and Cocoa frameworks, will be able to draw user interface elements using a scale factor. This will let the user interface maintain the same physical size while gaining resolution and crispness from high dpi displays.

    The introduction of resolution independence may mean that there is work that you'll need to do in order to make your application look as good as possible. For modern Cocoa and Carbon applications, most of the work will center around raster-based resources. For older applications that use QuickDraw, more work will be required to replace QuickDraw-based calls with Quartz ones.

    This is more or less on Apple's website. Version 2 is no big surprise.
  59. How about stealing from themselves? by argent · · Score: 1

    Aero exists to compete with Luna.

    The best thing they could do to for the user interface to make me want to upgrade from 2000 to Vista would be to take the Pocket PC/Pocket PC 2002 theme... one that's flat, clean, and un-gimmicky (not to mention easy to implement efficiently) and make it the default.

  60. Two words: Fitt's law by KH2002 · · Score: 1
    Two words:

    Fitt's law

    1. Re:Two words: Fitt's law by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      Fitt's law isn't a law, it's an opinion that was reasonable back when monitors were small. Like the best lies, it's been repeated often enough that people actually believe it's true. Next time you have to pick up your mouse a couple times to get to the corner, try proving Fitt's law correct.

    2. Re:Two words: Fitt's law by KH2002 · · Score: 1

      If you have to repeatedly pick up your mouse, I wonder how your mouse acceleration is set.

      As for Fitt's law being a "lie" -- geez, don't get upset!

    3. Re:Two words: Fitt's law by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      Faster than the default in OS X and Windows both. It's always too slow for me.

      The difference is that I use very large monitors and the fallacy of "Fitt's law" is very apparent. Just watch people play around with a mac and a 30" monitor in an Apple store and you'll see it too.

  61. How do i kill Finder? (#2) by freedumb2000 · · Score: 1

    About your point #2: Does anybody know a way to avoid a reboot to fix a lost share? When I for example copy a file and lose my network connection (not unusual with wlan) the copy process will just freeze and i can't connect to the network share again. Restartimg of Finder won't work and neither will a kill -9. Does anyone know a reliable way to kill Finder without having to do a cold start (which is just nasty) ?

    1. Re:How do i kill Finder? (#2) by yabos · · Score: 1

      I've never really had a problem with it. Yes the Finder hangs but after about 1 minute it seems to time out and then asks if you want to disconnect the volume. Then after you do it goes back to normal. They really should separate this from the GUI thread though because the GUI shouldn't hang like that.

    2. Re:How do i kill Finder? (#2) by freedumb2000 · · Score: 1

      Yea, it really shouldn't hang like that. Unfortunatly it does and it doesn't matter in my case if i wait 1 minute or a few hours, it stays the way it is (I've tried) until i really need to access that network share again and have to do a cold reboot. I've have searched on Google mutiple times but to no avail. Am i really the only one with this problem? Any why will kill -9 not work? It gets stuck with an "exiting" status but it never does. Thanks for any help here :)

    3. Re:How do i kill Finder? (#2) by yabos · · Score: 1

      I guess you could try force quitting with the Activity Monitor. I'm not sure if that's the same as kill -9 though it could be.

    4. Re:How do i kill Finder? (#2) by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      If you want to give the GUI an extreme bitchslap, and can open a terminal, find the process number for 'loginwindow' and kill it. Timeouts on network shares can be a real bitch though, especially over wireless connections.

  62. No Other Pressing Matters by Flwyd · · Score: 1

    Unlike Vista, BSD's had symlinks for a quarter of a century, so Apple's developers have plenty of time to work on UI improvements.

    *zing*

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature.
  63. Oh..you mean PathFinder? by JasonBee · · Score: 1

    Cool...AND functional! http://www.cocoatech.com/pf4/ Much better than the regular Finder IMHO. I'm a Windows admin/DAS/IT supervisor by day so I get to use Windows plenty! There are great things in both Vista and OS X - however usability is still with the OS X camp...and I'm also bitter that Vista isn't implementing a true symlinking method. Bah. JB

  64. Obvious Reason (battery life) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems obvious why MS and Apple would want to make UI changes toward black/dark themes. It's a cheap and easy work around for maximizing battery life. White backgrounds and themes suck up battery life.

  65. Heading the wrong way? by solitas · · Score: 1

    Who gives a flying fXck what it looks like just so long as it works? I'm using a pre-release of 10.5 right now and find it good enough with the same scheme as 10.4 (I never even knew it was called 'Aqua', and that never made a shXts-bit of difference as to how it worked). My only complaint is that PhotoBooth refuses to start up because (it says) it doesn't like my video card (AGP Rage128 Pro that came with the machine).

    --
    "It's time to take life by the cans." ~ Bender ("Bendin' in the Wind", ep. 3-13)
  66. Apple's move is brilliant by prantik · · Score: 1

    The move is smaaaart from a commerical point of view, and ultimately it is good for the future of the unix desktop.

    We know that OS X is well within the public eye.
    We know that M$ will push Vista into the public eye.
    We know that Vista is going to very challenging to adopt for the end user, and for many it won't offer obvious benefit over XP.
    We know that OS X has been doing much of what Vista does for a while now, on lower hardware than what Vista demands.

    But I claim that OS X is still alien to those who are not willing to venture past the familiar Windows interface.
    As Vista is pushed into the public eye, it will be known as the future of that familiar interface.
    Everyone will eventually will be faced with the choices that come with change and technological advancement.
    By making OS X look like Vista, OS X first looks much less alien to those who are afraid of moving past Windows.
    Through superficial means, consciously or not, OS X enters the choice matrix .
    Then the end-user looks at the hardware costs.
    He looks at the $600 price tag for a Mac mini, versus the >$1200 price tag for a Vista desktop.
    He also notices that the hardware is prettier and is basically better designed.
    The choice then is between two OSs with apparently similar desktops.
    One has the Microsoft name and certain important programs, but with lots of bugs
    The other has the Apple name, with its big fanbase and iPod associations and reputed stability and security.
    For even the novice, the Vista desktop and the Apple desktop become directly comparable.
    And then for most, the Apple desktop with OS X makes more sense, and it is purchased.
    That's the commerical side.

    For the *nix desktop side..
    Software developers notice that Apple hardware and software sales are increasing.
    The few remaining Windows-only companies like AutoDesk realizing that they are not taking advantage of a market.
    As these professional programs are ported, the OS X desktop userbase (and there *nix desktop userbase) increases.
    This means more documentation and an increasingly popular platform for software development.
    It also means that our beloved OSS programs will have guaranteed place.
    If and when we need a commercial app, we won't need to switch desktops and computers.
    Ultimately, the experience becomes power pleasant and productive.

    1. Re:Apple's move is brilliant by lowe0 · · Score: 1

      Nope, the customer ultimately buys the $300 desktop on special from Dell, and then wonders why it's the most thrown-together hunk of junk they've ever used.

  67. Re: Finder's inability to not finalize a CD by An+anonymous+Frank · · Score: 1

    Under Disk Utility, it's named "Leave appendable".

  68. Re:windows within windows, or not by An+anonymous+Frank · · Score: 1

    As I recall from my debugging days under Windows, a child/document window will be constrained within a parent/application window unless it is set as "modal" (by the developper), upon which it is (mostly) free.

  69. Re:Aqua (2001-???)$ by KonoWatakushi · · Score: 1

    Maybe there aren't any *nixes that doe exactly what they want? And there's a reasonable amount of FreeBSD and NeXT stuff flaoting around in there already. Any one of Linux, Solaris, or FreeBSD would provide a much more solid foundation than Darwin. All of these are fundamentally similar enough that porting the GUI would be less effort than maintaining Darwin. About the only thing that needs considerable work are the various Mach interfaces, and it is arguable that those should go anyways. Darwin is a bastardized FreeBSD/Mach combination, and will always be limited by the poor performance of Mach. The valuable NeXT code lives on in Cocoa, and is almost entirely independent of the underlying OS.

    Whoever's fording DRM down your throat, it isn't Apple. I've a few songs I bought off iTunes, but I wasn't forced to and can use plenty of non-DRMed media on my Mac. I may have speculated too much on this, but this is not the DRM I am referring to. MacOS already takes advantage of the TPM, to keep it running on Apple hardware, and I expect things will be worse with 10.5.

    As a desktop OS, most *nixes are half-baked and severely lacking. As a desktop OS, there's nothing that meets my needs better than OS X and that's what it's trying to be, not just another *nix. *nix stuff is just a nice bonus Linux as a desktop OS is lacking, but it provides a very solid foundation. The "*nix stuff" isn't just a nice bonus, it is the foundation of MacOS X, and it is very brittle and shaky.

    Over 90% of the market for computers is under $599? News to me. Apple does not sell a system for less than $999. $599 is for a bare computer. Furthermore, you have to spend an extra $200 just to get a rewrite-able DVD drive that is available on far cheaper PCs. Anyways, I was wrong, the PC market for systems over $999 is actually only 4%. This post includes a link to an article, and also summarizes the current PC market demographics.

    That must be why they're selling record number of computers and have a growing market share. Maybe they should just close down the company and return the money to the shockholders? No, maybe they should do their stockholders a favor, and address the changing market. The $500 PC accounts for 38% of the market, and it is growing fast. Also, the $599 Mini does not use standard hardware, and is not upgradable, making it a very poor value compared to these cheaper machines.

    Anyways, there are a ton of people who have been waiting for the "xMac"; Apple could do a whole lot better.
  70. The pointer has always been at 10,10 after boot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well... the pointer is at 10,10 on logon because the pointer has always been at 10,10 after boot. This has been so since the Macintosh was born.

    So chalk it up to tradition.

  71. The all-seeing eye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would be most interested in the bavarian version of this illuminous screen, designed by the Trilateral Comission for Apple Corp. I already have a Bilderberg Group sound system, made in the UN. You get a voucher for free masons if you buy the new Apple OS with illuminated GUI!

  72. It's simple, really by LKM · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Now that Microsoft has copied Aqua, it's time for Apple to make Aqua look old. Simple as that.

  73. Re:Aqua (2001-???)$ by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1
    Any one of Linux, Solaris, or FreeBSD would provide a much more solid foundation than Darwin. All of these are fundamentally similar enough that porting the GUI would be less effort than maintaining Darwin.

    That's a big claim. Why should we believe you when Apple's engineers, who know the details of the code better, seem happy enough to work with Darwin?

    About the only thing that needs considerable work are the various Mach interfaces, and it is arguable that those should go anyways.

    I'm sure that wuldn't take long or brake compatibility with anything.

    I may have speculated too much on this, but this is not the DRM I am referring to. MacOS already takes advantage of the TPM, to keep it running on Apple hardware, and I expect things will be worse with 10.5.

    That's not exactly a problem if I'm in the market for Apple hardware.

    Linux as a desktop OS is lacking, but it provides a very solid foundation. The "*nix stuff" isn't just a nice bonus, it is the foundation of MacOS X, and it is very brittle and shaky.

    That's a rather trollish exaggeration. Not perfect in every way according to your criteria != very brittle and shaky. You make it sound like Mac OS 7.5.3, Now that was brittle and shaky. Type 11 errors. Yay!

    Apple does not sell a system for less than $999.

    That's rather diferent to saying 'currently every computer they sell is priced outside of >90% of the market.' Now where is the evidence that >90% of the market is for systems, rather than individual computers? Why would I want to buy a monitor when I already have a perfectly good one?

    Furthermore, you have to spend an extra $200 just to get a rewrite-able DVD drive that is available on far cheaper PCs.

    A lot of people will never get round to burning DVDs. I have a Superdrive and have used it maybe twice in the last year.

    No, maybe they should do their stockholders a favor, and address the changing market. The $500 PC accounts for 38% of the market, and it is growing fast.

    And what's the profit margin on those things? Not great, especially compared to the markets Apple is in. How much production capacity do they have available? Enough to manufacture sufficient quantities of a new, cheap model to offset the reduced profit margin? Would people bother to buy Apple in the el-cheapo commodity market? You haven't considered whether there is a demographic there for Apple to target and whether it's worth targeting them. Apple seem to b doing just fine with their current lineup.

    Also, the $599 Mini does not use standard hardware

    It's not exactly exotic. The worst you could say is that some components are laptop variants, but that's about it.

    and is not upgradable, making it a very poor value compared to these cheaper machines.

    How many people buying those machines upgrade anything more than the RAM and maybe hard drive? Not a lot. And you're placing no value on the small footprint, quiet operation, pleasing aesthetics, etc. that other people will place value on. Not every consumer has the same requirements and value systems as you. In fact given that you think OS X should be built on Linux, you're likely very different to the average consumer.

    Anyways, there are a ton of people who have been waiting for the "xMac"; Apple could do a whole lot better.

    Having complained about the high entry price point, you now want Apple to produce a more expensive machine than the Mini?

  74. Fitt's law is no "fallacy" by KH2002 · · Score: 1

    One could argue that conclusions based on Fitt's law break down as screens get bigger. This doesn't mean it's a fallacy -- any more than Newton's laws are fallacies just because they break down at extreme scales.

    Fitt's law is no "fallacy." I take advantage of it hundreds of time every day. Windows frustrates me in the way I have to take care to vertically position the pointer on the menu bar, because of the lack of Fitt's law help.

    Consider the possibility that there is no one correct answer here.

  75. Aqua has always evolved by kitzilla · · Score: 1

    Well, maybe this story is news -- but not big news.

    Apple's aesthetics have never been static. The Platinum desktop seems ubiquitous at a distance, but it only ruled from the release of OS 8 in July of 1997 through the release of OS X 10.0 in 2001. That's four years. Aqua is already older.

    Not that Aqua has remained static. Today's Aqua features far less saturated colors than its predecessor. That god-awful brushed metal interface has been largely replaced by the Unified theme, sans titlebars, and the pinstripes are gone.

    The biggest tip-off that change is coming was in the release of iTunes 7, which features dramatically darker colors, nothing "lickable" (to borrow Job's description of Aqua's widgets), and an interesting satin-finish window elevator.

    It's not as if Apple's aesthetics are restricted to the desktop. Consider the goofy day-glo blue, green, orange, and purple of the early iPod advertising. I knew they were over the day I saw that moody blue-tone "Jazz" iPod spot. Bob Dylan's recent commercial sure fits the glossy white/glossy black look of the MacBook line. Both the glossy and blue-tone motifs are obvious on the current Apple Itunes and Quicktime web pages.

    So it's no surprise Aqua is in for an overhaul. And while I doubt Vista was the driving force behind this evolution, it would probably be a bit prideful to think Aero had nothing to do with Apple possibly opting for a overhaul of OS X's presentation. So? Macintosh is in its best market position ever -- surely Jobs would have his baby on the front end of a desktop paradigm, rather than at the end.

    I can't imagine Apple will bring Leopard to market with less than all the UI sexiness its designers can muster. Personally, I'm looking forward to it.

    --
    This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.