Slashdot Mirror


Apple's OS X Leopard In Depth

jcatcw writes "Computerworld begins its Week of Leopard with an in-depth review and image gallery covering Apple's newest version of OS X. Is it worth the wait? Well, Yes. It trumps Vista, of course; the Finder, Quick Look and Cover Flow provide better functionality and eye candy; Time Machine is the biggest undelete ever and the restore function is one of the coolest things we've ever seen; it has iChat; and has lots of updates under the hood. The answer might be no if you're lacking in the hardware department - an FAQ on how to get ready for the new version will help."

624 comments

  1. Computerworld Developers by Mikey-San · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Maybe the guy at Computerworld could give us seeded developers a copy of the GM before release. Apple sure didn't bother.

    --
    Mikey-San
    Karma: +Eleventy billion (mostly affected by watching Celebrity Jeopardy)
  2. no surprise there by User+956 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yes. It trumps Vista, of course

    Is that really a big accomplishment? I mean, really? XP trumps Vista.

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    1. Re:no surprise there by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Vista's definitely a step forward from XP, especially on the backend. They've really gone all-out on the "hybrid kernel" idea and it really works to keep things stable and organized. It's certainly prettier than Gnome :/ For programming and the command line, give me bash. For anything graphical at all, I'll take vista any day. Linux just doesn't have a mature desktop environment available, and that's the point of a graphical interface! We'll see how KDE4 turns out..

    2. Re:no surprise there by Wolfrider · · Score: 1, Interesting

      --Dude - Windows Two KAY trumps -Vista-! :P

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    3. Re:no surprise there by Scudsucker · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sure, Vista is great - if you hated the actually useful features that were promised for Longhorn that were stipped out, having your OS use fifteen frikkin gigabytes of space, a big performance downgrade, and DRM hooks all over the operating system as Microsoft puts the MPAA over you.

    4. Re:no surprise there by daybot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For programming and the command line, give me bash. For anything graphical at all, I'll take vista any day.

      Clearly you haven't tried OSX. You get a consistent, fluid and high performance GUI. When you want a shell, you get a Unix one on a certified Unix OS; in a fancy translucent window if you so choose. Beats having to run Cygwin on a Windows box.

      Linux just doesn't have a mature desktop environment available, and that's the point of a graphical interface!

      Er, who's talking about Linux? This story is about Mac OSX Leopard...

    5. Re:no surprise there by Ucklak · · Score: 1

      Windows 98 freaking trumps Vista as a game machine.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    6. Re:no surprise there by geekoid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you argument for pro Vista is that it has a more mature desktop then Linux,in a Mac post, then things are truly sad for Vista.

      I would also argue on you use of the word mature. I don't think it's desktop is old enough to be mature.

      Good software mature, bad software ages. MS OS ages.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:no surprise there by drsmithy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Clearly you haven't tried OSX. You get a consistent, fluid and high performance GUI. When you want a shell, you get a Unix one on a certified Unix OS; in a fancy translucent window if you so choose.

      Probably because the version of OS X that potentially meets those standards was only released today. And I'm sceptical about the "fluid and high performance GUI", since 'teh snappay' of 10.4 would need to have increased *massively* to qualify.

    8. Re:no surprise there by Penguin+Follower · · Score: 2, Funny

      What's wrong with *your* 10.4? Mine is quite snappy. (MacPro Quad 2.66GHz 2GB RAM 250GB HDD)

    9. Re:no surprise there by Rufty · · Score: 5, Funny

      But Vista still beats WinME!
      (kinda...)

      --
      Red to red, black to black. Switch it on, but stand well back.
    10. Re:no surprise there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      That G4 Mini I bought that came standard with 256mb of memory was pretty much lacking in the snappy department, and it came with 10.3. 10.4 slowed it down to the "unusable" range. Don't even want to think of what 10.5 would do to it. For snappy I had to install Linux.

    11. Re:no surprise there by daybot · · Score: 3, Informative

      Probably because the version of OS X that potentially meets those standards was only released today

      Yes that's true of the 'certified Unix' bit, but I believe everything else still stands.

      And I'm sceptical about the "fluid and high performance GUI", since 'teh snappay' of 10.4 would need to have increased *massively* to qualify.

      Play a 720p H.264 in Quicktime, run iTunes with another video going, add several browsers showing web pages with animated Flash bits. Now use Expose to show all these windows at once. My MacBook Pro with el cheapo ATI onboard graphics can handle that, but try the same with Flip 3-D on Vista (which is nothing like as useful or elegant as Expose), even with an uber Quadro card, and you'll see why I say OSX has a high performance GUI.

    12. Re:no surprise there by imsabbel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sorry, if that kind of computer wouldnt be "quite snappy", it would be an utter disgrace...

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    13. Re:no surprise there by dejvnull · · Score: 1

      This is the best Vista comment EVER!!! So true, the "kinda"!!! Doesnät that say it all about Vista?

    14. Re:no surprise there by iphayd · · Score: 1

      I mean, really? XP trumps Vista. But the real question is: Does ME trump Vista?
    15. Re:no surprise there by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1
      the current gnome version is and always has been unusable for real work

      What can't you do with it?

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    16. Re:no surprise there by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I'm quite sure that a Quad 2.66Ghz with 2GB of ram would be quite snappy in Vista too.

    17. Re:no surprise there by Z34107 · · Score: 2, Funny

      When you want a shell, you get a Unix one on a certified Unix OS; in a fancy translucent window if you so choose.

      I choose the unholy union of C# and Perl (aka Windows Powershell) and Aero Glass! And just try to defeat my unstoppable DirectX 10... Tremble in fear!!!1!!1eleven

      --
      DATABASE WOW WOW
    18. Re:no surprise there by drewness · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      I'm quite sure that a Quad 2.66Ghz with 2GB of ram would be quite snappy in Vista too. Sadly, no. We have computer at work with Quad 2.66GHz processors, 4GB of RAM, a fairly current nVidia video card, and Vista Ultimate. And it's just at the cusp of usable. If I didn't know the specs I doubt I'd guess it was that powerful.

      The Dual 1.8GHz iMac with 2GB of RAM (and a crappy Intel GMA video card) running OS 10.4 that I use is much snappier.
    19. Re:no surprise there by daybot · · Score: 1

      I'm quite sure that a Quad 2.66Ghz with 2GB of ram would be quite snappy in Vista too.

      That's a negative. I run quad 2.66 with 4GB RAM with a Quadro graphics card performance still sucks.

    20. Re:no surprise there by daybot · · Score: 1

      I choose the unholy union of C# and Perl (aka Windows Powershell) and Aero Glass! And just try to defeat my unstoppable DirectX 10... Tremble in fear!!!1!!1eleven

      That's great! Now all you need is Silverlight and Mic^H^H^Hyou will be UNSTOPPABLE!!1

    21. Re:no surprise there by notthe9 · · Score: 1

      No. Vista is stable and feature-rich. ME was awful. Vista is a bit of a resource hog, but is well thought out and does have improvement in some areas (at least improvement in the direction it is intended to go).

      I'm not a Windows fanboi. I do not like Windows or run it at home. I would be someone who'd want to bash Vista but...well, the worst I can say is that it doesn't seem to have many major improvements from XP.

    22. Re:no surprise there by commodoresloat · · Score: 2, Informative

      For snappy I had to install Linux. Or RAM. My G4 Mini is plenty snappy for what it is, though of course I much prefer the MacBook Pro. I also run 10.4 on a G4 dual 867 and it runs just fine. RAM is definitely the key here.
    23. Re:no surprise there by darthflo · · Score: 1

      250 Gig HD? Cute. (~4 TB here. Linux cause XP/2003 wouldn't work with Volumes >2 TB and Vista'd be a pain in the ass)

    24. Re:no surprise there by LKM · · Score: 1

      It should also be noted that Flash performance on Mac OS X is somewhat crappy (which may be one of the reasons why the iPhone never got Flash to begin with), so you'd expect Windows to have the upper hand in this comparison.

    25. Re:no surprise there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Click the "Start" Button.

    26. Re:no surprise there by jamar0303 · · Score: 1

      Right. One more anecdote- My computer's a Single-core 1.2GHz with 512MB RAM. Snappy in Mac, not so in Windows. Definitely worth the time to hack OSx86 onto it.

      --
      OSx86 FTW
    27. Re:no surprise there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Tosser.

    28. Re:no surprise there by MrAngryForNoReason · · Score: 2, Insightful

      RAM is definitely the key here.

      Which is why it is a shame that Apple not only ship a system with so little RAM it is too slow to run the installed OS well, but also make it incredibly difficult to upgrade the RAM to a reasonable level. Yes you can have the RAM factory upgraded when you buy the system, but at a large price premium, and it is no good to those who don't realise they need more until after using the machine.

      I have never understood why Apple don't have a removable panel on the mini to allow RAM upgrades, it is a system that works perfectly well on the iMac.

    29. Re:no surprise there by Blood_God · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well crappy performance from something that's crappy and used in a huge number of unsuitable situations is to be expected regardless of platform.

    30. Re:no surprise there by dave420 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I've used OS X a lot. Vista is more responsive, plus Vista's keyboard-accessibility is unparalelled. There's a lot of Vista criticism on slashdot, and I don't think all of it is reasonable. Vista's GUI is the fastest GUI I've ever used on any platform. The mouse is quick, the windows move speedily, there's no lag, the keyboard shortcuts work brilliantly.

    31. Re:no surprise there by John+Allsup · · Score: 1

      Yeah - 256Mb is too little for Tiger. But after upgrading to 1GB (the max possible in a mini G4) Tiger runs fine for most things. I'm still wondering about Leopard -- I want the new features, but the 'if it ain't broke' mentality seems to be taking priority here.

      --
      John_Chalisque
    32. Re:no surprise there by John+Allsup · · Score: 1

      Given how the RAM fits into the mac mini, I can see why it's not panel accessible -- you'd have to take the entire side of the mini off! That said, why they don't use good old fashioned screws on the bottom I don't know.

      --
      John_Chalisque
    33. Re:no surprise there by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Sadly, no. We have computer at work with Quad 2.66GHz processors, 4GB of RAM, a fairly current nVidia video card, and Vista Ultimate. And it's just at the cusp of usable. If I didn't know the specs I doubt I'd guess it was that powerful.

      Oh, bullshit. I have Vista on a 3+ year old Dell _Laptop_ with a 2Ghz Pentium-M and 2G RAM and it's quite fast enough.

    34. Re:no surprise there by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well crappy performance from something that's crappy and used in a huge number of unsuitable situations is to be expected regardless of platform.

      Ah someone who has the same beliefs as me :) Not to mention how much they can kill available CPU when some stupid site decides to have pop-unders appear every 10 minutes with Flash content - yuck. Truth is, too many gee-wiz marketing divisions mis-understand the difference between movie and informational web sites.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    35. Re:no surprise there by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Yes that's true of the 'certified Unix' bit, but I believe everything else still stands.

      Well, 10.4 has enough consistency issues and it's certainly not got a "high performance GUI" on anything less than a ridiculously powerful machine.

      Play a 720p H.264 in Quicktime, run iTunes with another video going, add several browsers showing web pages with animated Flash bits. Now use Expose to show all these windows at once. My MacBook Pro with el cheapo ATI onboard graphics can handle that, but try the same with Flip 3-D on Vista (which is nothing like as useful or elegant as Expose), even with an uber Quadro card, and you'll see why I say OSX has a high performance GUI.

      Yet still has annoying lags in things like menus and window resizing, especially once you have a few windows open (less so on my wife's MBP, but quite apparent on my mum's iMac G5 and frustrating on my 1Ghz iBook). Especially when you run it on more modest hardware without the advantage of dual processors (which, even with OS X's relatively primitive SMP capabilities, lend a significant improvement to responsiveness).

      Further, your example isn't really demonstrating a "high performance GUI" because the bulk of it is being handled in hardware by the video card. Thinks like resizing windows, menu delays, switching between windows (without Expose, which serves to mask the lag), etc, are sluggish in OS X compared to XP and - to a lesser extent - Vista.

    36. Re:no surprise there by sammy+baby · · Score: 1

      That does sorta sound like the plot to a bad cartoon, actually.

      "Sir... it's bad."
      "What?"
      "It's General Rapacious, sir. He has the Silverlight."
      "Sweet mother of God."

    37. Re:no surprise there by sammy+baby · · Score: 1

      Can you give me a couple examples? I don't think I've heard anything about new keyboard shortcuts. I use the expose functionality a ton in OS X, so if there's something similar in Vista I'd be interested in hearing about it.

    38. Re:no surprise there by Penguin+Follower · · Score: 1

      Oh, bullshit. I have Vista on a 3+ year old Dell _Laptop_ with a 2Ghz Pentium-M and 2G RAM and it's quite fast enough.

      I'll *mostly* agree with you on the bullshit call for his system, but I have a 2 year old Dell laptop with 1GB of RAM that does not run Vista snappy (though its usable). And I'm not entirely sure upgrading it to 2GB would fix the problem.

      While I have not tried Vista using BootCamp on my MacPro, I do have Vista installed on a Q6600 (Kentsfield) Core 2 Quad @ 2.4GHz w/ 2GB RAM and it's not as snappy as I'd prefer. It's certainly usable, but not as snappy as my MacPro running OS X for day to day operations. (And actually, I tried Ubuntu on it when I first built it - Ubuntu ran more snappy than Vista and XP on it.

    39. Re:no surprise there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [...]OS X's relatively primitive SMP capabilities[...]

      Somehow I'm betting you wouldn't be able to quantify why OS X's SMP capabilities are primitive.

      (Here's a hint -- they're not.)

      Thinks like resizing windows, menu delays, switching between windows (without Expose, which serves to mask the lag), etc, are sluggish in OS X compared to XP and - to a lesser extent - Vista.

      Except when said operations are dramatically faster. It's really amusing you include XP in this; in XP windows brought to the foreground usually need some repainting of previously obscured areas since XP doesn't buffer window contents. If the redraw process takes a substantial amount of time (which is normal for some apps), switching can be quite slow.

      Granted, it is true that many applications don't have much to redraw, but there's another common problem. It turns out that XP's nightmarishly bad VM system is designed to try to get hints about how it should behave from the GUI layer; it deliberately swaps out applications other than the foreground app in a misguided attempt to keep lots of free RAM available for the foreground app. Often it does this even when the machine isn't under any memory pressure at all. So it's been my experience that switching between applications can be an incredibly painful process on XP; if you leave an app in the background for 10 minutes, you might be doomed to 30 seconds (or more) of swapfile grind just to get it back.

      OS X, on the other hand, buffers all windows, so there is never any repainting to do when switching between applications. Bam, instant switch. And there's relatively little pointless swapout either; while the VM in 10.4 isn't the best, it's far from the mess that is in XP.

    40. Re:no surprise there by los+furtive · · Score: 1

      Further, your example isn't really demonstrating a "high performance GUI" because the bulk of it is being handled in hardware by the video card.

      You enunciate your words rather clearly for a guy who's talking out of his ass.

      --

      I'm a writer, a poet, a genius, I know it. I don't buy software, I grow it.

    41. Re:no surprise there by paulnosignal.net · · Score: 1

      Sadly, anything with a functional command line is lumped in with Linux. The point n click brigade wouldn't know the difference between Solaris, Linux, FreeBSD and OS X if you painted it on their faces. I noted with interest that this is the first fully POSIX and SUS 3 compliant release of OS X too.

    42. Re:no surprise there by sehrgut · · Score: 1

      *snerk* Yeah, especially when Microsoft customers want to downgrade back to XP, Leopard kills Vista. Heck, Leopard eats Vista for lunch! http://www.flickr.com/photos/16424953@N04/1762035991/

    43. Re:no surprise there by Penguin+Follower · · Score: 1

      Damn that's a lot of pr0n you got there!

      On a more serious note, I just haven't found a need for more than the base drive that came with the system. I've got plenty of music in iTunes, and I've got a decent amount of apps installed, and I still have 100GB free. I did have a 160GB drive added for a short while to use for BootCamp, but I run Windows inside Parallels these days.

    44. Re:no surprise there by eclectic4 · · Score: 1

      This is BootCamp, not Parallels, right? Vista to be slow on a Quad 2.66 would be quite odd via BootCamp...

      --

      "The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
    45. Re:no surprise there by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

      You'd be pleased with Leopard then. On my MacBook Pro it's snappier than both Vista (the secondary OS) and Tiger. Apple seem to have rewritten the Finder, it's noticeably smoother and more responsive.

  3. Re:Computerworld Developers by laddy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Doesn't look like they got the GM. Their dock is on the side and isn't sporting the revised look.

  4. Multiple Desktops by Chris_Stankowitz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Does anyone know what holds MS back from adding the Multiple Desktop feature? I know it can be had with 3rd party software, however last time I used one it really slowed down my machine and caused some crashes.

    The lack of such a feature that has been around for eons in the Unix/Linux world drives me crazy!

    1. Re:Multiple Desktops by chuck · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's available with 1st party software. It's kind of lame, but it does the job.

      http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx

    2. Re:Multiple Desktops by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      They do have MSVDM. I have it installed, but don't use it since it's sort of a bolt-on hack (no easy way to move an existing window to a new workspace, for example).

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    3. Re:Multiple Desktops by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 1

      Microsoft is asserting its stranglehold on the real solution to the multiple desktops problem- excellent multiple physical monitor support. Get a nice big second monitor and install UltraMon.. you'll be totally unable to go back to mere "multiple desktops"

    4. Re:Multiple Desktops by Chris_Stankowitz · · Score: 1

      Thanks, didn't know it existed (1st party). I did just install it and lame doesn't even cut it. All it does is mirror my desktop 3 more times. Sure, by definition I now have 4 desktops, but far from the functionality of what every other OS provides.

    5. Re:Multiple Desktops by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Same here. Microsoft's virtual desktop power tool crashes Vector NTI reliably, which makes it entirely useless for me.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    6. Re:Multiple Desktops by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      o Minimize window

      o Switch workspace

      o Maximize window

      --works for me...

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    7. Re:Multiple Desktops by Chris_Stankowitz · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ok, Nevermind, I guess you can...I had them shared. Better than nothing I guess...thanks again.

    8. Re:Multiple Desktops by Liberaltarian · · Score: 4, Informative

      It is quite a hack indeed. Microsoft's Virtual Desktop Manager relies on bundling groups of windows that are minimized and expanded simultaneously (along with a different desktop background for each bundle). Not only do most programmers not anticipate this (and due to the hacky nature of the implementation it can cause major headaches for end users), apparently MS programmers don't either, as even IE acts ridiculously with it. You also can't move a window in one "desktop" to another.

      I'm happy XP finally brought real multiple-display support (something the Mac has had since System 7 at the latest), but who knows when robust multiple-virtual-display support will come along.

      --
      The Fight for Student Power on Campus: www.forstudentpower.org.
    9. Re:Multiple Desktops by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Microsoft are *years* behind everyone else on multiple desktops.

      I was working with multiple monitors on System 7 many years ago (and the implementation was *better* than the one that XP and Vista have - you could move your desktops around, even lay them out vertically or in a grid.. on Windows the position is hardwired to the graphics card and they must be next to each other).. around the era of Windows 3.1

    10. Re:Multiple Desktops by toadlife · · Score: 2, Informative

      VirtuaWin kicks ass. Have you tried that one?

      I learned about it from a Slashdot post, so maybe I can return the favor.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    11. Re:Multiple Desktops by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 1

      Why on earth would you want your monitors to not be flush with each other? You want to have to keep moving your mouse across 10 inches of empty air before it appears on the next screen? And you -can- lay your monitors out vertically and horizontally in a grid in XP/Vista too...

    12. Re:Multiple Desktops by larry+bagina · · Score: 1
      yes... but that only works if shared desktop is enabled (which defeats the entire purpose, imo). If shared desktops are off, you need to
      • turn on shared desktop
      • minimize all your windows
      • switch workspace
      • display the windows
      • switch back to original workspace
      • turn off shared desktop
      That's about 4 steps too many. Right clicking in the menu bar/taskbar and sending it to another desktop would be good. A keyboard shortcut would be good. Having a VDM pop up window that let you move windows would be good. The above, not so good.
      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    13. Re:Multiple Desktops by Shados · · Score: 1

      Err? I can't say if XP and Vista's implementation is better or worse than System 7, which I've never used, but, unless i'm misunderstanding what you're saying... I most definately can move my desktops around, lay them out vertically or in a grid, or in a straight line, or in a L, a T, or whatever I bloody wish. Could you clarify please?

    14. Re:Multiple Desktops by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      I was working with multiple monitors on System 7 many years ago (and the implementation was *better* than the one that XP and Vista have - you could move your desktops around, even lay them out vertically or in a grid.. on Windows the position is hardwired to the graphics card and they must be next to each other).. around the era of Windows 3.1

      Even Windows 98 could do what you describe out of the box - and NT4 before that, albeit dependent on vendor drivers (which is not as long ago as Windows 3.1, but the reality is certainly a hell of a lot better than your fantasy).

    15. Re:Multiple Desktops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      One of the many blackbox clones for windows beats that thing hands down. It also speeds up the entire OS, even application start times. Ironic that for many years, one of the first things I've done to make "Microsoft Windows" usable is install a port of a unix window manager. Pfft, Microsoft!

    16. Re:Multiple Desktops by WallyDrinkBeer · · Score: 1

      Nah, microsoft can't do multiple desktops, there is a patent owned by IP Innovations LLC. Although, with so many microsoft employees on IP Innovation's payroll they are kind of microsoft's patents too.

    17. Re:Multiple Desktops by Mahjub+Sa'aden · · Score: 5, Funny

      Finally, a multiple desktop application made by Microsoft itself. Now I don't have to put up with half-assed, buggy, slow 3rd-party solutions! I can use a half-assed, buggy, slow 1st party solution!

      --
      What is is all that is. Isn't that obvious?
    18. Re:Multiple Desktops by david.given · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm happy XP finally brought real multiple-display support (something the Mac has had since System 7 at the latest), but who knows when robust multiple-virtual-display support will come along.

      I don't think it will. I've been hunting for a decent virtual desktop manager for Windows for ages now, and they all have horrible issues. The best one I've seen so far is Dexpot, but even it is annoying to use.

      As far as I can make out, the problem is this: Windows doesn't have a window manager in the traditional X sense. Applications handle their own resize, show and hide events. This means that for the desktop manager to switch desktops, it has to send the appropriate show and hide events to the applications... and the applications can take their own sweet time dealing with them. If the application's busy, the window won't change state. One desktop manager I tried to use (briefly) would actually wait for all the applications to process the events, which meant that if you tried to change desktops with an unresponsive application visible, the desktop manager would hang. Not great on a developer machine.

      It gets worse: Desktop managers don't appear to get the opportunity to mediate when an application tries to show or hide itself. Certainly, it was all too common in Dexpot for an application to make itself visible when it was already visible on another desktop, with the result that Dexpot would get confused and think that the window was visible on two desktops simultaneously. I tend to run Thunderbird in #1 and Firefox in #2. Clicking on a link in Thunderbird would cause Firefox to become visible in #1 and #2, which isn't really what I wanted.

      I eventually gave up and now when I have to use Windows I don't use a desktop manager. The irritation of having to deal with all my windows on one desktop is actually less than the irritation of having to deal with a broken desktop manager.

    19. Re:Multiple Desktops by vought · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Even Windows 98 could do what you describe out of the box

      Windows '98 = 1998

      System (Mac OS) 7 = 1991 - but in fact, the multiple monitor support was in the Mac OS as early as 1986.

      QuickDraw was based around a grid coordinate system, so you could place your two (or six, as I did once as a proof of concept with a Macintosh IIfx) monitors in any number of arrangements, instantly. Because the coordinate system was respected by anything that wrote to the screen using QuickDraw, only a very tiny fraction of apps had wonky behavior, such as always writing the top left corner of the window to 0,0 (some bad game ports did this).

      Again, because of QuickDraw's flexibility and rather more enlightened design, you never had the very stupid behavior exhibited by Windows 98 and 2000 of dialog boxes that defaulted to the center of the screen, splitting the dialog among two displays. And you could place monitors in any configuration - even corner to corner if needed. The displays did not need to have identical resolution and bit-depth, as with 98 and 2000, nor did Mac users ever have to use a special video dual-head card simply to ensure that both video cards would work together, as I encountered many times on 2000.

      I think the parent poster's point is proven - the Mac did multiple displays first and better. And while Windows has caught up in some respects, the Mac still does a better job of remembering window positions, etc. when moving from a laptop+large monitor to laptop display configuration.

    20. Re:Multiple Desktops by fireforadrymouth · · Score: 1

      I'm currently using VirtuaWin at work and am quite happy with the results. There are a handful of apps that don't behave nicely with it but overall performance is decent (and stable). I have a different background set to each (of my four) desktops and can switch between them quickly using keyboard shortcuts or the tray icon.

      I do not have any affiliation with VirtuaWin.

    21. Re:Multiple Desktops by drsmithy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Does anyone know what holds MS back from adding the Multiple Desktop feature? I know it can be had with 3rd party software, however last time I used one it really slowed down my machine and caused some crashes.

      Lack of customer interest.

    22. Re:Multiple Desktops by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      (yes, for that stalker of mine who likes modding me offtopic, I know you'll be looking for me...)

      Anyway...

      "It's available with 1st party software. It's kind of lame, but it does the job."

      So, I checked out the page, and it was like "Ahh, I remember that, back like hundreds of years ago..."

      So... I am

      ROTMFFLMGDAO... from having read:

      "Virtual Desktop Manager

      Manage up to four desktops from the Windows taskbar with this PowerToy."

      LOL!

      I have *8* to *10*, and have had more, and KDE allows around 16 IIRC. I have my virtual desktops change images every few minutes or so (longer, much longer if I don't want huge images chewing my sys resources), each desk top with its OWN set of images, all pointing to some 30+ for each desktop.

      Moreover, my machine is an 800 MHz Gateway Select, from 1999, with 256 MB RAM, 64 MB video card, and all this going on in PCLinuxOS with Win4Lin running Win98 in the b/g so I can use Lotus SmartSuite while doing my other things, like using the Rhythmbox and watching DVDs.

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    23. Re:Multiple Desktops by jaxtherat · · Score: 2

      Underestimating the user base. Which was also responsible for holding back tabbed browsing.

      I mean shit, it took them to lose something staggering like 30% of their browser market share before they "innovated" some "ground-breaking" features like tabs. Microsoft couldn't innovate themselves out of a paper bag not because they can't, but because they won't:

      Their software is a classic example of design by committee, cater to the lowest common denominator, technically incompetent, near-sightedly project managed software.

      --
      http://www.zombieapocalypse.tv/
    24. Re:Multiple Desktops by yuriismaster · · Score: 1

      I use AstonShell's AltDesk http://www.astonshell.com/altdesk/

      15 dollars with a 30-day demo. It's really lightweight, and even runs off a portable drive! You can drag and drop windows between workspaces from the bar, and that T-Bird=>Firefox SHOULD jump over to Firefox (I remember it did when I last booted into windows about 2 months ago). I'm perfectly satisfied with Ubuntu/CF, although links to webpages don't move the desktop :(

    25. Re:Multiple Desktops by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Your comment is so funny because with the Apple version you can be sure it's done in a very nice way, like all their software (Thought I would still think it would be nice if the keeped on updating software they already had even more with more functionality and tweaks instead of just make some good title and then forget about it.)

      If anyone know of a music player for OS X which plays mp3, ogg, mod, s3m, xm, sid, wma, aac, ... please tell me! iTunes + VLC + CocoModX is sortof lame solution. Even my Nintendo DS can do it all in one application ;D

    26. Re:Multiple Desktops by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Not that I really want to defend Microsoft but:

      "Their software is a classic example of design by committee, cater to the lowest common denominator, technically incompetent, near-sightedly project managed software."

      Yeah and it has worked against them so hard!! Soon they are almost dead due to their crappy software noone want to use!

    27. Re:Multiple Desktops by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yeah right like you had six graphics cards in 1991.

    28. Re:Multiple Desktops by DaveWick79 · · Score: 1

      I second. Most users can't even figure out how to manage one desktop.

      However, MS shouldn't be developing only for the masses - most of MS office features are developed for the 1% of people who actually use more than basic Word and Excel functionality. Windows should be no different.

    29. Re:Multiple Desktops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Mac IIfx was released in March 1990, discontinued in April 1992, and it had 6 nubus card slots, each of which could have a video card, and Mac OS then would handle 6 invididual displays quite easily.

      http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=112175

    30. Re:Multiple Desktops by Provocateur · · Score: 1

      I don't think it will. I've been hunting for a decent virtual desktop manager for Windows for ages now, and they all have horrible issues. The best one I've seen so far is Dexpot [dexpot.de], but even it is annoying to use.

      Back in the late Win9x or early Win2k days there was a thriving community that skinned the desktop to the point that it was almost an alternative OS (who needs steenkin Explorer.exe? Some of the guys at Customize.org who had the skinz and apps didn't). Litestep and a host of other shells such as bbforwin supplanted your Win and gave you multiple desktops in any layout you chose (4x1, 3x3, and so on). You'll probably see its current iterations for later versions of Win but ever since MS virtually supported skinning with Visual Suites these skinners have moved on from those alternatives to something that will run (and not break) on Windows. Sadly still no multiple desktops from MS because I don't consider their hack even worthy. Or their OS, for that matter.

      I made my corporate desktop behave more like Linux (and look totally different) unless an audit was taking place. A one line change in system.ini switches it back, then when the smoke had cleared, you get the picture.

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    31. Re:Multiple Desktops by spud603 · · Score: 1

      I think that ToolPlayer can play all those. Its playlist support is limited (all files in a particular directory are one playlist), but it's nice for listening to full albums. Clean interface, too

    32. Re:Multiple Desktops by log0n · · Score: 2, Informative

      FYI, Mac IIs (his mentioned was a IIFX) had 6 Nubus (video cards, among other things) slots. Back in the day I used a Mac II with at least 4 displays.

    33. Re:Multiple Desktops by screeble · · Score: 1

      I use this at work on my d620 with XP and it is barely usable and is a far cry from virtual desktops. Pain. Agony. Despair.

      If you are in an environment that does not frown on FOSS http://virtuawin.sourceforge.net/ is a much better choice than the powetoys.

    34. Re:Multiple Desktops by the_fat_kid · · Score: 1

      oh, how well I remember my IIfx
      a 40mhz power house.
      It was something like $10,000 new.
      today it holds up books on a shelf in my office.

      --
      -- Sig under construction...
    35. Re:Multiple Desktops by farnsworth · · Score: 1
      It's available with 1st party software. It's kind of lame, but it does the job.

      Said tool is kind of beyond lame. All it does is group window objects together and manipulate the task bar so it only shows you the "current" windows. Maybe more recent versions are better, but doing stuff like "show desktop" minimized all windows on all "desktops" because there is only one desktop under the hood. I also recall alt-tab not working very well for some reason.

      My understanding of Apple's implementation (haven't tried it yet) and the implementations running on X is that they create real, separate roots for you to put the windows into.

      I don't know of any technical reason that a real implementation of this can't be hacked into Windows, but then again, with Windows, even multiple monitors are a PITA. Modal dialogs showing on the wrong monitor, modal dialogs showing on a non-existent monitor (!), window maximization not working properly if the screens are different geometries, etc.

      --

      There aint no pancake so thin it doesn't have two sides.

    36. Re:Multiple Desktops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably because it's a stupid feature. I can't find a single reason why I would want multiple desktops when I can just select the tab for the app I need.

    37. Re:Multiple Desktops by complete+loony · · Score: 1

      on Windows the position is hardwired to the graphics card and they must be next to each other No. Microsoft got that working in windows 98 IIRC. There's more than one way to setup multiple monitors. I assure you I can change how the edges between displays are connected in XP, dragging displays of any resolution around.
      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    38. Re:Multiple Desktops by vought · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yeah right like you had six graphics cards in 1991.


      Yes, I did. Because I was working at Apple at the time. My IIfx had 64MB of RAM - that was quite a bit, as the 60ns RAM was both hard to come by and built in 8 bit sticks. With eight slots, you needed eight MB SIMMs. I figure that on the street, the cost of the machine as configured (see below) was well over $25,000.

      In addition to the 80MB SCSI drive, my IIfx had the following graphics cards:

      5x8*24 Graphics cards.
      1x8*24GC (Accelerated with an AMD RISC processor)

      Along with my, uh, regular work, I used this setup to play Hellcats over the Pacific, which was the first flight simulator to support multiple displays for a panoramic cockpit view. Of course, that feature only required three monitors. The rest were for fun.

      Incidentally, the IIfx was not just a 40MHz 68030+68882 FPU - it also had two 6502 processors. One for each serial port.

      If you'll remember, the 6502 was the Apple II's CPU.

    39. Re:Multiple Desktops by jhol13 · · Score: 1

      I agree completely, VirtuaWin beats the Microsoft offering in every respect.

      But even VirtuaWin falls short, far far away short, of *nixes virtual desktops. The fault is definitely not in the VirtuaWin however. If the applications and windowing api are not designed with the virtual desktops in mind there is only so much you can do.

    40. Re:Multiple Desktops by aliquis · · Score: 1

      But no playlist would suck, if it's not possible to make some sort of "virtual folder" in OS X which contains content which matches a search criteria? Is it?

      If only there was plugins for iTunes which brought the functionality.
      I guess this is the problem with a closed OS.

    41. Re:Multiple Desktops by khuntan · · Score: 1

      What about VirtuaWin at http://virtuawin.sourceforge.net? You can have up to 9 Desktop, and even run on XP Pro x64.

    42. Re:Multiple Desktops by maglor_83 · · Score: 1

      Ummm... I'm running 2000 right now, on multiple monitors. They run at different resolutions just fine. Not sure about the dialog issue, other than that I've never seen it.

    43. Re:Multiple Desktops by aliquis · · Score: 1

      That's good and all if I wanted to play a few Video formats, but I didn't =P

      No module or sid support there either, and Quicktime wouldn't be that great for music anyway.

    44. Re:Multiple Desktops by djfuq · · Score: 1

      Audion is good! Free too -- get the "widget" face for it too. I appzapper the old Itunes ;-)

      --
      Dj fuQ [url="http://djfuq.org"]djfuq urges you to listen to the beats[/url] [url="http://djfuq.org"]http://djfuq.org[
    45. Re:Multiple Desktops by Allador · · Score: 1

      I don't know of any technical reason that a real implementation of this can't be hacked into Windows, but then again, with Windows, even multiple monitors are a PITA. Modal dialogs showing on the wrong monitor, modal dialogs showing on a non-existent monitor (!), window maximization not working properly if the screens are different geometries, etc. That is highly atypical.

      I've been using multimon on windows for many many years and have never seen those problems, except very occasionally the first. The behavior of the first is app-dependent, not windows dependent. The apps have to remember which desktop they're on and place the modal dialog in the appropriate one.

      Some do this better than others. But maximize not working properly? Never, not once. It just maximizes ... what could go wrong? Some of the video card makers offer an extra ability to one-click maximize across all the monitors, but thats hardly ever useful. Only time I've ever used it that way was with a giant freaking Excel document.
    46. Re:Multiple Desktops by p0tat03 · · Score: 1

      Windows still doesn't grok laptop owners having multiple displays (haven't tried this on a desktop!). I would routinely have my nice big external hooked up, shut my laptop to go to work, and then open my laptop at work... and promptly blue screens when XP strangles itself trying to find my (now non-existent) external monitor. Seriously, this is such a common usage case that one wonders how it's STILL a bug!

      Granted, this is an ATI card, maybe I should go blame AMD instead.

    47. Re:Multiple Desktops by jhol13 · · Score: 1

      There are lot of issues, many of which boils down to the problem: neither Windows (GUI) nor Windows applications know anything about virtual desktops (no API) and can do nothing to help the desktop manager for best user experience. Microsoft can change the GUI, but they cannot change all the programs.

      I would require e.g. that pop-ups happen on the desktop the application is, not somewhere else. And the pop-ups should be pop-up, not pop-unders (problem in virtuawin). BTW, the problem of Firefox changing desktop is in VirtuaWin too, apparently for the reason you gave.

      Then there is the problem of session management. Unfortunately for unknown reason Firefox team refuses to implement proper session management hooks, but in principle (and with other programs) when exiting a session (log-off) you will log in as the way you left (if you so prefer). No API -> it cannot work flawlessly.

      BTW, I have never tried Dexpot, but VirtuaWin is good enough (for me). I couldn't live without it. Yes, it is just a shadow of Gnome/KDE/Xfce/tvwm/...

    48. Re:Multiple Desktops by darthflo · · Score: 1

      May I ask what the heck you need 8-10 virtual desktops for? Especially on a box like this which I wouldn't think of as being able to run some 10-30 apps simultaneously (at least one, three per desktop seems like a sensible assumption to me).

    49. Re:Multiple Desktops by darthflo · · Score: 1

      o Pressing shift while rotating the cube (actually, in my case it's only a a plane, but I've got two of those with almost 2 MPix per side)
      or o Right click title bar (or taskbar entry for this app), click Move to Workspace (Right|Down|Left|1-4) Does sound a bit better to me, don't you think? It does have disadvantages, too. For example I have to type "wine something.exe" instead of just "something.exe". Double-clicking works, though.

    50. Re:Multiple Desktops by Onan · · Score: 1

      ...if it's not possible to make some sort of "virtual folder" in OS X which contains content which matches a search criteria? Is it?

      Very much yes. They're called "smart folders", and they provide a live, constantly-current view of anything on any number of filesystems that matches any Spotlight query. So you can define views based upon everything Spotlight knows about--which is basically everything.

      You can either use the standard spotlight interface and then just declare that you want any query as a persistent smart folder, or you can write your own raw queries by hand. As with so much of osx, whichever tool you prefer.

    51. Re:Multiple Desktops by LKM · · Score: 1

      I find it fascinating how little some people know about Macs :-)

    52. Re:Multiple Desktops by david.given · · Score: 1

      BTW, I have never tried Dexpot, but VirtuaWin is good enough (for me). I couldn't live without it. Yes, it is just a shadow of Gnome/KDE/Xfce/tvwm/...

      I tried VirtuaWin. When in use, Visual Studio (may it be cast back into the accursed offal pits from whence it was spawned) would crash approximately five or six times a day. When not using it, it wouldn't. *shrug*

      These days I run Ubuntu Linux in a VirtuaBox session, so that the only time I actually have to use Windows is when I need to fire up Visual Studio (which, luckily, isn't that often). Alas, reinstalling my work machine is not an option.

    53. Re:Multiple Desktops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The displays did not need to have identical resolution and bit-depth, as with 98 and 2000, nor did Mac users ever have to use a special video dual-head card simply to ensure that both video cards would work together, as I encountered many times on 2000.

      Windows 2000 never needed identical resolutions OR bit-depths between displays, and I'm 90% certain '98 didn't either. I ran a 2000 workstation with 4 displays all running off seperate cards (1 AGP, 3 PCI) like this for many years, and while I did use a third-party app to manage things like skipping my pointer from screen to screen using the back/forward mouse buttons, I never encountered any 'stupid behaviour' you described.

      3 of the 4 cards had different chipsets and never gave me any trouble whatsoever, and although I am aware that issues did/do exist between certain cards, but it's a complete non-argument when you consider the open nature of PC architecture vs. the closed mac platform when you can't even get certain cards for your mac at all, let alone as part of a multi-display array.

    54. Re:Multiple Desktops by Tteddo · · Score: 1

      On my Windows machines I use VirtuaWin. It was a little tricky to get it the that I want (like Ubuntu) but works great.
      http://virtuawin.sourceforge.net/

    55. Re:Multiple Desktops by jamar0303 · · Score: 1

      I do wish I got my hands on an old Mac. I'm too easily distracted, and working with a Mac with an old version of Office and nothing else would probably increase my productivity.

      --
      OSx86 FTW
    56. Re:Multiple Desktops by jhol13 · · Score: 1

      Strange, for me VS (2003) does not crash. Sometimes (once a week) it confuses the VirtuaWin, but neither crashes. Restarting VS solves this.

      I have no clue why mine works and yours don't, sorry.

    57. Re:Multiple Desktops by simscitizen · · Score: 1

      virtuawin works fine for me on a dual monitor system.

    58. Re:Multiple Desktops by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      System (Mac OS) 7 = 1991 - but in fact, the multiple monitor support was in the Mac OS as early as 1986.

      Indeed. And if you weren't so keen to feel smug by trying to look superior, you would have noticed I acknowledged MacOS did it first.

      The displays did not need to have identical resolution and bit-depth, as with 98 and 2000, nor did Mac users ever have to use a special video dual-head card simply to ensure that both video cards would work together, as I encountered many times on 2000.

      Neither Windows 98 nor 2000 required identical resolution and bit-depth. Further, while some cards didn't play well together (because they were cheap and crappy), the list of ones that did would still be orders of magnitude greater than your video card options on the Mac.

    59. Re:Multiple Desktops by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      I find it fascinating how little some people know about Macs :-)

      Not nearly as fascinating as how little most people seem to know about Windows, given its ubiquity and their penchant for criticism.

    60. Re:Multiple Desktops by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Does anyone know what holds MS back from adding the Multiple Desktop feature?
      Maybe the fact that it's not particularly useful to 99% of desktop users?

      Seriously, most people don't have dozens of apps open at the same time.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    61. Re:Multiple Desktops by rk · · Score: 1

      God, I remember when the IIfx came out. I really wanted one badly, but alas I was just a poor college student then.

      That, and a NeXT cube.

    62. Re:Multiple Desktops by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      I like Audion's ability to change the playback speed - useful to me as I struggle to learn to play the bass guitar.

    63. Re:Multiple Desktops by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      May I ask what the heck you need 8-10 virtual desktops for? Especially on a box like this which I wouldn't think of as being able to run some 10-30 apps simultaneously (at least one, three per desktop seems like a sensible assumption to me).

      The heaviest users of virtual desktops I know are people administering a large UNIX or Linux server environment. I've seen people with hundreds of terminal windows with SSH sessions to remote servers running simultaneously. This does not require much horsepower either. Personally, I usually only have 4-6 terminal sessions going and I manage them by setting them to different colors and using Expose. Beyond about 10, however, I imagine you would not have enough distinct colors, and virtual desktops would be really useful.

    64. Re:Multiple Desktops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or as fascinating as people who will constantly defend companies which apparently make it a point to become as reviled as they can.

    65. Re:Multiple Desktops by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Ummm... I'm running 2000 right now, on multiple monitors. They run at different resolutions just fine. Not sure about the dialog issue, other than that I've never seen it. So do you enjoy all dialogs popping up split across the screens?
      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    66. Re:Multiple Desktops by Yaztromo · · Score: 1

      Perian also supports a number of audio formats. And anything that uses Quicktime for audio playback (such as iTunes) also autmatically gets the ability to play back the added file types supported by Perian. I know I've used it to playback Ogg Vorbis files in iTunes (with the only limitation being that I can't stream them to an Airport Express via AirTunes).

      Yaz.

    67. Re:Multiple Desktops by ursnagi · · Score: 1

      drgvdfgvdf

    68. Re:Multiple Desktops by jaxtherat · · Score: 1

      Yeah and it has worked against them so hard!! Soon they are almost dead due to their crappy software noone want to use!
      Not because of software quality, but because of corporate compliance, lack of education, laziness, inertia and FUD...
      --
      http://www.zombieapocalypse.tv/
    69. Re:Multiple Desktops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll give Windows one thing... Multiple monitors are much more convenient when you have per-window menus.

      I find the single menubar terribly annoying when using multiple monitors, especially with today's wide, high-res monitors.

      If I have Mail or iTunes open on the second monitor, I often catch myself going to the top of that screen to get to the menu, when in fact the menu is more than 2,000 pixels to the left. Before anyone argues for mouse acceleration making distance a non-issue, IMHO the faster the pointer travels the less control I have over it and the more likely it is that I'll have to find out where it wound up and then mousing to the particular destination I want.

      I wish Apple would provide an optional menu on each screen which would show the menu for the frontmost application on that screen. Or perhaps there would be some key combo or mouse button-assignable switch to turn it on or off or have it appear temporarily.

      As it is, when i do have multiple monitors hooked up, I end up only using the one with the menubar, and the others end up as little more than expensive digital frames for desktop images.

  5. Could be the best ever... by graviplana · · Score: 1

    This is definitely on my list to buy. First looks seem to be positive. I read through this and found some features and touches to look forward to: http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/liveblog/leopard-liveblog-the-first-two-hours-315093.php I'm personally excited about the changes under the hood with respect to multithreading as this is purported to take advantage of multicore and multiprocessor hardware even more than Tiger. This could be the best OS X yet, if not the best OS ever. :)

    --
    "Time is nothing; timing is everything."
  6. Why the translucent menu bar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Of all of the new features of Leopard, I really cannot appreciate the addition of translucency to the menu bar. As a long time Mac user this really seems like one of those "because we can" features rather than it making any sense.

    1. Re:Why the translucent menu bar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who knows but I wish there was a way to turn that bastard off completely. Try running X11 applications on the shiat low-resolution screens Apple gives you. You have the Mac menu bar plus the menu bar of the X application. I like to run VMware over X so it's even worse because it's Mac Menu Bar->VMware Menu->Guest OS menu. Freaking insane. Killing the Mac menu bar would be great.

    2. Re:Why the translucent menu bar? by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      Of all of the new features of Leopard, I really cannot appreciate the addition of translucency to the menu bar. As a long time Mac user this really seems like one of those "because we can" features rather than it making any sense.


      I agree; what was the point of that? The first time I saw it (on my friend's dev machine) I thought their monitor was going bad. I hope at least there is some way to disable it; although I suspect it will be gone in the next release anyway.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    3. Re:Why the translucent menu bar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of all of the new features of Leopard, I really cannot appreciate the addition of translucency to the menu bar. As a long time Mac user this really seems like one of those "because we can" features rather than it making any sense.


      In the shipping version of 10.5, it's not at all a problem. They significantly reduced the transparency, now it's just barely there. It creates a nice visual effect with menus, and reinforces the notion that they are ephemeral.
    4. Re:Why the translucent menu bar? by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      I like that feature. With a translucent menu bar, I can see that part of my desktop wallpaper. The way it is now, with the top cut off, that makes a surprising amount of difference in the aesthetic qualities of my wallpapers!

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    5. Re:Why the translucent menu bar? by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      I think it is part of Apple's goal of reducing software-iness and increasing productivity/"experience". I'm just guessing, but I think that with each new iteration of OS X, we'll see less of OS X and (literally) more of iLife, 3rd-party apps, etc. I could see the finder being reduced to a Quicksilver-type helper app.

      I believe this because as I've used Apple computers over the years, it seems like they're trying to reduce the PITA-factor of working with their OSes to get a given job done. For that I applaud them.

      OTOH, I think this is like the Windows people bitching about how Vista changed the start button around. Big deal.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    6. Re:Why the translucent menu bar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bah, either there will be a checkbox soon to fix that, or a freeware to "fix" your background wallpaper with a big white square just under the menubar.

      I like translucent, and I dont like white... it kills my flashy dark background wallpaper ;-)

    7. Re:Why the translucent menu bar? by anagama · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I agree with you on the menu bar. Once upon a time, when screens were tiny, it made sense for all apps to share that space. But with the resolution on today's larger monitors, the menu bar is a hindrance. For example, I have a 21" widescreen that I plug into my powerbook. This means that if I have an apple app on the second monitor, I may have to traverse a yard of space to get to the "file" menu option.

      For the most part, I use the second monitor for running X apps (remote over SSH). Because the menu bar is built into each application window with these, it's of no concern that monitor is rather wide. In contrast, I've played around with a 30" monitor at an Apple store -- it feels like your walking across Kansas to get from the bottom right corner to the upper left. Apple should give users the option of having the menu bar appear in the application window. That would satisfy the old schoolers who're still sporting 800x600 monitors, and yet allow people with some extra screen real estate to cut down on their mouse travel time. With large monitors growing ever more affordable, there's sure to be a lot more people who start noticing the menu bar silliness.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    8. Re:Why the translucent menu bar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the top menu bar, being so white, can be sort of distracting if you have a dark monitor bezel and have many dark windows open (or a dark desktop picture). With the translucency, it blends in a bit better, but doesn't become hard to read. If Apple was going to be flashy with it, they'd do kind of what Vista did and make it impossible to read. But what they've done, I hope, is to make the menu bar less distracting.

      I guess I'll find out on Saturday!

    9. Re:Why the translucent menu bar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Translucent is the new black.

    10. Re:Why the translucent menu bar? by Provocateur · · Score: 1

      My question now goes beyond seeing wallpaper. If I need to nudge an app upwards, like making only an app's status bar visible, will the menubar show the wallpaper or the part of the app underneath it?

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    11. Re:Why the translucent menu bar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll likely see the app, just like when you nudge it underneath the dock.

    12. Re:Why the translucent menu bar? by drcagn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It won't reduce mouse travel time, because it will increase inaccuracy. One of the great things about the menubar is that it's hard to miss what you're trying to click because you cannot go beyond the top of the screen with your cursor. One quick flick of the wrist with cursor acceleration properly configured will get you where you need to be, whereas in non-menubar GUI models it's easy to 'overshoot' and miss the button you intend to click.

      --
      Scorta futuere amo!
    13. Re:Why the translucent menu bar? by anagama · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Another major issue with the shared menu bar is that half the time, the app I want to do something with isn't on "top" -- something which is non-obvious when the windows are spread out and not overlapping, but I've already gone up to the menu bar, and then have to go back down and foreground the app (or alt-tab), and then return to the menu bar. This notion of the "on top" application defeats the purpose of multiple and/or large monitors. With enough screen space, everything seems to be "on top".

      Secondly, I don't have this problem of missing the menu bar at all. All of the forwarded X apps I use have the menu bar in the window and my experience is that they are easier to use because of that fact, not harder. As for why they're easier for me, I tend to look first, then travel. When I'm looking at something way off to the right -- easily two feet away from my physical focus -- I have to turn my head to look at the upper left corner after which I'll go there with the mouse. This is harder than simply continuing to look at the application already under my eyes' focus.

      If you'll notice, I said Apple should offer window-bound menu bars as a choice. That way, people who don't work like I do can have things the old way, and I can have things organized conveniently for me. Offering a choice is certainly better than the one-size-fits-all, there-is-only-one-true-way system we have now.

      Finally, after years of complaining, Apple has finally (re)introduced multiple desktops for those who want them. Apparently, choice is good. On that note, only middle-click-paste and window bound menus to go. Perhaps by 10.7.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    14. Re:Why the translucent menu bar? by ChristTrekker · · Score: 1

      I do agree that there is not nearly enough contrast between the foreground and background applications. F10 does a good job of accentuating that, but why doesn't it happen (to a degree) all the time?

    15. Re:Why the translucent menu bar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a 24" Imac and definitely prefer one menu bar at the top. I mostly use it as a reference for keyboard shortcuts.

      However, Apple should allow users to set the mouse sensitivity much higher. (you can adjust it in OS X but not much) I use an application "usb overdrive" to override this and when I have to use the menu bar I just quickly move the mouse pointer up and it ends up at the menu bar.

    16. Re:Why the translucent menu bar? by master_p · · Score: 1

      Actually, the argument you present is not a good one, simply because there are lots of elements on the screen that the user can miss with the mouse because they are not near the screen's edge. For example: a window's close/minimize/maximize/restore buttons; scroll bars; toolbar buttons; a window's title bar; a window's resize grip etc.

      So why it does not matter for all these elements that the user might occasionally miss them, but so much fuss is made about the menu?

      Personally I prefer context menus...if I was given a choice, my ideal O/S desktop would have no options at all, just graphical representations of data, and all actions would be accessible through context menus.

    17. Re:Why the translucent menu bar? by cr_nucleus · · Score: 1

      If you'll notice, I said Apple should offer window-bound menu bars as a choice.

      I think you're missing a point, Apple has never been about choice as far a gui is concerned, especially about features present in another os.

      Using a Mac is done the Mac way.

    18. Re:Why the translucent menu bar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. I run a machine with a 17" and 20" display, and the menus are a pain.

      If you look at what NextStep used to do with its menus before being reincarnated into OS X, it made much more sense. The menus were arranged vertically (much more room), you could place them wherever you wanted and they would stay there. Furthermore, you could tear off any submenu and also stick them wherever you wanted, all on an app-by-app and user-by-user basis, and the positions were remembered between invocations of the program. You could set them all up the way you liked them and then leave them there.

      I've never understood why Apple did not keep that menu configuration as an option, and I wish they would bring it back. Leave it the way it is (original "Mac style") as the default.

      I sure hope there's a Preferences option to turn off the transparency.

    19. Re:Why the translucent menu bar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you'll notice, I said Apple should offer window-bound menu bars as a choice. That way, people who don't work like I do can have things the old way, and I can have things organized conveniently for me.

      old way? Sorry, but the shared menu bar gets to call prior art.

    20. Re:Why the translucent menu bar? by MrNiCeGUi · · Score: 1

      In order to reduce travel time it would be necessary that you not only overshoot the target in a non-menu bar environment, but that you would do that multiple times in order for it to add up to the supplementary travel distance in a menu-bar GUI. That is, in my opinion, extremely unlikely.

      I'm sure that the main reason that Apple chose to keep it this way is force-of-habit and perhaps other technical limitations that I can't think of right now. In time, with the ever-expanding desktop space, the menu bar will become increasingly inconvenient and will be abandoned. Apple is very traditionalist, but not stupidly so (see two-button mouse, Intel processor, giving up "Computer" from the name).

    21. Re:Why the translucent menu bar? by argent · · Score: 1

      Using a Mac is done the Mac way.

      And when the Mac way is wrong, it takes Apple 20 years to admit it, in a kind of passive-aggressive way, and we get appalling pseudo-compromises like the ghastly "mighty mouse" as a result.

      Sometimes Apple just plain does the wrong thing.

    22. Re:Why the translucent menu bar? by blueskies · · Score: 1

      It won't reduce mouse travel time, because it will increase inaccuracy.
      How poor do you think my aim is that i need MILE HIGH buttons?

      In fact having to hit ctrl-F2 to get to the menubar without using the mouse is more of a failure then having 10x30 pixel buttons. One thing that windows has gotten right is the accelerator keys so I don't even need accuracy with the mouse. I really wish there was an easy way to operate the menubar without using the mouse.
    23. Re:Why the translucent menu bar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What choice? You can only have ONE active window and that gets the menu bar. You cannot get to another window unless you click on it and then it gets the menu. How hard is that>

    24. Re:Why the translucent menu bar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would this suggest that using keystrokes is faster than using a mouse (GUI) to get things done?
      Are there any reports out there showing this (or vise versa)?

    25. Re:Why the translucent menu bar? by Speare · · Score: 1

      As I've ranted before, Fitts Law only improves the time it takes you to get to the edge, not the time it takes you to hike or sling back from the edge to where you really want to do something. Sure, skiing down a taller mountain is fun and it's still really easy to find the lodge at the bottom of the hill thanks to gravity, but you're going to have to spend a lot more time on the ski lift before the next run.

      --
      [ .sig file not found ]
    26. Re:Why the translucent menu bar? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Care to ellaborate on the "ghastly" mighty mouse? It seems to get very good reviews from most publications. I don't like it, because the right click fails to register with the way I hold the mouse, but not so for my wife. Other than that, it's a pretty good mouse. It's comfortable, the scroll wheel is the best, most responsive scroller I've tried, and the usual Mac hardware/OS integration is spot on with the flexible button programming.

    27. Re:Why the translucent menu bar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I've ranted before, Fitts Law only improves the time it takes you to get to the edge, not the time it takes you to hike or sling back from the edge to where you really want to do something.

      Then you ranted incorrectly.

      Consider the Macintosh menu bar. To pick a menu item you:

      1. Slam the mouse to the upper left corner of the screen
      2. Click
      3. Move the mouse right until the menu you want is highlighted
      4. Move the mouse down until the menu item you want is highlighted
      5. Click

      There are three mouse movements here -- and Fitt's Law makes two of them more efficient. You're thinking only step #1, but Fitt's actually works well for step #3 as well, for two reasons. The first is muscle memory: menus for a given application are always in the same place relative to the corner, so with practice it becomes possible to very quickly flick the mouse right just enough to hit the menu you want. The second is that while moving the mouse right to target a menu, the fact that the bar is at the top of the screen keeps it an infinitely tall target so you don't have to work at keeping the mouse centered on anything vertically; you can just push it to the right with a bit of up component and you'll never leave the bar. (Another thing which works out well here is that the targets are wide horizontally and give good visual feedback while the mouse is over them.)

    28. Re:Why the translucent menu bar? by anagama · · Score: 1

      As I mentioned, it is not obvious which application is ON TOP when using large and/or multiple monitors because windows tend to NOT overlap. This makes it annoyingly easy to turn your head and eyes toward the menu bar, move the mouse up there, and then realize you have to go back click the app to get your menu.

      The shared menu bar is annoying with large screen real estate. When the idea was invented, a 14" monitor was considered large. The shared menu bar is a solution based on outdated technology. Times change, needs change.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    29. Re:Why the translucent menu bar? by anagama · · Score: 1

      By "old way" I meant a shared menu bar at the top of the screen. That was eminently sensible with the 9" monitor on the original mac. Not too bad on a 12" or 14" monitor either. Annoying as heck when spread over a dual monitor setup approaching 3' wide.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    30. Re:Why the translucent menu bar? by anagama · · Score: 1

      So what about all the widgets that appear when I slam the mouse into the upper left corner? Fact is. the corners aren't being used -- even without the widgets, what is in the upper left corner is the apple icon. One still has to slide along the top to get to the correct menu item. The fact is, I've been using a mouse/keyboard since 1987. Over the last twenty years, my aim has gotten pretty darn good -- I can put my mouse where ever my eyeballs focus on without even thinking. Which leads to a problem in OS X with large screen real estate values as I've outlined before. Technology has changed a lot in the last 20 years and apple should take note that what was once easy for "buggy drivers" (as in horse and cart, not lousy hardware software), isn't easy anymore.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  7. Spotlight enhancements by ChrisMounce · · Score: 1

    I'd like to see what they've done with Spotlight - if they've just added boolean search capabilities, or if they've made it even more central to using your computer (for example, make it easier to use as an application launcher).

    1. Re:Spotlight enhancements by Malekin · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's pretty damn easy to use as an app launcher now - hit apple-space to open it up, type the first few letters of the app's name in, then hit apple-return to open the top hit. Out of interest, how would you suggest it be made better?

    2. Re:Spotlight enhancements by CasaVacas · · Score: 1

      I just checked that out. if i spotlight search for "Emil" (i.e my name) i get a ton of hits of me AND my wife's friend "Emilia" mixed in. But when searching for "Emil NOT Emilia" i only get hits on myself. Dont know if that was what you meant, but for me it was a nice addition.

    3. Re:Spotlight enhancements by T-Bone-T · · Score: 1

      One of the improvements is that it does math. That's pretty cool.

    4. Re:Spotlight enhancements by ChrisMounce · · Score: 2, Informative

      1. I did not know that apple-return selects the top of the list! Thanks. 2. Spotlight is fast, but not as fast as a dedicated application launcher (Namely is the one I use). When I type something into Spotlight, it searches the index of the entire drive. With Namely, though, it's searching a list composed solely of applications, which means it is very fast - Spotlight gives a second delay. Also, because it's a more limited list, I can type just a few characters and narrow it down to just a few items in Namely, whereas Spotlight brings up everything that might have to do with that letter combination - no clutter. I know, I know, these are extremely petty complaints - Spotlight provides the same functionality that an application launcher does (and more!). It's just not streamlined for that, I guess.

    5. Re:Spotlight enhancements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's nice after a clean install, but a few weeks go by, and for some reason it takes a few seconds to show even the first results which makes it pretty annoying as a launcher.

      If they speed it up, I might finally switch to it from QuickSilver.

    6. Re:Spotlight enhancements by solios · · Score: 1

      Make it, oh, say..... at least half as fast as Quicksilver?

      I for one can't stand Spotlight, either as a "find" utility, or as an application launcher - it's far too slow to be useable as either, in my experience (and this is on machines ranging from 450mhz to 4x2.5ghz).

    7. Re:Spotlight enhancements by nedaf7 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, in Leopard you can just do the search, then hit Return to open the top hit. This is because the top hit is selected by default, rather than "Show All" as in Tiger.

    8. Re:Spotlight enhancements by pswnet · · Score: 1

      or you can give QuickSilver a try. It's free as in free beer. It's a must-have application launcher for control freak. You can even define your own shortcuts to run scripts, navigate albums/artist in iTunes, etc.

  8. More interested in John Siracusa's in-depth report by Malekin · · Score: 1

    Pah. Call me when John Siracusa has posted his in-depth review up over at ars.

    Also, single-page link for the ComputerWorld Article:
    http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=printArticleBasic&articleId=9043838

  9. List of Leopard's new features by pswnet · · Score: 1, Informative

    There are 300+ of them

  10. mmm... page view whoring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative
  11. Re:Geez... by vux984 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Like the Lisa, the Newton, OS9, those ipods with the super scratcable screen, the puck mouse?

    Apple has pulled its share of boners. Having a string of good products doesn't mean they are automatically super fantastic. They just happen to be super fantastic.

  12. Let's state the obvious by adept256 · · Score: 0, Troll

    The difference between Mac and PC is like the difference between driving an automatic and a manual. Mac's are easy and cool to use, pc's give you some more power and are more difficult.

    My secretary uses a macintosh. It's pretty neat. Every time she's asks me to fix it I laugh to myself a little. It is a Fischer Price PC.

    If history was different, I might even prefer the apple guys to dominate the OS market. Well, it doesn't work that way.

    --

    I ran a benchmark on my quantum computer, now I can't find it anywhere!
    1. Re:Let's state the obvious by Winckle · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Haha, fisher price PC, that's a good one.

      Btw, my FisherPriceBook Pro has a UNIX core, I ssh into my CS university account from home to do my work, do my programming in what is IMO the best IDE I have had the pleasure to use.

      What "more power" do you have that I don't?

    2. Re:Let's state the obvious by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 1

      It's more like the difference between a corvette and a custom job.. the corvette costs far more than its worth, works well with good performance. It's a designer item, and that appeal only lasts while its vanilla. But the custom job you build from the ground up, with the community writing every scrap of code (you putting in every single part), and you can end up with a perfectly-tuned monster that will smoke the corvette. And the point is that the worthwhile part's not driving- it's building. So the corvette buyers totally miss out, and the custom guys have no taboo against tinkering because they're not afraid of changing a perfect little designer item to something that's not Popular (TM).

    3. Re:Let's state the obvious by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      Apple == PC

      Apple != Windows

      Apple IS a pc (personal computer).

    4. Re:Let's state the obvious by geekoid · · Score: 1

      ". the corvette costs far more than its worth, works well with good performance."

      What? Are you high? the corvette is a DEAL at it's cost. It our performs cars that cost twice it's price.

      I would put the Corvette against any other street legal custom car. It will smoke them.
      505 hp off the floor and up to 700 hp with the 08/09 model. Good luck building a car with that HP with the same or less weight then the corvette for less then the corvette.

      http://www.chevrolet.com/corvette/?seo=goo_corvette

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:Let's state the obvious by shmlco · · Score: 1

      "So the corvette buyers totally miss out..."

      "So the corvette buyers have better things to do with their time..." There, I fixed it for you.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    6. Re:Let's state the obvious by nevali · · Score: 1

      That would be the certified UNIX Fisher-Price PC, yeah?

    7. Re:Let's state the obvious by operato · · Score: 1

      and definitely not a commodity computer which most pc are.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_computer
      and that's where microsoft have their monopoly. -_-

    8. Re:Let's state the obvious by nine-times · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ALl of this done with what IMHO is the GREATEST window manager out there and it seems like apple agrees ....they once again "borrowed" most of their "new" features from it.

      Which window manager? And which features did they borrow?

    9. Re:Let's state the obvious by nine-times · · Score: 1

      I think you may have just fallen for a very old troll. I'm not sure, but I'm think I've seen that exact message a few times before.

      But otherwise, no real complaint with your post.

    10. Re:Let's state the obvious by Winckle · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Word to the wise here, OS X has a built in web server as well, you tick the box under the web sharing pane in system preferences to turn it on. It's the same as yours, apache.
      I can share my internet connection over wireless frequently when there isn't enough wired to go around at university, and no wireless AP.

      What BSD window manager is as good as the new leopard finder?

      And no I didn't mean kernel, don't fucking tell me what I mean you pretentious little twat. there's more to a UNIX-like OS than the kernel.

    11. Re:Let's state the obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it doesn't have the same kernel. The same userland, yes, same kernel, no. OS X uses Mach with BSD compatibility layer. Quite a bit different from any of the other BSD kernels (unless you're running Darwin, which is OS X without *all* of the OS X userland, including but not limited to Aqua).

    12. Re:Let's state the obvious by blhack · · Score: 0, Troll

      KDE on top of xorg.
      Transparent, dockable menu bars with widgets that can be attached to them. The site seems to be slashdotted, so I can't give you a slide by slide from the image gallery, but that article seriously read like a KDE press release from 3 years ago.

      --
      NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.
    13. Re:Let's state the obvious by Listen+Up · · Score: 1

      You are doing nothing but bench racing, looking at specs and saying its faster. It's not. The reason everyone doesn't buy a Corvette is because it isn't faster than cars twice its price, it's barely faster than cars 1/2 to 3/4 its price. As a matter of fact, in most SCCA and NASA GT races the Nissan 350Z will beat it time and time again, as well as BMW 3 series cars, as well as the Cadillac CTS-V, et.al. I mean, for the same price as a Z06 you are now able to buy a Nissan GT-R, quite possibly the greatest road and race car ever produced. And the GT-R is AWD. In real road racing, the Corvette is fast, but 700 or 900 BHP is not going to make it faster than anything else. Without being able to properly put the power to the ground, as well as overall traction, control and performance the BHP alone doesn't mean shit.

      And of course, that is only on perfectly clear sunny days with perfectly flat tarmac. In every other situation, cars such as Subaru WRX STI's and Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution's, for example, wipe the floor with the Corvette. Corvette's on gravel, rain, mud, snow, off camber twists and turns, hilly curvy roads, et.al. are a joke. Check out some videos, if you can find them, of Evo's outrunning Lambo's on tarmac. That's value for your dollar. But since you only bench race, those videos can't possibly be real, can they?

    14. Re:Let's state the obvious by nine-times · · Score: 1

      OSX doesn't have transparent dockable menu bars with widgets. It has a "dock", which has a specific purpose and limited uses, and a manu bar which is essentially the same as the menu bar in the original Mac OS. It has "widgets" which have nothing to do with the dock, and are again an evolution of an old idea from MacOS

      Sorry. I like KDE well enough and I'm very interested to see version 4, but I don't see how Leopard has "borrowed" most of their "new" features from it. Time Machine? Stacks? Quicklook? Coverflow? These things aren't exactly unprecedented, but are they simple rip-offs of KDE?

    15. Re:Let's state the obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No reason to get bent out of shape.

      Some day you'll grow up and get a job. Then you'll be able to buy a new computer, rather than running Slackware on your older brother's hand-me-down Packard Bell.

    16. Re:Let's state the obvious by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      The same userland, yes, same kernel, no.

      And even the userland isn't the same; it picks up a lot from FreeBSD, but there are parts that are different.

    17. Re:Let's state the obvious by 2ms · · Score: 1

      Corvette? Just so you know, in the car racing world the Corvette is essentially considered easily the highest performing vehicle anywhere near its price range [eg common Corvettes Z51 not even Z06), up until now with the Ferrari 599 having just come out, was faster and got better lap times than any Ferrari]. I know what you meant though ;)

    18. Re:Let's state the obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Free? Yes. Deos less than 1% of the population even know what BSD is? Answer: Yes. Does less than 1% of the population want to learn BSD? No.

      You mean I can pay $129 and have a great OS? I spent more in time reading the first 20 pages of "Teach youself UNIX" than the cost of that OS. You are a breed that is far from the norm. Realize this, please.

    19. Re:Let's state the obvious by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      What? Are you high? the corvette is a DEAL at it's cost. It our performs cars that cost twice it's price.


      Isn't there some variant of Godwin's Law that addresses car analogies? If not, there should be.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    20. Re:Let's state the obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ssh? You are so totally 1337.

    21. Re:Let's state the obvious by Smurf · · Score: 1

      My secretary uses a macintosh. It's pretty neat. Every time she's asks me to fix it I laugh to myself a little. It is a Fischer Price PC.

      Oh, come on!

      Is there anything more Fisher-Price-y than a computer running Luna? Look at the color scheme, the widgets, the general look-and-feel! It's a whole trip back to your infancy!

      That's one aspect in which both Win2k and Vista (let alone OS X) are far superior to XP!
    22. Re:Let's state the obvious by Tim+Browse · · Score: 1

      You're not, er, trying to invoke Godwin's Law, are you?

      AUTOMATIC LOSE :-)

    23. Re:Let's state the obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are now. PC was once shorthand for IBM PC-compatible, and MacOS used to not run on PC hardware. So in the past, it both was a PC and wasn't a PC, but now that it runs on x86 hardware, it is both a PC and a PC. ;-)

    24. Re:Let's state the obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The power to not look like a pompous twit?

    25. Re:Let's state the obvious by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 1

      He right-clicks through the registry!!!
      (Say that in He-Man voice.)

      --
      If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
    26. Re:Let's state the obvious by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      Wow! He called you a "pretentious little twat" and YOU get modded flamebait, while he sits at his normal, karma-elevated position. Mac fanboys really HAVE taken over the site. (And yes, just like you, I'll be modded to oblivion by some of them in a minute)

    27. Re:Let's state the obvious by p0tat03 · · Score: 1

      Macs have had right clicks since forever, and in fact Apple has been shipping their desktops with two-button mice for a few years now, and all laptops have a very nice gesture-based right click feature (which I find infinitely more comfortable than reaching for the other button). Methinks Apple should really invest in a "we have a right click, retards" ad campaign just to put this one to rest permanently.

    28. Re:Let's state the obvious by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      What "more power" do you have that I don't?

      Windows: "By the power of the Blue Screen, I shall take another coffee break!"

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    29. Re:Let's state the obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I know... I just get tired of all the trolls bitching about right clicking and point releases...

    30. Re:Let's state the obvious by yabos · · Score: 1

      If you're so worried Apple used some open source code maybe you should complain BSD made it open source in the first place. Apple publishes all their kernel source for anyone to take anything from. I don't get the whining about Apple using open source code. If the authors didn't want someone to use it then don't put the code out there for people to use.

    31. Re:Let's state the obvious by Almahtar · · Score: 1

      How this got modded insightful is beyond me, but luckily there is meta moderation. Enjoy having your mod privileges delayed, jackass mod. The parent post reeks of the arrogant assumption that free software is all about free price, not freedom nor functionality. Ignorant and presumptuous == +5 funny and -1 insightful to me.

  13. Oh exploitable! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Someone has got to take the time machine visualizer and change the background image to Goatse :D

    1. Re:Oh exploitable! by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      The image that entered my head made me laugh out loud, which rarely every happens with Slashdot. The idea of the windows appearing out of and disappearing into a distended anus is hilarious. Congrats, dude!

  14. Extra features? by moosesocks · · Score: 1, Interesting

    What ever happened to those "extra features" Steve promised way back when Leopard was announced?

    Can they please please please rewrite the Finder and the associated Open/Save controls from scratch? Managing files on OS X feels so awkward compared to every other OS out there. Hopefully the leopard finder will at the very least be properly multithreaded.

    That said, I wasn't terribly excited for Leopard, as I had no real interest in Time Machine or the other "blockbuster" features. However, looking over the official feature list reveals some tantalizing treats. There are some especially nice developer/unix features -- DTrace, extensive support for Ruby, and 'bridges' to allow Ruby and Python apps to enjoy Cocoa and the OSX scripting interfaces. The Cocoa bridges should be immediately drool-inducing to Ruby and Python developers.

    It's not in the list, but perhaps the biggest technological advance (in my opinion) is that Leopard will supposedly be completely resolution-independent, paving the way for very-high-resolution displays.

    Looking to the future, Apple's next big move *needs* to be the implementation of a true metadata filesystem (preferably using ZFS). They can't let Microsoft beat them to it, and ZFS is simply too cool to pass up.

    --
    -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    1. Re:Extra features? by graviplana · · Score: 1

      "...Can they please please please rewrite the Finder and the associated Open/Save controls from scratch? Managing files on OS X feels so awkward compared to every other OS out there. Hopefully the leopard finder will at the very least be properly multithreaded...." I don't know what bizarro planet of funhouse organization you're on, but your opinion is completely out there. It's extremely easy to navigate around OS X. I can navigate the open and save dialog boxes with my eyes closed using only the keyboard. Perhaps a refresher in the Keyboard commands will help to get you up to speed? http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=75459

      --
      "Time is nothing; timing is everything."
    2. Re:Extra features? by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

      Looking to the future, Apple's next big move *needs* to be the implementation of a true metadata filesystem (preferably using ZFS). They can't let Microsoft beat them to it, and ZFS is simply too cool to pass up. Seconded. I keep considering MacBooks, but a native no-hacking required ZFS filesystem would be the clincher. Oh, and on the hardware front, ECC memory support please (yes, I know it's a notebook, but I favour correctness over speed).
      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    3. Re:Extra features? by nine-times · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What ever happened to those "extra features" Steve promised way back when Leopard was announced?

      Which features are those?

    4. Re:Extra features? by je+ne+sais+quoi · · Score: 1

      As a long time mac user I look at this OS with ambivalence, maybe even trepidation, if I may use another four syllable word. I look at the 3-D Dock and think meh... ugly. Maybe the little grid for large directory sizes will work, but maybe not. Regardless, I don't see much improvement over the current way the dock treats folders. As for the Finder, I see the continuing march to the sidebars, which I don't prefer, and the "rooting" behavior (this last part is unconfirmed, I don't know if 10.5 does this). Basically: if you are in column view (my favorite), and you click on a "special" location, like your home directory, the Applications folder, Documents, etc., you are rooted to that spot. That is, your horizontal scroll bar disappears. WTF?!? Why should the OS be hiding the directory hierarchy from me? That there is windoze-type behavior because it basically assumes the user is an idiot who can't comprehend what a directory structure is. There are workarounds for 10.3 and 10.4, but 10.5 leaves me blasé. I must be getting old.

      What I'd really like is a native konqueror because it rocks and is my favorite mix of flexibility vs. bloat.

      --
      Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
    5. Re:Extra features? by G-funk · · Score: 1

      ZFS is already (read-only iirc) in Leopard, so I imagine it'll be fully supported very soon, and probably the default for XServes in a year or two.

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    6. Re:Extra features? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, I think the biggest development treat in Leopard is Objective C 2.0, which supports garbage collection. I've done a bit of Obj-C development, and a fair bit of C# as well, and I think that the majority of the productivity gains some developers experience when going to languages such as C# and e.g. Python from C is from no longer having to worry about memory management. This is huge news, and I'm wondering why I haven't seen more about it out and around.

    7. Re:Extra features? by moosesocks · · Score: 2

      At WWDC 2006, he mentioned that a few big features of Leopard were still under wraps to avoid being ripped off by Microsoft, or (more likely) because they weren't complete, and wouldn't be announced until the product ships...

      My guess at this point is that it was just hype, but who knows?

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    8. Re:Extra features? by CODiNE · · Score: 1

      I can tell you one new features that hasn't been mentioned by Apple officially. Resolution Independence. People say it's gone since Apple hasn't said anything about it, but it's all over the iPhone which is running Leopard. Multi-touch and Rez Ind are coming.... they've even updated some of the System Prefs to be more touch-friendly. Seems like it's going to pop out in a point release like they've done with other features in the past.

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    9. Re:Extra features? by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      Can they please please please rewrite the Finder and the associated Open/Save controls from scratch?

      You do know you can just drag a file or folder over an open or save panel, and the panel's browser will jump to where it is, right? I notice some people complain that they can't rename files in the open and save panels, but I admit I don't find this a problem.

      Hopefully the leopard finder will at the very least be properly multithreaded.

      The Leopard Finder mounts filesystems with multithreaded autofs, and thus now shares and mounted WebDAV directories can be mounted, accessed, and accidentally disappear without causing the whole Finder to block.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    10. Re:Extra features? by NMerriam · · Score: 1

      Can they please please please rewrite the Finder and the associated Open/Save controls from scratch? Managing files on OS X feels so awkward compared to every other OS out there. Hopefully the leopard finder will at the very least be properly multithreaded.


      It is! The Finder is vastly, vastly improved in most ways with 10.5. They haven't completely FTFF, but pretty much all performance issues and many of the usability problems are gone completely. There are a few new UI annoyances, which I expect them to be fixing over the next few .x releases, but I think most Mac users will be very very happy with the new Finder.

      No more network drive stupidity, no more spurious error messages when trying to do operations to different items in the same folder -- the Finder team finally found multithreading religion! For me, the Finder is the biggest reason to upgrade (Quick look, which I thought was silly, turns out to be amazingly fast and useful. Coverflow, which I expected to be useful, turns out to be silly compared to the utility of Quick Look!). If only they'd allow a method of merging folders rather than only offering replace, I'd say it was unconditionally better than Explorer.
      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    11. Re:Extra features? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The OS X file dialog is only great if you haven't used KDE or even any recent version of Office. There is no file preview, and navigating directories is cumbersome at best.

      I'm not sure what good defending Finder will do. Almost all serious OS X users find Finder to be seriously lacking in comparison to other file managers, even Explorer on Win XP; I know I sure do. I use Linux with KDE and Mac OS X daily, and Konqueror (the KDE file browser) puts Finder to shame.

    12. Re:Extra features? by Tim+Browse · · Score: 1

      Ooh, that's good - I hope it applies to accessing SMB shares too. On 10.4, if I have an SMB share mapped and the network goes away, the Finder goes on an extended holiday for minutes at a time. Very annoying. If I'm going to switch wireless networks (I have 2 at home - one inside my LAN, and one in the DMZ), I have to remember to unmount all SMB shares, unless I like pain.

      So, here's hoping :)

    13. Re:Extra features? by hhas · · Score: 1

      There are some especially nice developer/unix features -- DTrace, extensive support for Ruby, and 'bridges' to allow Ruby and Python apps to enjoy Cocoa and the OSX scripting interfaces.

      While you wouldn't know it from Apple's cleverly worded 'feature list' page, the aforementioned Cocoa bridges are really just new releases of RubyCocoa and PyObjC, both of which are already well-established OSS projects. While Apple and others have put a load of work into polishing and improving these new versions, and it's great to see them finally receive an 'official blessing' which they totally deserve, you don't actually require Leopard in order to get your mitts on them. :) Likewise, third-party scripting bridges have also been available for quite some time (although Apple's gone with its own solution in Leopard); see my sig.

      I'll definitely be checking out the new DTrace stuff though; while having an oh-so-conveniently pre-installed Rails might be just the thing that finally tempts me to learn it...

    14. Re:Extra features? by Hes+Nikke · · Score: 1

      you may not like the rooting behavior, but i do. it hides extra info that i don't need to consider. then again, i know how to command click on the window title if i want to go further up in the directory hierarchy :)

      --
      Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
    15. Re:Extra features? by aliquis · · Score: 1

      If tiger doesn't run OpenGL 2.1 an updated OpenGL may be sweet aswell.

      Regarding file managers I liked Directory Opus 4 on Amiga, Magellan was ok aswell althought different. DOpus is available for Windows these days, but I doubt we'll see it for OS X. There is always PathFinder thought, which atleast is different. Midnight Commander may work aswell I guess?

      OMG, second hit on OS X file manager gave me this:
      http://www.mucommander.com/

      I had no idea about that one, and it exist for plenty of OSes and look very DOpus4-like!
      Sucks that they use ".." to go backwards thought, since that gets hidden, in DOpus4 you pressed the left or right border of the screen which is much faster because it's always there even if you have plenty of files and it's easier to hit with your mouse.

    16. Re:Extra features? by NMerriam · · Score: 1

      Ooh, that's good - I hope it applies to accessing SMB shares too.


      Yes, it does. All of that kind of stupidity is gone, rejoice! :D
      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    17. Re:Extra features? by aliquis · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The buy cinema tickets widget!! I'm amazed that found its place in Steves 10 features list at WWDC07, kind of prove there wasn't much intresting ;D

      I guess ZFS may had been one of those top secret features. Or under the hood changes. Or stuff they haven't had time to finalize yet.

    18. Re:Extra features? by egomaniac · · Score: 3, Informative

      Leopard is no more resolution independent than Tiger was. If you enable it via Quartz Debug you'll see that it's horribly buggy and unusable even with Apple's own applications. Or at least it was as of 9a559, I haven't checked with the GA version.

      --
      ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
    19. Re:Extra features? by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Konqueror is replaced with whatever the new file manager is called in KDE 4 but the new one looks amazing. And AFAIK KDE would run on more OSes, including OS X, so you will probably be able to get your KDE file manager within OS X later, which will rock! And sweet sweet amarok!

    20. Re:Extra features? by NMerriam · · Score: 2, Informative

      if you are in column view (my favorite), and you click on a "special" location, like your home directory, the Applications folder, Documents, etc., you are rooted to that spot. That is, your horizontal scroll bar disappears.


      10.5 doesn't do this. The Finder didn't change much at all (IMHO) between 10.1 and 10.4, but it's been totally rebuilt in 10.5. If the Finder has annoyed you in the past for any other reasons, chances are you'll like 10.5 much, much better (it has it's own quirks, but they're not the kind that make you want to kill the programmers).
      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    21. Re:Extra features? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's wrong with Finder? Sure, the list and icons views are a waste of space and time, but the columns view is the best file manager I've used. Easy to navigate, and the selected file is previewed* in the next column. The Open dialog's like that too, although the Save dialog lacks a preview.

      *One slight irritant is that HTML isn't one of the previewable file types as of 10.4.10. That's one of the things they should fix in 10.5.

    22. Re:Extra features? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is also this excellent File Manager for Mac OS X : http://www.binarynights.com/

    23. Re:Extra features? by Tim+Browse · · Score: 1

      Excellent!

    24. Re:Extra features? by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      The buy cinema tickets widget!! I'm amazed that found its place in Steves 10 features list at WWDC07, kind of prove there wasn't much intresting

      I'm a bit of an Apple skeptic. I don't have anything against them, but I don't see why people are getting so worked up about it. Looking at Apple's top features, they include iChat backgrounds and personalised stationery for Mail.

    25. Re:Extra features? by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Well the OS works and there are some pro apps for it.

      But I would have prefered if there was more revolutionary upgrades of course, that may not be so realistic but anyway.

      It hypes a little to much, it's not like it would make a world of a difference if you run tiger or leopard, thought updates are nice.

    26. Re:Extra features? by stewbacca · · Score: 1
      While the parent does come off as living on a "bizarro planet", there are many like him. I simply don't understand it. Basically, they are peeved because the Mac doesn't work the way Windows does? Haven't 20+ years of usability studies pretty much proven that the Mac way is vastly superior in nearly every aspect? What really gets me going is when people try to apply PC logic to a Mac, and then fault the Mac.

      The one legitimate complaint I've noted about the finder is that when my wife closes her MacBook, it freezes my finder for a long time (if we are networked). I usually just force quit and restart the finder in a shorter time than it would take to wait.

      For every niggling complaint about the finder (not being able to rename the files from the File/Edit menus, who does that when you click on the file name and retype what you want), I can point to glaringly awful limitations of WinXP. For example, why can't you rename a file that is open? You never come across the need to rename a document you are working on? Why should I have to litter the explorer with two versions of the same file, just to get a different name on the second one (then have to delete the original one). Or worse, why should I have to close the document I'm working on, rename it, then reopen it? Mac OS X doesn't have this limitation. Why does WinXP not refresh the file list when you add new items, or rename something? More importantly, why do PC users get mad at Macs when the F5 key doesn't do this, because OS X doesn't need to because it puts files in their respective place when moved, changed, renamed, added, etc.? Why is there no color label scheme in WinXP so I can mark files that are "in progress", "need review" or whatever naming scheme I dream up and then sort them accordingly? Would it have to do with the fact that XP wouldn't be able to order them correctly without hitting the F5 key, and that would simply be adding another level of complexity?

      But anyway, enough Windows bashing already. Windows shortcomings are very obvious to those of us who demand more and chose to use Mac OS X. What I don't let stand, though, is petty nitpicking about the supposed shortcomings of finder when the alternative explorer has far more shortcomings.

    27. Re:Extra features? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot about the huge standard library of the java and .net platforms that clearly are better engineered.

    28. Re:Extra features? by Scooter's_dad · · Score: 1

      Haven't 20+ years of usability studies pretty much proven that the Mac way is vastly superior in nearly every aspect?

      No.

      Why does WinXP not refresh the file list when you add new items, or rename something?

      Case in point. I *like* that Windows puts files that are moved/renamed/changed at the bottom of the list. Makes it easy to find them. And if/when I do want them in their proper sorted position, I hit F5. A much better way of handling things to me.

      --
      The road to hell is paved with Cat 5 cable.
    29. Re:Extra features? by graviplana · · Score: 1

      "The OS X file dialog is only great if you haven't used KDE or even any recent version of Office. There is no file preview, and navigating directories is cumbersome at best. I'm not sure what good defending Finder will do. Almost all serious OS X users find Finder to be seriously lacking in comparison to other file managers, even Explorer on Win XP; I know I sure do. I use Linux with KDE and Mac OS X daily, and Konqueror (the KDE file browser) puts Finder to shame." I pretty much think you're trolling at this point. Mac OS X Column view is navigable using the keyboard and it has a file preview.

      --
      "Time is nothing; timing is everything."
    30. Re:Extra features? by LionMage · · Score: 1

      Worth noting, though, is that while Apple is busy supporting Ruby and Python Cocoa bindings, they officially deprecated the Java Cocoa bindings... and word is that Java 6 is MIA in OS X 10.5, leaving a lot of Java developers further out in the cold.

      Jobs dissed on Java back in February (in the context of iPhone development, but careful reading between the lines tells us that for whatever reason, the honeymoon is over). Looks like we're seeing the fruits of that now. The Java 6 early beta has quietly been removed from developer.apple.com/java, and the silence lately has been deafening.

      Fortunately, there is the option of dual-booting an Intel Mac into Linux, which does have Java 6 support -- from Sun.

  15. What's wrong with KDE 3.5? by aliquis · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I would sure as hell take KDE 3.5 over any Windows environment.

    Also something must be wrong with the news post, how can finder be better than anything?

  16. Re:Geez... by Winckle · · Score: 1

    Puck mouse... *shudders*

    Thanks a lot, I had repressed that memory.

  17. Anfack! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "An FAQ"? "An FAQ?" What, was this dictated by a duck? There are still people out there on the net that don't know that "FAQ" is not pronounced "eff-ay-cue"? It's pronounced "fack"!

    1. Re:Anfack! by vallette · · Score: 1

      Yeah, an FAQ. a FAQ would be gramatically incorrect since the pronunciation of "F" is eff and "an" is used before a word starting with a vowel. For instance it's an "S" curve not a "S" curve.

    2. Re:Anfack! by Daengbo · · Score: 1
      from the dictionary:

      FAQ FAQ (f[a^]k), FAQ list FAQ"FAQ\ (f[a^]k), FAQ list \FAQ" list`\ (f[a^]k"l[i^]st`),
      FAQlist \FAQ"list\ (f[a^]k"l[i^]st`), pr. n. [acronym from Frequently Asked Questions.]
      A list of questions and answers concerning a specific topic, such as how to use a particular computer program. Many such lists contain answers to the most commonly asked questions about that topic, however the questions need not derive from actual queries. Such lists are often maintained in electronic form and made available on the World Wide Web. [acronym] [PJC]
      It is an acronym. That means you pronounce it. You don't spell it. It's Just like NASA (Nae-Sa, not En, Ei, Es, Ei). Get it right.
    3. Re:Anfack! by homer+dulu · · Score: 1

      pronounce it? oh, you mean, like OS X, XP, NT, WWDC, USA, BA, BS, SOB and FU?

    4. Re:Anfack! by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      Are you an idiot, or do you just play one on Slashdot? Pronounce the word. Don't spell it.

    5. Re:Anfack! by homer+dulu · · Score: 1

      are you an idiot, or don't you know how to speak english? how do you say TV? "tee-vee" or "tuv"? speaking of TV, what about TV stations? CBS? NBC? what about LA? SF? NY? oh yeah, and i don't think JFK has ever been pronounced "jufk" by anyone. FU buddy.

    6. Re:Anfack! by Filip22012005 · · Score: 1

      I believe he's referring to the difference between an abbreviation and an acronym.

      --
      When the policeman of the tie, rule you violate, hello punishment of the kitty?
    7. Re:Anfack! by homer+dulu · · Score: 1

      abbreviation is the shortening of words (such as etcetera to etc.), not taking the first letters of the word, which is an acronym. there are some instances where you do pronounce the acronym, such as NASA, but there are others which are impossible to pronounce, such as TBA or MTBF, hence you do explicitly say every letter in those cases.

    8. Re:Anfack! by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      The definition I gave you contained the pronunciation. Read it again.

    9. Re:Anfack! by homer+dulu · · Score: 1
      i saw the pronounciation in the definition of what a FAQ is. but:

      It is an acronym. That means you pronounce it. You don't spell it. It's Just like NASA (Nae-Sa, not En, Ei, Es, Ei). Get it right. oh man, you are stating here that because it is an acronym, you pronounce it. what a stupid generalisation. my point is that there are acronyms there that you cannot pronounce and you have to spell it out. so, how do you pronounce JFK? oh yeah, you spell it because it sounds ridiculous when you try to pronounce phonetically.

      but then again you seem to like to troll "mac fanbois". so yeah. righto. okay. whatever.
    10. Re:Anfack! by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      Troll Mac fanbois? What? As far as I know, I have nothing against Macs or Mac users. I don't think I've ever used the word "fanbois" to talk about a user. Jefak (JFK) sounds ridiculous? OK You're right. I opened my mouth when I shouldn't have. Being wrong does not equate to trolling, though.

  18. Re:Geez... by graviplana · · Score: 2, Funny

    You wouldn't understand...

    --
    "Time is nothing; timing is everything."
  19. Re:Geez... by winkydink · · Score: 0, Troll

    And I'm sure that people who have only done laundry by beating their clothing against rocks in a river swear by their method too.

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

  20. Re:Computerworld Developers by _Pablo · · Score: 4, Informative

    The 2D dock can be enabled using the following:

    defaults write com.apple.dock no-glass -boolean YES; killall Dock

    --
    $2B OR NOT $2B = $FF
  21. UltraMon kicks ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    UltraMon may be slow to develop Vista support (really it seems like UltraMon is a 1 man show & the forums are harsh on that 1 man ... killing his motivation I assume).
    But UltraMon for XP kicks ass.

    Mostly UltraMon "just works" Once you setup a few things, it really just stays out of your way.
    How the Hell did MSFT miss a SmartTaskbar on the non-primary monitors?
    How the Hell did MSFT miss "open in monitor X" options for shortcuts?
    How the Hell did they miss the other few things UltraMon does so well.

    The only feature UltraMon is missing is found in Shove-It an old Win9x program (which still works, but has trivial multi-monitor issues).

    1. Re:UltraMon kicks ass by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 1

      UltraMon has vista support now.. matches up with the main monitor taskbar perfectly. Also, I never use the other features besides smart taskbar- in fact I just run ultramontaskbar.exe directly to save memory :)

  22. Re:Computerworld Developers by BoldAC · · Score: 5, Informative

    Tech-Recipes got a copy. Here are their first 20 tutorials about the new features of Leopard.

    If you prefer the old dock style, Mac OS X Hints has that tutorial now as well.

    Anybody going for a T-shirt tomorrow?

  23. Re:Computerworld Developers by noidentity · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The 2D dock can be enabled using the following: defaults write com.apple.dock no-glass -boolean YES; killall Dock

    This is a feature that should be high on anyone's list: the ability to direct someone else to change system settings without having to give them a long GUI script along the lines of "Open this, click here, click there, this should say X, type Y". I just love being able to package up these types of changes into a command-line like that.

  24. spotlight enhancement suggestion by SethJohnson · · Score: 1

    This is a real easy-to-fix interface improvement. From the results list, support right-clicking contextual finder menu. When I want to right-click > Open With > My favorite application, I can't do it directly in Spotlight. I have to right-click > Reveal in Finder > right-click > Open With > My favorite application.

    Seth

  25. Re:Geez... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

    The handicapped mouse...

  26. .. of which tabs in Terminal counts as 4! by aliquis · · Score: 1, Troll

    Subject says it all.

    1. Re:.. of which tabs in Terminal counts as 4! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The parent post isn't really a troll considering that it's both relevant and true.

  27. Does Time Machine require a dedicated partition? by Jeremi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A quick question for those of you who have been running the Leopard betas... will I need to dedicate an entire drive (or partition) for Time Machine's exclusive use, or is it possible/okay to tell Time Machine to put its data into a subdirectory inside a drive/partition that is also used for storing other data?

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  28. Dear Apple and MS by RegTooLate · · Score: 1

    Please give up on your crappy 2.5D desktops. Give me a cube to spin around and I might be excited. Let me make it a dodecahedron and I'll be impressed.

    1. Re:Dear Apple and MS by coolGuyZak · · Score: 1

      Let me make it a dodecahedron and I'll be impressed.

      We don't have triangular monitors.

    2. Re:Dear Apple and MS by Watson+Ladd · · Score: 1

      You mean pentagonal.

      --
      Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
    3. Re:Dear Apple and MS by coolGuyZak · · Score: 1

      If I only did... I confused the Dodecahedron with the Icosahedron. Thanks for catching the mistake :)

    4. Re:Dear Apple and MS by aliquis · · Score: 1

      What use are the cube? And isn't it taken from OS X user switching in the first place?

    5. Re:Dear Apple and MS by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      I don't know if you want a monitor as a cube or the Compiz cube, but I'll tell a story related to the latter.

      I've had real trouble explaining virtual desktops in the past. I mean, I think I've explained their function well enough, but the people I've talked to have just looked confused. Then the other day, my gal was showing off her new desktop bling to another not-so-computer-literate friend. At first, the friend asked if it was the "new Vista." When Goy did the cube spin, the friend just said "Wow, it has different desktops on four sides of a cube. That's so cool. I could use that." I guess the visualization makes the usefulness extremely obvious. I never would have guessed.

    6. Re:Dear Apple and MS by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Vista's GUI is 3D, not 2.5D. It's rendered in Direct3D, on your GPU, with each window being a 3D surface.

    7. Re:Dear Apple and MS by jeffasselin · · Score: 1

      I'd rather have a TIMECUBE!

      --
      If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
  29. Dude, lay off the Starbucks, k? by postbigbang · · Score: 1

    You're working too hard. You hoped to jump into a fanboi fray, and all you can do is dis someone's choice of a correct article to describe an abbreviated word.

    Dude, you're losing it. Go play some XBox, quick, before you implode!

    --
    ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
  30. Re:I have to know the answer to this... by vallette · · Score: 2, Informative

    Just because it's a point release doesn't mean it's minor. The "point point" releases (i.e., 10.4.10) are free and contain bug fixes and the occasional new feature--more akin to the a MS SP. The point release are major releases and always include goodies worth paying for.

  31. Re:Geez... by vux984 · · Score: 1

    If there is only one button to press there is never a question "which button". I suspect that question alone has driven countless PC support tech's to their graves. I walked someone through a short process over the phone a while back and they asked me that like 20 times... because i said 'click' for 'left clicks'; half way through I started explicitly saying 'left click' but it didn't matter they'd either ask anyway "you said left right?", or click the wrong button anyway. "oops".

    Not everyone benefits from multiple buttons. Some people are better off with just one. A lot of people, even.

    I personally couldn't live with a one button mouse, but I applaud MacOS for requiring that every feature of the OS be accessible from one button. And of course, the Apple supports multiple button mice just fine, and uses those buttons logically.

    My -only- complaint is that I can't get a powerbook with a right button on the trackpad.

  32. Re:I have to know the answer to this... by wwahammy · · Score: 1

    The issue here is really over what a point release should be. An Apple point release includes new features as well as being for bugfixes. It's like something half way between a new Windows version and a service pack.

    Windows service packs are not supposed to include new features outside of supporting new hardware. SP2 was an exception but the "features" were mainly one big bugfix dealing with a bunch of bugs related to security.

  33. Re:I have to know the answer to this... by wanderingknight · · Score: 1

    Windows users: Why do you even have to buy your OS?

    --Linux user.

  34. Nice Stuff! Beats the Heck Out of Vista! by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 0, Troll

    Sorry all you Bill fanbois...

  35. Re:More interested in John Siracusa's in-depth rep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amen brotha! The Ars article on OS X 10.4 was superb quality. Between the Ars articles and the stuff on kernelthread, there really isn't anything left to learn about Mac OS X without going into the source code and manpages. (It was really strange to be tracking down a resource fork bug in tar and see John Gilmore's copyright in the source)

  36. Re:I have to know the answer to this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Windows XP was a minor point release. 2000 was 5.0. XP was 5.1. That's beside the point. (Heh. See what I did there?) Version numbers work differently for different systems. What you see as a minor point release is actually a major upgrade. The 10 is irrelevant. It will probably never change. the .5 is the actual major version. The .0 that will be at the end is the patch version. Patch versions are similar to Microsoft service packs. They are free. They don't often add major functionality, like service packs. They are also free. There have been 10 for Tiger (10.4.0-10) with 11 (this one goes to eleven!) on the way. Don't be obsessed with numbers. Look at the feature set of each version before calling it a service pack. The difference between Leopard and Tiger is more like Windows 98se vs. Windows 95.

  37. Re:Does Time Machine require a dedicated partition by Winckle · · Score: 4, Informative

    It makes a directory for itself on the root of the drive, no partitioning needed. :)

  38. Re:I have to know the answer to this... by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 1

    Funny! But also a good question. On my x86 boxes, I run Linux. All free. I have a dual-boot box that does have XP on it but it will never be upgraded to Vista. I hardly boot into Windows any more. One day, I will just reclaim the space with another Linux partition. ;-)

  39. Re:I have to know the answer to this... by logicassasin · · Score: 1

    When I think of major point releases I think of Win NT4.0, Win2000, WinXP, WinVista. Minor releases are NT4 SP3, 2000 SP4, XP SP2, or Vista SP1.

    Hell, we can go to Mandrake 7, 8, 9, 10, 2006, 2007, 2008 and under that are minor point releases like 7.2, 8.2, 9.2, 10.2, etc.

    Major software revisions should get major point releases.

    Major MacOS point releases are new, fully updated OS's (i.e. System7, OS8, OS9, OS10/X), minor point releases are bugfixes wit a few goodies, i.e. System7.6, OS8.6, OS9.2.2, OS10.5.

    --
    Fifty watts per channel, baby cakes.
  40. Re:I have to know the answer to this... by teamhasnoi · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Mac trolling fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Mac (a 8600/300 w/64 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while you attempt to rephrase a old troll from kottke.org. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be trolled more often, I'm rarely trolled once a year. If that.

    In addition, during this trolling attempt, I can not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even my assistant is straining to keep awake as you type this.

    I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while waiting for your various trolls, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Wintel troll that has been posted faster than its Mac counterpart, despite Wintel users generally having less of a life, and more time to hang out on Slashdot. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs circles around you, and a small Perl script could out troll you most times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the Macintosh troll is a superior troll.

    Mac troll addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to troll a Mac user over other faster, cheaper, more stable people.

  41. Re:I have to know the answer to this... by skingers6894 · · Score: 1

    "I'm not trying to start a fight here"

    Yes you are.

  42. Re:Geez... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'The inexplicably single-button mouse? That's a "boner" (...) but apple fans swear by it for some reason'

    The mouse is about to become an outdated technology. And didn't you know that Steve Jobs doesn't like buttons? Oh, don't worry, there won't be any buttons in the near future. Then you'll see who the "boner" is.

  43. Addresses - Map Of; alternate providers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    okay, so I'm just trolling here - but you know it's a perfectly good question. The 'map of' feature for addresses - can that be pointed at, say, Microsoft's map servers? Or map24? Or whoever, for that matter?

    Leopard: Map Any Address in Google Maps
    http://www.tech-recipes.com/rx/2652/leopard_map_any_address_in_google_maps

    1. Re:Addresses - Map Of; alternate providers? by BoldAC · · Score: 1

      Not in anyway that is obvious. Like many Apple features, it is tied directly to one service.

      The dictionary in OS X 10.5 now has the ability to search wikipedia (but no other online databases) as well. iPhone uses google maps exclusively, etc, etc.

    2. Re:Addresses - Map Of; alternate providers? by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      Well, given that the old version used MapQuest (which only makes me want to stab people), be happy that they upgraded to Google Maps...

      But I can't imagine it'll take that long before somebody figures out where they're storing the URL and creates a way to change it. Doesn't seem like it would be that hard.

      But is there an approved way to do it? No, not that I can tell. It's designed to work with Google Maps, and that's that.

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

    Anyone know of a fairly in-depth review of the new Japanese translation/converstion features that I saw in the feature list? If the converter is better than Microsoft IME in Vista I may just end up purchasing a MacBook in the near future.

    1. Re:Japanese by Chang · · Score: 1

      I don't know of an in depth review on that feature available yet but it was one of the first things I tried out after loading Leopard today.

      They've added some new features including a recently used list that seems very useful so far.

      At this point I think it compares very well to the Vista IME. They both seem to make annoying mistakes from time to time but they are both pretty advanced. I will say I use OS X IME more often than Vista.

      Give it a try if you get a chance. It's very easy to enable on a demo machine for testing it out.

  45. Re:I have to know the answer to this... by logicassasin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Linux Users: Because the apps I use most frequently don't exist under Linux and have no true equivalents, therefore I buy Windows.

    They are ProTools, Cubase SX3, FL Studio, SoundForge8, Reason 3, Rebirth 2, Flash MX, Illustrator, Vegas, and more.

    The apps I use infrequently, has linux equivalents or exists natively like Eclipse, NetBeans, and assorted FPGA dev apps. I keep both Win32 and Linux machines at home.

    --
    Fifty watts per channel, baby cakes.
  46. Because it's not a point release at all by eiscir · · Score: 5, Informative

    Because Apple's point releases are called 10.x.y, not 10.x. For instance, Tiger, which is 10.4, was released in April 2005, swiftly followed by 10.4.1, 10.4.2, etc, all the way up to 10.4.10 (the current version) and 10.4.11 (probably the last version, due probably tomorrow). These 'point point' releases provide the 'bug fixes and a few little extras thrown in' that you describe, and are free, automatic downloads through Software Update. It's these 'point point' releases that are equivalent to Microsoft's Service Packs. Leopard, 10.5, isn't a 'point release' at all in anything other than name. The only reason it's called 10.5 and not OS XV is because Apple like having the X/Ten play on words. Y'know, it's after OS 9, but it's also UNIX, ho ho ho. A quick run through http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/300.html will show you that Leopard consists of much more than 'bug fixes and a few little extras thrown in', such as a completely new backup system, redesigned and simplified system preferences, a completely rewritten scheduler, full 64-bit architecture, and a whole lot more.
    Bear in mind that numbering schemes are simply marketing and entirely arbitrary.

    1. Re:Because it's not a point release at all by yabos · · Score: 1

      Some people are either a) retarded, or b) trolling. Why is it so hard to not see 10.x.x is the bug fixes and 10.x is features. We've been going over this same shit for years, and every time a 10.x release comes out, the retarded or trolls(take your pick) pull out the same stupid ass question.

    2. Re:Because it's not a point release at all by Roogna · · Score: 1

      Actually, I always assumed in the Mac OS X case, that the reason we haven't hit 11.0 is simply because of the old ideas of version numbering. It's not a -major- OS version bump, unless it breaks binary compatibility completely. So we'll continue with 10.x's until binary compatibility is entirely broken. At which point we'll finally get Mac OS XI... or Mac OS Macaw, or whatever animal they decide to switch to after cats ;)

  47. Re:Geez... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Current models allow a configuration (via System Preferences) wherein a click is a right-click when two fingers are on the trackpad. And two fingers are used to scroll, as well. I find this solution very satisfactory.

  48. This news story by Vexorian · · Score: 1

    This news story was brought to you by the friends of Steve Jobs.

    --

    Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
    1. Re:This news story by Vexorian · · Score: 1

      Not like I wouldn't recommend leopard over vista. Heck I would try it if it wasn't for the fact I would have to buy another computer just to TRY it...

      --

      Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
    2. Re:This news story by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Not like I wouldn't recommend leopard over vista. Heck I would try it if it wasn't for the fact I would have to buy another computer just to TRY it...


      Funny, I can say the same thing about Vista...

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    3. Re:This news story by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Yeah except his computer that can't run Leopard is probably at least five years old while yours that can't run Vista might have been new last Christmas.

      Someone saw my MBP yesterday and asked when I'd gotten my new computer. Uh, about a year and a half ago.

      "Oh, and you have another new computer over there!" Uh, no, that's a Powerbook from about three years ago.

      "Wow. My year old Dell doesn't look nearly as good."

    4. Re:This news story by Vexorian · · Score: 1

      Hey I didn't say I would try vista either.

      --

      Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
    5. Re:This news story by Vexorian · · Score: 1

      Hey I appreciate the modding down, but I am not sure it was Off Topic, I would have accepted "Overrated" (which means I disagree) or Flamebait,(which means the guy is trying to make us mac fans angry) but seriously, Off-topic? Where did that come from?

      --

      Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
    6. Re:This news story by aliquis · · Score: 1

      You missunderstands it all. First guy probably have an IBM-PC and complains that he can't install OS X on it. The later guy tries to be funny buy saying as he does because his PC are to old to handle Vista.

    7. Re:This news story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Someone saw my MBP yesterday and asked when I'd gotten my new computer. Uh, about a year and a half ago.

      "Oh, and you have another new computer over there!" Uh, no, that's a Powerbook from about three years ago.

      "Wow. My year old Dell doesn't look nearly as good."


      Does that stupid anecdote have a point or did you just roll it out to keep your retarded first point company?

      I bought a brand-new computer yesterday that wouldn't be able to run Vista. That's something you get with commodity x86 compared to apple hardware - a choice.

    8. Re:This news story by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a great choice. Congratulations. I hope you two are very happy together.

  49. Re:Geez... by mbadolato · · Score: 1

    Just because it comes with a one-button mouse doesn't mean you have to use it. Plug any USB mouse in, and the buttons all work just fine.

  50. Re:I have to know the answer to this... by beelsebob · · Score: 1

    Look again at the differences between 10.5 and 10.4, and then consider the differences between XP and 2000.

    There's a *huge* amount more changed in the transition from Tiger to Leopard.

    Don't be fooled by the "minor" version number change -- this is not Mac OS version 10.5, this is Mac OS X version 5.

  51. Re:I have to know the answer to this... by wanderingknight · · Score: 1

    It's all right, it was just a joke. I know you have your reasons, I was just poking fun at your statement about buying Mac OS' updates. Just like you have your reasons for buying MS OSes which many of us Linux-only users find alien, Mac OS users have reasons to buy updates that Windows users might find alien, too.

  52. Re:Does Time Machine require a dedicated partition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have not used it myself, but from what I understand, the only restriction is that Time Machine will not put its data on a boot partition -- otherwise, you can put it on any partition or drive you want (even network drives), and it's ok if there is other data there, too.

  53. Slower G4s by CODiNE · · Score: 1

    So let's hear it...

    Any of you gotten it to install on a 800MHz or less G4 yet? How's it run compared to Tiger on the same hardware? Compared to Tiger how does it do on a 1GB system? I remember when I upgraded grandpa's iMac G4 from Panther to Tiger telling him it would be much faster, it turned into a dog until I upgraded his RAM, then it was noticeably faster than before. So how much RAM will I need for Leopard to make an Intel Mac faster rather than slower?

    --
    Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    1. Re:Slower G4s by abhi_beckert · · Score: 5, Informative

      I've seen it run on a 1Ghz G4. Some of the new features are a little chuggy (spaces, stationary in mail, etc), but it works fine overall. I'm planning to install it on an 800Mhz G4 iBook, I think it'll run fine.

      Both of those machines have maxed out ram. I'd recommend at least 1GB of ram for average usage patterns, more if you're into multi-tasking.

      As for features that existed on both Tiger and Leopard? Many of them are much faster on leopard than tiger. Spotlight absolutely screams on leopard. Results start appearing as you lift your finger from the key, even on the 1Ghz G4. I've uninstalled quicksilver, since spotlight is just as fast now.

    2. Re:Slower G4s by Jerry+Smith · · Score: 1
      I've seen it run on a 1Ghz G4. Some of the new features are a little chuggy (spaces, stationary in mail, etc), but it works fine overall. I'm planning to install it on an 800Mhz G4 iBook, I think it'll run fine.

      I guess that leaves the most eMacs within range. Educative institutions probably sigh with relief (then again: their ram would've to be upped, if not already). Worst thing is: leaving Classic behind. Somehow OS9 is difficult to part from...

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
  54. Re:I have to know the answer to this... by Stormwatch · · Score: 5, Informative

    Mac users: Why are you guys so quick to buy minor point releases (ie. bug fixes and a few little extras thrown in) of your OS rather than demand that they be freely available like Windows?
    You think this is: Mac OS, version ten dot five. But it works more like: Mac OS Ten, version five.
  55. Re:I have to know the answer to this... by Drishmung · · Score: 1
    Panther:
    % uname -v
    Darwin Kernel Version 7.9.0: Wed Mar 30 20:11:17 PST 2005; root:xnu/xnu-517.12.7.obj~1/RELEASE_PPC

    Tiger:
    % uname -v
    Darwin Kernel Version 8.10.1: Wed May 23 16:33:00 PDT 2007; root:xnu-792.22.5~1/RELEASE_I386

    Spot the major release? From version 7 to version 8? Leopard is Version 9.something. The Kernel reved its major release number.

    And Mac OS 8 was in fact a point release. It was going to be 7.7 but was changed to be Mac OS 8 to lock out the cloners.

    In the meantime, Jobs bought out Power Computing-the largest Mac cloner-for $100 million, and terminated other clone agreements by releasing Mac OS 7.7 as "Mac OS 8" in mid 1997
    http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/09/30/leopard-and-the-history-and-future-of-mac-os-x-on-powerpc/
    --
    Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
  56. Re:I have to know the answer to this... by shmlco · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What the guy above me said, plus I have to ask just what comparable features did Windows XP SR1 and SR2 provide? Integrated backup solutions?New collaborative messaging environments? Major file manager and desktop redesigns? Redesigned mail, notes, and calendaring systems? New graphics and developer subsystems (Core Animation)? Improved performance on existing hardware?

    How about major security upgrades and multicore enhancements? Oh, wait. SR2 did add a firewall, didn't it? In addition to rolling up a couple of hundred security patches.

    My bad.

    --
    Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
  57. resolution independence... by lucas+teh+geek · · Score: 1

    resolution independence was supposed to be one of the big features of leopard way back when it was initially announced but it's not been mentioned in the last year or so of "previews". what the hell happened to it? I was really looking forward to having an insanely high resolution resulting in everything being far sharper, instead of just smaller.

    --
    TIAEAE!
    1. Re:resolution independence... by wodgy7 · · Score: 1

      It's in there. Apple uses it in many of their demos, screenshots, and movies, and it's one of the features mentioned on the Leopard material up on Apple's developer site. They haven't included a GUI to turn it on, but it's easy enough to do for us geeks. And yes, that means you can finally use those awesome radiology displays without everything being hyper-small.

    2. Re:resolution independence... by aliquis · · Score: 1

      It's still there on the developer pages, not just on the "consumer" pages.
      Thought we still need high-DPI screens, and who knows if that will ever happen until Microsoft makes an OS which does well on them. How large are the market for high-DPI screens if they won't be used by any PC users?

    3. Re:resolution independence... by lucas+teh+geek · · Score: 1

      yeah, it's definitely a problem. its a bit of a shame that you can get a higher dpi on many 15" laptop than you find on most 19" desktop lcds

      --
      TIAEAE!
    4. Re:resolution independence... by aliquis · · Score: 1

      I think not, but it's a shame Apple doesn't use them. (The high DPI 15.4" LCDs that is.)

    5. Re:resolution independence... by thevil · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Give it a try today with iGianTunes:

      (Fire up terminal and write)

      defaults write com.apple.iTunes AppleDisplayScaleFactor 10

      or perhaps smallishTunes:

      defaults write com.apple.iTunes AppleDisplayScaleFactor 0.20

      Also works fine for the whole OS:

      defaults write NSGlobalDomain AppleDisplayScaleFactor 0.20

    6. Re:resolution independence... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      You can already buy a "high-DPI" screen. What else do you call those 15" laptops with 1680x1050 resolution? I don't know how good your vision is, but I can't read text (at default sizes) on those.

    7. Re:resolution independence... by aliquis · · Score: 1

      So increase the text/UI size, that's the whole point of resolution independence, and get sharper/better looking graphics in return.

      Mine has 1440x900, I would never had bought that if 1680x1050 was available, and I would probably take 1920x120 if possible, even more so with leopard.

    8. Re:resolution independence... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Except, like this entire discussion is about, resolution independence doesn't work yet! Sure I'll be happy to turn it on when there's an operating system that can do it correctly, but right now the best you can do in Windows is changing the default font size, which most apps do not correctly handle, and which definitely isn't the same thing as resolution independence.

    9. Re:resolution independence... by aliquis · · Score: 1

      But this thread is about Leopard, which can do it.

      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 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 youll need to do in order to make your application look as good as possible. For modern Cocoa 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."

    10. Re:resolution independence... by lucas+teh+geek · · Score: 1

      thanks for the tip. just been playing with it scaling things up and down. scaling up (>1.0) seems to work reasonably well but shrinking stuff (for the low res powerbook screen) isnt so good. looking forward to trying this out on the high res CRT at work on monday

      --
      TIAEAE!
  58. How is this possible? by ShooterNeo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How is this possible? Unfortunately, I haven't been able to google for exactly how MANY developers Microsoft has versus how many apple has....but Microsoft had at least 5000 developers that worked on Windows Vista. While they must have lowered their standards in the last few years, originally microsoft was only hiring top graduates from top schools like MIT and CMU.

    They have a gigantic number of some of the best people they can buy.

    So why does their stuff suck so much by comparison to a small corporation? Apple cannot afford nearly the resources Microsoft has...I wouldn't be surprised if their OS X team had 1/5 the people.

    I know that skill matters...but surely the top of the class people at Microsoft are no worse than the hippies at apple?

    1. Re:How is this possible? by Kent+Recal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's all about the vision. And the people in charge.
      Just compare Steve Jobs to Steve Ballmer (or Billy, fwiw).

      Which of these personalities do you think is more
      likely to design an OS that you would like?

      Ofcourse it doesn't boil down to individuals but looking
      at the heads of a company gives you a good idea of the
      companies mindset.

      Apple is "cool and hip" because the people working
      there *know* what "cool and hip" is.

      Microsoft is not cool and hip because, well, it is
      driven by people like Steve Ballmer.

      The sheer headcount, on the other hand, means
      nothing in the world of software developement.
      Small and well focussed (on the right goals)
      teams will outperform large teams everytime.

      You can read up on that in "the mythical man month"
      and just about any other ressource about project
      management in the software industry.

      In fact, developing "good" software (by any metrics)
      becomes much harder the larger your team gets.
      Programming is not like selling cars. It's more
      comparable to an orchestra. More instrumentalists
      don't necessarily improve the result but definately
      increase the effort to manage them.

    2. Re:How is this possible? by LoneGNUman · · Score: 0

      Closed systems...Because Apple's OS has to work with less different types of hardware.

    3. Re:How is this possible? by PrescriptionWarning · · Score: 1

      as you significantly increase the number of people on a project, you can actually decrease the productivity and even quality of the project as a whole, and this is mainly since Man-months can only apply to more linear types of developments... programming however is far from linear.

      the other thing too is that when there's more people, there's more meetings, and more time spent making even relatively simple decisions, which in turn holds up development. Of course it doesn't help when you outsource the development and so you then wait weeks or months to get the results from those decisions, which may in turn require changes to the original decision and so on.

      in a nutshell, the best thing any development project can do is to figure out where that sweet spot is for quantity and quality.

    4. Re:How is this possible? by wodgy7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I won't comment on the quality of the programmers -- both companies draw from similar pools -- but the way they manage those programmers is significantly different. Probably the biggest beef I have with Microsoft's management is their devotion to Jack Welch's (of General Electric management fame) idea of doing a company reorganization ("reorg") roughly every 16 months. Not everyone moves around, since certain people don't make sense to move, but there is disruption. This kind of management "theory" makes sense when everyone is viewed as unskilled, interchangeable production units, but it doesn't make sense in software where the value is in slowly acquired knowledge of the source code base, and knowledge of how to interact with everyone on the team to minimize team issues. Reorgs flush some of that away, every time. I realize they teach from Jack Welch's playbook in most MBA programs, but Microsoft needs to abandon this practice. There are other major differences between the two companies attitudes and group dynamics as well. You really have to have worked inside one (or preferably both) to get a good comparison.

      Another, more minor beef, is Microsoft's philosophy that others will put up with things that they wouldn't personally put up with. For instance, internal to Office, Clippy is known as TFC_* in function names... based on a comment from Bill Gates that "I don't want to have to deal with That F*cking Clip every time I want to print." Bill hates it, but he nevertheless still shipped it. In contrast, Jobs would never ship a feature he hated; he'd view it as a personal affront. This attitude pervades Microsoft. For instance, everyone at MS realizes the overly tiered pricing scheme is customer hostile -- they know many customers realize they're being either nickle and dimed or had -- but they still ship it because it maximizes revenue in the short term, regardless of damage to long-term company goodwill. Jobs won't dish out something he wouldn't personally put up with. Perhaps it's ego, or perhaps he understands that Apple's success depends almost entirely on goodwill. This all sounds handwavy, but it's another major difference in the the two company philosophies.

      I could spend all day comparing the two companies; it's fascinating. And no, not everything about Apple's culture is superior.

    5. Re:How is this possible? by dprovine · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In 1963, CDC released a computer called the 6600, which was far better than the machines being made by IBM at the time.

      Thomas Watson, IBM's CEO, wrote a memo saying "Last week, Control Data [...] announced the 6600 system. I understand that in the laboratory developing the system there are only 34 people including the janitor. Of these, 14 are engineers and 4 are programmers[.] Contrasting this modest effort with our vast development activities, I fail to understand why we have lost our industry leadership position by letting someone else offer the world's most powerful computer." To which Seymour Cray replied: "It seems like Mr. Watson has answered his own question."

      If you haven't already, you might like to read The Mythical Man-Month, available at a bookseller near you.

    6. Re:How is this possible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am an MIT student, and I have to say that I'm not surprised Microsoft sucks so bad.

      Students 'round here care more about their resumés than producing excellent work.

    7. Re:How is this possible? by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Your 1/5 is close to correct I think, or 1/4 or so, but anyway I wouldn't call Apple "small corporation", they have many people working for them aswell. (Quite a few probably works with iPods, iPhones, Macs thought, so not everyone will work with software only.)

    8. Re:How is this possible? by hxnwix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Apple's OS has to work with less different types of hardware Interesting. So it's "hardware differences" that require start to be clicked in order to shut down windows.

      Look, windows isn't annoying to use because it has to run on a greater variety of hardware. It's annoying to use because it was designed by assholes.
    9. Re:How is this possible? by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Would you care of explaining for us what you see as flaws aswell? Or are you affraid of your karma? =P, I assume for some people truth hurts ;D

    10. Re:How is this possible? by sribe · · Score: 1

      While they must have lowered their standards in the last few years, originally microsoft was only hiring top graduates from top schools like MIT and CMU.

      That was never the case. Not ever.

    11. Re:How is this possible? by mstone · · Score: 1

      One can argue that Vista sucks because Microsoft had so many programmers working on it.

      It takes a lot of back-end logistics to keep 5000 programmers all working in synch with each other. Everyone who writes code that opens a window needs to know what data structures the guys writing the 'open a window' library have chosen, and those guys need to know what the video device driver team is doing, etcetera. The lines of communication between software module teams are exactly the same as the dependencies in the software.

      But when you have 5000 programmers working on a project, it's a full-time job just trying to stay on top of who's doing what. The programmers themselves can't put in that kind of effort and still write any code, so you divide them into teams and assign managers.

      That sounds great when you say it fast, but how do you decide what teams to create? You don't know what teams you'll need until you have a detailed design for the product and a list of all the dependencies. Again, that sounds great, but in practice it means you have 5000 programmers sitting around doing nothing for six months while about 25 OS architects work out the design.

      Companies don't like doing that. If it's a big, important project, management wants to see some big, important effort going into the thing from day one. Assigning 5000 programmers to the project is their way of letting the stockholders know that This Is Important, and if senior management is going to allocate those kinds of resources, the project manager had damn well better well USE THEM.

      So the project starts with 5000 programmers trying to do something to justify their place in The Really Important Project, but having no idea what anyone else is actually doing. Meanwhile, the middle managers are playing politics with each other. The team writing the HTML parser is trying to build something that's fast, efficient and standards compliant, but the team writing the browser is logging every "doesn't support this horribly malformed bullshit that we used to ignore" as a bug in the parser. Fundamental technical decisions get made based on who can suck up to the next higher level of management better, and who can outstare the other across the conference table. (Don't laugh.. I've seen million dollar deals decided exactly that way)

      All this pathological crap gets reflected -- even embodied -- in the software. The 'shut down this machine' dialog has nine different buttons and takes 18 months to program because there are four different teams whose work has some effect on system shutdown. All communication has to flow through the one manager high enough up in the org chart to have all four teams under his control, which means it takes up to three months for a design change Team A makes to filter over to Team C. Meanwhile, you have managers from two the other teams and a whole flock of marketing androids bickering over which button will go on top, and what names the buttons will have. (Again.. don't laugh. It happens a LOT)

      The final product of such a development process is a giant mess, but somehow everyone supposedly responsible is able to dodge the blame for it being so bad.

      And you can't blame the result on the programmers. If you restrict your view of the product to what one programmer or one team could know, you'll see a lot of really good work. It's just a lot of really good work that doesn't fit together as a total product.

      Johnny cash has a song called "One Piece At A Time" about a guy who decides to steal a car from the auto plant where he works -- one piece at a time -- over the course of about 30 years. The payoff comes in:

      Now, up to now my plan went all right
      'Til we tried to put it all together one night
      And that's when we noticed that something was definitely wrong.

    12. Re:How is this possible? by johnrpenner · · Score: 1


      i think jon ive got it -- the designers who would make it better
      are at a level too low in the hierarchy to make effective changes:

      Q: There's a widespread perception that computers in general have taken on a
      generic appearance, i.e., the ubiquitous beige box. Why do you think this
      has been the case?

      Ive: I DON'T THINK THE REASONS STEM FROM THE EXPERIENCE OF THE DESIGNERS
      DESIGNING THOSE PRODUCTS THAT WAY. I THINK IT IS DRIVEN BY AN INDUSTRY
      THAT HAS DEFINED ITS AGENDA AND WHAT IT BELIEVES THE PURCHASING CRITERIA
      SHOULD BE. THAT, THEREFORE, DEFINES THE PRIORITIES FOR THE DESIGNER.

      ((THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME, Interview with Jonathan Ive,
        Charles Arthur talks to the designer of the iMac, January 14 2002)

      http://news.independent.co.uk/digital/features/story.jsp?story=114276

    13. Re:How is this possible? by frakir · · Score: 1

      While apple "owns" about 8% (or sth like that) of OS market, it is worth a bit over 50% of what is MSFT worth. A small corporation? Gimme a break. A biggest computer manufacturer on earth, currently. More like it.

    14. Re:How is this possible? by BuzzDat · · Score: 1

      It's the frameworks. Seriously.

      Win32 is an ancient, kludged api, still showing its Win16 and OS2 Roots. In some cases, there are dozens of different calls that *can* be used to accomplish roughly the same task, each of which has its own dependencies and peculiarities. Walk through the API sometime - foo, fooEx, fooEx2, etc. It's a mess. The API and underlying system architecture was showing its age back in 99, and yet MS has continued to build more and more complex products upon this crumbling foundation.

      Apple made a hard call from a business standpoint, not only coming to the realization that their existing APIs were horribly outdated but actually biting the bullet, tossing the whole enchilada out the window, and starting over from scratch (yes, they heavily leveraged BSD and NextStep). This is *extremely* unusual in this industry, especially in a marketing-driven company. They then provided a clear migration path (via Carbon) and designed some of the best frameworks available on any platform. Framework integration is a breeze, with a straightforward API, clear, complete, easily accessible documentation. Ever tried to add VBScript capabilities to a Win32 application? Massive licensing fees, terrible, outdated documentation, lack of knowledgeable technical support from the integration provider, and a buggy library implementation to boot. Adding AppleScript capabilities to a Cocoa application is a walk in the park in comparison, and much easier on the pocketbook - like the other frameworks available to Mac developers, it's license-free.

      Besides, Visual Studio vs XCode? No contest. Like the aforementioned Win32 API, Visual Studio is terribly bloated, overly complex, poorly documented, and still carries early 90's baggage.

      Sorry if I'm coming across as a slavering Apple fanboy - it's not my intent. Until very recently, I was exclusively a MS developer; I've paid my bills via MS-based x86 development for twenty years now, from DOS to Win16 to Win32, etc. There's really no excuse for MS to produce such a buggy, unstable product (Please, don't tell me about how "stable" Windoze has become; our windows 2003 data center servers still need to be power cycled at least once a week to avoid mysterious crashes, memory issues, etc, and they only run MS software.) I've switched from PC to Mac out of disgust, as each product released gets more bloated and unstable; meanwhile, MS hasn't addressed some of their worst problems (eg, system works great after a clean install, but six months later is slow as molasses and unstable as can be)

      There is some indication that MS is willing to scrap existing technologies and start over from scratch, at least in the Mac Business Unit; Office 2008 is (supposedly) re-built from the ground up. Office for Mac was desperately in need of an overhaul. There's still a whole lot of us Mac users out there that need Exchange access, and Office is the only game in town (yes, you can get mail access with other products, but the existing calendaring integration solutions fall quite short).

      If Apple was able to pull this off, MS could as well, but they would have to get over their not-invented-here mentality and embrace stable, mature technologies.

      Ain't gonna happen.

    15. Re:How is this possible? by mjboyle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the biggest factors are inertia and target market. Microsoft wants to satisfy as many people as possible and that means satisfying big corporations who are going to make big buys. That means that they are going to have a great deal of resistance to any changes that will require expensive re-training. It's hard to innovate under those circumstances. Furthermore, the Microsoft idea of "winning" is dominance in market share. This leads them to design for the lowest common denominator: something that the greatest number of people will be satisfied with even if no one will be thrilled by it. Apple would much rather have greater mind share and be seen as having the best products, therefor they are willing to make choices that might turn off some, even many or most, users if the changes raise the quality of the product. This makes it much easier to innovate.

    16. Re:How is this possible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      This makes this possible.

    17. Re:How is this possible? by mikeplokta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Two main factors here.

      First, Microsoft is fanatical about backwards compatibility, and Vista has to continue to support every crufty little hack that worked on Windows 3.0 fifteen years ago. Apple will throw you overboard after five years or so -- for example, Classic mode has been removed completely from Leopard and so Mac programs from before the OS X era will no longer run on Macs.

      Second, Apple controls the hardware, and so has to do vastly less programming of device drivers for every motherboard, graphics card, disk controller, etc. that has ever existed. They really just have to worry about third-party USB devices.

    18. Re:How is this possible? by p0tat03 · · Score: 1

      I get the feeling from various MS employee blogs that the design of Windows wasn't very cohesive at all. Teams would have a feature farmed to them, and then be able to run amok with their own UI design decisions, resulting in the end parts of the system that feel very different in terms of interface (though, IMHO, not as bad as some Linux distros). This is also why Vista had some neat UI improvements, at the same time marred with UI ideas so stupid you have to wonder who came up with them - different teams working independently with very little force drawing them together.

      The trick here with Apple is that all UI design decisions are unified under the iron fist of Jobs (or whoever he has deemed the UI expert of the day). This makes sure that the product that rolls out the door has a cohesive interface, and thus is less confusing and more pleasant to use, and respects the same design philosophies throughout. This is a much better way to do things.

    19. Re:How is this possible? by swell · · Score: 1

      Hippies vs Top Graduates?

      Easy. Top Graduates learn by rote. Hippies are immersed. Hippies will win every time there is a conflict between corporate goals and human goals.

      Have you forgotten the 1984 Apple commercial where the girl throws the hammer at Big Brother and frees all the zombie clones? Those zombie clones were MicroClones from Redmond. When they get the message, the world will be saved.
      http://pulsar.esm.psu.edu/Faculty/Gray/graphics/movies/1984.mov

      --
      ...omphaloskepsis often...
    20. Re:How is this possible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, Microsoft is fanatical about backwards compatibility,

      was fanatical. they began abandoning some things lately, and now they've basically got the worst of both worlds - not really backwards compatible, but unable to make a clean break with the past either.

    21. Re:How is this possible? by Alioth · · Score: 1

      I thought MS had done away with 16-bit Windows app support in Vista (certainly the 64 bit versions). In Tiger, I can still run Crystal Quest, a game written in 1985 I think on the M68K based Mac running System 6. I think being backward compatible for 22 years is really not such a bad record. (Still, I'm not sure I will upgrade to Leopard just yet, I do like Crystal Quest!)

    22. Re:How is this possible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Part of the reason for Apple's dismissive attitude towards backward compatibility stems from the fact that they don't stand to lose billions of dollars worth of sales should they break support for legacy apps.

      Like it or not, the industrialised world floats on a sea of old code. The reason Apple and Linux are kicking so much arse right now (comparatively speaking) is because their hands aren't bound by all their old mistakes - so they can make monumental changes like moving over to a completely different architecture and breaking their ABIs every 5 minutes and in 10 minutes hardly anyone will remember. Conversely, when Microsoft fixed some random XP bug with SP2 they almost faced a legal investigation by the US DOJ because the fix broke some of the court's software.

      If I were an Apple fanboy I'd be very careful about how loud I sing their praises, because if they ever do get mainstream adoption we'd all find ourselves in exactly the same boat.

    23. Re:How is this possible? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Microsoft is not Apple. It's not about vision, but about the natural evolution of their products. Microsoft does a lot more than just Windows (XBoxes, Zunes, mobile phone OSs, embedded OSs, etc.), Apple does a bit more than just Macs and OS X (iPods, iPhones, iEverythingElse). Apple are where they are because they are great at marketing, and were in the right place at the right time to become Apple as we know it. They spotted a niche and went for it. Microsoft have been going for it ever since the success of their early Windows releases becoming entrenched in business, and they're were they are at the moment - with software used by most top-end companies around the world. I'm no zealot - I use whatever's best for the job. I just think it's funny when people try and figure out why MS/Apple is better than Apple/MS. They're different.

    24. Re:How is this possible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple is now, as of this week, a more valuable company than IBM you insensative clod! Do your research before you post.

    25. Re:How is this possible? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      I just read somewhere that Apple is the fourth most valuable tech company in the world. That hardly qualifies them as "small corporation".

    26. Re:How is this possible? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      And by assholes, you mean out-of-touch-with-real-people nerds, right? That's my take at least.

    27. Re:How is this possible? by stewbacca · · Score: 1
      This might be why Microsoft generally sucks compared to Apple (from the NYT):

      Microsoft's chief, Steven Ballmer, said online advertising would grow to make up 25 percent of the company's revenue.
      So Microsoft is dumping all their resources into forcing ads onto my computer. Great. It's all about the corporate culture: Apple makes cool stuff, Microsoft makes online ads.
    28. Re:How is this possible? by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      Install the deskman powertoy. Now, go find it and turn it on. I dare you.

    29. Re:How is this possible? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While they must have lowered their standards in the last few years, originally microsoft was only hiring top graduates from top schools like MIT and CMU.

      I know a lot of people who have worked at MS. They do hire a lot of people directly out of school. Mostly, the culture promotes hiring people who have "drank the kool-aid." People straight out of school have often not been exposed to a lot of different, real-world solutions. Smart and experienced are both valuable characteristics, but MS seems to actually avoid the latter intentionally as part of their culture (for standard hiring practices, not in all cases).

      My company is really picky about hiring. Occasionally we hire people from MS who are looking for a change. MS has never hired anyone away from us, although Apple, Google, and Sun all have. Apple, on the other hand has a blended culture, including the old guard Apple UI experts, the NextStep rebels, and people from the traditional UNIX and Linux backgrounds. I think Apple is currently benefitting from the diversity of experience they have, while MS is suffering from group think and over management.

      Also, being a monopoly MS makes money no matter what they do, whereas Apple goes out of business or people get fired if they don't consistently improve the product. At the highest level, Apple has to compete which drives them to innovate, while MS does not have to compete to make money and in fact can make more money by figuring out technological methods of gouging their existing customer base. How many of the technologies added to the last few versions of Windows were designed to benefit MS and MS's partners RIAA, MPAA, rather than to benefit end users.

    30. Re:How is this possible? by jcr · · Score: 1

      They have a gigantic number of some of the best people they can buy.

      That's the problem. Once you have too many people on any software development project, it's going to suck, no matter how good they may be as individuals.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  59. Lisa by shmlco · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't consider Lisa to be a boner. A strong argument can be made that without the work done on Lisa we wouldn't have the Mac, OR Windows for matter. At least in their present forms and on the same timeline.

    Yes, $10,000 per system was probably a bit strong... but consider that a good computer at the time would still set you back $5,000, that hard drives were so expensive they were considered only for workgroup solutions, and that Xerox expected people to pony up one HUNDRED thousand dollars for a Star system.

    --
    Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
  60. I much preferred the WSJ in-depth look by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    It was on page B1 of the print edition today.

    Unfortunately, the Wall Street Journal charges for their online content, but in brief Walter S. Mossberg said that OS X: Leopard is faster and easier than Vista and beats Microsoft, in addition to being more secure.

    He particularly liked Time Machine (automatically backs up your entire computer in the background), Cover Flow and Quick Look (so you can view file contents without opening programs), and the built in networking and remote access features.

    The only thing he wasn't as excited by was the menu bar being translucent, since if you had a dark screen image it was sometimes hard to see.

    It can also coexist with Linux and has excellent backwards compatibility (Vista only got Fair for backwards compatibility).

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  61. Re:Does Time Machine require a dedicated partition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am running Leopard and so far it will only allow my external drive. On top of that it wanted enough free space to backup my entire macbook. So time machine on the root drive will likely require at 2x more drive space then you actually intend to use.

  62. Seconded by slyborg · · Score: 1

    If you're going to come in AC, be ready to jump up and hit like a man. There's acres of open fanboi target in here, and you took a swing at the drapes.

  63. Re:Geez... by drsmithy · · Score: 1

    I personally couldn't live with a one button mouse, but I applaud MacOS for requiring that every feature of the OS be accessible from one button.

    It's worth pointing that the Windows HCI guidelines, also, require that all functionality be accessible without using a context menu.

  64. Re:Geez... by Jeremi · · Score: 0
    If there is only one button to press there is never a question "which button".


    The problem is that the extra buttons haven't gone away, they've just moved over to the keyboard. So now it's control-click instead of right-click... which is even more obscure and hard to figure out that a second mouse button would have been.

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  65. Re:I have to know the answer to this... by LordLucless · · Score: 1

    I'd guess most don't. They either buy a computer (which comes with the price of the OS factored in, but they don't know that), use it because work provided it, or pirate it. I can count the number of people I know who bought a standalone copy of a new Windows OS on one hand.

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  66. Double Standard by MBoffin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "If your computer doesn't meet those specs, it's time to upgrade your hardware or stick with Tiger for now. And if you're still running Mac "Classic" OS apps, forget it. Leopard drops support for what was once Mac OS 9."

    So when Vista needs beefier hardware and some Windows 98 apps are broken on it, the reason is because Microsoft sucks and it's their fault for requiring a current computer to run their current OS. But when Leopard needs beefier specs, it's the user's fault they haven't upgraded by now and it's all taken in stride.

    I get it. Makes total sense.

    1. Re:Double Standard by DaggertipX · · Score: 1

      Spec for spec, Leopard will run on older and slower hardware than Vista. At some point backwards compatibility must drop - are you actually bothered by where the line was drawn, or do you just want to bitch because it's Apple?

    2. Re:Double Standard by Relayman · · Score: 1

      The computers that can't run Leopard are typically six years old or older. Vista won't run on some computers purchased a month before its release. Further, some of the "Vista ready" computers couldn't support the Aero look without upgrading.

      --
      If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
    3. Re:Double Standard by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      This is interesting. The attitude might come from the perception that Leopard is actually giving users a bunch of new features they really want. Also, all of the machines excluded from this list are at least 5 years old, which is very old for a computer, and most of the people that own Macs are generally up to date within 2-3 years.

      People who don't want to upgrade to Vista might be bitching in part because of the perception that it's somehow required, that it's a tax on them computing, which I don't necessarily think it true, but there it is. When a new Mac OS makes you upgrade, it's like telling someone with a 10-year-old BMW they need to buy a new one, and it's probably going to be cheaper than the one you bought before, and the new one will go faster and farther and run on biodiesel. When Microsoft tells you to upgrade, it's like the phone company telling you to buy a new phone, because the new ones come in designer colors, thus the customers have a bit of ambivalence.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    4. Re:Double Standard by NMerriam · · Score: 1

      So when Vista needs beefier hardware and some Windows 98 apps are broken on it, the reason is because Microsoft sucks and it's their fault for requiring a current computer to run their current OS. But when Leopard needs beefier specs, it's the user's fault they haven't upgraded by now and it's all taken in stride.


      There's a slight difference between Apple saying that systems from 1999 won't run the latest software and MS saying that systems released 30 days ago won't run the latest (with all options on).

      If you have a Mac that runs Tiger well, it will run Leopard well. If it's borderline on Tiger, it might or might not run Leopard. But for most semi-recent systems, Leopard is faster. I don't think there's any hardware in existence on which Vista is faster than XP, and that's what people are complaining about.
      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    5. Re:Double Standard by WaltFrench · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I get it. Makes total sense. Maybe you could share the wisdom that's not apparent in being sarcastic about two totally strawman arguments.

      When a useless / overpriced upgrade shows up, we say, "meh," and move on, maybe wondering what happened to the firm we once kinda partnered with. OTOH, we'll cuss or flame when we feel the cost is too high, but we're locked in. As in, the VirusBorg will own you if you don't upgrade, but it'll cost you $299 plus a bunch of compatibility hassles that could triple that cost if your time is worth more than $2.15/hour.

      So, are you locked into upgrading to Leopard on Day One but aggravated about the $129 plus an hour plus a bunch of hassles with Adobe, Filemaker or others? In contrast, was Vista dead easy cuz your machine was fully capable; you had no driver or other hardware incompatibilities; you lost zero legacy software; you had a coupon to do it for free and you knew if it wasn't a walk in the park, at least it'd be a worthy intellectual challenge? And the enhanced features or speed or ease-of-use worth way more than all that? Izzat what you're saying?

      Guess I don't get it. Whose double standard?
      --
      "Inquiring Minds Want to Know!"
    6. Re:Double Standard by MBoffin · · Score: 1

      I know this topic is a day old and stale, but I have to respond anyway. What you say is totally opposite my experience.

      "When a new Mac OS makes you upgrade, it's like telling someone with a 10-year-old BMW they need to buy a new one, and it's probably going to be cheaper than the one you bought before, and the new one will go faster and farther and run on biodiesel. When Microsoft tells you to upgrade, it's like the phone company telling you to buy a new phone, because the new ones come in designer colors, thus the customers have a bit of ambivalence."

      OS X "makes" you upgrade far earlier than Windows does. I run a lab of A/V computers that used to run version 10.3 and had their Final Cut Pro suite of apps installed. Magically one day all the installations of Final Cut Pro stopped being able to capture footage from the cameras. What?! Totally out of the blue. We checked everything. Turns out it was a Quicktime update that Apple had recently pushed out. Did a fix for this come from Apple to restore the ability to capture? No. According to all the Apple support forums, I was supposed to "just deal with it and pay for the upgrade" and "why was I running such old software anyway?" and "how could I expect Apple to keep supporting old software forever?" This just totally pissed me off. I was left high and dry with no solution but to shell out more money for an upgraded OS and upgraded editing software. The software wasn't more than 3 years old, and this was OS X 10.3, which is only one major point release behind the current version of the OS.

      So you're statement, in my opinion, is totally wrong. The above is just one specific example, but it's been my experience that the solution to many problems that come up with Apple hardware or software is to simply bite the bullet, open the wallet, and upgrade.

    7. Re:Double Standard by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      I assure you I have the exact same problem with Pro Tools. One quicktime update or one .1 upgrade to the OS and the whole thing goes kerfluy. All pro apps have this problem, Apple's, Adobe's, Avid's, everyones. People who run that software have to upgrade more often too, be they Mac or PC users. It's just the cost of doing business if you're in media.

      If you were in a lab, particularly one with FCP on the rigs, why was software update turned on, and why didn't you reimage the machines when they pulled the bad update (you did keep a master image, right)? You'd've had this problem if, for example, an internet worm got onto your LAN, Mac, PC or otherwise, or some kid brought in a hard drive with an MBR virus (god how long it's been since I saw one of those!

      I used to support a lab with a buncha G3s running Premiere 5.1 on OS9, so I know your pain. Pro apps simply require strictly-maintained environments.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
  67. Re:I have to know the answer to this... by steveoc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They are ProTools, Cubase SX3, FL Studio, SoundForge8, Reason 3, Rebirth 2, Flash MX, Illustrator, Vegas, and more.

    Agree with you there. At least for sound apps things have been evolving quite rapidly lately :

    Ardour, Rosegarden, LMMS (with VST and LADSPA), Hydrogen, AMS, Mixxx

    Are not in the same ballpark as far as polish, consistency, printed manuals and a general sense of finishedness goes ... but they are well on par (if not superior) in terms of functions. They are all miles ahead in terms of expandability compared to the existing big name applications.

    For the brave, especially if you set yourself up with Qt4 and use SVN versions of all of the above, its quite a revelation to see where OpenSource 'pro audio' is actually up to today. And yet, its still in its infancy.

    The important thing though is that these Open Source audio apps growing and getting better at a MUCH faster rate than the commercial offerings. Not saying that is a reason for you to go throw your existing stuff in the bin just yet .. but its very much worth getting your hands dirty with. I reckon you might really enjoy the experience too.

    One minor area where Open Source audio apps absolutely kills the big name commercial apps is the online community - the users, experienced musos, and the developers are all one and the same people. They are not just composing music, they are reversing engineering hardware like the new Vestax mixing deck, they are doing spectrum analysis on Pioneer's deck to work out the freq cooefficients for the low/mid/hi filters, they are writing OpenGL visualisations and refactoring and redocumenting messy old C++. Its a different sort of user community, and it makes simply using the software an absolute blast. I think you would love it given your existing depth of knowledge with music tools.

    Some of the audio tools are actually good enough and stable enough RIGHT NOW for live performance in front of real paying audiences. I use LMMS and Mixxx for live performances in nightclubs already, but Im still trying to get my head around Ardour at the moment for multi track recording. LearningCurve++.

    Open source audio is not better or worse than commercial audio apps - but it is different enough in a worthwhile way.

    For graphics work, blender + gimp has always been good enough for me, but Im not a graphics pro. I dont see that there is a problem with the vector graphics tools under linux though. There are scriptiong things I can do in python with both gimp and blender that dont have equivalents with the commercial side. Again, its not about being better or worse - its a different way of doing things that makes it worthwhile to get into.

    For web stuff, Ive never seen the big need to use the full Macromedia tools to do any really flash stuff. The open source ways of achieving the same effects are all left brain tools (as opposed to the more right brain tools like MX) .. but then again that suits me fine. Same comment applies - its about taking a different approach rather than trying to be better.

    And look at everything that Google has been able to do on the web by using purely open methods, which is worth pondering.

    Wow - and you write Java code, AND you do FPGA design as well as working on music. I would LURVE to spend a couple of days in the same office as you, and/or drink at the same places as you. Anytime you are in my town, please drop by and spend a couple of days with us here, its a very long journey by air, but it would be right up your alley Im sure.

    PS: LOL over being modded Troll -1. There are some real losers on slashdot these days. Used to be good when my user ID made me stand out as a n00b :)

  68. Re:I have to know the answer to this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hello me 6 months ago. killed the windows partition last week when gusty came out. now I'm just looking forward to when I next buy a hdd so I'll have enough free space to shuffle files around and reformat all my NTFS drives into something less shit.

  69. Re:Computerworld Developers by amRadioHed · · Score: 1, Redundant

    The defaults command is nothing new, that's been a part of OS X from the beginning.

    --
    We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
  70. Transparent Menu Bar (Partial) Fix? by The+Amazing+Fish+Boy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I hope at least there is some way to disable it
    I don't have Leopard, but couldn't you edit your desktop picture to just put a white bar at the top? That would sit under the menu bar, making it look less transparent, I would think.
    1. Re:Transparent Menu Bar (Partial) Fix? by aliquis · · Score: 1

      You can probably disable it either in some system setting or with a single command line so people just complain anyway.

      I think it looks nice on not-that-busy-background-images.

  71. What's even sillier by postbigbang · · Score: 1

    Consider: there's a group in the geek population that can't stand to see someone else excited about something. Leopard? Cute. Tiger was ok. Jaguar was just fine.

    This is Apple stealing thunder from Microsoft. I like it when people are jazzed. So many people are looking down their noses at software these days, it's nice to see some smiles.

    There's the Windows brigade, the BSD cowbois and cowgirlz, and the Ubuntu GutzeeGibbonsGoonz, and so on. Ten years ago, you could pretty much do Windows or perhaps that dicey .93 kernel from the Finnish kid. There wasn't much in between. Now there's choices.

    But the grammar goons never sleep. It gets worse when you feed them with loads of caffiene, from coffeedrugz or 64ozMondoCokez. Add in some sugar, and they just cannot leap over the hurdle of a possible grammar mistake, even tho the targets are standing up everywhere, the weapon has 500 rounds in it, and the targets aren't hardly moving. It makes one groan.

    --
    ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    1. Re:What's even sillier by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Uhm, earlier we had Amiga, Atari, MacOS, BeOS, "unix" and Windows.

      How do we got more choice now? Atleast in big enough OSes to count.

    2. Re:What's even sillier by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      With apologies in advance, the Atari (despite the fact it could run VisiCalc) was a toy. It wasn't really, with a membrane keyboard, a suitable machine for real work. The Amiga and Commodore and Sinclairs and many others of its ilk didn't posture themselves as business-focused hardware, in my opinion. They're gone. MacOS could have been quite successful but various leadership in the dark ages of Apple didn't understand what was happening and were steamrollered by Microsoft. BeOS was a tragedy. I used Unix, Xenix, and several dozen other 'nix. What mattered were window engines and the maturation of X-- and requisite dull applications that one does day to day work with.

      More choices than ever are available today. Linux branches- several. BSD branches (numerous ones, including the Darwin/MacOS branch), Windows (lots), and Be is still around. So is CP/M, UCSD-pascal, and there are those that will give up OS/2 from their dying hands. It would take a year or more to get through all of the possible distros of Linux-- just install the release, surf it, get wet, go on to the next one). Once you're bored with that, there's lots more. Lots.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    3. Re:What's even sillier by aliquis · · Score: 1

      I'm not a business user, I would much rather had my Amiga back then than my mac now.

      Regarding BeOS people seems to have liked it, I haven't used it.

      IMHO all Linux distributions suck, and I write it all together as UNIX because I don't think the various unixlike oses are different enough to count as multiple oses, GNU/Linux dists even less so. I do prefer FreeBSD over all of Debian, Gentoo, SuSE or Fedora but that doesn't mean it would make a world of a difference to me if I ran FreeBSD, Debian or Gentoo.

      I wouldn't count OS X as BSD, or "UNIX" in this regard, since it's different from the rest.

      Yay, more versions of Windows, how awesome ... Now you can choose of bluescreen version, less bluescreen version, a little more bluescreen version, bluescreen + nothing works version, stable but not for homeusers version, modern stable not for consumers version, modern stable DUPLO version all of which is insecure and last better looking but nothing works version. Oh the joy of choices! More or the same plz!

      Be isn't around. Neither is OS/2, or AmigaOS, or MacOS classic, why count dead bodies?

      Your points suck and there were still more options back then.

  72. OSX and windows are not in competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OSX and windows are not in competition except for a minuscule segment of the market. It is therefore a minuscule statement to say that one trumps the other.

    For every person you know switching to a mac, you know 20 more who never will due to their being way too good in windows. Be honest.

  73. Re:Computerworld Developers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    You can eat the pavement pizza at the bus stop for free. I'd rather pay a professional chef.

  74. tks! this review will save me money! by bball99 · · Score: 1

    i still have a 10.1.5 machine and a 10.3.9 machine... at this rate, i won't need to upgrade until 10.7!

    and honestly, i really haven't seen anything in Leopard (from the review) that makes me want to pop for a new box... i'm kinda afraid of breaking what's working now...

    1. Re:tks! this review will save me money! by argent · · Score: 1

      Sure you don't want to upgrade the 10.1.5 machine at least to 10.2.8... which you can almost certainly get a used copy of from someone for peanuts?

      The difference between Puma and Jaguar was like night and day for me, even on my Powermac 7600 (with Sonnet G3/400). Jaguar was the first really solid version of OS X, and well worth taking the plunge on XPostFacto for.

  75. Re:Computerworld Developers by noidentity · · Score: 1

    Yes, just pointing out how useful a feature it is. Is such a command present in Windows or Unix, or is it simply a matter of such a thing needing to exist from the beginning so that (almost) every program will use a standard format for settings (XML in Apple's case)?

  76. Re:Geez... by Talez · · Score: 1

    Recent Apple laptops have a feature where if you place two fingers on the touchpad and click it performs a right click instead of a left click.

    I love it.

  77. Clean install for me. by TeamSPAM · · Score: 2, Informative

    Unlike my general experience with OS X, I've been having to reboot my dual G4 desktop every other day for the past week. I've repaired the disk via the install disk, but the lock up are still happening. Since Leopard is coming out this week, I've bought a new HD to install on and will try the migration assistant.

    --
    Brought to you by Team SPAM! where we believe: "Information in the noise!"
    1. Re:Clean install for me. by xirtam_work · · Score: 1

      I'd suggest testing the RAM, it could need replacing. Also if it's a model with a fan or air vents for cooling that it has enoug hair flow around them and they are not blocked by cables, etc.

      Most G4's run quite cool and shouldn't suffer, but a few older ones were clocked quite a bit higher than they maybe should have been, as Apple were feeling the pinch in the speed stakes against Intel and were waiting for Motorola/IBM to improve the design.

      Hdd's are simple enough to test, as you can run off a copy of your main HDD by using SuperDuper on an external drive via FireWire without having to swap it out. An enclosure should be quite cheap to pick up in a store or online. That way when you do decide to put the drive inside the machine you have an device to connect the old drive as extra storage space, or you can purchase another cheap drive, both of which should be ok for using Time Machine with (that is if you upgrade and your machine meets the minimum requirements).

    2. Re:Clean install for me. by Doctor+O · · Score: 1

      While I can say that the Migration Assistant always worked flawlessly for me, I'd recommend that if you have a fucked up OSX installation that even needs rebooting you better not migrate that mess to a new HDD. I'd rather set up a fresh 10.5 and install the needed applications from scratch, then migrate over the user data, and reformat the old HDD to use it for whatever. (BTW, are you sure that it's not a HDD defect fucking up your old system? How old is the HDD? Nowadays, drives fail much quicker than they used to, and often silently.)

      --
      Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk?
    3. Re:Clean install for me. by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Just make sure it is 800+ mhz minimum specs. My G4 is 800mhz, so it doesn't meet the minimum requirements (barely). I might try it out anyway, since would like to use it as the host of my Time Machine backups.

    4. Re:Clean install for me. by twotommylong · · Score: 1

      I would piggyback on the last response and state that DiskWarrior is a must have if you suspect any disk defects causing problems. It's saved my butt a couple times, especially when the problems from a nondisk subsystem (mine was kernel panics due to a cold solder joint on main board (nothing like running for 2 hours and then getting a partial power fail).

      Diskwarrior clean up most of the problems on a disk in place, and I've used it to make an unbootable drive bootable (took a 2nd Mac and 'T' Mode booting), but it worked.

      My Leopard upgrade will be in place... I'll back up to my FW drive, then diskwarrior my system drive, then upgrade. Once DiskWarriot is upgraded to be leopard capable, I DW my system disk again (to compress the system directories... slightly better performance)

    5. Re:Clean install for me. by Yer+Mom · · Score: 1

      Careful — I tried to use my G4 as a host for Time Machine backups. Leopard doesn't even offer to create a backup folder on any mounted shares, and refuses to allow me to select them in the TM setup dialog. Currently, it seems only Firewire and USB external drives are accepted.

      (I would be very pleased to be proved wrong on this, incidentally :)

      --
      Never mind Spamassassin. When's Spammerassassin coming out?
    6. Re:Clean install for me. by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Hmm, interesting. I swear I've read that using another computer as your Time Machine target is not only possible, but a good idea. If your computer gets stolen, your external drive with Time Machine on it most likely would too, but there's a fair chance an old G4 in the closet wouldn't be noticed. Maybe our G4s are too old? I'd like to find out if it is possible too.

    7. Re:Clean install for me. by Yer+Mom · · Score: 1

      I've done a bit of digging around: the machine you're mounting the drive from has to be running Leopard too. Which means my 500MHz G4 is a no-go for this until somebody finds a way to fool the installer:(

      --
      Never mind Spamassassin. When's Spammerassassin coming out?
    8. Re:Clean install for me. by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      That much I figured out already as well. My problem is my G4 is upgraded with an aftermarket chip to 800mhz. I wonder if that'll make the cut, since it is slightly below the advertised minimum speed. Maybe I could overclock the chip? You could probably up your 500 to an 800+ for under $50 too (my 800 chip was $50 about 3 or 4 years ago, so I imagine they'd be pretty cheap now). It takes about 2 minutes to open the case, pull the zif socket out, put the new one in and reboot. Add a couple minutes to be really careful applying the heatsink glue stuff.

  78. Anti-piracy "features"? by ChangeOnInstall · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I was thinking about picking this up tomorrow evening, but I was first curious to know if it had any new anti-piracy features like Vista? Is there any activation/mandatory phoning home of any kind? Is there anything preventing me from installing it on more than one computer (I do not intend to, but anything that does this is likely to prevent some fraction of people from using it legally). Are there any new MPAA/RIAA-oriented features in it similar to Vista's protected video path?

    I only want to buy this thing if it's a step forward from 10.4.

    --
    What has *science* done?!? -- Dr. Weird (ATHF)
    1. Re:Anti-piracy "features"? by Winckle · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, none at all, apple only have serial keys on their super expensive pro apps.

    2. Re:Anti-piracy "features"? by aliquis · · Score: 1

      I don't know, I don't have it installed yet and some of your questions would be hard to answer as a user anyway.
      But I'll try:

      Activation: No.
      Phoning home: I guess you get the normal registrationscreen, but you used to be able to quit that with command-q and you probably can now to.
      Installing on multiple computers: I know that for old modells people have said the discs was the same. Just that the box said 5 computers and not 1. Anyway since there are no registration you can install it on how many computers you want, althought that will break the license of course.
      Protected video path: What do I know? Just don't consume DRM content and it won't matter, right?

      Hopefully someone can give you better answers, but I think for the first three questions you don't need to worry.

    3. Re:Anti-piracy "features"? by rediguana · · Score: 1

      Actually, they have keys on iWork as well, so it isn't just their pro apps.

    4. Re:Anti-piracy "features"? by stewbacca · · Score: 1
      David Pogue said it best: "To the amazement of many Windows refugees, Mac OS X requires no serial number and no "activation"; it's not copy-protected. It doesn't clutter the desktop with crippled bits of free-trial software from other companies. There are no nagging balloons or come-ons."

      I'm picking it up tonight, but 20+ years of Mac experience tell me I can skip the family pack, buy one copy and proceed to upgrade as many Macs as I can find in my house, no questions asked. I mean I already paid the evil Mac Tax, right?

    5. Re:Anti-piracy "features"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er, what part of 'work' and 'professional' confuse you?

    6. Re:Anti-piracy "features"? by TheWizardTim · · Score: 1

      Your other option is to buy the Apple Family pack. It costs $199 for 5 installs. Apple knows that people have more then one computer at home, and spending $130 for every computer at home can add up. For $70 more you can install on 4 more computers. Apple would rather have you do what's right, for a little more cost, then break the law. Now you could buy the single computer box, and install on two (or more), but personally, when Apple does something this cool, I want to send them the money. You can do this with iLife as well.

    7. Re:Anti-piracy "features"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I figure I'd buy the family pack if I had more than one machine that was heavily used. I probably wouldn't pay for the family pack in order to install Leopard on the dual G4 tower that I haven't booted in over a year and am unlikely to use much, if at all, Leopard or no.

      That's probably the calculation Apple's doing. They probably don't care overmuch about something like that, but would prefer that a single Leopard sale not be copied onto Dad's computer, Mom's computer, the computers in the three kids' rooms, and the Mini hooked up to the TV.

    8. Re:Anti-piracy "features"? by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

      I installed it last night. There were no anti-piracy controls, no serial numbers to type in, nothing like that at all. Just a simple installation like all the previous Apple operating systems.

      You'll definitely hear about any change to this policy - I imagine it would receive short shrift around here.

    9. Re:Anti-piracy "features"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      iWork costs $79, so it was probably the "super expensive" part that confused him, jackass.

  79. Re:Computerworld Developers by abhi_beckert · · Score: 1

    The new 3D dock skin doesn't apply when the dock is on the side, since there were "vertigo" complaints among beta testers.

  80. Time Machine by meehawl · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    So aside from the usual Apple glitzy restore shell with the hypnotic new desktop with a deep-space background image, complete with moving stars and a spiral galaxy, does Time Machine actually do anything more than, say, Acronis True Image?

    --

    Da Blog
    1. Re:Time Machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean, like... not adding $49.95 more to the cost of a grossly overpriced M$ operating system?

    2. Re:Time Machine by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      Well, it does it basically for free, if you want to compare commercial OS costs. Most people won't be buying leopard for Time Machine- it's simply an added bonus, like the 300 other new features. This new OS will serve me for a few years for what I spend on music for a month. It's a pretty good deal, IMO. And if you don't want it, then don't buy it. Sheesh. -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    3. Re:Time Machine by aliquis · · Score: 1

      I don't know what Acronis does but it backs up your machine automatically whenever it gets its chance daily and let you pick up a single file from an older version without having you care about how it's done. And it's always there.

      But I guess you already knew about it so far?

    4. Re:Time Machine by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Acronis isn't a good example...

      When you see Time Machine think Vista 'Previous Versions' with a prettier UI, and no ability to track or keep file changes on the volume.

      Vista does both on volume backup copies of changes and external backups automatically, and presents them in the same 'previuos versions' UI timeline list.

      Just like Time Machine, in Vista you can view folders or documents at any previous time whether they are a recent change that is still stored on the volume or a backup from six months ago on an external hard drive.

      Vista also does this more transparently, without the need for application integration because of its simplicity in accessing the previous version via a simple open/save dialog box.

      Time Machine's UI is much prettier, but since it has less functionality than Vista, and adds overhead by backuping up files every hour, the pretty UI doesn't make up for the lack of features.

      Does anyone else find it strange that Vista's backup and previous version system is more advanced than OS X's Time Machine, and yet you hardly ever see it mentioned on a review or when people are talking about Vista. Apple adds a generic version of the same thing, and the press and fans go wild...

      And I'm not even saying this to discount OS X's Time Machine, as it is a good feature and a great feature for OS X and Mac users, but strange how something gets accolades when Apple does it, and is dismissed when Microsoft does it and even technically does it better.

    5. Re:Time Machine by nuckin+futs · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Vista does both on volume backup copies of changes and external backups automatically, and presents them in the same 'previuos versions' UI timeline list.
      Just like Time Machine, in Vista you can view folders or documents at any previous time whether they are a recent change that is still stored on the volume or a backup from six months ago on an external hard drive.
      Vista also does this more transparently, without the need for application integration because of its simplicity in accessing the previous version via a simple open/save dialog box.


      may I ask which version of Vista does this or where the settings are for it? I'm looking around my basic version (which BTW costs more than Leopard) and I can't seem to find those settings and features.

    6. Re:Time Machine by rsborg · · Score: 1

      Does anyone else find it strange that Vista's backup and previous version system is more advanced than OS X's Time Machine, and yet you hardly ever see it mentioned on a review or when people are talking about Vista. Apple adds a generic version of the same thing, and the press and fans go wild...
      I'd call that a failure of marketing on Microsoft's part. Or perhaps, the fact that for at least half of the Vista installations (ie, Vista Home), it doesn't exist?

      Microsoft has great technology "in theory", but when it comes to implementation they just can't get it right.

      As for "less features", does Vista's search tool allow you to full-text search against previous versions? Didn't think so.

      OK, maybe it wasn't a failure of marketing after all, since "Previous Versions/Volume Shadow Copy" pales in comparison to the usability of Apple's Time Machine.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    7. Re:Time Machine by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      All versions of Vista, just right click on any file or folder and click previous versions.

      When you hookup an external hard drive, Vista should ask to turn on backups, tell it yes, and it will also keep long term versions on the external drive.

      Short term versions are kept on the computer's main drive, and long term are part of the backup system, and they both will list in the previous versions window.

      Even if you don't have a backup on another drive, you still can use the previous versions features in Vista because of how NTFS lets Vista duplicate a file when changes are made to it.

      Good Luck.

    8. Re:Time Machine by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      OK, maybe it wasn't a failure of marketing after all, since "Previous Versions/Volume Shadow Copy" pales in comparison to the usability of Apple's Time Machine.

      Actually I agree with you on the marketing department failures of Microsoft. Microsoft's marketing has always sucked, and especially in comparison to Apple. Microsoft can market a nugget of gold and people will see it as a rock, Apple can market a rock and people will see it as gold.

      As for the usability, I did say time machine was prettier, but I wouldn't say easier or more usable. Like I mentioned before, MS's version of the technology works seamlessly as it is available from a right click from any folder or dialog box, even in applications that are as old as Win3.1 days. And even though it isn't as pretty, right clicking on a folder or file is pretty easy to do.

      Apple's Time Machine is pretty but it 'needs' the applications to be time machine aware to take full advantage of the features.

      MS technology just happens transparently at the FS level which OS X can't do and it also extends to backups like OS X's Time Machine. If Apple could have gotten ZFS working as the default FS, they could have used the feature that ZFS and NTFS share to make the on volume realtime backups like Vista does.

      But I completely agree on the marketing issue, it is something Microsoft just doesn't get, and even when they have something of value, it never seems to either make news or even gets to the people reviewing Micrsoft products that 'should' know about it as they are technology journalists.

      Going back to the Win98 days, it was the first time I can remember thinking, why doesn't anyone talk about the important features that make such a difference between Win98 and Win95. Things like realtime sound mixing at the OS level, GUI scripting & automation, etc.

      And to this day, most people can't even list a lot of these distinctions between Win98 and Win98 or other OSes of the time, that were very much revolutionary or worth noticing.

      Strangly, it is kind of sad, as some 'bright' developers at Microsoft put good work into something and even Microsoft doesn't publically show off the features, and the rest of the world never seems to see them either.

      Heck I wouldn't even know many things about MS products if it weren't for the strange areas of work I'm involved with that bridge UI and OS studies and also being exposed to things at a development level.

      One really strange thing is during the Alpha and Beta phases of products like Vista, or Win98, you learn more about the architecture and features of the OS than is ever revealed to the majority of the public and tech community. Maybe MS needs to have their developers step in and write part of their marketing, because a lot is lost between them and what the sales and marketing put out.

      Sorry for the long post, ended up venting about MS instead of just responding. Take Care

    9. Re:Time Machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why did you get modded up lol, lack of knowledge of something you use is now considered a reason to mod someone up, man I need to find a new tech news site :(

    10. Re:Time Machine by whyloginwhysubscribe · · Score: 1

      Seems like a failure in marketing to me too - since this is the first time that I have read about it. I thought it took so long to copy a file in Vista because of the DRM - but if it is actually doing something useful as well then I am impressed...

    11. Re:Time Machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used Mac (iBook) for 2 years, and then switched to Vista (a fancy business HP top end laptop). I though the shadow copy and backup function was worth all the money (for Vista). I really really wanted that function. However, shadow copies (prev versions) never worked on my computer and the backup app sucked in fact. Can you even choose what locations to backup or skip? I never find the option for it, only what type of files to backup, and still Vista backups all kind of useless stuff from locations I do not want. After 6 months of Vista 'wow' experience I got enough and gave up. Now I am back to Mac (MacBook) and I am looking forward to buying a copy of OS X. However, I bought Vista Business (Vista doesn't suck that much) for running a couple of Windows only apps and it runs beautifully under VmWare.

    12. Re:Time Machine by argent · · Score: 1

      MS technology just happens transparently at the FS level which OS X can't do

      Sure it can. Modern versions of UFS support snapshots and Apple could easily provide legacy support for the last couple of features of HFS+ that haven't been emulated or done better at the vnode layer... they don't need ZFS for this, they've had a modern UFS since Panther.

      Don't worry about ZFS. Apple's too enamored of HFS+ to replace it with a better file system... they've already proven that over and over again.

    13. Re:Time Machine by mr.float · · Score: 1


      And I'm not even saying this to discount OS X's Time Machine, as it is a good feature and a great feature for OS X and Mac users, but strange how something gets accolades when Apple does it, and is dismissed when Microsoft does it and even technically does it better.

      FYI: Time Machine is meant to be a backup software, not a version control system.

      Why Apple gets so much credit and Microsoft not? They make things pretty and easy to use for everyone.

    14. Re:Time Machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      This article should clear up your confusion about Time Machine.

      From the article (page 3):
      The Time Machine settings in System Preferences show the time scheduled for the next backup. When that time arrives, it displays a progress thermometer during the backup, which typically only takes a few seconds, unless you've generated a huge amount of new content in the last hour. Again, that's because Time Machine doesn't scan through your entire drive looking for changes, but rather only consults FSEvents for a listing of what has changed recently.

      and more from page 4...
      Time Machine has been frequently compared to Microsoft's Shadow Copy (or Volume Snapshot Service), because both systems involve file backup. In reality, they are not really very similar at all. Microsoft uses the background Shadow Copy service to duplicate files on the same disk. Those shadow copies record a "snapshot" of the file at a given moment in time, and can be accessed by the user using Previous Versions (which shows up in the file properties viewer), or tapped into by an external network backup system. Backing up these "shadow copies" simply prevents the external backup system from running into problems trying to back up live files that may be locked by the user working on them.

      The data backup features related to Shadow Copy are only useful if a Windows machine is running in an environment with a server backing them up. Shadow Copy is not in itself a backup system, although it can present a listing of duplicated files that were captured by the shadow copy service. Without a dedicated backup system, Previous Versions only shows local shadows of a file. It does not copy files to an external disk for safekeeping, and its shadow copies can't be browsed through by the user in the file system by date or by query. Shadow Copy is certainly not an easy to use consumer backup solution (nor is intended to be), which is what Time Machine expressly is.

      In Windows Vista, Microsoft also tied Shadow Copy into System Restore, which allows users to roll back their entire PC software install to a previous point in time. This is not a backup system either; it's a system wide undo. System Restore is oriented around undoing the problems caused by installing a software title, a Windows software update, an unsigned hardware driver, or some other event that causes problems that need to be rolled back. It doesn't go back and find something lost from the past; it reverts the clock to a previous checkpoint and throws away the future from that point forward. System Restore is not even loosely related to Time Machine in what it does, how it does it, or why it exists.


      Actually, their whole series on Leopard called The Road to Mac OS X Leopard is rather good. Lots of facts and history.

    15. Re:Time Machine by harrisg · · Score: 1

      What's with all the uneducated Time Machine hate? I posted the above reply and then registered for an account just to post this just so that my anonymous post wouldn't get lost. I've been reading slashdot for years and have resisted an account but this is too much.

    16. Re:Time Machine by harrisg · · Score: 4, Informative

      Apple's Time Machine is pretty but it 'needs' the applications to be time machine aware to take full advantage of the features.

      MS technology just happens transparently at the FS level which OS X can't do and it also extends to backups like OS X's Time Machine. If Apple could have gotten ZFS working as the default FS, they could have used the feature that ZFS and NTFS share to make the on volume realtime backups like Vista does. This is wrong. See my previous anonymous post.

      Time Machine doesn't require any special changes to applications although it offers some cool stuff that way. It's main purpose is to be a complete backup system that actually gets used because it's helpful and doesn't get in the way. Vista's Shadow Copy doesn't backup to a second hard drive. Shadow Copy also doesn't restore files that have been deleted. Those are the two main purposes of Time Machine. From what I can tell Vista's Shadow Copy appears to be no lower to the file system than Time Machine and FSEvents.
    17. Re:Time Machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, but are you people idiots? Time Machine is not the same thing as shadow copy. Time Machine is a backup mechanism. How is saving previous versions of a file *in the same location* backing it up!? Also, you are wrong about OSX not using FSEvents, it does, it's called multi-link, look it up. Basically, TM knows what files have changed since the last (hourly) backup, so it only copies those files.

      Previous versions is ok. But it's no Time Machine.

    18. Re:Time Machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like I mentioned before, MS's version of the technology works seamlessly as it is available from a right click from any folder or dialog box,


      Do you want to explain to my grandmother what a right-click and a dialogue box is? Over the phone?
    19. Re:Time Machine by planetfinder · · Score: 1

      " Heck I wouldn't even know many things about MS products if it weren't for the strange areas of work I'm involved with that bridge UI and OS studies and also being exposed to things at a development level. "

      This sentence provides the clearest explanation I've seen as to why these and many other potentially powerful features are effectively useless to the average Windows user. Microsoft's unrelenting arrogant and hostile attitude toward its customers shines forth in their boogered user interface. If Microsoft really gave a damn they would pay for user oriented user interface design and they would stop pretending that superficial copies of Apple's GUI design is as good as Apple's actual design. Anyone waiting for that change in attitude is dreaming and Vista's interface should be a clear indication of the fact that they are actually headed somewhere else.

    20. Re:Time Machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/10/12/road_to_mac_os_x_leopard_time_machine.html&page=3

      Have a read before you diss Time Machine

      Shadow Copy is certainly not an easy to use consumer backup solution (nor is intended to be), which is what Time Machine expressly is.

      In Windows Vista, Microsoft also tied Shadow Copy into System Restore, which allows users to roll back their entire PC software install to a previous point in time.
      This is not a backup system either; it's a system wide undo.

      It doesn't go back and find something lost from the past; it reverts the clock to a previous checkpoint and throws away the future from that point forward. System Restore is not even loosely related to Time Machine in what it does, how it does it, or why it exists.

    21. Re:Time Machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      If you deactivate System Restore (it's also the system behind the Previous Files system), file operations will get much quicker and with a less disk thrashing.

      Particularly when you are installing a new application.

    22. Re:Time Machine by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      What's with all the uneducated Time Machine hate?

      They named it "Time Machine" instead of "Apple incremental, real-time, journaled backup." As a result a lot of people are unclear as to what it does and how it works. Two minute demos of it being used don't really answer all the questions so people post lots of uninformed questions and concerns. In 6 months OS X users will have experience with it and these questions will be reduced to just uneducated jabs from people who have never used it and don't ever plan to but are looking for some reason to hate.

    23. Re:Time Machine by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      I know HFS+ has come a long long way, but I didn't realize it had any way to implement internal branching (snapshots) because it doesn't have any mechanisms for copy-on-write.

      ZFS is a copy-on-write based FS, and NTFS added copy-on-write around Win2k era (MS Calls it Volume Shadow Copies, and is a bit more advanced than basic queued copy-on-write).

      Do you have a link where I can find out more about how HFS+ does or could easily implement snapshots and copy-on-write that is needed to snapshot in this way?

    24. Re:Time Machine by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      Time Machine doesn't require any special changes to applications

      To take full advantage of the Time Machine UI and to work with applications that use data stores, it does. Go to www.apple.com and dig a little bit, but you can find this information.

      Vista's Shadow Copy doesn't backup to a second hard drive. Shadow Copy also doesn't restore files that have been deleted. Those are the two main purposes of Time Machine. From what I can tell Vista's Shadow Copy appears to be no lower to the file system than Time Machine and FSEvents.

      This is not true. You are mixing terms. The Shadow Copy is the 'technical' term for how snapshots are performed on NTFS, it is not the same thing as 'Previous Versions' but it is a mechanism that previous versions uses.

      Previous Versions (now we are using the correct term) does in FACT work with the backup system, so it works with external hard drives, networks, etc, and presents the files located on the external medium as a part of the Previous Versions interface, just as OS X's time machine does.

      So with Vista you do get on disk snapshots AND also the external backup copies like Time Machine does, and they are BOTH presented in the 'Previous Versions' timeline interface. Make sense?

      If you keep looking up 'shadow copy' you will get lost in the terminology, as this is a low level mechanism of NTFS even though many parts of Windows/Vista use it to perform snapshot or branched operations. But it is far more technical than average users should be looking, and to keep it simple, stick with the higher level OS concepts that users see that use it like 'previous versions', 'system restore', etc.

    25. Re:Time Machine by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      right-click and a dialogue box is? Over the phone?

      Sure it is the mouse button on the 'right', and much easier to explain than holding the Apple key and clicking.

      Dialog box is easy, when the applications opens a new window to save or open a document, that is the dialog box.

      On Windows the Save and Open dialogs are not needed if you are using Windows as a docu-centric OS, it is much easier to teach people to get out a new blank document, name it and not ever deal with dialog boxes. Sadly though, most Windows users have never been taught that Windows is a docu-centric OS interface, and they use it like a Mac or Win 3.1.

      ---;)

    26. Re:Time Machine by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      Microsoft's unrelenting arrogant and hostile attitude toward its customers shines forth in their boogered user interface.

      I truly wouldn't call it arrogance, but would agree it is a major communication problem between the developers and the sales/marketing people.

      In conferences, dealing with high level Microsoft people that are not engineers/developers, I have been shocked when they don't know basic things about the OS or software they are working with/selling.

      The information just doesn't seem to filter out or up very well. Even with the new blogging of the MS developers, very little information gets out past the geeks and other developers.

      It is just like the docu-centric concepts that MS added to Win95, and are still a major part of Vista today. 90% of Windows users have no idea they are there, how to use them or what they are for.

      But with large paradigm shifts that these technologies present, there is a problem in marketing these concepts, as Apple hasn't even been able teach their long time users how to switch to new usage paradigms.

      It pains me to watch both Windows and Mac users shift through folder lists and work with their documents and applications like they are still using System 7 or Windows 3.1 with filemanager. I have worked with some brilliant technical people, and then watch them use the OS UI like they are still back in 1991, and it is odd they have never been exposed to or taught to rethink what they are doing.

      So both technical concepts that never make it to the public, that can 'easily' be explained, and larger paradigm shifts in what an OS allows that is hard to teach to people, so it never makes the impact in making things easier that it should have originally.

      Anyway, this is why I wouldn't call it arrogance on MS's part, as there are lots of things even Apple has never been able to fully put their hands on in terms of UI concepts and when they do often fail in getting these concepts into the minds of their users. Apple does have brilliant marketing, and if the marketing department 'gets it', then they do a good job about making it important, and important to users.

      So they both have some of the same issues, but Microsoft's marketing really sucks even if they are exposed to the new concepts, they never make a big deal about them.

      However, this is going deeper into this than necessary at this time, so lets just leave the conversation here: Microsoft sucks at communicating, and even when they have good stuff, they don't make flashing signs to show it to users, and they don't provide the training or marketing for people to even realize it is available.

    27. Re:Time Machine by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      See even after my post, you completely don't understand a single thing.

      Time Machine is ok, but it is a backup solution ONLY.

      Vista has the SAME backup functions and it ALSO works through 'previous versions' and adds the additional benefit of creating snapshots of the file versions on the drive/volume. So Vista does the external backups and the on disk file versioning - you get Time Machine PLUS file versioning on the Drive when you don't even have an external backup hooked up.

      Understand?

      People keep coming here with terms like 'Shadow Copy', when it is the 'technical' mechanism that NTFS uses to branch snapshots and do copy-on-write operations. So yes features like System Restore, and Previuos Versions and other technologies do use this at the NTFS level, but when people talk about shadow copies they are NOT always talking about the correct concepts or terminology.

      'Shadow Copy' is NOT the features themselves, but only how Vista and NTFS work.

      Please, I beg you and everyone else that doesn't get this, to go look up 'previous versions' or 'file/folder/document versioning' and how it works on Vista and how it works with the backup system to show older versions of files and folders from both the external backup and what is also stored on the hard drive using NTFS technologies via snapshot technology.

      (Yes the snapshot technology is called shadow copy on NT, but it is only the way NTFS works, and has nothing directly to do with the features of the OS that use it.)

      PS Time Machine for what it is, is great, but it isn't as good as what Vista does, as Vista does what Time Machine does, and adds another level of 'true' volume level file versioning.

    28. Re:Time Machine by planetfinder · · Score: 1

      Its not a communciation problem its a choice.

      Its not the case that the difference reduces to poor internal communication on the part of Microsoft and good marketing on the part of Apple and its not the case that the problem is somehow the responsibility of Microsoft developers. If it were better marketing at issue then Microsoft wouldn't own 90% of the market. It is the leadership of Microsoft that is responsible for deciding what and where to invest in developing their product and it is the leadership that decides what their relationship with their customers will be, not the developers. It seems clear to me that these decisions take a systematic anti-end-user direction at Microsoft and the slight competition from Apple has been one of the few things that ameliorates their blatently bad attitude.

      It is obvious that every company, including Apple, has interests that conflict with the interest of their customers. The quality of a company is largely determined by the way that they weigh their customers interests against their own. In this regard, if you integrate over the years, there is no comparison between the two companies. Not only does Microsoft score poorly in this regard but it has scored progressively lower with every percentage point of market share they won. Its possible to argue endlessly on this point but I've watched it happen and its unambiguous and inexcusably disproportionate. Microsoft doesn't care enough about the quality of the services rendered. Beyond cheap marketing tactics they make no effort to hide this unbelievably bad attitude. You only have to use Word for a few minutes and if you are an experienced OS X user you only have to use any version of Windows for a few minutes to fully appreciated this. I wish that I had a nickle for every time someone has told me that they have no problem with Micrsoft products in casual conversation only to reveal later that they had some horrific problems using a Microsoft product. I have had bad experiences with Mac operating systems but nothing even closely approximating the nightmares that I have experienced with Microsoft products.

      For my part the difference between an inferior end user experience and an inferior product can be left for a loftier forum. I've used both Apple and Microsoft products extensively for a long time and in my view it is not objective to attempt to write off the difference as mostly a marketing issue or a communciations issue. As an end user I make no distinction between product quality and my ability to achieve quality results easily and without unnecessary effort needed to do, learn, or understand things that are irrelevant to the task at hand. All user interfaces have some of this problem but equivalencing Windows to OS X in this regard is incorrect. Apple cares more about what they produce and it shows.

    29. Re:Time Machine by harrisg · · Score: 1

      Apple's Time Machine is pretty but it 'needs' the applications to be time machine aware to take full advantage of the features.

      MS technology just happens transparently at the FS level which OS X can't do and it also extends to backups like OS X's Time Machine. If Apple could have gotten ZFS working as the default FS, they could have used the feature that ZFS and NTFS share to make the on volume realtime backups like Vista does.
      Your original statement of applications needing to be Time Machine aware implies that Time Machine doesn't otherwise offer a complete backup solution, which is false. The only things that applications need to do are follow the correct programming guidelines by specifying any files that should be excluded from backups (i.e. unusual temp files), providing Quick Look previews for any custom file formats, providing mdimporters for efficient spotlight indexing of said formats, and properly defining UTI's. All of these are just smart programming practices and are not required for Time Machine to backup any given files, they just make OS features like searching and previewing more efficient.

      With the exception of defining files to exclude from searching, the other items aren't for Time Machine at all but for other systems services that are icing that Time Machine adds to the cake.

      My apologies for the terminology confusion, I have never lived in the MS world.
    30. Re:Time Machine by johkir · · Score: 1

      Not tryin' to be a smart ass here, but I don't use Vista. What if the file or folder you want to restore is gone following a deletion? Can you get a previous version of the drive?

      --
      These are some of the things molecules do...... given 4 billion years -Carl Sagan
    31. Re:Time Machine by argent · · Score: 1

      I know HFS+ has come a long long way, but I didn't realize it had any way to implement internal branching (snapshots) because it doesn't have any mechanisms for copy-on-write.

      I guess you missed some of the words in the sentence that starts: "Modern versions of UFS support snapshots, ...".

      UFS is the Berkeley Fast File System, which Apple refreshed to the latest version from FreeBSD in Panther. It supports snapshots, as well as being about two to the power of infinity times as reliable as HFS+, and with the emulation code in the vnode layer that Apple applies to network file shares they could get the same capabilities over UFS locally... if they chose to do so. They did not choose to do so, and so you can't currently use UFS on your system disk without more pain than even I care to put up with.

      The point I was making is that Apple's got this habit of being overly attached to technology that's holding them back, like the one button mouse and HFS+. Apple has *chosen* HFS+ over UFS, so don't hold your breath for them to *choose* ZFS over HFS+.

    32. Re:Time Machine by wfolta · · Score: 1

      "Vista does it more transparently, without the need for application integration because of its simplicity..."

      Could you please expand on this sentence? There's no need for any application integration for Time Machine, either. You can retrieve any file from the Time Machine App (in conjunction with the Finder). The application integration, if I understand your usage of the phrase, means that you can use iCal to retrieve individual calendar events, Address Book to retrieve individual contacts, etc. Basically backup/restore at the record level. Does Previous Versions do this?

      It's nice that Vista provides a two-stage backup: one on-disk and one to an external one. It would not be usable for me, for a variety of reasons, but it's nice. And that's the only advantage I can see in Vista's Previous Versions, based on your comments. Please expand on the "technically better" aspect of Previous Versions.

      And let's poke the stick the other way for a second. Lots of people are saying Spotlight is like Vista's equivalent search. The problem is, it's not live. If I have a Spotlight search results window up, looking for "Vista Previous Versions" and I type that phrase in a text document and save it, BINGO, it instantly appears in the search window. As far as I can tell (from experiments, not documentation), Vista cannot do this, and is perhaps still doing the old batch-indexing method?

  81. Re:Computerworld Developers by timelorde · · Score: 1

    Different syntax, but controlling an App's settings via command line was a feature during the glory days of NeXTstep... Egad, fifteen years ago!

  82. It is a bit of a BABY system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Face it, Fisher Price is apt.

  83. Re:faqu! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    only if you have to read each letter individually like a remedial child ...

    try hard and you can run the letters together faster and faster to make to word like they teach you:

    ff..ah..cue
    ff.ah.cue
    ffahcue
    ffackcu
    facku
    fucku
    fuckyou
    FUCK YOU - see how that works?

  84. None listed. by argent · · Score: 1

    There are none listed. There are references to signed applications but they don't seem to be a requirement, nor are signed drivers, and they disabled by default the Input Manager mechanism, out of some false idea that this improves security... but you can enable it if you choose to ignore their oddly phrased warning dialog.

  85. Re:I have to know the answer to this... by hmccabe · · Score: 1

    It's not the number that's important, it's what the number represents. Measuring your cock in cm instead of inches doesn't mean it's any bigger.

  86. Re:Geez... by Hes+Nikke · · Score: 1

    Current models allow a configuration (via System Preferences) wherein a click is a right-click when two fingers are on the trackpad. And two fingers are used to scroll, as well. I find this solution very satisfactory. until you put 2 fingers on the track pad and the link you were trying to right click on scrolls out from under the pointer
    --
    Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
  87. Videos which shows the difference by aliquis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Let these videos show you what the parent mean, they kind of explains the difference of Steve Jobs vs Ballmer quite good:
    Jobs and mac: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSiQA6KKyJo
    Ballmer and Win 1.0: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk

    Pick your flavour :D

    Regarding small vs large teams, a good example of this may be the development of DragonFlyBSDs Hammer filesystem vs Suns ZFS, we'll see how fast Hammer gets done thought :)

  88. Re:Geez... by Hes+Nikke · · Score: 1

    It's worth pointing that the Windows HCI guidelines, also, require that all functionality be accessible without using a context menu. lazy windows developer: it's windows.. every computer has 2 buttons, why bother putting things in places other than the logical spot?
    mac developer: well crap, it makes sense to me to put it in a context menu, but i have to put it somewhere else also because macs still come with only 1 mouse button. (mighty mouse is configured oob with other buttons set to 'mouse 1' - and all notebooks also only have 1 button)
    --
    Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
  89. OSx86 by 5n3ak3rp1mp · · Score: 1

    If you *must* try it, see if OSx86 runs, but believe me, you will NOT be getting the "full experience"...

    Remember that if you get a Mac, you can always run Windows at full speed on it. If you get a Windows crippletop, you're stuck with Windows (and Linux, if it will even work with the wireless card, snark).

    I've used both for a long time and I say go for it. The seesaw is about to tip the other way...

  90. Re:I have to know the answer to this... by Tim+Browse · · Score: 1

    There's a *huge* amount more changed in the transition from Tiger to Leopard.

    Really? Leopard looks nice and all, but it feels like the least compelling OS X upgrade to me. I mean Time Machine is good, and possibly cover flow for files, but most of the other 300 new features are a bit 'meh', to be honest. Maybe when I upgrade I'll change my mind.

  91. You have got to be kidding by 5n3ak3rp1mp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It amuses me that 90% of the comments here that are above my minimum-score filter are intelligent retorts to completely unfounded or inaccurate Apple slams.

    This is like a testament to a new phenomenon- battered-user syndrome. You won't get a divorce because you've already invested so much...

  92. The "X" in OS X is a pair of tire irons. by itomato · · Score: 1

    Apple is symbolically "removing the tire from the wheel" with the X in OS X.

    Sure, they still number it 10.5 after the X. The "X" is there to psychologically step between you, the OS, the version number, and the sense of "product".

    They are "separating the wheel and tube from the rim", if you will.

    Once they liberate the tube and tire, they'll start mounting them in different configurations. On the iPhone, on the iTablet, in the BMW and the Smart..

    Steve is secretive and shrewd, but not without reason.

    1. Re:The "X" in OS X is a pair of tire irons. by anagama · · Score: 1

      Huh? Do you have all four wheels on the ground here?

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  93. Classic apps are not what you think they are... by argent · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ther is a bit of a double standard, yes, but dropping support for OS 9 isn't like droping support for Windows 98. The Win32 API in Vista is basically and ancestor of the Win32 API in Vista. OS 9 apps, on the other hand, are a whole different kettle of fish.

    OS 9 wasn't a modern operating system. As an OS it was, in many ways, decades behind Windows 98. The OS 9 API was based on a model where memory management and scheduling by the OS simply didn't happen... the application got a chunk of REAL memory and until it voluntarily gave up the CPU noting could touch it. To work around this, they created a really gimpy partition model. Multitasking in classic Mac OS was handled conceptually through the window system... there really wasn't an OS underneath it at all, not even as much as there was in Windows 3.1.

    Jobs wanted to get rid of the ghastly classic Mac OS API in 1997, but Adobe and a few other big manufacturers dug their heels in and told him they'd abandon the Mac if he didn't come up with a way forward.

    So first of all he came up with a bridge API called "Carbon". Carbon applications got an API that couldn't do all the fugly old classic stuff, but were ready to at least run on Rhapsody (what OS X was originally going to be called) once it was revamped to support it. Carbon was introduced for OS 8 and became a standard part of OS 9. After OS X came out people really pushed developers to switch to Carbon... but there were still a bunch of die-hards that insisted on running some software from 1994 that had no Carbon version.

    Several times in the early 2000s Jobs pulled the last G4 Powermac capable of booting OS 9 and running classic apps native, rather than under the "classic" emulation environment. Each time there was an outcry... until 2005, when it vanished and nobody complained. Six months later he announced the Intel macs that would not ever be able to run pre-carbon "classic" apps from the dark ages.

    MOST apps released *for* OS 9 are not "classic", they're carbon-based, and run under Rosetta.

    Most apps released before OS 9 have been carbonised.

    NO intel macs have ever been able to run pre-carbon apps.

    Don't think of this like Microsoft abandoning Windows 98 apps. Think of it like Microsoft abandoning apps that needed direct access to hardware registers and video memory. The kind of stuff you have to run under Bochs even on Windows XP. It just sounds worse because Apple left it SO late to get rid of that old "application-centric" environment and actually ship an operating system that was actually an operating system.

    The real double standard is the resistance of Apple fanboys to admit just how bloody awful OS 9 was.

    1. Re:Classic apps are not what you think they are... by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      Actually it would be more like Vista dropping support for Windows 3.1 (Win16 API) or DOS.

      (See DOS apps and Win3.1 often need direct hardware access as well, in comparison to your analogy, Vista virtualizes these features like NT has virtualized since 1993.)

      You are trying to give Apple a pass on an issue they really don't deserve one. They could have used even a nominal virtualization system if they were not going to create a subsystem capable OS structure like MS did with NT to ensure support for non main OS level APIs. (Win16,DOS,POSIX,BSD UNIX,Win32,Win64)

    2. Re:Classic apps are not what you think they are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it would be more like Vista dropping support for Windows 3.1 (Win16 API) or DOS.
      isnt that exactly what a whole lot of people say that MS has done wrong? built a huge mess of an operating system and refused to ever draw a line and say "ok, thats enough. if you want to use an app that old you can use it on an older operating system"
    3. Re:Classic apps are not what you think they are... by AndyboyH · · Score: 1

      What exactly do you expect from one of the first companies to drop the floppy disk drive?

      At some point a line has to be drawn. Why cripple the future by clinging to the past? Cos you know, all new macs could come with SCSI and ADC connectors to support old kit, but frankly it'll benefit such a small percentage that it becomes pointless.

      Software B/C is probably easier than physical hardware support, but to expect to be runnable on all systems post it's release from now to forever is just folly. Personally I'd rather people working on OSX were spending time developing for future technologies (ZFS, etc) that could benefit every user rather than supporting legacy apps that a minority need/require.

      --
      Baka Drew
    4. Re:Classic apps are not what you think they are... by argent · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You are trying to give Apple a pass on an issue they really don't deserve one. They could have used even a nominal virtualization system if they were not going to create a subsystem capable OS structure like MS did with NT to ensure support for non main OS level APIs.

      And it's a bloody good thing they didn't. OS 9 was not even up to the level of Windows 3.1. It wasn't up to the level of Win16 or Win32s. The classic Mac OS API was so bloody horrible that it should have been dragged screaming down to hell along with Yrkoon of Melnibone's black soul on Strombringer's burning blade. Steve Jobs did the whole computer industry when he shoved a stake in its curdled and stinking heart. It was so bad that when I read "Inside Mac" in 1985 I was convinced that the Mac was doomed and got an Amiga... it was like reading an orchestral score for the kazoo and 32 sackbutts in 17/23 time. The shenanigans you had to go through to safely use pointers. The complete lack of scheduling. God damn you to Moorcock's hell for making me remember this stuff... writing classic Mac applications was like writing device drivers for a pre-thread operating system... you had to put bloody sequence points in and guarantee that they got hit every N milliseconds or the whole grand multitasking illusion would come tumbling down. It was so bad that an early G3 running classic Mac OS was less responsive than a 68030 running NeXTSTeP... I had the two of them running next to each other and the contrast was appalling.

      Apple's real crime was waiting as long as they did before killing it. And now it's dead I'm glad, I tell you, glad!

    5. Re:Classic apps are not what you think they are... by argent · · Score: 1

      No, I gave you even more of a pass than I should have in the OS quoted.

      Apple DID include support for "non main OS level APIs" in OSX. It's how classic apps were supported up through Tiger, and they could have kept the stinking corpse on life support through Rosetta's Power PC emulation on the Intel processors. That they didn't probably cost them more than keeping the tubes and electrodes and tottering exoskeleton plugged in for another decade, because of the reaction from people like you who have no idea of the utter corruption that lived in the core of the Mac, the oozing corruption that had destroyed Apple's previous attempts to harmonize a real operating system with the travesty that Raskin's flawed brilliance birthed. A/UX collapsed under its weight of stinking dead flab. Copland got lost trying to carve a new nervous system through the rotting demyelinated fibers of its primitive brain. It even cast a horrible shadow of colors from outside space on the early versions of Windows thanks to Bill Gates misplaced affection for the beauty it had displayed in its use... Eller's description of how Bill bullied the Windows team into making the first version of Windows use the Mac's horrid cooperative "scheduling" model made me cringe.

      No, they didn't kill Classic because they couldn't keep it alive, it was an act of mercy to cut the life support and let it pass on.

    6. Re:Classic apps are not what you think they are... by robosmurf · · Score: 1

      Actually it would be more like Vista dropping support for Windows 3.1 (Win16 API) or DOS.

      Vista 64bit has done exactly that. It won't run any 16 bit code (nor did XP 64bit).

    7. Re:Classic apps are not what you think they are... by LKM · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Apple could have had some kind of support for Mac OS 9, even on Intel computers. On the other hand, maybe the willingness to drop stuff is part of why Apple is ahead of Microsoft in the OS game...

    8. Re:Classic apps are not what you think they are... by empaler · · Score: 1

      Actually it would be more like Vista dropping support for Windows 3.1 (Win16 API) or DOS.

      Vista 64bit has done exactly that. It won't run any 16 bit code (nor did XP 64bit).

      In all fairness, XPx64 had problems with most code, anyway.
    9. Re:Classic apps are not what you think they are... by Thumper_SVX · · Score: 1

      I'd say it's more akin to Windows Vista dropping support for Windows NT 4 for PowerPC.

      Quite simply put, OS9 and before were written for a non-primary architecture for Apple; they've already stated that their way forward is going to be x86 architecture. As a result, they're dropping support for an environment that ran on a completely different architecture and are moving forward with their plans to move completely to the x86 architecture.

      Sure, Rosetta's still in there for the few PPC only apps left under OSX, but running OS9 under Rosetta was really never even an option (a) for performance reasons and (b) because Apple really wanted to get rid of that ancient legacy.

      OS9 was OK as an OS, but it was really only a stopgap until OSX was ready. OS8 was awful, buggy and crash prone. A totally new OS should've come out of Apple much sooner than OSX, but the problem was a simple lack of management at Apple.

    10. Re:Classic apps are not what you think they are... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      You are trying to give Apple a pass on an issue they really don't deserve one.

      Well, yes and no. I have no problem with Apple dropping support for classic in default installs of OS X. Very few legacy apps are still useful and people wanting to run them should be content to run an emulator. What I do have a problem with is that OS 9 and earlier were tied to a ROM image that Apple refuses to license to anyone for redistribution. As a result any emulator you find will require you to jump through hoops to acquire an old ROM image, extract it on a machine that still uses OS 9, and then copy it to your emulator. As a result, if you buy a brand new Mac, but would like to play an old game you still have from way back when, it is an enormous pain in the butt to get an emulator (like sheepshaver) installed and running.

      For that I cut Apple no slack. They should adopt one of the open source emulators and either give them a license for the ROM, or distribute it themselves with the ROM included.

    11. Re:Classic apps are not what you think they are... by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      You are trying to give Apple a pass on an issue they really don't deserve one. They could have used even a nominal virtualization system if they were not going to create a subsystem capable OS structure like MS did with NT to ensure support for non main OS level APIs. (Win16,DOS,POSIX,BSD UNIX,Win32,Win64)


      OS X on PPCs was always able to run OS 9 in a window. If not that, applications could be recompiled using Carbon and become modern applications. Maybe you don't realize just how bad OS 9 was, but it's better that everyone was forced to move forward.
      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    12. Re:Classic apps are not what you think they are... by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      What exactly do you expect from one of the first companies to drop the floppy disk drive?


      See I actually agree with Apple on this, but what I don't agree with is the same people praising Apple for doing this, and then turning around and blasting Vista for doing something that is only half bad in impacting users.

      If we all need to take the mindset of 'pushing' technology forward, then Apple and MS either BOTH need to get a pass on doing this, or both need to be blasted. Consistency is all I ask if people truly are on either side of this argument.

      Vista has been beaten to death for wanting 512mb of RAM and running sweet at 1GB, and to use the new glass features it needs a video card made after 2002. However Leopard ALSO needs 512mb and runs better at the 1GB RAM range.

      Leopard also has problems with older video cards and unlike Vista that just turns the glass off, Leopard 'fails' and the features don't even work. (Try using Time Machine on a Mac with an ATI Rage 128 card, it simply doesn't allow users to restore the files because the video card is too old. Time Machine isn't the only app that fails on older video either.)

      I would rather OS X do what Vista does, and get less pretty but still provide the features of the OS to the users if the Video is too old to support the OS's pretty features.

      And ironically it was mainly the Mac users and the Mac ads on television making fun of 'PC' for needing to get more RAM or a new video card, yet Leopard is worse about requiring new hardware, as it don't even elegantly drop back to mode that at least lets it function on older hardware.

      Vista can run on a Pentium III running at 700mhz and run well if you have can get 512mb or 1gb of RAM in the computer, and the video card can be a 1994 based PCI card that has no 3D features at all, and Vista will still work.

      So sure technology and OSes need to move the industry forward, but don't slap MS and Vista for doing this and then praise Apple for doing it. Especially when Vista gracefully turns off glitz to ensure all the features of the OS still work even on really old equipment.

      So you see why I find all this a big disingenuous?

    13. Re:Classic apps are not what you think they are... by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      OS X on PPCs was always able to run OS 9 in a window. If not that, applications could be recompiled using Carbon and become modern applications. Maybe you don't realize just how bad OS 9 was, but it's better that everyone was forced to move forward.


      I actually agree, but why is Apple praised for moving technology forward, and when MS does something similar they are roasted by the tech press and especially Mac users?

      Vista 64bit dropped the DOS and Win3.1 subsystems, and also dropped older driver support, and the press bashed Vista and MS for doing this, when it was the correct thing to do for a new 64bit OS.

    14. Re:Classic apps are not what you think they are... by GrahamCox · · Score: 1
      Apple's APIs were not as bad as you make them out to be. Yes, there were some horrors, and some of the things you mention could be issues. But when well-written, a "classic" app was neither hard to program nor as unresponsive or as incapable as you suggest. Since some 85%+ of the old APIs live on in Carbon, obviously some folk felt they were worth keeping. It's true that there was a very definite "right way" to program around the original Mac OS, and many more "wrong ways" which could lead one not experienced in the art up the garden path at times.

      Given the history of the OS and the fact that Apple had to basically make it up as they engineered it from scratch with very little prior art to draw on (Xerox PARC code was not used, as the original Mac OS was written in assembler and Pascal, not Smalltalk), the architectural choices are at least understandable if sometimes arcane. The design choices were forced by the very low power of the hardware they originally had to work with. Some of those design choices proved to be hard to scale. The main "crime" was that by the mid-90s they hadn't added protected memory and a proper VM system - it was doable in a manner compatible with the published APIs by then but they dropped the ball. The lack of pre-emptive multitasking wasn't such a major drawback in practice since most apps didn't need real-time responsiveness down to microsecond resolution and you could implement threads yourself if you needed to.

      Like you I'm glad those days are behind me but unlike you I never found working with the system all that hard. I don't recognise the "hell" you describe - just a few rules you had to follow. If you used a C++ framework (like most people did after about 1988) all those things were taken care of. Windows 3.1 was no better, and in terms of the design of its APIs, in many cases much worse. There's no doubt though that the OS became a bit of a drag on the hardware especially during the early years of the PowerPC transition, with many parts emulated - BeOS showed what the hardware was really capable of!

      My main gripes about the original Mac OS were:
      • the Menu Manager totally sucked with many 8-bit sized fields to save space but thus imposing many '256 max' limits on things
      • QuickDraw wasn't re-entrant
      • QuickDraw was limited to 16-bit coordinate system, which made long/large documents tricky to program
      • TextEdit was limited to 32K text buffer size and the QD 16-bit coordinates often hit you long before that, limiting you to a few thousand lines
      • No built-in timer event
      • some APIs were too complicated (QuickTime, Applescript, Publish and Subscribe, Component Manager)
      • some APIs were not complicated enough (original Event Manager, QD)
      • lack of memory protection
    15. Re:Classic apps are not what you think they are... by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

      There was a lot of good stuff in the pre-OS X days, but multi-tasking and memory management were not good at all. I agree with you on those, as I remember looking for obscure bugs and watching my crashing app take down the entire system. OS X was heaven for development in comparison.

      You're overstating the case though. Outside of the two issues you mention, the earlier OS has solid graphics APIs, good file handling, a very nice event model and all sorts of other goodness (interprocess communication springs to mind).

      OS X far outstrips its earlier cousin, but that's not to say everything before it was bad.

  94. Time Machine - backups? by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

    This is really just a semantic thing, but I'm a stickler for sending clear, consistent messages.

    When I think of "backups", I tend to think "this will help me recover my files if my computer dies, is stolen, or is unexpectedly repossessed by nature".

    The Time Machine feature is more of an archive than a backup.

    This could cause confusion and complacency among Joe Users who make "regular backups", only to find their data irrecoverable when their hard drive terminates.

    "But I was making regular backups, just like the nice people on Slashdot told me to!"

    - RG>

    --
    Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    1. Re:Time Machine - backups? by c_forq · · Score: 4, Informative

      But it does backup your computer. You can examine the disk from other Macs, and the first backup it makes is of your entire system so it can do a complete system restore if need be.

      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
    2. Re:Time Machine - backups? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I know this is slashdot, but could you please at least read about a feature before commenting on it?

      Time Machine most certainly will allow a user to recover files and "will help me recover my files if my computer dies, is stolen, or is unexpectedly repossessed by nature". Indeed, you can recover a totally cratered computer - 10.5 setup will let you restore from a time machine backup as part of the OS install process.

      I was also pleased to find out that Apple does indeed do incremental backups of data using a differential methodology (i.e. not making a whole copy of a changed file, but only recording the new information in the file as part of the backup). They do it using a variant of system links. This saves a ton of space and might actually let you have a decent version history to restore from.

      Time Machine is like VSS, except it's actually useful to an end user - and unlike VSS, it backs up to a physically different hard drive so you are protected from hardware failure for just the scenario's you outline.

    3. Re:Time Machine - backups? by NMerriam · · Score: 3, Informative

      When I think of "backups", I tend to think "this will help me recover my files if my computer dies, is stolen, or is unexpectedly repossessed by nature".


      That's what Time Machine does. If you put the Leopard install DVD into a new Mac, one of your options is to plug in a Time Machine disk and restore your whole old system to the new computer. That's as backed up as any backup system I've ever used (and a hell of a lot easier).
      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    4. Re:Time Machine - backups? by k2enemy · · Score: 1

      I was also pleased to find out that Apple does indeed do incremental backups of data using a differential methodology (i.e. not making a whole copy of a changed file, but only recording the new information in the file as part of the backup). They do it using a variant of system links.


      I think you misunderstand how Time Machine works. If the contents of a file change, the entire file's data will be re-written to the backup drive, not just the parts that changed. If a file is unchanged, a "hard link" is created that points to the old file data.

      From http://developer.apple.com/leopard/overview/apptech.html:

      The second guideline you should follow is to avoid putting small amounts of volatile data into otherwise large and static files. If you have data files that are updated frequently to change a small percentage of the data in that file, Time Machine will copy the entire file, taking up more space on the backup disk. If, instead, you can separate the volatile data into a smaller separate file, Time Machine will be able to back up changes to the smaller file and make more efficient use of backup disk space.
  95. Re:Computerworld Developers by toddestan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    On the other hand, it seems that so many things in OSX have to be tweaked in this manner. I wouldn't expect the typical user to be able to figure that one out, or how to undo it should they decide they want the 3D dock back for that matter. Atleast if you direct the user to some panel, there is some hope that they might remember how to get there in the futere.

  96. Re:I have to know the answer to this... by kybred · · Score: 1

    They are ProTools, Cubase SX3, FL Studio, SoundForge8, Reason 3, Rebirth 2, Flash MX, Illustrator, Vegas, and more.

    Wait... ever Linux box I've ever seen has 'more' on it, although I prefer 'less'. :-)

    (I can't believe that no one beat me to that!)

  97. Already in Tiger by Foerstner · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://www.hiram.nl/ipsedixit/artikel/793/boolean-search-in-spotlight

    Undocumented, and the syntax is very picky and non-obvious.

    --
    The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
  98. Re:Geez... by theEd · · Score: 1

    Imagine your left handed and use the mouse with your dominant hand, i.e. left hand. Now, what is more obscure? And yes I've heard the arguments about you can just change the settings but, wouldn't it just be easier if you didn't have to reconfigure the computer because the person using it has a different dominant hand than the previous user. Besides, control-click is the same right handed and left handed but, "right click" changes if you reconfigure the mouse to be left handed.

    --
    "And now you shall learn the secret of boot to the head"
  99. Re:Computerworld Developers by erikvcl · · Score: 0, Troll

    Whoever modded you troll should get an automatic -5 fanboi.

  100. Re:Geez... by toddestan · · Score: 1

    I've never seen this problem before. The left mouse button is still on the left side of the mouse if it's on the other side of the keyboard, so I don't see how it would be confusing in that matter. I know you can switch the action of the button if you want to, but I've never seen anyone actually do this no matter which side of the keyboard they put their mouse. It seems that the lefties don't seem to have any problems left clicking with their middle finger.

  101. Re:Computerworld Developers by Daengbo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is this sarcasm that went over everyone's head? It's always the first complaint about Linux systems. "I don't want to use a command line!" (I'm a long-time user and prefer the command line for many things,though)

  102. I don't know about anyone else... by XNine · · Score: 1

    But I have a worse paying job than I did a few years ago (thank yooooou economy and my whore of an ex). This makes buying the new hardware very hard. Which is why I'm still running a Powermac G4 933MHz machine. Every time I've upgraded OS X (which has been, well, every time a release has come out) the machine is just as, if not more responsive. The new features may not always be dazzling because of the old processor, but the new apps and interfaces just make it absolutely worth it (kudos to Apple for supporting the old hardware!). I just hope "stacks" (aka Piles from Panther but never in Panther) is a good replacement for the Overflow app. So... anyone wanna send me 2K for a MBP? Anyone? Anyone? damn...

    --
    Never monkey with another monkey's monkey.
    1. Re:I don't know about anyone else... by SlowMovingTarget · · Score: 1

      I just hope "stacks" (aka Piles from Panther but never in Panther)...

      Every time I hear about this feature I imagine an error dialog popping up with AOL guy's voice "You've got Piles!" I'd hate to discover this feature using the laptop while perched upon the commode. It makes one wonder if there's a 3rd party add-on called "Preparation-H" that enhances Piles.

    2. Re:I don't know about anyone else... by XNine · · Score: 1

      LMAO. No doubt my friend.

      --
      Never monkey with another monkey's monkey.
  103. Re:Does Time Machine require a dedicated partition by crashelite · · Score: 1

    the reason its not in a sub directory is because it would index its self sending it into infinity... then again u could probably set it not to index that part but why would u want a backup to be on the same drive anyways? the whole point is to back up ur data to have it safe for if the main drive fails... they just added in the going back in time part to sell it. dont be cheep get a external 500 gig drive for 100$ (i think thats what there down to when there on sale)

    --
    (yes i know i suck at spelling fell free to correct my grammar and/or spellin i dont care, im still not going to change
  104. Re:I have to know the answer to this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am not a troller, but here is my response.

    NT is the only truly multitasking OS M/$ has ever made. So you only see a good OS at work.

    All their other OS's such as XP are not preemptive multitaskers. This creates many weaknesses. Example: do a pdf print job. The computer is locked up until the job is processed. Run your computer until you have to restart it, typically once every week or two, to clear up a nasty problem.

    Apple's OS X is a preemptively multitasking OS. Do a pdf print job, and it runs in the background while you do other work or play. Run your computer until you have to ........... OH I'm sorry, but mine usually runs 9 to 12 months at a time on a 6-year old portable running a three-year old OS.

    I believe that M/$ provides the typical consumer with a crap OS. That's how they got their monopoly, and that's how they want to keep it.

    But then, the typical consumer doesn't run NT.

  105. Lotus Notes by djdavetrouble · · Score: 1

    Redesigned mail, notes, and calendaring systems?

    speaking of notes, I noticed he has Lotus Notes on his dock in the screenshots. My Lotus guys are telling me that it does NOT run on 10.5

    --
    music lover since 1969
    1. Re:Lotus Notes by Maserati · · Score: 1

      My Lotus guys are telling me that it does NOT run on 10.5

      Better make that 301 features !

      All kidding aside, it looks like the ComputerWorld 10.5 screenshots were taken on a user account that had been upgraded from 10.4 to 10.5, so he had his old applications. Since the screenshot in question is intended to be a direct comparison between the versions, having the exact same apps in the Dock is Working As Intended.

      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
  106. minimum install by pauldavidgriffiths · · Score: 2, Informative

    hello. i'm just wondering what the minimum install size is for leopard? without ilife, iphoto etc. because i'm after a compact flash card for my macbook, i already have a compact flash to sata adaptor and was hoping to fit leopard on on a fast 8gb card as i can't afford a fast 16gb card and don't want a slow card. in my normal install i only use safari, itunes, ichat and the terminal. iphoto, photobooth etc. isn't installed. i also have a few small third-party programs, that probably don't even amount to 50 mb additional. so, anyone any ideas if i could manage to squeeze that all on an 8gb card? i'd use an external 2.5-inch drive for my itunes library, films, and either that or a networked drive for time machine.

    1. Re:minimum install by One_6453 · · Score: 1

      About 6-7GB if you exclude printer drivers and extra language fonts/translations during the install.

    2. Re:minimum install by One_6453 · · Score: 1

      oops I meant 9GB

    3. Re:minimum install by pauldavidgriffiths · · Score: 1

      thanks for the reply. that's quite disappointing, i am sure i was able to install tiger in not much more than 2gb, that's without printer drivers, languages, ilife, iphoto and development tools. looks like i'll have to get a 16gb card, at least i'll have a bit more flexibility. by the way, if anyone has been interested in the addonics compact flash to sata card, but is in europe, there's a bloke on ebay, from italy, selling them for about £20.

    4. Re:minimum install by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI, Leopard's XCode 3 lets you install the dev tools wherever you want, not just in /Developers. You can put it on an external volume easily.

  107. Re:Computerworld Developers by ginoledesma · · Score: 1

    That's what TinkerTool is for. It hasn't been updated for Leopard yet, but I doubt it will take long. Now as to why Apple didn't do that is an entirely different story...

  108. Re:Does Time Machine require a dedicated partition by NMerriam · · Score: 1

    will I need to dedicate an entire drive (or partition) for Time Machine's exclusive use, or is it possible/okay to tell Time Machine to put its data into a subdirectory inside a drive/partition that is also used for storing other data?


    You don't need to dedicate a drive or partition to it, but you can't put it in a subdirectory, it will create a database in the root of whatever partition you use. And it will work on any drive other than the system drive (so you can use a second internal drive if you have a tower).
    --
    Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
  109. Re:Geez... by spud603 · · Score: 1

    Even better: tap with one finger you get left click, tap with two you get right click.

  110. Re:I have to know the answer to this... by Daengbo · · Score: 1

    That's because XP was a point release. 2000 = 5.0, XP = 5.1

    From NT4 to 2000 was a major release, and Vista (6) is another.

    Lots of people refused to upgrade from 2000 to XP because there wasn't much difference except the interface. In other words, it was a point release and not worth the money. That's the same point as the GP

  111. Re:Computerworld Developers by tyrione · · Score: 1

    shorthand: defaults write -> dwrite

  112. Re:I have to know the answer to this... by Daengbo · · Score: 1

    Interestingly, I was reading an article (CNET or something, I don't remember) earlier this week talking about the then upcoming release of Leopard. Paraphrasing, it said "OSX has made great strides over the last few years, and Apple customers have paid through the nose for repeated upgrades." The statement stuck out because the article was entirely pro Apple except for that sentence.

    I agree that Apple users tend to upgrade (and pay for it) every cycle.

  113. CDC 6600 - nice analogy by IvyKing · · Score: 1

    One of the reasons that the 6600 succeeded was that Cray was in charge of the project - he had a relatively unique understanding of hardware, software and had 'good taste'. The 6000 series ISA is one of the cleanest that I've seen and is one of the first RISC machines. Cray knew how to get the right people to work on the project and backed them up when people outside his group criticized them. On the other hand, the 6600 was a bitch to manufacture.

  114. Re:Computerworld Developers by Riquez · · Score: 5, Funny

    the ability to direct someone else to change system settings without having to give them a long GUI script along the lines of "Open this, click here, click there, this should say X, type Y"
    Indeed, the conversation would probably go like this..
    noidentity: OK, open up the terminal
    user: What? Is that in my Dock?
    noidentity:..erm ok, then go to HD > Applications > Utilities > Terminal
    user:OK
    noidentity:Now type defaults write com...
    user:Where do i write 'com', on my note pad?
    noidentity:no, no I mean type write
    user:I don't have a type writer
    noidentity:sigh. No, the word write, type the word write
    user:I think i typed it right, w r i g h t thats right, right?
    --- Time Passes ---
    noidentity:OK, now, using the keyboard on your computer, type the following words -boolean YES;
    user:Whats a hyphen?
    --- sound of gunshot ---
    user:Hello?
    --
    * Game Over * High Score: 264,846,927 -- Your Score: 14
  115. Don't forget by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    System 7 also had Balloon Help!!

    1. Re:Don't forget by LKM · · Score: 1

      Which I personally still think was a great, great idea. More than once, Balloon Help told me why a menu item I needed was greyed out, or what exactle a Preferences checkbox did. To this day, I'm somewhat unclear on why they removed it; I'm guessing support by third-party apps unfortunately was just too poor.

      Which leads me to another nit. About three years ago, I worked on a .NET application, and Visual Studio actually did not allow me to have tool tips for disabled controls, which kind of made the whole thing extremely useless. Why, Microsoft! WHY!

  116. Re:I have to know the answer to this... by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

    And Mac OS 8 was in fact a point release. It was going to be 7.7 but was changed to be Mac OS 8 to lock out the cloners.
    Correct, but also: because the original plan for Mac OS 8 -- that is, project Copland -- was a catastrophe.
  117. Re:I have to know the answer to this... by tknd · · Score: 1

    I'll play your game. The guy above you said that the point point releases are equivalent to MS service packs. Fair enough, both are free and both mainly contain security updates and fixes. Then that means that the "point" release is equivalent to NT versions. With that, I direct you to Wikipedia on Windows NT. There you will find NT 5.0 == Windows 2000, NT 5.1 == Windows XP. And finally, NT 5.2 is listed as Windows Server 2003, Windows XP (64bit), and Windows Home Server. I believe between those various versions you'll find significant changes to the distributed packages. Also the cost to "upgrade" to those other versions is not free just like Apple "point" releases.

    The real truth to all of this is that it is all marketing BS for both companies. The version number has no significant meaning because everyone knows it is completely up to the developers to determine when and how they increment the version number. My opinion is that version numbers are useless for everyone including the developers. The only numbers that have any significant meaning are revision numbers (as an identifier, not as a measure of how much changed) and the build number (also as an identifier, not as a measure of how much changed). There is no good way to measure the amount of change in a software package let alone a source file. All we have to measure changes are the developer's claims.

    The only thing that matters at the end of the day is whether or not the cost justifies the software product you receive. The answer to that question will be different for every user. The version number or marketing name (Tiger, Leopard, Vista, XP, 2k, etc) have no meaning except to appeal to you in an indirect manner. For all I care, I can just change the splash screen on a software package, bump the "big" version number, and claim that it is "new and improved" and stupid people will fall for it. Welcome to marketing.

  118. Re:Computerworld Developers by josephdrivein · · Score: 2, Funny

    I was wondering the same. What about the discussion I've seen so many times:
    Slashdotter1: Check out the source code with svn
    Slashdotter2: What if I don't have svn installed?
    Slashdotter1: #aptitude install subversion
    Slashdotter2: What the heck is supposed to be that? I don't wanna type some obscure command line!!!!!1

    We should say every time: click the "K" in the bottom left corner of your screen, or the "Applications" label at the top left of your screen or...

  119. Re:Computerworld Developers by dal20402 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I know, don't feed the trolls. I can't resist this one.

    Let's see those "couple of tweaks." Give us the details -- scripts, source code, whatever you like -- for how in "a couple of tweaks" you'll make Linux act like Leopard. Make sure to include Time Machine, Core Graphics, and Back to my Mac.

    These will be impressive tweaks! I can't wait.

  120. Re:I have to know the answer to this... by shmlco · · Score: 1

    Since the NDA expired at 6PM, I can tell you that Leopard can and will have a major impact on how people use their systems. Hell, the usability enhancements to the Finder alone are worth the money.

    And in my book the additions to iChat have .

    Don't tell Steve, but I might have even paid Vista Ultimate prices for OS X Leopard...

    --
    Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
  121. parent is trolling by Dark_Gravity · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know what holds MS back from adding the Multiple Desktop feature? I know it can be had with 3rd party software, however last time I used one it really slowed down my machine and caused some crashes.

    The lack of such a feature that has been around for eons in the Unix/Linux world drives me crazy! You are either full of it, or running some really underpowered hardware. My 3 year old desktop has no trouble running NVidia's multiple desktop feature (in Windows XP) w/o slowing the machine's performance, and of course Linux has no trouble w/multiple desktops either.
  122. Re:I have to know the answer to this... by shmlco · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Since the NDA expired at 6PM, I can tell you that Leopard can and will have a major impact on how people use their systems. Hell, the usability enhancements to the Finder alone are worth the money.

    And in my book the additions to iChat have the potential to be a game-changer.

    Don't tell Steve, but I might have even paid Vista Ultimate prices for OS X Leopard...

    (Sorry for the dup, forgot to preview.)

    --
    Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
  123. This is score +5 funny? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does jokes get funnier as they are retold, or is that a Slashdot meme?

    1. Re:This is score +5 funny? by daffmeister · · Score: 1

      meme

  124. Network Backup by meehawl · · Score: 1

    When you hookup an external hard drive, Vista should ask to turn on backups

    I like having at least one backup no co-located with the original. Can Vista back up securely over TCP/IP to a remote store? Can Time Machine? I know I can do it with some tunnelling and SSH, but it would be nice (for my relatives) so have some sort of one-click alternative.

    --

    Da Blog
    1. Re:Network Backup by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      I like having at least one backup no co-located with the original. Can Vista back up securely over TCP/IP to a remote store? Can Time Machine?

      I know for a fact Vista can, and if the remote store is online/available, the backups will appear as a part of the previous versions dialog even, in addition to be accessible via regular restore mechanisms.

      I haven't tried with Leopard myself, but have no reason to assume it shouldn't be able to. My only question is whether backup/restore via Time Machine works via a secure network store or not. Our OS X people have several days off due to fires, but it is something I will try to find out about, as they have been involved in the Leopard beta and should know.

  125. woooow... modded -1 troll... by logicassasin · · Score: 1

    For daring to have a real question that challenged the way of thinking of the Mac user, I get modded -1...

    screw the fact that I was a mac user from '93 to 2003, screw the fact that I ran OSX (10.0 and 10.1) on my final Mac, a 400MHz B&W G3.

    Nah... I'm obviously a troll.

    I'm used to it tho, got modded troll for daring to say that updating linux can break apps (which did happen to me quite a few times)

    --
    Fifty watts per channel, baby cakes.
    1. Re:woooow... modded -1 troll... by p0tat03 · · Score: 1

      I think you were modded for bringing up an argument that has time and time again been discredited. Practically everyone agrees (except you, evidently) that the "point" releases for OS X are equal, if not greater, in scope than the XP to Vista transition, or the Win2K to XP transition. The whole "point" naming scheme is so Apple can hang on to their stupid "OS X" moniker for just a while longer. Panther to Tiger was a pretty significant upgrade, and Tiger to Leopard looks to be a magnitude beyond it.

    2. Re:woooow... modded -1 troll... by Pope · · Score: 1

      You were modded a troll because your comment was stupid.

      Who cares if Leopard is 10.5 or 12 or 15? It's a naming convention and nothing more; would you feel better knowing you were running Mac OS X 15? It's immaterial.

      As long as there are no giant leaps and skips in version numbers, such as when Macromedia skipped Freehand 6 to release Freehand 7 only because Adobe had Illustrator 7 out.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    3. Re:woooow... modded -1 troll... by yabos · · Score: 1

      Because every fucking thread about OS X has your same stupid fucking question. The answer has been posted a million times and if you really were an OS X user you would already know they're not just "bug fixes".

    4. Re:woooow... modded -1 troll... by logicassasin · · Score: 0

      Apparently you lack reading skills:

      The update from 10.0 to 10.1 was FREE (as in beer). But going from 10.1 to 10.2 was not, nor any of the releases that follows. Since 10.0 to 10.1 was free, why wasn't 10.1 to 10.2 on up??? That's the reason I finally left MacOS alone. It was bad enough that OSX ran like crap on my 400MHz B&W G3, but now I've got to pay for what appeared to be yet another update.

      The rationale I had at the time was that 10.0 was the major release. If 10.1 was not mugh more than a buch of bug fixes and some much needed functionality (like DVD playback) and was released for free, why is Apple now wanting to charge me for yet another bug fix release with 10.2?

      It appears that there's more to 10.2+ than just bug fixes and shiny new toys. That's become apparent to me since AppleFront layed the mod hammer down and struck down yet another dissident voice.

      --
      Fifty watts per channel, baby cakes.
    5. Re:woooow... modded -1 troll... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      logassasin, proud member of the Software Versioning Liberation Front.

    6. Re:woooow... modded -1 troll... by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

      Nah... I'm obviously a troll.

      Well, you are. Don't get all "everyone's against me" here, just don't post really dumb questions that have been answered many, many times in the past seven years. And yes, your history is irrelevant because your question makes it so. It may seem harsh, but you were modded correctly.

    7. Re:woooow... modded -1 troll... by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

      It appears that there's more to 10.2+ than just bug fixes and shiny new toys. That's become apparent to me since AppleFront layed the mod hammer down and struck down yet another dissident voice.

      That really is the worst kind of trolling. You're lumping all Apple users on Slashdot together, you're positing yourself as the lone dissident (oh, brave soul) and you're mis-spelling common words (laid was the word you were looking for).

      Today I read John Siracusa's review of OS X 10.5 and frankly you're such a piss-weak troll in comparison that you should just not post. It's embarrassing to see posts like yours on sites like Slashdot when such thoughtful and intelligent reviews are posted elsewhere, reviews that provide actual information and real points for debate. I'd be ashamed to post if I were you, but thankfully you're being modded correctly.

    8. Re:woooow... modded -1 troll... by logicassasin · · Score: 1

      Seriously, I wasn't trolling. As I've said several times before, I'm a former Mac owner. From my 840AV to my B&W G3, I've supported Apple for a number of years (even longer if you go all the way back to my Apple ][+ in '82 and ][c some years later).

      It appeared that some of you guys took it that way, I've already tried to correct that position and get you guys to understand where I'm coming from. You, apparently, are one of those that simply didn't get it.

      --
      Fifty watts per channel, baby cakes.
  126. Re:Computerworld Developers by J0nne · · Score: 1

    The 2D dock can be enabled using the following:

    defaults write com.apple.dock no-glass -boolean YES; killall Dock OS X will never be ready for the desktop if you have to change settings using the command line ;) .
  127. Re:Computerworld Developers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a feature that should be high on anyone's list: the ability to direct someone else to change system settings without having to give them a long GUI script along the lines of "Open this, click here, click there, this should say X, type Y". I just love being able to package up these types of changes into a command-line like that.

    Right. Except if you're in Linux, where changes packaged like that fall into the 'run obscure command-line voodoo that puts off newbs, thus BAD' sorting bin. Well, at least in OSX the black rectangle is surrounded by 'teh shiney'

  128. Preferences deemed harmful! by LKM · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But that's the point: Normal users aren't really supposed to figure this out. As a software developer and UI designer, it's part of my job to make sure every UI decision doesn't result in a new preference. 90% of the time, preferences are cop-outs: If the design team can't decide on what solution is best, they make it a checkbox. Don't do that. It's your job to figure out the best solution, don't burden the user with it.

    What Apple does is the right thing: Make what they think is best default. Don't make preference for it. But if somebody absolutely needs to have his Dock look different, give him a way that does not involve changing the actual application resources.

    1. Re:Preferences deemed harmful! by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      But that's the point: Normal users aren't really supposed to figure this out. As a software developer and UI designer, it's part of my job to make sure every UI decision doesn't result in a new preference. 90% of the time, preferences are cop-outs: If the design team can't decide on what solution is best, they make it a checkbox. Don't do that. It's your job to figure out the best solution, don't burden the user with it.

      I disagree, slightly. Apple already has a properties editor for editing the XML of these files without using the CLI. It is probably more cumbersome for the average user, than the CLI is, but some people are unnaturally afraid of command line interfaces, having been trained to fear them in the past. For settings like this, I'd be even happier if they just put an "advanced" button on the dock control panel that would open an editable and human readable list of all these settings, that relate to the dock. I fundamentally disagree with using poor usability as a way to discourage users from doing what they want.

      That said, this is so far down my list of desired features that in practice I'd rather Apple devoted their resources to improvements of more interest to me.

  129. Re:Computerworld Developers by LKM · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Go to your Apple Menu, select System Preferences. Now click on "Sharing" and on "Remote Access." Click "Start." Tell me the number it says at the bottom of your window. Okay, now wait 10 minutes." :-)

  130. Re:I have to know the answer to this... by homer+dulu · · Score: 1
    You bring up some good points, but I'm not sure I agree with a few of them.

    Are not in the same ballpark as far as polish, consistency, printed manuals and a general sense of finishedness goes ... But they are well on par (if not superior) in terms of functions. They are all miles ahead in terms of expandability compared to the existing big name applications.

    I would disagree with that. None of those programs would compete with huge behemoth DAWs like Cubase or Logic or Pro Tools in terms of features. Do any of them come with Beat Detective (Pro Tools)? What about Space Designer, or a Hammond B3 emulation or Ultrabeat (Logic)?

    Ok, let me give an example of Logic Pro, because that's what I use and most familiar with. Do any of those programs listed match up in terms of functions?
    specs
    effects
    instruments
    sound library

    And for me, expandability is the ability to use the widest range of plugins that would affect my mixing and recording work. Linux does not yet have that for me.

    one minor area where open source audio apps absolutely kills the big name commercial apps is the online community - the users, experienced musos, and the developers are all one and the same people.

    The online community for the big name programs is much much larger, simply because more people use those programs. I get plenty of help with whatever question I have at those forums. I post at bigbluelounge.com (which is even listed on the Apple website), but I also lurk at the DUC and logicprohelp.com. Look at some of the forum topics, some have well over 30,000 posts.

    Big Blue Lounge
    Logic Pro help
    the DUC - Digidesign Pro Tools forum
    the LUG (Logic Users Group)
    Cubase forum
    Sonar forum
    Ableton Live forum
    just to name a few.

    some of the audio tools are actually good enough and stable enough right now for live performance in front of real paying audiences.

    I agree, but that's still very limited usage compared to what a big-name DAW is capable of doing.

    open source audio is not better or worse than commercial audio apps - but it is different enough in a worthwhile way.

    I'm sorry to say this, but right now it is definitely worse and it's going to be like that until Linux DAWs are used professionally at the highest levels of the music industry. One indicator of the lack of popularity of Linux DAWs is the coverage in music production magazines, such as Future Music, Computer Music, Sound on Sound, MIX, EQ and Virtual Instruments, although this is changing. CM has a dedicated Linux section, albeit only two pages worth. This is at the moment though, so who knows what will happen in the future. But even in 2007, many mixing and mastering engineers still refuse to use Pro Tools or anything computer based. Most of the others who do use DAWs don't solely mix in the box and use a buttload of outboard hardware.

    AFAIK, unfortunately, native plugin support is virtually zero on Linux. Yes, there is the Linux VST standard, but that still requires companies to recompile their plugins for that, as a Linux VST plugin does not use the same binary as a Windows VST. You can run Windows VSTs under Linux, but that involves a lot of playing around with WINE and JACK and other things which most musicians don't have the time, and more importantly, the technical ability to set up. I mean, it's hard enough

  131. Re:Computerworld Developers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tinkertool? Try Rixstep's Clix instead and learn how *nix works.

  132. Usability by LKM · · Score: 1

    I second. Most users can't even figure out how to manage one desktop.

    Maybe more desktops will actually help them manage their stuff, not hinder them? I think the lack of interest in virtual desktops is due to the crappy UI they generally have. Let's see whether OS X makes a difference and people start using them; it wouldn't be the first time Apple took a well-known idea and turned it into something normal people actually could use.

  133. Re:Geez... by LKM · · Score: 1

    It's also worth pointing out that Microsoft itself often violates this guideline (in at least one case in a Mac version of one of their apps, incredibly).

  134. Fitt's Law by LKM · · Score: 1

    With large monitors growing ever more affordable, there's sure to be a lot more people who start noticing the menu bar silliness.

    I think you're missing the reason why the menu bar on the Mac is where it is, namely Fitt's law:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts'_law

    http://www.asktog.com/columns/022DesignedToGiveFitts.html

    The menu bar on top of the screen is faster, despite being further away from the curser than the menu bar on top of the window.

    1. Re:Fitt's Law by anagama · · Score: 1

      Fitt's law doesn't apply to non-rectangular screen spaces.

      Ok, size and distance are taken into consideration. This still fails to take into consideration some factors with modern setups. For example, my 15" powerbook screen is smaller than my external 21" monitor in both physical size and resolution. I have the external on the right, and the built in on the left. This means when I'm on the right monitor, I can get stuck in the corners where the two monitors "connect", e.g., the corner(s) between the lower case and cap "x" marks: xxXXX

      What usually happens when I slam the mouse off toward the left, is that the mouse gets caught in the extra corner area -- turns out I have 5 or 6 corners depending on configuration because my total screen space is not rectangular nor can it be. How does Fitt's law deal with the extra time required to go around the corners in a non-rectangular screen space? It frankly doesn't. As a user, I am saying the shared menu bar hampers me, and many others agree. It doesn't mean we are wrong, and it doesn't mean Fitt's law is wrong. It just means it's not-applicable in a multi-sized monitor setup.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    2. Re:Fitt's Law by anagama · · Score: 1

      Another problem with Fitt's law and multi-monitor setups -- the angle of attack is much different when using the laptop without an external monitor than it is when used with one. This means if I shoot off at a 45 degree angle from bottom right corner of the second monitor -- I hit absolutely nothing at all but the top dead edge of the screen. So I adjust for smaller angle, which doesn't work when I'm using the laptop alone because that angle just shoots me into the dock (left side of screen).

      But all this is beside the point. It takes a lot of hubris for you guys to be telling me that the shared menu bar is really better and easier when I keep saying that for me it isn't. I don't know if it's just a defense mechanism by people who think they've stumbled on perfection -- but get over yourselves and learn to listen. You can have things your way -- I'm just asking to get something my way.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    3. Re:Fitt's Law by LKM · · Score: 1

      Yes, there are issues when you're using multiple screens. That doesn't mean the law doesn't apply. In your particular case, I would suggest you re-arrange the virtual position of your two screens (not the physical position).

    4. Re:Fitt's Law by LKM · · Score: 1

      It takes a lot of hubris for you guys to be telling me that the shared menu bar is really better and easier when I keep saying that for me it isn't.

      It doesn't even matter whether it would be easier for you (and you don't know whether it would be, because you haven't done usability tests on yourself, and your feeling is most likely way off); as an UI designer, I don't design for every single user, I design so the majority of users has the best possible experience. Having an option for menus inside windows in Mac OS X would harm a ton of other users (not to mention developers, but frankly, they don't matter at all :-).

      I don't know if it's just a defense mechanism by people who think they've stumbled on perfection

      It's not perfect, just better than what you ask for.

    5. Re:Fitt's Law by anagama · · Score: 1

      Man, don't you read -- go back and reread my posts. I HAVE done useability tests on myself, every frackin' day. The X11 apps I use all have the menu bar in the window and I'm saying, they're easier to use because of it when I'm using a dual monitor setup. If you useability "experts" ever learn how to LISTEN or READ, maybe we'll get somewhere.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    6. Re:Fitt's Law by anagama · · Score: 1

      Oh, and nice job ignoring your mistake of applying 4-corner Fitt's law to a 5 or 6 corner multimonitor setup.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    7. Re:Fitt's Law by LKM · · Score: 1

      You have no clue what a usability test is. Hint: You can't test yourself. You do not know whether you're faster with a menu on top of the screen, or on top of windows, because your personal feeling on what is faster has little in common with reality.

    8. Re:Fitt's Law by LKM · · Score: 1

      I thought your comment on multiple screens was so obviously missing the point that you were intentionally playing stupid, but I assume now that you were serious. Here's the thing: Multi-monitor setups are even better than normal setups because you have more corners you can hit. Of course, the secret is to not use the "pseudo-corners."

      So, if you have a smaller screen and a larger screen, do not put the menu bar on the smaller screen. If you must insist on putting the menu bar on the smaller screen, at least do the virtual monitor setup (it's in your preference panes) in a way that makes sure that your mouse can't leave the screen on the top left and right edges.

      I mean, this is so obvious that I simply did not think your post was serious. You're complaining about something that nobody in his right mind would ever see; it's almost as if you had intentionally set up your monitors incorrectly so you could make a point.

      It's like having two screens on top of each other and putting the menu bar on the lower screen, and then complaining that fitt's law is stupid because you're constantly overshooting the menu bar...

    9. Re:Fitt's Law by anagama · · Score: 1

      Wow -- I have no idea what works better for me? When I spoke of hubris before I was understating.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    10. Re:Fitt's Law by anagama · · Score: 1

      The problem with putting the menu bar on the larger screen, is that it is disorienting when I'm using only the smaller laptop screen away from my desk. Secondly, I'm sure when Fitt's law was invented, there were no non-rectangular screen spaces. The whole notion that more corners is better is silly because your pointer tends to get caught in one corner when shooting for another.

      But beyond that, it's just plain you refuse to listen to anybody. You really should work for Microsoft. The place would suit your personality and skills.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    11. Re:Fitt's Law by LKM · · Score: 1

      I have no idea what works better for me?

      That is absolutely correct, and it has got nothing to do with hubris. Quite the opposite. You should do a few actual usability tests; it's humbling. The solution that feels best and/or fastest hardly ever is. A typical outcome of a usability test is that developers think one way is best, users prefer another way, and the actual numbers show a third way being faster and with fewer errors. You are not actually capable of objectively "feeling" your own performance.

      Frankly, you don't know what's best for you, just as I don't know what's best for me. Only usability tests can show which solution is best, and it's hardly ever the one you or I think is best.

    12. Re:Fitt's Law by LKM · · Score: 1
      Fitt's law was not invented. It's an observation, not an invention, just like the laws of gravity weren't invented, but merely observed to exist.

      The whole point of the corner is that your mouse gets caught there. That's what Fitt's law is about.

      But beyond that, it's just plain you refuse to listen to anybody.

      Thanks, I appreciate that. I do my best. It's my job, you know. I'm a scientist, not a priest. I'm not paid to listen to people, I'm paid to measure them.
    13. Re:Fitt's Law by LKM · · Score: 1

      Sorry to reply again, but I want to repeat my earler suggestion: re-arrange the virtual position of your screens. You can even put them edge-to-edge so that you get 6 normal, infinite edges and one edge on each screen which allows you to move the mouse between screens. A lot of people prefer that arrangement.

  135. The use of Image Galleries for describing OSs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Image Galleries are utterly useless for describing OSs.
    That's why there are always nice wallpapers, so you have at least something to look at.

  136. Choice is not good by LKM · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've just written about this: Don't make preferences until you absolutely have to. Furthermore, it wouldn't work: Many Mac applications have no windows. Why would, say, an unzip application need a Window? Unless you unzip an actual file, there's no need to show a window; so where would you put the menu bar? What about applications that have small windows, but wide menus?

    It just makes no sense.

    1. Re:Choice is not good by argent · · Score: 1

      Many Mac applications have no windows.

      They all have dock icons, and dock icons have menus.

      From your other post:

      It's your job to figure out the best solution, don't burden the user with it.

      It's not your job to shove a worse solution for me down my throat, just because you think it's the best one.

    2. Re:Choice is not good by LKM · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They all have dock icons, and dock icons have menus.

      If that is your solution, I can rest my case.

      It's not your job to shove a worse solution for me down my throat, just because you think it's the best one.

      Actually, this is exactly my job; I think it's even what my card says, minus the personal insults :-)

      You only find this surprising because you're not used to it because not a lot of people who are responsible for UI on Windows and Linux actually take care of their responsibility. It's always easier to go with preferences, or with what the majority likes best. This is a cop-out, and UI designers should be ashamed of themselves if they don't have the cojones to stand up for their applications and implement the best solution.

      Also, "the best solution" has got nothing to do with what I think. This is science; the best UI solution for any given issue can be found using proper application of theory (see Fitt's law), usability tests and UI iterations.

    3. Re:Choice is not good by argent · · Score: 1

      If that [dock menus] is your solution, I can rest my case.

      (Don't tell me... you've written one of those applications where the only options in the dock menus are Keep in Dock, Show at Login, Open in Finder, Hide, and Quit?)

      I'm not a UI design god so I don't have to come up with one overarching solution that solves everything for everyone. I'm allowed to actually suggest more than one possibility and I don't have to buckle on brass balls and stand up for it when people take a whack at my nuts.

      I'm not a big fan of Microsoft's oddball variant on menu bars either. I think menu bars were a mistake from the start. There's a menu button on the mouse, now, put it to work. You can have it open up the application menu if the foreground app doesn't have any windows. You can drag icons to the dock icon. You can even (and I realize this might be scary) allow all of these alternatives, at the same time, without even having to add an option checkbox!

      You only find this surprising because you're not used to it because not a lot of people who are responsible for UI on Windows and Linux actually take care of their responsibility.

      I don't use Linux at all, I only use Windows as a last resort, and I just gave away my first Mac, the original Mac, a couple of years ago. I won't take the assumption that I'm not used to good user interface design personally, but you're completely wrong about why I think Apple's decision was a daft one. I think it was a daft one because it was a daft one.

      UI designers should be ashamed of themselves if they don't have the cojones to stand up for their applications and implement the best solution.

      I can't think of how many applications I don't use because the designer had the brass balls stand up for their vision no matter how mistaken it was, but it's not because there aren't many of them that's for damn sure. Apple's vision has not been uniformly the best, and they've made some really awful mistakes... and even corrected some, albeit in some cases only after they almost destroyed the company with their hubris.

      UI designers should be ashamed of themselves if they don't have the cojones to look into themselves and admit that sometimes, just maybe, they're humans and not gods and it's even possible for them to be mistaken.

      see Fitt's law

      That dog don't hunt. Fitts Law doesn't fit what Apple's doing... they're not putting the menu bar in any of the five easiest places to get to, and the easiest place... they're not using at all.

      Fitts' Law says that the easiest place to get to is where the mouse already is. Xerox got it right, with a menu button on the mouse that popped up the menu right where the mouse was. Apple had this wacky scheme for a single button mouse and they couldn't do that... but on the 9" screen of the original Mac the menu bar worked pretty well. On the Xerox Star office system, with its full page display, they would have seen their mistake immediately... but Jobs' famous visit to Xerox had been years before and the Dorado and Dolphin machines Xerox developed the Star software on the screen was a lot smaller.

      Twenty years later they've finally given up on the single button mouse, in a kind of horrible passive-aggressive way, but we're still stuck with the damned menu bar.

    4. Re:Choice is not good by LKM · · Score: 1

      (Don't tell me... you've written one of those applications where the only options in the dock menus are Keep in Dock, Show at Login, Open in Finder, Hide, and Quit?)

      The dock menu is an additional way to access things you might want to access while not currently in the application, not the only way. It's not obvious enough, and using it as the only way to access something is on par to hiding features in a context menu (which a lot of Windows devs do because everyone has a second mouse button, see your last point).

      I think menu bars were a mistake from the start.

      Possibly, but they aren't going away, so debating it is somewhat pointless. Yeah, having menus appear where your mouse is might be a great idea, but we don't have it. We can either have the menu in windows (as in Windows) or on the top of the Screen. The second option is probably not the best possible option, but it's definitely a whole lot better than the first.

      UI designers should be ashamed of themselves if they don't have the cojones to look into themselves and admit that sometimes, just maybe, they're humans and not gods and it's even possible for them to be mistaken.

      Don't disagree. This just isn't one of these cases.

      Fitts Law doesn't fit what Apple's doing...

      But of course it does. First of all, the Apple menu is in the top left edge, even though it doesn't look that way. Try it. Second, the menu bar at the top of the screen has, unlike the one at the top of the window, infinite height. For a short bit of time, I had my laptop configured that going up with the mouse pointer moves it to the projector (it seems logical, the projector image is on top of the laptop screen). It's astonishing how hard to use the menu suddenly became, because I was so used to overshooting the target. The menu bar does adhere to Fitt's law, and people do make use of this feature.

      Twenty years later they've finally given up on the single button mouse, in a kind of horrible passive-aggressive way, but we're still stuck with the damned menu bar.

      This is another issue I'll have to disagree with you on.

    5. Re:Choice is not good by argent · · Score: 1

      The dock menu is an additional way to access things you might want to access while not currently in the application, not the only way.

      Hey! That's choice! How about that! That's just what I just suggested, an additional way, along with (say) a pop up menu for the foreground application.

      Possibly, but they aren't going away, so debating it is somewhat pointless.

      So why do it? Why defend them? You're right, they're not going away, we're stuck with them, but they were a bad choice. We'd be better off with pop up menus, so why not bring them back as an additional way to access things? I'm using ControllerMate+USB Overdrive+DejaMenu to get pop-up menus on the middle button on my mouse. It doesn't always work so well, and I have to go WAY out of my way to get that choice, but I'd I left it up to Steve "UI Designer" Jobs I wouldn't get it at all.

      This just isn't one of these cases.

      It sure is. I've proved it by bringing that choice back, for me. I had to use three additional applications, two of which I paid money for, to get this choice back. It took me a couple of years to find all these pieces. I have to reprogram ControllerMate every time I get a new Bluetooth mouse. It's a pain, it's a hassle, but the difference between using two displays with this frankenstein combo and Apple's bad UI design is incredible. I can't imagine how people put up with dual-head Macs without it.

      So, yes, this is exactly one of these cases.

    6. Re:Choice is not good by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      If choice is not good, then Linux must be fucking terrible. Oh, wait, I forgot, there's different rules when you're discussing Apple.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    7. Re:Choice is not good by Scooter's_dad · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Possibly, but they aren't going away, so debating it is somewhat pointless. Yeah, having menus appear where your mouse is might be a great idea, but we don't have it. We can either have the menu in windows (as in Windows) or on the top of the Screen. The second option is probably not the best possible option, but it's definitely a whole lot better than the first.

      Like hell it is. Speak for yourself. I like having every window be a logically self-contained unit.

      Another thing that drives me crazy about Macs is the inability to maximize a window. I *like* having the current window take up all the screen real estate even if it doesn't need it. It makes me feel like all my attention is focussed on the current app; otherwise I feel distracted. I remember how astonished I was when I was first told "you can't do that on a Mac."

      --
      The road to hell is paved with Cat 5 cable.
    8. Re:Choice is not good by LKM · · Score: 1

      If choice is not good, then Linux must be fucking terrible

      Unsurprisingly, it is, from an UI pov. Except Ubuntu, that is quite okay; not least because they got rid of most preferences.

    9. Re:Choice is not good by LKM · · Score: 1

      The dock menu is an additional way to access things you might want to access while not currently in the application, not the only way. Hey! That's choice! How about that! That's just what I just suggested, an additional way, along with (say) a pop up menu for the foreground application.

      No, it's not choice, it's a different mode. You will notice that few applications replicate their menu structure in the Dock menu; that's because you access it when you're in a different mode.

    10. Re:Choice is not good by anagama · · Score: 0

      The menu bar does adhere to Fitt's law, and people do make use of this feature.

      Fitt's law doesn't work for non-rectangular screen space because the pointer gets caught in extra corners. Secondly, it doesn't take into account that screen space changes, at least with laptop users who sometimes are and sometimes are not connected to an external monitor. The anlge of attack needed when with an external is different than when without. Essentially, you're trying to shoehorn a formula into a situation in which it isn't applicable.
      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    11. Re:Choice is not good by LKM · · Score: 1

      You may not like (or even accept) what I'm about to tell you, but your problem is that you're used to an inferior system. Windows as "logically self-contained units" are a dumb idea (and it lead to UI idiocies like windows containing other windows). Maximizing windows is also a dumb idea (and by the way, it's not true that you can't do it on a Mac; option-click on the "zoom to fit" button will maximize a window - however, there's rarely a reason to do so). Unless you use something like IntelliJ, there is really no reason to maximize windows. It's a waste of space, and it prevents you from seeing windows below your current window.

      If you use a Mac, get used to multitasking. Don't maximize windows; zoom them to fit their content, and then work with more than one window at the same time. If you don't want to, fine, maximize your windows if you have to (and as I said, you can), but don't pretend that Windows is superior.

    12. Re:Choice is not good by argent · · Score: 1

      No, it's not choice, it's a different mode.

      In the current environment, maybe. The thing is, you asked "what would I do instead of the menu bar", then got ironic[*] at me when I suggested the dock menu, so that's what I'm talking about:

      * All menus available under the mouse at all times.
      * Either all menus available from the dock menu when there are no windows open, or the global menu selection be based on the current focus rather than the object under the mouse.

      The global menu selection could be an additional element in the contextual menu, or a new button, or a mouse gesture, something that doesn't involve my dragging the pointer up to two feet across to the main screen and then a foot up to the menu bar.

      While I'm about it, some other things that I've been able to get using hacks (not all of which I currently use) or that used to be available:

      * Services in the contextual menu. Maybe instead of the Services menu, maybe make the contextual menu and the services menu equivalent. It's really daft to have two completely different ways to get context-sensitive operations.
      * Recent folders - in the Apple menu.
      * An expanding directory tree in the Apple menu or the dock. I don't think Stacks quite do this, they only seem to be one level deep. This could also handle the recent folders bit with a smart folder.
      * Eliminate the backdrop for the dock completely.
      * A shelf at the edge of the screen, or make the dock work like the shelf, and make it work on multiple sides. Stacks might make up for this.
      * Move the disk icons off the desktop into the dock, maybe next to the trash can. Maybe I can make /Volumes a stack.

      And a single global input manager preference pane that lets me link up input events (right click, control click, command-F9, control-alt-pause, corner click) with global actions and actions exported by applications (contextual menu, global menu, expose, start screen-saver, switch screen). With some standard "reset to default for this session" combo (command-option-help, say) that you can't override, so you can't actually get stuck.

      This would require some application changes to take full advantage of it, but it would beat the whole business of apps having to make their own "set my hotkeys" preference panes hollow.

      [*] Might have been sarcastic, or even sardonic, that stuff doesn't come through well in text. :)

    13. Re:Choice is not good by Scooter's_dad · · Score: 1

      You may not like (or even accept) what I'm about to tell you, but your problem is that you're used to an inferior system.

      It's hardly a problem, since the system I have does what I want.

      Windows as "logically self-contained units" are a dumb idea (and it lead to UI idiocies like windows containing other windows). Maximizing windows is also a dumb idea (and by the way, it's not true that you can't do it on a Mac; option-click on the "zoom to fit" button will maximize a window

      Thanks for the tip. Hmm, I just tried it and it didn't work. Admittedly, the only Mac here right now is an older system (10.1.5), so maybe that's the problem.

      - however, there's rarely a reason to do so).

      How about because I like to work that way?

      Unless you use something like IntelliJ, there is really no reason to maximize windows. It's a waste of space, and it prevents you from seeing windows below your current window.

      But sometimes that is precisely why I want to do it! There are times I like to have the entire screen devoted to the window in which I'm currently working. I often find it much less distracting/more enjoyable to work what way. What's wrong with that?

      If you use a Mac, get used to multitasking.

      I already am used to it. I just prefer to alt-tab between maximized windows.

      Don't maximize windows; zoom them to fit their content, and then work with more than one window at the same time. If you don't want to, fine, maximize your windows if you have to (and as I said, you can), but don't pretend that Windows is superior.

      Now where did I ever say that? So far I've just stated my preferences. I wouldn't claim Windows is superior to Macintosh -- or vice versa for that matter. That kind of argument is best left to the fanboys. Indeed, even though I pretty much exclusively use Windows for historical reasons, I'd certainly consider getting a Mac. And I have no doubt it's a better OS when it comes to security, multimedia support, etc. (though as I'm a reasonably intelligent Windows user I have no particular problems with it.) But I refuse to stop working the way I like to because it doesn't fit somebody's notion of the best UI paradigm. At the end of the day, this experimental animal does as he damned well pleases. After all, what ever happened to "Think Different"?

      --
      The road to hell is paved with Cat 5 cable.
    14. Re:Choice is not good by Almahtar · · Score: 1

      It seems that by the "best solution" you mean the "best solution for the majority of people." That doesn't work for specialists. Now I'm not saying you should pander to every fringe case out there, but I must say there is something advantageous about systems like KDE. It may have more options than you or your boss appreciate, but those specializing in software engineering, security, you-name-the-specialty very much appreciate the checkbox for "show hidden files" that is nowhere to be found in Finder. Because of their flexibility, I would take Gnome or KDE over OSX's interface any day.

    15. Re:Choice is not good by LKM · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the tip. Hmm, I just tried it and it didn't work.

      Some applications don't support this modifier, but generally, it should work.

      How about because I like to work that way?

      Then use the system that provides what you want, but don't complain about a system that works differently if the other system is objectively better. I can't speak for Apple, obviously (I don't work there), but to me, it doesn't matter how you like (emphasis on both "you" and on "like" :-) to work. As an UI designer, I don't design for you, and I don't design for what people like. I design so the majority of users have the most efficient user interface. This doesn't even mean that it's necessarily the one they prefer, it just means that they are most efficient using it - quite often, these two are at adds. What people think they do hardly ever corresponds with what they actually do (a perfect example are keyboard shortcuts. Users feel more efficient using keyboard shortcuts, but turns out, in actual tests, those using the mouse to select menus are, on average, faster).


      There's a case to be made for having apps which take over the whole screen in specific cases; I often do that when I work in IntelliJ (with the compiled app running on the second screen), because IntelliJ's UI kind of falls apart if you don't give it a full screen. Which, as I said, you can do on a Mac, it's just not the default mode for most apps (although it is for IntelliJ).

      I wouldn't claim Windows is superior to Macintosh

      Yes, I apologize. I didn't mean to say that you claimed Windows was superior; I meant to say the Windows windowing mode.

    16. Re:Choice is not good by LKM · · Score: 1

      No, it's not choice, it's a different mode.
      In the current environment, maybe. The thing is, you asked "what would I do instead of the menu bar", then got ironic[*] at me when I suggested the dock menu, so that's what I'm talking about:

      Admittedly, I wasn't trying to be ironic or sarcastic, and certainly not sardonic. I was just trying to point out that the Dock menu is a bad place to put stuff, because it's non-obvious. Most people probably never use Dock menus. English is only about the fourth language I've learned, so I hope you'll pardon my lack of control of some of its nuances :-)

      * All menus available under the mouse at all times.

      This may be a good idea (especially in multi-screen environments), although I would have to see data from usability tests. On the one hand, it cuts down space, since the menu item is closer to the mouse; on the other hand, it introduces a new choice before accessing a menu: Use the local menu, or the one on top of the screen? Whether the advantage outweights the disadvantage would have to be shown in a test.

      * Either all menus available from the dock menu when there are no windows open, or the global menu selection be based on the current focus rather than the object under the mouse.

      I suspect both of these ideas are bad ideas (the first leads to big Dock menus, and as I said, I doubt people even use these; the second makes the menu that appears dependent on a non-obvious mode - especially non-obvious if you don't have menus that show you which app you're in).

      The global menu selection could be an additional element in the contextual menu, or a new button, or a mouse gesture, something that doesn't involve my dragging the pointer up to two feet across to the main screen and then a foot up to the menu bar.

      Gestures for non-natural things don't work for the vast majority of people, and the context menu is only a shortcut to begin with; it should never be the main way to access things.

      While I'm about it, some other things that I've been able to get using hacks (not all of which I currently use) or that used to be available:

      * Services in the contextual menu. Maybe instead of the Services menu, maybe make the contextual menu and the services menu equivalent. It's really daft to have two completely different ways to get context-sensitive operations.

      I agree. The Services menu is incredibly dumb, and it's no surprise that hardly anyone makes use of it, despite of the great features it provides.

      * Recent folders - in the Apple menu.

      Might be a good idea.

      * An expanding directory tree in the Apple menu or the dock. I don't think Stacks quite do this, they only seem to be one level deep. This could also handle the recent folders bit with a smart folder.

      I think the Leopard stacks are somewhat stupid, anyway.

      * Eliminate the backdrop for the dock completely.

      Probably a good idea, too.

      * A shelf at the edge of the screen, or make the dock work like the shelf, and make it work on multiple sides. Stacks might make up for this.

      You mean like the NeXT shelf where you temporarily put pointers to files? I think Mac OS X has already too many differently behaving icons (no, don't worry, removing something from the Dock doesn't delete it. No, you can't drag stuff away from the Dock, it'll disappear).

      * Move the disk icons off the desktop into the dock, maybe next to the trash can. Maybe I can make /Volumes a stack.

      Yeah, having the disk icons in the Dock might be a great idea; although the Dock is rather overloaded as it is.

      And a single global input manager preference pane that lets me l

    17. Re:Choice is not good by argent · · Score: 1

      I was just trying to point out that the Dock menu is a bad place to put stuff, because it's non-obvious.

      That's another issue, of course... the dock menu should be easier to hit, and the whole passive-aggressive right-mouse-button deal needs to be resolved. Right now you can control-click, click-and-hold, and right-click ... and all are supposed to get you a contextual menu, except that Apple provides absolutely no support at the application level for making that happen: if you're extending a widget or writing your own you have to explicitly test for all three cases.

      That should be handled at the OS level, by the input manager. The application should only ever see the separate events if it explicitly looks at raw events instead of symbolic ones.

      In the meantime it means that the dock menu comes up if you wait too long before moving the mouse when reorganizing objects in the dock.

      But back to the point here. First, Apple's already making the dock menu more prominent in Leopard. Second, there are other options... that was just one possibility. Third, you can always make the foreground application in the dock prominent. Fourth, if pop-up menus are the normal way of doing things then using pop-up menus in the Dock would be natural and consistent.

      I've used window systems that work this way, including both of Xerox's window systems (the one that was used by Smalltalk and in a slightly different way in Interlisp-D, and the Xerox Star). Smalltalk's had a different menu or behavior for just about every combination of mouse clicks, which was a bad idea and one that probably led to Apple's ovveraction to mouse buttons in the first place, but on the Star Office System it was completely consistent and worked very very well.

      on the other hand, it introduces a new choice before accessing a menu

      Perhaps. It could also be an exclusive choice... you select in preferences whether the menu bar or the global popup menu is available.

      Jobs already came up with another approach in NeXTstep, which was a "pop-up menu" style menu attached to the active window's title bar, that went away when you selected another window. The only problem was that you couldn't get rid of it. Making it a contextual click on the title bar might be a possibility.

      the first leads to big Dock menus

      An average of five or six extra top level menu items is not a big deal... but there wouldn't even be that many. Most of the menu items in any application only make sense when a window is up, and so you would usually only have the main menu for the application (which is already partially there) plus (depending on the application) File and Window. The few applications that need more already tend to have more than that in their Dock menu.

      the second makes the menu that appears dependent on a non-obvious mode

      Indeed. That's why I suggested that the Dock icon could be used. However, the behavior of the contextual menu in OS X is already non-obvious... depending on which combination you use to activate it it may or may not work for a non-focussed window.

      A common scheme is that every application has at least one component (a window or an icon) on the screen at all times, and that component is the target for that applications default contextual menu. On OSX that would be the Dock icon.

      the context menu is only a shortcut to begin with; it should never be the main way to access things.

      As originally designed, it was the ONLY way to access things, and it still is in all user interfaces based on the original Xerox model rather than Apple's variant. And it works well.

      The Services menu is incredibly dumb

      It made a lot more sense when the menu was right there next to the window you were working on, rather than up at the top of the screen out of the way. The fact that it becomes "dumb" when menus are a long way from the mouse is really an indication of why the menu bar was only a reasonable design when the scre

    18. Re:Choice is not good by LKM · · Score: 1

      Right now you can control-click, click-and-hold, and right-click ... and all are supposed to get you a contextual menu, except that Apple provides absolutely no support at the application level for making that happen: if you're extending a widget or writing your own you have to explicitly test for all three cases. Yes, that is very bad and should be fixed asap.

      That should be handled at the OS level, by the input manager. The application should only ever see the separate events if it explicitly looks at raw events instead of symbolic ones. Agreed 100%.

      In the meantime it means that the dock menu comes up if you wait too long before moving the mouse when reorganizing objects in the dock. Which is incredibly annoying, true.

      But back to the point here. First, Apple's already making the dock menu more prominent in Leopard. Yes, but that doesn't make the fact that you can open application-specific menus from the Dock more obvious. It's a power user feature, not something the user should be expected to know about.

      Fourth, if pop-up menus are the normal way of doing things then using pop-up menus in the Dock would be natural and consistent. Well, context menus are a normal way of doing things, but that didn't make them natural and consistent (which is why I think the "gear" menu in the finder, which opens the context menu for selected items, is a neat trick). There's no UI item indicating that the Dock icons have menus; there's no obvious way of opening the menus.

      I've used window systems that work this way, including both of Xerox's window systems (the one that was used by Smalltalk and in a slightly different way in Interlisp-D, and the Xerox Star). Smalltalk's had a different menu or behavior for just about every combination of mouse clicks, which was a bad idea and one that probably led to Apple's ovveraction to mouse buttons in the first place, but on the Star Office System it was completely consistent and worked very very well. For you, but you're obviously different from 99% of everyone else by the mere fact that you've even used these systems :-)

      An average of five or six extra top level menu items is not a big deal... But you'll get sub menus in Dock menus; sub menus are a bad idea to begin with, and the Dock menu would add yet another layer of menus to the hierarchy...

      the second makes the menu that appears dependent on a non-obvious mode Indeed. That's why I suggested that the Dock icon could be used. However, the behavior of the contextual menu in OS X is already non-obvious... depending on which combination you use to activate it it may or may not work for a non-focussed window. Yes, context menus are somewhat broken to begin with (especially in OS X), so they shouldn't be used as examples on which to base new features :-)

      the context menu is only a shortcut to begin with; it should never be the main way to access things. As originally designed, it was the ONLY way to access things, and it still is in all user interfaces based on the original Xerox model rather than Apple's variant. And it works well. Again, it may work well for you, but you're a Xerox-using /. posting super user :-)

      It made a lot more sense when the menu was right there next to the window you were working on, rather than up at the top of the screen out of the way. True, but it was still dumb, because it's an unordered collection of commands.
  137. Re:Computerworld Developers by vertigoCiel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is one thing that many of my PC-using friends complain about with respect to OS X: it's too hard to tweak/hack. Apple tends to make it very hard for a person without at least cursory knowledge of the internals of OS X and Unix, as well as familiarity with a CLI, to modify the OS. While I'm sure most of my friends would be able to figure out OS X's guts pretty quickly, the fact that they don't see the options for deeper tweaking right in, say, System Preferences, leads them to conclude that it's not possible.

    Personally, I think that this is a good thing - it creates sort of a minimum competency barrier for tooling around with the OS. If you're knowledgeable enough to know how to change things, you're probably knowledgeable enough to know how to fix it if something goes wrong. Meanwhile, the average user never has to see any of these things if they don't want to, and are much less likely to accidently screw something up by mucking about in preference panes.

  138. External drive... by argent · · Score: 2, Informative

    When I think of "backups", I tend to think "this will help me recover my files if my computer dies, is stolen, or is unexpectedly repossessed by nature".

    That's why Apple goes on about making the backup to an external drive. Using the same drive is foolishness.

    The Time Machine feature is more of an archive than a backup.

    A real backup system needs to provide both mirroring and archiving facilities. Most "backup" software I've seen only does mirroring. Time Machine adds archiving to that.

  139. Programmer Changes by LKM · · Score: 1

    A lot of stuff changed behind the scenes. I predict you'll see dozens of Leopard-only apps appear within less than a month.

  140. Re:Computerworld Developers by oberondarksoul · · Score: 1

    According to the friendly article, when you put the Dock on the left- or right-hand side, it uses a revised 2D appearance instead:

    For those who like their Dock positioned on the right or left side of the screen, Apple has offered up a late surprise in the final release of Leopard. Now, when the Dock is positioned vertically, it no longer looks like a glass shelf turned on its side; instead, it looks like an updated version of the two-dimensional Tiger Dock, sporting a translucent, dark background instead if the old Scotch tape ribbon. It's clean, elegant and modern. Good move, Apple!

    Which is nice.

    --
    And tomorrow the stock exchange will be the human race
  141. Re:Geez... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > It seems that the lefties don't seem to have any problems left clicking with their middle finger.

    Probably because you've never seen one actually do that. One of the biggest problems at the college I worked at were the left-handed users. Every single one of them would switch the mouse buttons just after login. Then the normal people would often ask how to fix the backwards buttons. The IT helpdesk spent a tremendous amount of time working around the problems the left- handed people created. I think most of them did it just because they really enjoyed creating problems.

  142. Re:Geez... by glebd · · Score: 1

    It's worth pointing that the Windows HCI guidelines, also, require that all functionality be accessible without using a context menu.

    It's also worth pointing out that many Windows developers, including Microsoft themselves, do not abide by the mentioned guidelines. Just look at the new Office. And it is only going to get worse, now that their WPF requires developers to be graphic designers as well, or at least have some taste, which most of them (including, again, Microsoft) don't.

  143. Re:Quiz by trifish · · Score: 1

    I now see that this whole article was tagged as "Fanboy". Well I guess #2 is correct then.

  144. Re:I have to know the answer to this... by Terrasque · · Score: 1

    Because it's so bad, we have to pay people to work on it ;)

    --
    It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
  145. I think conventional wisdom is wrong... by argent · · Score: 1

    Those are the "conventional wisdom" answers, and I think they're wrong.

    * It's not that Apple throws you overboard after five years... in fact Apple has really only had ONE incident where they broke compatibility unilaterally... and that was the shift from Classic to OS X, and they did that because they had to... Classic had dragged their last two attempts to transition to a real operating system (Copland and A/UX) down to hell. Dropping Classic now is just the last echo of that transition. AND they gave people 10 years to get the hell out of Classic: Jobs announced that Classic was going away in 1997, and they released Carbon before OS 9.

    * Microsoft doesn't write the majority of the device drivers, they just qualify them and bundle the drivers they collect from vendors. The overhead of maintaining device drivers is a tiny part of what's holding Microsoft back.

    It's really corporate culture. Reading descriptions of Microsoft's development model and talking to people I know at Microsoft just make me shudder. They haven't figured out that they're not a one product startup any more and they're still trying to work like one.

  146. Re:Computerworld Developers by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

    Is this sarcasm that went over everyone's head? It's always the first complaint about Linux systems. "I don't want to use a command line!" (I'm a long-time user and prefer the command line for many things,though) There will be a simple Applescript utility shipped for it or that feature will be added to already working applications like Onyx (Freeware) or commercially supported Cocktail.

    The people who wants a complete nerd, unusable by general public OS X will mock those utilities and their users as usual of course.

    I think if Apple gets enough bad feedback about "new" Dock, they will add a better accessible (e.g. right click menu or prefpane) Dock pref for it in a next build.

    The power of OS X comes from being usable as pure GUI or a pure Terminal or mix of both without losing anything. That is how Apple manages to sell Mach/FreeBSD/NeXT hybrid to general public.
  147. Middle-click-paste by Killer+Eye · · Score: 1

    If you want middle-click-paste behavior on a Mac, it is pretty easy with most 3rd party mice I've seen.

    For example, using the Logitech control panel, I can map the middle button to any keystroke...such as,
    command-V (which every application uses for Paste). Boom - middle-click-paste.

    --
    "Microsoft killed my company, I hold a personal grudge. I don't use Microsoft products and neither should you."-JWZ
  148. And a hypercube! And lasers! by argent · · Score: 1

    All I want is spinning hypercubes with fricken lasers on their heads!

    You can have your spinny cube in OS X, and there's been a couple of "3d desktops"... the problem isn't getting real 3d, the problem is that people think 3d means you can walk around in your desktop and tilt windows to their sides like Sun was doing a few years ago and Microsoft is trying to WOW you with now.

    The third dimension needs to be attention. Don't give me "spaces", just let applications I haven't used in a while fade into the background and drift off to the side and eventually turn into dock-like icons when they hit the edge of the screen, and let me manipulate them in 3d using the scroll wheel to drag them forward or shove them into the literal background.

    That would really rock, even if people kept complaining it was still only 2.5d.

  149. Fitt's law misunderstood... by argent · · Score: 1

    It won't reduce mouse travel time, because it will increase inaccuracy.

    Bullshit.

    I know they talk up the mile high menu bar at Apple all the damn time, but it's just wrong. Do you miss hitting other targets on the screen just because they're not at the top of the page? I don't, even suffering from RSI.

    The thing that Apple seems to have missed is that there's FIVE locations that are easy to hit. The four corners, and where the mouse already is. Xerox put the menu right under the mouse, using a separate menu button on the mouse. Apple had this idea that extra buttons on the mouse were inherently bad (and have this nasty passive-aggressive resistance to correcting that mistake) so pop-up menus were out. So they came up with the menu bar instead.

    Get rid of it and put the global menu in the contextual menu... maybe on the left of the mouse pointer instead of the right, since it's too late to change now.

    One quick flick of the wrist with cursor acceleration properly configured will get you where you need to be

    Cursor acceleration is another patch over the original problem. No wonder you can't hit small targets if you're using aggressive acceleration. You're slowing down all cursor operations by making it so easy to overshoot.

  150. Feature goes where? o_O by argent · · Score: 1

    If you want middle-click-paste behavior on a Mac, it is pretty easy with most 3rd party mice I've seen.

    I just love those "if you want [insert feature here] it's pretty easy if you use [product that I use]" posts. Not.

    There are about two companies still making third-party mice for the Mac, and neither of them make mice that are less than painful for me to use. ALL the good mice are for Windows, and don't have Mac drivers.

    To get the middle button behavior that I want I have to use three separate hacks to glue together the programs I need. Apple BADLY needs a general input manager preference pane that binds input events to application commands in ONE place that EVERY application can hook into without stepping on each others toes as they do in the current "clever" scheme.

  151. Re:Geez... by drsmithy · · Score: 1

    It's also worth pointing out that many Windows developers, including Microsoft themselves, do not abide by the mentioned guidelines.

    Many Apple programmers, also, have not abided by their UI guidelines (or just made new ones up on the spot after coming up with something that looks cool). In some fairly high-profile applications, as well (like, say, a sizable chunk of OS X itself).

    This does not negate the existence of said guidelines.

    Just look at the new Office.

    What of it ? The new UI is excellent.

  152. Australian's got theirs early... by GrahamCox · · Score: 2, Informative

    Leopard was launched here at 6pm in stores too - so nyah-ya!

    One thing I am noticing having installed it is that a) Spotlight reindexes all your stuff and b) if you enable Time Machine it also does a heavy-duty initial copy. These two processes happening simultaneously hit the disk pretty hard and doubtless cause it to zap all over the place. The upshot is a lot of disk thrashing and rather stuttery performance on things like the dock animation for the first two or three hours. YMMV (MacBook 13" 2GHz here). I expect it to settle down after this - but still in that initial period as I write this.

    Also, the initial run of the Set-up Assistant failed to recognise my existing wireless network, and got thoroughly confused when I tried to enter the information manually as it requested. In the end I simply quit it to find that by default Leopard had turned off Airport. Turning it on again found my network and connected without any problems, so if you run into this, just tell Setup Assistant to get lost and enable it yourself.

  153. yeah, but it's not bootable :-( by AttilaSz · · Score: 1

    The only problem with this is that you get a non-bootable backup. Actually, you need to restore all of your system from backup to a new drive (booting from the CD) in order to get back to work in case your primary drive got borked.

    Tough if you don't have time for a full HD copy (but arguably still better than losing all your data).
    I kinda hoped that this'll be configurable though...

    --
    Sig erased via substitution of an identical one.
    1. Re:yeah, but it's not bootable :-( by Winckle · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah i know where you are coming from with the non bootable thing, but you don't have to install leopard then restore time machine. As part of the installation leopard will ask you if you have a time machine folder with data you want to restore.

  154. Re:Geez... by drsmithy · · Score: 1

    It's also worth pointing out that Microsoft itself often violates this guideline (in at least one case in a Mac version of one of their apps, incredibly).

    For example ?

  155. Re:Time Machine (mod up!) by Agilus · · Score: 1

    Good response! I'd mod you up, but I don't have points at the current time.

    --
    hackshop.com - My tech hobby project hub
  156. Re:Computerworld Developers by MK_CSGuy · · Score: 1

    This is a feature that should be high on anyone's list: the ability to direct someone else to change system settings without having to give them a long GUI script along the lines of "Open this, click here, click there, this should say X, type Y". I just love being able to package up these types of changes into a command-line like that.

    Be careful, or whomever you're helping will complain that on "those damn non windows machines you have to type long commands to get anything done". As we all know this is the popular belief today about Linux... I don't think Apple would like the same for Macs.

    It's very good for automation though.

  157. Re:Computerworld Developers by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

    Did you know that mothers-in-law sometimes reasonably assume that the proper way to turn off a computer is to hold the power button for 5 seconds?

    Did you know that e3fs can get corrupted?

    Did you know that using the phone to walk your mother-in-law through logging into a Ubuntu system (that replaced her WebTV) in single-user mode and fscking the drives can induce seizures in both parties?

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  158. Re:Geez... by LKM · · Score: 1

    Can't quite remember what it was; something with table formatting in Microsoft Word. Haven't used Word since then.

  159. Re:Computerworld Developers by CheShACat · · Score: 1

    Is such a command present in Windows You could use regedit.exe to insert / update / delete regisrty keys from the command line if you wanted to or Unix GUI apps under "real" *nix environments (e.g. Linux) are nearly always front ends for CLI programs anyway. All changes can made via command line, and if you look in any forums 99.9999% of advice is given out as CLI procedures because they are much more universal than an individuals desktop GUI which can vary widely.

  160. Re:Computerworld Developers by godawful · · Score: 2, Informative

    Don't even have to go that far anymore..
    Launch iChat, Share screen..

    voila

    --
    Live EVERY week... Like it's Shark Week
  161. Re:Quiz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mac Fag...

  162. The "godawful" Mighty Mouse. by argent · · Score: 1

    Care to ellaborate on the "ghastly" mighty mouse?

    The "right button" does not allow chording, and it doesn't register as a right click at all for many people (including you and me, and a number of reviewers). The buttons on the side prevent you from lifting the mouse while holding the button depressed (an operation that was iffy but at least not impossible in the previous model). The way it forces you to hold the mouse is extremely bad for people suffering from some kinds of RSI, and the usual workarounds do not work because of the shape of the mouse and the way the right "button" operates.

    I also am not impressed by the scroll ball. It's too hard to middle-click without nudging it, or scroll without clicking it, but that might just be me. Besides, I count 4 strikes against it without including that one... it's already far out it couldn't find the plate with radar.

    1. Re:The "godawful" Mighty Mouse. by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Well, it works well for some people, but not all. It is hardly ghastly. Ghastly would be the Microsoft wireless mouse that I have that couldn't track within 1cm of my intended target and has all kinds of ridiculous accelerations. Dammit, when I point a mouse somewhere, I know exactly how far I have to move my wrist and I don't need Redmond helping me out by overcompensating (and causing me to miss my mark). The middle mouse button/scroller, doesn't register when clicked. Not to mention the receiver that is a big as a mouse in its own right. That is ghastly. At least with a Mighty Mouse, the pointer is going where I intend it to, and the software functions actually work when you program the buttons (weird right mouse button aside).

    2. Re:The "godawful" Mighty Mouse. by argent · · Score: 1

      Well, it works well for some people, but not all. It is hardly ghastly.

      If you had my wrist you'd use terms like that.

      Trust me.

      ridiculous accelerations

      That's another hot button. I can't handle mouse acceleration at all. Some people love it though.

  163. Apple has a sense of humor.. by inotocracy · · Score: 2, Funny
  164. threading in finder by PenguinX · · Score: 1

    I'm curious, did Apple improve how they do threading in the finder? Finder may hang when mounting network volumes, or working with slow media, which is really quite annoying.

    1. Re:threading in finder by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      ...did Apple improve how they do threading in the finder?

      I don't have the beta, but supposedly they have reworked network processes to be threaded and I've heard reports that the situation is much improved.

  165. Re:Computerworld Developers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the point was that, in fact, pretty much all of the stuff can be done if so desired on a linux box. Not easy, not elegant, not intuitive...

    http://www.linux-backup.net/Full_Inc/ talks about using .tar files for incremental backups. Is it Time Machine? No. Does it do incremental backups? Yes. Is it "fun"? ... (seriously, if you find backups fun you should be using a mac, you sick, twisted bastard.)

    Back to your Mac can be accomplished in several ways as far as I can tell. First, according to apple.com it's for the .Mac users only, so you could use something like dyndns or you could have a private https page that gets pinged from a cron job... and then use FTP, NFS, whatever.

    As for Core Graphics, what is that? http://www.flickr.com/photos/isriya/430290826/

    This diagram found on Flickr shows that it's basically just a GUI/graphics backend? All of that (compiz, ffmpeg, etc) exists for linux in various strengths and integrations. Is the ``Core'' stuffs gonna be better integrated? Yep.

    So to reiterate about what Apple's OSX seems to hinge on is pure integration issues. And that's always been their selling point. You stick your finger in an Apple(tm) electrical socket and you will be happier than a ECT patient on a Thorazine drip. It's for people with the money and wont to say 'get out of my way computer.'

    Most desktop linux users seem to appreciate some amount of their computers getting in their way. They like to solve problems and to learn how things work. I think that's the main difference. That and the money.

    Please let me know if I'm wrong. My first computer was a mac back when it was OS 4.1 and I was a very young kid. My mom didn't like some game it had saying "geez, you suck" to a little kid. Since then my only other real encounter with a mac was a few years ago when I was doing temp work at a local bi-weekly paper. The mac they had me using acted a lot more like windows than a mac but it, alas, was also pre-OSX.

    Everything I've heard about OSX has been pretty good. Now if Apple could learn to embrace hobbyists that want to hack their [iphones ipods imacs ilives] I might finally find it in my heart to shell out for one of their computers again.

  166. Re:Computerworld Developers by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

    I don't get it, I have all of those features on my Linux box with couple of tweaks. And guess what, its open source and it costs nothing. wtf is everyone so excited about mac?

    The last time I got a new (Apple) laptop, plugged a firewire cable into my old one and selected the upgrade from old mac button. Then, I went and got some coffee. It migrated everything over flawlessly including user accounts, files, preferences, applications, bookmarks, and stored passwords. There was zero work on my part and I didn't even have to have a network connection.

    Do you know how I "tweaked" my Linux install to do the same thing? I stored it in a VM on my Mac.

  167. Interesting by meehawl · · Score: 1

    I know for a fact Vista can

    Okay, that's pretty cool, and the first time I've heard anything about Vista that's really impressed me. If Leopard does it as well then I guess regular backups have advanced significantly.

    --

    Da Blog
  168. goScreen! by antdude · · Score: 1

    goScreen is awesome. It's not pretty, but it works. Light resources too. I even ran it in Windows 9x years ago! It's not free, but cheap and free upgrades.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  169. No Advanced Mode! by LKM · · Score: 1

    Advanced modes are a bad idea, because "Advanced" doesn't tell you anything about what's hidden behind it. If you're looking for something, you'll always have to check out the advanced mode; you don't know if what you're looking for is hidden there. Group things in a way that the user can see what each group contains; don't group things by arbitrary rules, such as "beginners probably will not want to see this."

    I fundamentally disagree with using poor usability as a way to discourage users from doing what they want.

    Hopefully I did not give the impression that this is what I was suggesting :-)

    I'm not suggesting that we should discourage users from what they want. I'm suggesting that we should not show them that the option is available at all. Most users don't actually know what they want, or what's best for them (see the discussion about the menu inside windows, which users seem to want, even though actual usability tests consistently show they're slower). It's the UI designers job to figure out the best solution, and provide it to the user. That is not poor usability, it's good usability.

  170. Re:Computerworld Developers by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

    Is this sarcasm that went over everyone's head? It's always the first complaint about Linux systems. "I don't want to use a command line!" (I'm a long-time user and prefer the command line for many things,though) Ohh? Which settings on Linux do you change via a single (okay, two in this case) CLI commands instead of inside some config file and then some commands for good measure - with the instructions looking eerily like the directions he gave for the GUI case? Now isn'tthat ironic?
    --

    Lars T.

    To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  171. it's great for context switching by curri · · Score: 1

    Virtual desktops are also great for two other things:

    1. Context switches !. I'm a prof. A student comes to ask me a question, I switch to an empty virtual desktop, open whatever programs we need, explain, solve etc; when I'm done, easily go back to whatever I was doing !

    2. Doing several things at once. When I was doing my thesis research, I had one desktop for running the experiments, another one for Latex (writing the thesis), and another one for email, browsing etc. Can move to either one, work for an hour on something, switch to another one.

    I think the main issue is that in Unix, we tend to use many different programs rather than an integrated suite, and the virtual desktops allow you to almost convert any set of programs into a suite :)

  172. Uh, not really by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 1

    More power? Dude. Like, get a grip.

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
  173. Re: Because this time it is by noigmn · · Score: 1

    What are your options for operating systems these days. I love Ubuntu, WinXP isn't bad, vista kills a good machine, OSX 10.4 runs too slow on an intel machine. Then you have this. Fast, efficient, clean looking, best loading times I have seen on programs (which may be something to do with full 64-bit and proper scheduling for multicore even when programs arent written for it). Bag apple all you like, I enjoy doing it too, but leopard is the one bit of common sense in the computer industry these days, hopefully KDE 4 follows suit and the under the hood and usability takes preference over excessive eye candy and effects.

    --
    Slashdot is powered by your submission.
  174. Re:Computerworld Developers by shellbeach · · Score: 1

    This is a feature that should be high on anyone's list: the ability to direct someone else to change system settings without having to give them a long GUI script along the lines of "Open this, click here, click there, this should say X, type Y". I just love being able to package up these types of changes into a command-line like that. Whoa! So now Mac users are advocating the command-line as an 'ease-of-use' feature?? Now I've seen it all! :)
  175. Re:Computerworld Developers by shellbeach · · Score: 1

    The power of OS X comes from being usable as pure GUI or a pure Terminal or mix of both without losing anything. That is how Apple manages to sell Mach/FreeBSD/NeXT hybrid to general public. That's fine, but do you realise that the very same comment applies to linux, don't you? I don't think anyone's arguing with the virtues of MacOSX - we're just amused that after twenty-something years of dissing the command-line, now it's suddenly the latest and greatest thing about the Mac. :)

  176. Yes I agree with you... by Slur · · Score: 1

    Mac OS X 10.0 doesn't count. 10.1 is the first version I will acknowledge too.

    --
    -- thinkyhead software and media
  177. The Majority, and Hidden Files by LKM · · Score: 1

    It seems that by the "best solution" you mean the "best solution for the majority of people."

    Yes. What we do (and I guess Apple does, too), is run usability tests on iterations of interfaces. Most of the time, these show that one of the options is vastly superior to all other options. That doesn't mean that the test subjects like this option best, or that all users work best with this option, it just means that, all tests considered, one option turned out to work best in a huge majority of all cases.


    We then make this option standard and discard all other options.


    Yes, KDE has its advantages. If you want a system where you can configure everything, use KDE. You'll be much happier with it than with Mac OS X (although most likely, you'll also be much less efficient without even noticing it).


    As for the hidden files things, this is broken in Mac OS X. Mac OS X does something incredibly stupid: It mixes two different "hidden files" system, the one from Unix and the one from pre-X Mac systems. The Unix system is something the user controls. Put a dot in front of your file names, and the files disappear. They are still files the user is expected to be able to control; you don't want to hide .htaccess forever, for example. Hidden files from the Mac side are different. These are files where the system stores its own meta data. You never want the user to see a .DS_Store file.


    Incredibly, Apple decided to hide all .files, regardless of where they come from and what they contain. What they should have done instead is show .files, and only hide all files with invisibility bits. Then, set those bits for the files the user should not see. That way, stuff the user should not see (like .DS_Store files) would be hidden, while stuff the user should see (like .htaccess files) would be visible.

    1. Re:The Majority, and Hidden Files by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lordy, that is as dumb commentary as I've seen in a while. The majority of cases, if they fall under a standard distribution, will leave a third of cases outside one SD.

      Let's take the menu bar at the top of the screen. Works great if you have one small screen, or are maximizing your window on one virtual desktop. But in the precisely multi-tasking situation you're talking about 1900+ on a twenty inch screen, if your windows are scattered on the vertical you have a huge mouse travel to the menu bar. Don't you actually think about your own usability guidelines? So here you have a case that laptop users on 13" screens get lumped with multiple large screen users and neither gets reasonable usability - for the laptop user, easy maximization (rather than dragging around the tiny corner handle) would be a huge gain, while the multiple screen user has to spend half the day trying to get back to her menu bar. Yeah, how about that Fitts' law - it's nice trying to use a tiny menu bar a continent away.

      Or what about the one/two/three button mice? A three button mouse is clearly superior in minimizing mouse travel for anyone doing technical work of any kind where contextual windows are easily available without jumping back-and-forth between keyboard and mouse. On the other hand, for 80 year old grandma's and five year old children, a single-button mouse is the only usable one (one that doesn't require double-clicking!).

      But the worst case is Apple's "majority of cases" - a two-button mouse where the buttons are hidden without any feedback. Now, the five year old can't even be told "Don't press this button" while the expert loses the tactile feedback on the one/two differentiation. All in the name of removing complexity. You can't remove inherent complexity, all you can do is make the path to learning that complexity as simple as possible.

      The norm is almost never optimal for anybody. It's like finding the optimal "shoe size" for everybody!

      If this is the sort of "thinking" that goes on at Apple, I can see why their UI designs are so crappy - caught in justifying work done a generation ago as something almost holy. Like the great mistake of AppleScript which they still won't abandon even though it is without a doubt the worst programming language bar none - even beating VB for un-usability and obfuscation. Fortunately for Apple, the other guys are even more incompetent and research on UI has come to a total stand-still as a "solved" problem, so open-source is primarily a copy of the two big guys bad ideas.

  178. Re:Computerworld Developers by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

    The power of OS X comes from being usable as pure GUI or a pure Terminal or mix of both without losing anything. That is how Apple manages to sell Mach/FreeBSD/NeXT hybrid to general public. That's fine, but do you realise that the very same comment applies to linux, don't you? I don't think anyone's arguing with the virtues of MacOSX - we're just amused that after twenty-something years of dissing the command-line, now it's suddenly the latest and greatest thing about the Mac. :) Well I don't have any issue with command line, I like OS X having standard Unix tools to manage via command line. I just have serious issue with people who thinks everyone who doesn't care to use command line or simply doesn't see any meaning to it as "beige box idiots", "maccies".

    Apple dismissed the MS-DOS command line which is simply backwards. NeXT came with the same architecture as OS X, it is Unix. MS DOS is a very different approach and it is really a great candidate to dismiss as "backwards".

    Old timer Mac people, especially DTP professionals still choose GUI tools rather than command line.

    I still don't get the difference from manually typing fsck -fy or letting a easy script like Applejack(sourceforge.net) manage it.

    How many potential users Linux lost by dictating the need for chmod /dev/dsp 666 just to get audio old times?

  179. Re:Computerworld Developers by Daengbo · · Score: 1
    Try typing this in a terminal:

    man gconftool-2

    As far as I know, every preference in Gnome is able to be set through the command line. An example from the man page:

    gconftool-2 --type string --set /desktop/gnome/inter-face/font_name "Serif 12"

    This sets the default font to Serif 12.

    Cheers.
  180. Dock on the side does this automatically by wfolta · · Score: 1

    I placed the Dock on the right side of the screen, and it is automatically 2D. Evidently they listened to comments.

  181. Re:Computerworld Developers by noidentity · · Score: 1

    Whoa! So now Mac users are advocating the command-line as an 'ease-of-use' feature?? Now I've seen it all! :)

    No, I was advocating it as a possibly simpler way to direct another user to change a particular preference; a GUI is the best interface for a single user to explore the preferences. I still stand by my claim that having to relay a GUI script that the user must manually execute is kind of silly, though others have shown that giving the equivalent command-line is probably only simpler for users experienced with the terminal.

  182. Re:Computerworld Developers by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

    This is one thing that many of my PC-using friends complain about with respect to OS X

    You are not kidding.

    Most of the people I've ever met who were doing OSX support work have been little more than 'power users'.

    I have, actually, yet to meet *anyone* who has anything like the level of 'under the hood' knowledge of OSX that even 'power users' of Linux or Windows have.

    For my own part, I'd love to learn more about OSX and how things really work under the hood but so far have found very little info. I got 'the missing manual' but thats just 'how to be a power user'.

    Any links appreciated.

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  183. Re:Computerworld Developers by vertigoCiel · · Score: 1

    Well, 'under the hood' of OS X, it's really just Unix. As long as you have a decent knowledge of how Unix/BSD works, and a familiarity with a CLI, you can figure most everything else out.

    For example, dig around in the packages of System applications, like the Dock (right-click, then select "Show All Applications"). All the graphical elements that the new Leopard dock uses are in there. I've changed those so I have a black dock (without the annoying curvy highlight), and white application indicators - much easier to see.

    Also, a lot of the preference lists (plists) for applications are kept in your /Users/Your User Name/Library/Application Support/Name Of Application/ folders, and digging around in those with Plist editor can be fruitful (always make backups first, though).

    Mainly, get as familiar as possible on Unix/BSD, and you will become more knowledgeable of OS X's underpinnings. Some good sites are Mac OS X Hints and O'Reilly's Mac Dev Center.

  184. Re:Geez... by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

    Ah, but the difference is that in Windows you can guarantee that a user will have a right mouse button so developers can ignore that guideline with impunity. On the Mac the devs can't make any such assumption, and are forced to put their functionality in the menus, with contextual menus as a secondary thing for more advanced users. I'd argue that this results in better UI design by forcing devs down a single path.

    (Actually, these days you pretty much can assume a second mouse button on OS X, especially in a more advanced application.)

  185. Re:Computerworld Developers by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

    Well, 'under the hood' of OS X, it's really just Unix. As long as you have a decent knowledge of how Unix/BSD works, and a familiarity with a CLI, you can figure most everything else out.

    Most everything... how about mount points? There appears to be an /etc/fstab which does nothing at all.

    User and group management appears to be similar. I heard that it inherited this from Next, NeXT, NexT or however thats capitalised nowadays, but that this is changing in Leopard.

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  186. Re:Geez... by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

    As a left-handed person, I use the mouse with my right hand. It's not a simple dominant hand thing, as I split most activities between my hands. Oddly enough I write and draw with my left hand, but paint better with my right hand. Some sports I play left-handed, most I play right-handed.

    I think you'll find that left-handed mousers can work it out without confusion, just as right-handed mousers can.

  187. Re:I have to know the answer to this... by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

    Either you're trolling, or you just haven't kept up with the last seven years. Maybe you're stuck in some mental pre-2000 age or have been living under a rock. Help is at hand though! There's this really cool thing on the Internet called "Google" which can help you find out stuff, and there's even an online encyclopaedia which people can edit called "Wikipedia" that has stuff like this in it! Yes, you can correct your woeful education with a modicum of effort and time.

    Good luck with it. Soon, you'll be able to talk intelligently about things like OS X and won't that be just lovely?

  188. Re:I have to know the answer to this... by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

    I installed WinXP from an original disc and has a hell of a time getting it to find my wireless router, or even the wireless dongle plugged into it (and that was after I installed the driver)! After a while I wiped it and played around with Linux for a bit.

    When I installed WinXP from an SP2 disc it was far, far better at working out how to connect to wireless networks. It just went off and found them. That alone made the whole thing less painful.

    (Oddly enough, Vista on my MBP was a massive pain to set up with my wireless network. To this day I'm not sure what I did to make it work, as it suddenly connected after another in the seemingly-endless series of 'Can't locate network' dialogues was cancelled. It's fine now, but I really hope I never have to reinstall the damned thing.)

  189. Re:Computerworld Developers by shellbeach · · Score: 1

    Oh, I'm not disagreeing with you - I think the command-line is a wonderful thing, and that typing commands is not at all difficult to learn (witness the old Apple ][/IBM PC days - nobody had trouble running programs back then) Both a command-line and a GUI have their place and use ...

    I was just having a chuckle at how far the Mac user-base has come from the dark days of completely-CLI-free 1984 ... :)