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."
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.
Doesn't look like they got the GM. Their dock is on the side and isn't sporting the revised look.
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!
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."
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'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).
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
There are 300+ of them
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=printArticleBasic&articleId=9043838 all on one page print link
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.
Someone has got to take the time machine visualizer and change the background image to Goatse :D
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
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?
Puck mouse... *shudders*
Thanks a lot, I had repressed that memory.
You wouldn't understand...
"Time is nothing; timing is everything."
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?
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
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).
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?
Apple == PC
Apple != Windows
Apple IS a pc (personal computer).
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 :)
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.
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
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
The handicapped mouse...
". 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
Subject says it all.
"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.
That would be the certified UNIX Fisher-Price PC, yeah?
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.
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. -_-
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Windows users: Why do you even have to buy your OS?
--Linux user.
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.
It makes a directory for itself on the root of the drive, no partitioning needed. :)
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. ;-)
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.
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.
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?
"I'm not trying to start a fight here"
Yes you are.
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
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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
Circumcision is child abuse.
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.
% 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.
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.
And even the userland isn't the same; it picks up a lot from FreeBSD, but there are parts that are different.
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.
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 ;)
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.
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!
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?
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.
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! --
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.
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.
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
"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.
They are ProTools, Cubase SX3, FL Studio, SoundForge8, Reason 3, Rebirth 2, Flash MX, Illustrator, Vegas, and more.
... 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.
.. but its very much worth getting your hands dirty with. I reckon you might really enjoy the experience too.
.. but then again that suits me fine. Same comment applies - its about taking a different approach rather than trying to be better.
:)
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
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
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)
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
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.
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
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.
.93 kernel from the Finnish kid. There wasn't much in between. Now there's choices.
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
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.
You can eat the pavement pizza at the bus stop for free. I'd rather pay a professional chef.
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...
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)?
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.
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!"
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)
The new 3D dock skin doesn't apply when the dock is on the side, since there were "vertigo" complaints among beta testers.
Different syntax, but controlling an App's settings via command line was a feature during the glory days of NeXTstep... Egad, fifteen years ago!
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!
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.
You're not, er, trying to invoke Godwin's Law, are you?
AUTOMATIC LOSE :-)
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.
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.
Let these videos show you what the parent mean, they kind of explains the difference of Steve Jobs vs Ballmer quite good:
:D
:)
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
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
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.
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...
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.
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...
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.
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.
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!
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.
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!)
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.
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.
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"
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.
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)
Put identity in the browser.
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.
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
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
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.
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...
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.
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.
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)
Put identity in the browser.
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?
Put identity in the browser.
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.
Even better: tap with one finger you get left click, tap with two you get right click.
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
Put identity in the browser.
shorthand: defaults write -> dwrite
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.
Put identity in the browser.
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.
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
pronounce it? oh, you mean, like OS X, XP, NT, WWDC, USA, BA, BS, SOB and FU?
System 7 also had Balloon Help!!
Circumcision is child abuse.
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.
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.
Are you an idiot, or do you just play one on Slashdot? Pronounce the word. Don't spell it.
Put identity in the browser.
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...
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.
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
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.
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.
Bring back Sirius Punk!
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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?
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.
"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." :-)
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...
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
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
meme
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.
A lot of stuff changed behind the scenes. I predict you'll see dozens of Leopard-only apps appear within less than a month.
According to the friendly article, when you put the Dock on the left- or right-hand side, it uses a revised 2D appearance instead:
Which is nice.
And tomorrow the stock exchange will be the human race
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.
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.
I now see that this whole article was tagged as "Fanboy". Well I guess #2 is correct then.
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."
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.
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.
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
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
Good response! I'd mod you up, but I don't have points at the current time.
hackshop.com - My tech hobby project hub
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.
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?
Can't quite remember what it was; something with table formatting in Microsoft Word. Haven't used Word since then.
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.
CheShA: Manchester Breakcore / Drill and Bass Yes I'm a s
Don't even have to go that far anymore..
Launch iChat, Share screen..
voila
Live EVERY week... Like it's Shark Week
" 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.
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.
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.
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.
...what Windows machines look like in Coverflow.
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.
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.
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.
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
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).
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?
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.
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.
---;)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
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
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.
More power? Dude. Like, get a grip.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
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.
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.
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.
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
Mac OS X 10.0 doesn't count. 10.1 is the first version I will acknowledge too.
-- thinkyhead software and media
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+.
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.
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
The definition I gave you contained the pronunciation. Read it again.
Put identity in the browser.
As far as I know, every preference in Gnome is able to be set through the command line. An example from the man page:
This sets the default font to Serif 12.
Cheers.
Put identity in the browser.
I placed the Dock on the right side of the screen, and it is automatically 2D. Evidently they listened to comments.
"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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Put identity in the browser.
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.
/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).
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
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.
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.)
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.
/etc/fstab which does nothing at all.
Most everything... how about mount points? There appears to be an
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.
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.
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?
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.)
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