The main reason it frustrates me is responsiveness. I don't care how elegantly or efficiently you can do things, if you have significant latency on the window management level, the whole thing becomes frustrating -- and this is running it on a nearly new processor!
Now, if I were to install Linux on the same computer, suddenly the hardware comes alive. Case in point, I have a 700mhz iBook G3. OS X is all but unuseable on it. If I were not a "power user" and it might suffice, but I am always doing five things at once, and I expect modern hardware to keep up with that. I run Gentoo on the iBook. X is sitting on a small partition, in case I ever need it, but I haven't booted up in a long, long time.
The second most frustrating thing for me is the window management itself. Very basic, which is fine for their intended market. I need just a wee more power though. Virtual desktops that don't take three seconds to toggle using third party "auto-hiders." the ability to manipulate windows anywhere using modifier keys instead of just the small widgets (I don't even use window buttons in Linux, all Mod1+mouse controls, and keyboard shortcuts. All to say the very least. Working in X just feels idiotic to me, like I'm fighting the interface to get work done. In a well configured X11 environment it just the opposite. I forget th e interface entirely -- the way it should be -- something a lot of X advocates forget.
The dock really is not that innovative for my uses. Perhaps if I only used a handful of programs on a regular basis. Instead, I use way more than that, and there is no way to store them all on the dock. It just becomes a nuisance for the most part. Yes, you can minimize it to hell, but that is a workaround, then you have a bunch of miniscule icons. I'll take a root window text read-out application menu, where I can click anywhere instead of having to traverse thousands of pixels to launch something, or raise an app to the foreground.
Single instance limitation for applications is not cool. Leave that option up to the application developer. There is no reason why I should have to create fifteen copies of gvim so I can run multiple instances concurrently. And bbedit just doesn't cut it for me. I've got vi ingrained my neurons.
The mostly hidden configuration options is another drag. Just use standard text files like the rest of the *NIX world. I heard a rumour that they were thinking of doing that -- but we'll see. Yeah, there is X hints sites, and you can do a bit, but not enough, and why oscure these things? Just get them out in the open. I'm not the type of user that likes to be babied by the software developers.
X is still heavily dependant upon reaching and waving the mouse pointer around a lot. This is a real drag. It's not as bad as 9, but it is bad. This is heavily complicated by the maximum reliable pointer speed. There is a tool to boost that, but in my experience it makes optical mice go nuts. I need accuracy as well as speed. You are working with three monitors, each 1,600 pixels across, it takes an age to get your pointer anywhere. With X11 I can use acceleration so that I get smooth precise accuracy when moving slowly, and blistering speed to warp across monitors. Don't even bring up "Keyboard Access." It's a joke. The whole point of keyboard access is being able to hit off a menu function or something with a minimum of two key strokes. Try doing that with X, you are tabbing and leaping out of the home-row to use arrow keys, repetively, just to access one function. It is quicker to use the Rat.
Yes, having many multiple terminal windows open is nice, but guess what! Because of X's idiotic single instance limitation, all of those terminals are children of the same proc. Crash one of them and all twenty of your tasks go down in a horrific pile of smoke. I'll take single threaded rxvts or xterms, thank you.
Yes, I've seen the "slew" of "die-hard *nix geeks" switching to OS X. Eh, I don't listen to crowds for one, I don't know why people keep throwing that phrase around. I suppose other people are easily influence. I do whatever is best for me, not what unknown ex-Linux user froth's about. Secondly, whenever I read these articles you can tell these guys aren't really die hard. Sure, there are rare exceptions, but most of them sound as if they never really got Linux in the first place, and were trying to use it like Windows or Mac OS intends to be used. That's fine for them, and I don't think I'm any better or worse than they are -- but it isn't who I am.
There are ways to get around it that are just as easy for the most part. As another poster said, a number of window managers (wmaker included) nest the Debian menu inside of the 'root' application menu, so you can edit that part to your heart's content. Blackbox is another one that is easy to integrate this way. Personally, I prefer all of the Debian stuff in a nested menu anyway, since I access that menu less than the one I've set up for commonly used applications.
Secondly, any user on a Debian system can have their own.menu directory which overrides the declarations in/usr/lib/menu. So if you don't mind making a few dreadfully simple text file overrides, you can create persistent changes to the Debian menu system that work on all your window managers. The only catch is that under the default configuration; if the user sets up a.menu directory, they'll need to run update-menus periodically. One could easily tweak this behavior though.
Eh, that ignores a multitude of factors, such as the most obvious one: RedHat markets their butts off to the general population because they are a corporation. Debian really only gets word of mouth amongst the geek community, and that is just fine for them. Besides, a smaller percentage of users does not indicate a decline. That is taking a static, single point statistic and trying to predict a temporal shift with it. Any 9th grade algebra student would laugh at such an attempt. Even if you could show an expanding rift between the size of the two communities, it wouldn't imply a decline in the Debian camp.
Even if you could prove a decline in the Debian user base, it still wouldn't prove a decline in the type of person you indicated. At the very least it could just demonstrate that that demographic was shifting out of Debian for some reason. The expansion of Gentoo is probably a good example of that.
Wouldn't that 90% be MSWorks that you are talking about? Already done, already bundled with low end to middle end computers. It even will sometimes include a full copy of Word, and Encarta.
Yes, yes. That is what I was referring to. It enables you to access different areas of the interface with a key combination. The problem doesn't really lie there, it lies in the navigation of the specific areas. For instance, menu navigation requires first the access combination, then many multiple arrow key presses to get to what you need. It is far, far faster to just access the menu with the mouse unless you are going for upper right hand corner, relatively top menu items. With Windows (as well as GTK+ and QT for the most part, as well) you can access any menu with a hot key, and then once you are in the menu you can press a single hot key to access each of the items within that menu drop down. This, at the most requires three key presses, and that is including the Alt button modifier.
The Apple method also has another flaw in that it uses the arrow keys, which are situated on the right side of the keyboard. This either means sweeping your left hand all the way across the keyboard after hitting the menu access key -- or removing your right hand from the mouse. Already at that point, a speedy user could have selected the menu action with the mouse, and we haven't even started arrow key navigation.
All of this might sound a bit picky, as if I'm too lazy to take an extra second, but if you work on time sensative projects all day long, every little second helps, and split second menu access is vital.
The second issue is dock access. When comparing it to the Windows methods, one has to consider that the dock is more powerful than the task bar, so you cannot strictly compare it to Alt + Tab application switching, since you can also launch applications/documents from the dock. So Apple gets a point there, but once again, it opts for a vastly more clumsy method, relying upon a left hand access method and then a right hand arrow key navigation with arrows to select applications. Since you switch applications more often the launch them (at least I do) Apple loses two points for making this method too clumsy. It is still easier to switch applications with the mouse.
So, there is the "Select Window or Next Behind It" option. This behaves in a strange manner that doesn't really accomplish good task switching, so I never use it. Half of the time it seems to pick random windows. I'm sure there is a system, but I'd rather have something come up that shows me what it wants to select *before* it selects, not as it is selecting.
Once again, to this purpose I completely agree! It's great that there is a company out there that actually does what it says (for the most part) and manages to keep "the users" relatively happy with their products year after year. Consistency across machines is just one nice feature for this purpose.
I just don't subscribe to this model in the specialist market. People who spend 12-16 hours a day on a computer, and are intimate with its inner workings shouldn't have to be fenced in with people who spend 12 hours a month, simply for the convenience of machine consistency. This is why I am staunchly opposed to the thin client model as a global solution.
It's a silly analogy, but you wouldn't expect a biochemist to use the same exact pocket calculator that mother used to balance the check books. A few here and there might be satisfied with that arrangment but they are the exceptions. Sure, having One pocket calculator button layout would make for a more consistent and convenient world where you wouldn't have to hunt for the 'off' switch on an HP 48G, but it wouldn't address the specific needs of expert users either. The same goes for computers. Some people live and breathe these things, others use them like a toaster, or a television set, or a book.
I completely agree with the notion that the Mac OS, both 8-9 and X era is a wonderful philosophy for entry level to mid-level users, and in some cases, even some higher level usage. But the moment it turns into a religion and people start saying that experts should be happy with one button and a relativey unconfigurable interface is when I start quirking my eyebrow.
Oh, and by the way, in response to your user name: Ruby.:)
I am going out on a limb here, but I would bet that the percentage of engineers using Macs is a lot less than the publishing and multimedia market, let alone the home user market. I am speaking of general, popular usage. There are places where extremely technical people use Macs, because they recognize that the best too for the job is not a religion. I'm not really addressing that group of people, which incidentally, I fall under, and given your list of years under different operating systems, it sounds like that is your motto too. Amongst the latter category, lots of expert Mac users that have added on to the system, both in hardware and software terms. They use multi-button mice, extensions that allow keyboard shortcuts, virtual workspaces, and other such niceties. But again, this really isn't addressing the user space I'm talking about, nor is it addressing the user space that Apple targets.
Preference of choice is a big thing with computer experts. They usually do not want their systems to create a barrier, and when they do, they like systems that allow them to circumvent that barrier. This is why the workstation *NIX systems have grown to be so popular among those who'd rather not put up with system limitations.
While the Macintosh OS, in my humble opinion, is superior to the Windows OS in interface and underlying design, it still has a barrier that I run in to, and this is where we come to preference. You are comfortable within the set of rules Apple lays out, and that is perfectly fine, I and plenty of others are not comfortable. I'd rather be able to switch the stock OS X window manager out with something that has a smaller footprint, for instance, and something that allows me to have transparent control over the system. Blackbox is my favorite window manager. I've grown used to the power that it provides, along with its clean simplicity. I cannot really do this swap with OS X though. Sure, I could set it to boot to X11 and just use the Darwin kernel and BSD system, but then I would have all manner of configuration nightmares since OS X doesn't use the standard/etc files. At that point, I might as well just install FreeBSD or Linux on Apple hardware (which is something that I do. I own an iBook, and it dual boots between Debian and OS X on a regular basis.) I find that when I want to get some serious work done, the Debian system caters to that, and when I want to grab photos from my camera, email them to a few friends, or watch a DVD, it is generally easier to do that with OS X. The right tool for the job.
Incidentally, with that said, I am completely enjoying learning the OS X Cocoa toolkit, and Objective-C. I'm finding that I am more inclined to create custom applications for myself in OS X than Linux.
I'm digressing. The point of the matter is that configuration and optimization should be laid bare for the experts, if they so choose to use it. The fact that you can only change a minimal set of features with OS X's window manager is an example of catering to inexpert users. That's fine and dandy, but it's a frustrating environment for me to work in. That doesn't mean that I am any more expert or inexpert than you, it just goes to show that people are different, and if the OS cannot anticipate and allow people to be different, it has barriers. You just happened to get lucky in that your preferences lie within the barriers.
True, but it isn't exactly an efficient method of navigation yet. They should have just bitten the bullet, copied MS, and used Alt-Letter hot points to jump around forms and menus. It's a two key solution to what often times amounts to many subsequent presses of tab keys and modifier keys (often with inconsistent results) in X. I think keyboard access on X, at the moment, is mostly intended for handicapped accessibility.
Eh, apply logic. The keys you listed all correspond to keyboard actions. The first two modify the behavior of the keyboard, the second two enable the keyboard to access meta-functions beyond text input (in most cases.) Having a key on the keyboard that does little but give you a pseudo-second-mouse-button is an entirely different type of key, and it screws around with the mental division between mouse and keyboard. It is certainly not intuitive (though Mac users have grown used to it, just as Windows users have grown used to pressing the Start button to shut down.)
Now some applications do use other keyboard modifiers to adjust mouse behavior, typically graphics applications do this. A common one is the spacebar. Usually there is only a handful of these, and usually I bind these functions directly to the mouse buttons (since I have seven of them.) It makes for a cleaner operation, and leaves my left hand free to do other keyboard operations while I pan around with the mouse.
The other "alternative" right click with the Mac is the click-hold, which is clearly designed for novice users. Professionals who are payed for their time typically don't want to sit around waiting for something that could be instantaneously accessed with an additional mouse button. I don't know any pro Mac users who actually prefer a one mouse button. Generally the first thing they do is plug a real mouse into the keyboard and use the Apple supplied mouse as a decoration element. I've got nothing against a one mouse button GUI philosophy, especially for folks who'd rather just use their computer casually. This aside, I don't think anybody could rightfully defend the single mouse button as being something adequate for advanced usage. Even the Apple developers have implied this left and right by allowing "power" users to access more advanced features of the GUI with all manner of ridiculous keyboard combinations that are hard to remember, and rarely menmonic. I think they should just get over their Pride and sell three+wheel button mice as a pro add-on and have these advanced parts of the OS accessible by default using consistent mouse bindings.
Pandering the absolute lowest common denominator has never been the goal with *NIX applications in the past, and there has been no reason to pander, either. Since having more than one button only adds power to the user's ability to interface with the software, and the targeted users of the software were all capable of logically discerning which widgets correspond to what -- there is absolutely no reason that they should write software that only uses one button.
The Macintosh platform is an entirely different beast, with an entirely different target group. Even the professionals that use the Mac are, in my six years of experience in the graphics field, less technically inclined on average (there are always exceptions, of course.) They are artists, not computer science gurus, hence the general fondness for the Mac platform amongst them.
Taking an application that was intended to be run on an operating system that is designed for advanced users, and running it on an operating system that is designed for less advanced users -- and calling said software crap because it relies upon conventions that advanced users are used to, is just silly.
Except that XMMS is not an MP3 player. It happens to have an MP3 decoder bundled with it as an input module -- and it happens that MP3s are what most people use it for -- but it can decode a *ton* of other formats, OGG included, and as a player it won't die. Just take the MP3 module out of the distribution.
Not to mention that fact that as these hard core collectors move over, they are going to be purchasing more movies than might be typical, to replace their VHS collections. This would help explain the inflation in sales as compared to the number of players. My guess is that the percentages will stay pretty much the same, as the collector activity tapers off, the rest of the market will slowly ramp up and fill the gap -- then after a a period of 7 - 10 years, VHS will no longer be easy to find in stores, just as cassettes can no longer be found in music stores.
I'm not sure about all the software you listed, but XMMS and mplayer in particular will live on as long as they need to. They are both open source, and in my opinion offer many more features and things that I prefer than the i.* stuff. For instance, being able to skip directly to the movie from the command line and bypass the menu/FBI warning/Adverts/and so on. XMMS only taking up eight or so pixels of height instead of the Vast Tracks of Land that iTunes requires, even in MiniMode.
They aren't for everyone, but they are not in danger.
Another DVD that is really beneficial from this angle is 12 Monkeys. Terry Gilliam and crew put a rather long series of documentaries on the post production process of the film. They talk in depth about the very process you've described. Flavoring scenes by using different cuts with different qualities. Quite often, the same scene will use different cuts, because one of the actors really did something excellent, while something else fell flat.
Another thing this DVD did that I haven't seen on any other is actual footage they took of themselves, the key individuals behind the movie, before and after the first screening of the movie. The intense emotion, exhaustion, and waiting for the cards to come back in. Will they like the movie? Will they hate it? At one point, Terry whips out a bunch of pens and just starts doodling on a drafting board as he thinks out loud to the rest of the group. It's a really candid experience.
It gives a lot of insight into the post production, and how the editor is by far, usually one of the most understated careers in the business.
The end result of this attitude is an operating system that resembles commercial offerings. One choice, tough luck. I'm sorry, but most of the people who moved to Linux as a workstation alternative moved there precisely to get away from that ideology. Ultimate customization, if you can handle it. If you can't, format the partition and get back to work. If you want "tightly integrated functionality,"[1] then start up an group to do that. You'll end up with a nice, tidy distribution I'm sure -- and the people who like such things will choose to use it. The others will choose to stick with Debian/Redhat/Slack/SuSE/Gentoo or whatever other distribution suits their vision of the best form of an OS.
The notion you have, that is unfortunately a common one, is faulty. You only need to look at some examples of software out there. The Gimp for instance, is pretty much one of a kind. Yes, there are other image manipulation projects here and there, but none of them are close to the Gimp. Yet, compare the Gimp to GNOME, or even KDE. Is it on par with them? I'm not asking you to compare them, since they are completely different softwares, just compare the quality. In my opinion, they are all about the same. They are all pretty sophisticated, well thought out, and very usable. Gimp has the advantage of being The Only One -- according to your theory, it should be lightyears ahead of where it is, but it is not -- or more accurately, GNOME and KDE should be far behind where it is, but they are not.
[1] I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean. Personally, my work station is "tightly integrated" because I made it that way from the choices that exist. Not only is it "tightly integrated" with itself, it is "tightly integrated" with the way I think and work -- which to me is a vastly higher priority than whether or not it all works with itself perfectly. No human on earth works in the precise manner I do, expecting them to is ridiculous. Expecting one software integration movement to match all people equally -- is just as ridiculous.
typing in >console then logging into the system and typing startx.(assuming you have installed XFree86, which was just as easy to do on my mac as my thinkpad.)
The footnote carried the more salient issue, I should have just put it in the body of the reponse. Yes, it is fairly trivial to get XFree86 running stand-alone on the system. The bigger issue is maintaining the system. Without the Aqua based configuration tools, the basic *NIX underpinnings are crippled. So you are stuck with either a static system with a real windowmanager, or a configurable system with a remedial windowmanager.
It's a good operating system, no doubt about that.
That is really besides the point, in my opinion. Whether or not it is a true UNIX. The fact of the matter is, installation aside, GNOME and KDE have been very user friendly for a while. I've seen SuSE installations where you don't even touch the command line once, and keeping the system maintained is much the same in simplicity. At least with SuSE you are able to edit the configuration files by hand if you wish, though.
The concept is not innovative, though Apple did it best, I'll give them that.
Nope. On the 800MHz version it is pre-installed. That's all.
I think that is what I meant. *confusion*
I need to check out those iBooks. This hunk of Titanium is beautiful, but I also need something cheaper and lighter that lasts longer.
Or technically IEEE 1394, was invented in 1986. Sixteen years ago. I'd say the qualifies for not being "a real innovation in years."
User-friendly UNIX
It is debatable whether or not MacOS X qualifies as being a true UNIX. It being effectively shackled by a dumbed down user interface that cannot be easily[1] disabled or swapped out for another would probably be the biggest point against it.
However, it does resemble UNIX, just as Linux resembles it (though I would say it is a bit further than even Linux.) So if you go that way, there has been user friendly Linux solutions around long before MacOS X was even alpha, let alone on the streets.
Running Photoshop natively is not an Apple innovation, no matter how you slice it. I believe Adobe develops that application.
On-board 802.11
Only their very latest PowerBooks include a built in AirPort interface card. Previously, you needed to purchase it seperately.
Besides, this is stretching the limits of the word "innovation," and it is debatable as to whether or not they were actually the first to provide the capability out of the box. WLANs have been around for a long time. Longer than the AirPort.
6+ hour battery life on laptops.
Eh, I don't know how you got that figure. From the marketing hype sheets on their web site? Let's stick to reality. My PowerBook gets about 2.5 - 3 hours, and that is with the screen dimmed low enough to be barely legible. Trying watch a DVD in a situation that has bright lighting, battery time will plummet.
Handwriting Recognition built into the OS
Hopefully you are not thinking of the upcoming Jaguar release. For one, it doesn't exist on the market yet, secondly it is by far not an innovation. A great many operating systems have been using handwriting recognition -- for years. Palm OS is the most obvious example.
Now, if you were thinking of the Newton (which I doubt, since you seemed to be glued to the hype sheets instead of the history books,) I would be more willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. However, as any cursory glance of recent electronic history will show you, the Newton was not the first either.
Rendezvous
This is a subset of ZeroConf's IETF, started financially in September 1999. Similar services have been available for years in the form of netBIOS, and in stripped down terms, DHCP.
So yeah, it's new, and it has a spiffy code name -- but it isn't an Apple Innovation.
Fanless Computers
Again, these have existed for a long time, way before the Cube was dreamt up. When was the last time you saw a fan in a PDA?
Okay, so that isn't quite what you meant? You meant "Big Computers." Well, fanless water cooling has been around for quite some time in the overclocking community. It has only recently become cheap, but it predates the Cube.
Final Cut Pro
Heh. This was an acquisition. FCP used to be a Windows NT application. I don't know how much you use the program, or what you use it for, but as any professional who has to use it on a daily basis will tell you, it is loaded with bugs and nightmares. Hardware support is spotty, the built-in scripting implementation seems to change from version to version, PAL to NTSC conversion is unacceptably poor, ect ect. Trust me, I work with it on a daily basis. Final Cut Pro is *far* from being innovative. Non-Linear editing has been around for a long time, and it has been done *much* better than FCP.
Any Questions?
No, but I suggest you start asking them more often. Or at least do some research from time to time.
----- [1] Yes, technically you could, with a lot of tweaking, get it to boot up into XFree86 instead of Aqua, but have fun trying to maintain the system. Much of it requires an extremely messy set of XML configuration files. Most of the pure UNIX/etc conf files are deactivated. At that state, you might as well just install Debian/PPC and get a heck of a lot more computing power.
I do this too, but now I've taken a twist to the method. Now, when I get a credit card application in the mail, I fill it out and return it with some heavy chunks of metal in the envelope to up the postal fee (Post office has cracked down on people taping these things to 2x4s, unfortunately. Fish hook weights are cheap though!) I also like to load the application itself up with staples and paper-clips, just in case they use a mechanical sorter. Then they have to spend money and time doing paperwork getting the card approved and sent (if they even do after the weighted return gag.) I then activate the card, and two days later cancel it. More paper work.
I've noticed that I'm not getting too many repeats from the same banks anymore, whereas I used to get spam from the same banks over and over.
Oh, and expandibility/maintenance doesn't seem high on their list either.
Their new cases are a reversal on this philosophy. I took a peek inside one, and they've got a pretty much screwless system now. Swapping hard drives is a ten second affair. Everything is pretty easy to get at, even the power supply flips out with the flip of a friction lever.
One negative I noticed was that it only had three PCI slots, and one serial port. I can see the rationale behind the serial deal though. In light of the fact that it has six USB ports on two busses, and 9-pin serial being a dying beast -- forgivable.
Future Conception.
on
Minority Report
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I disagree with your opinion on whether or not the aesthetic design of the future, visualized in this film, is realistic. Take a moment to analyze the current world, and compare it to how the world was conceptualized in many 70s and early 80s science fiction movies. These movies, even the low budget ones, depicted a world where everything had been changed -- and yes this does provide an aesthetic cohesiveness that looks nice, but it is not at all realistic.
Today, when I go home I'll be setting my rather futuristic looking brushed metal PDA on a wooden dresser that appears to have been hand made half a century ago. It has a cracked, oval mirror. In the reflection of that mirror, you'd see a slim flat panel monitor sitting on a white pine desk with curved edges. We live in a world where rocking chairs are in the same room as pocket devices that can link themselves to a global satellite network, communicate with each other, tell you your exact coordinates, and give your the prospective weather for the next four days. Smooth chrome pens with laser devices embedded in them are sheathed in 1920s style fabric suits. Cars with satellite links to maps, traffic conditions, and weather, drive on the same roads as old beat up beige El Caminos. On my wrist, a watch that can take one hundred black and white photographs, and beam them through the air to my computer at the end of the day -- and what sort of pictures might you find within it? Futuristic chrome houses with red velvet trim? Nah, you'll find 50s style architecture, a person with an old wooden cane walking down a cracked side-walk, and other such things.
Progress makes its changes upon the present day in bursts and halts. Some things change rapidly, other things take decades. Typically, the things that change the quickest are the "everyman luxuries" such as cars, computer devices, and clothing. Our ever evolving concept of what "looks modern" is part of what drives that. Take a look at a six year old computer, it looks boxy and antique already -- yet when that computer was produced, it was likely at the height of what people considered Neat. The things that do not change as rapidly are extreme luxuries, and non-luxury items. Of course, there are always exceptions, but in general this is the case.
To bring this back to the film, the types of things that you saw looking wildly different and futuristic were precisely the types of things that go through rapid periodic aesthetic modification. Cars, electronic devices, watches, and clothing. The types of things that did not change are the things that haven't really changed in the past few decades for us either.
Secondly, as far as logos go, these do not rapidly change too much either, at least the bigger companies do not, and for a very good reason. If you go about changing your logo every two years, it stops having as much subliminal impact -- unless your company is already a behemoth, and then changes can actually be considered innovative, and people come to expect them -- however they usually revolve around the core idea. Pepsi Corporation is a good example of a company that has reworked their logo frequently, while always retaining the basic design that we all know by sight. How often has Proctor & Gamble fiddle with their logo? Even Microsoft has managed to hang on to their logo for a few decades now. Changes are made, but they usually are not often made, and rarely are they drastic.
I for one think that the concept of the future was quite realistic, and I found it refreshing in a way to see a design team correctly assess the way the world changes. I absolutely love the way Blade Runner looks, it is one of my favorite movies, and the design is a big reason why -- but it isn't necessarily all that realistic.
Neat, except that I listen to streaming broadcasts to find new music. I hear something I like, jot down the name of the group and purchase the CD later on. Oh, and nine times out of ten the p2p networks do not have the types of music I listen to, they are just filled with commercial glut. Especially now that AudioGalaxy is gone.
I pretty much only purchase lesser known releases, and very rarely do I make a purchase that I regret. I use various tools to find out whether it will be good stuff or not. Mp3s are a great resource, and I end up purchasing much of what I download. The stuff I do not purchase, I don't like, and it gets deleted. Web zines that focus on indie artists are good to check in to. Even using main stream tools such as AMG can find you a lot of interesting stuff that makes a relative safe purchase. Streaming net broadcasts, forums... there are plenty of ways to keep your finger on the pulse of the unknown, without spending a dime, or even lifting yourself out of the chair.
I'll admit, I enjoy "the hunt" more than the average person. It is my hobby, so I dedicate more time to it than most people would probably be willing to donate. So yes there is a price, but it is far from impossible, and certainly doesn't require wanton random purchases.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, if I were to install Linux on the same computer, suddenly the hardware comes alive. Case in point, I have a 700mhz iBook G3. OS X is all but unuseable on it. If I were not a "power user" and it might suffice, but I am always doing five things at once, and I expect modern hardware to keep up with that. I run Gentoo on the iBook. X is sitting on a small partition, in case I ever need it, but I haven't booted up in a long, long time.
The second most frustrating thing for me is the window management itself. Very basic, which is fine for their intended market. I need just a wee more power though. Virtual desktops that don't take three seconds to toggle using third party "auto-hiders." the ability to manipulate windows anywhere using modifier keys instead of just the small widgets (I don't even use window buttons in Linux, all Mod1+mouse controls, and keyboard shortcuts. All to say the very least. Working in X just feels idiotic to me, like I'm fighting the interface to get work done. In a well configured X11 environment it just the opposite. I forget th e interface entirely -- the way it should be -- something a lot of X advocates forget.
The dock really is not that innovative for my uses. Perhaps if I only used a handful of programs on a regular basis. Instead, I use way more than that, and there is no way to store them all on the dock. It just becomes a nuisance for the most part. Yes, you can minimize it to hell, but that is a workaround, then you have a bunch of miniscule icons. I'll take a root window text read-out application menu, where I can click anywhere instead of having to traverse thousands of pixels to launch something, or raise an app to the foreground.
Single instance limitation for applications is not cool. Leave that option up to the application developer. There is no reason why I should have to create fifteen copies of gvim so I can run multiple instances concurrently. And bbedit just doesn't cut it for me. I've got vi ingrained my neurons.
The mostly hidden configuration options is another drag. Just use standard text files like the rest of the *NIX world. I heard a rumour that they were thinking of doing that -- but we'll see. Yeah, there is X hints sites, and you can do a bit, but not enough, and why oscure these things? Just get them out in the open. I'm not the type of user that likes to be babied by the software developers.
X is still heavily dependant upon reaching and waving the mouse pointer around a lot. This is a real drag. It's not as bad as 9, but it is bad. This is heavily complicated by the maximum reliable pointer speed. There is a tool to boost that, but in my experience it makes optical mice go nuts. I need accuracy as well as speed. You are working with three monitors, each 1,600 pixels across, it takes an age to get your pointer anywhere. With X11 I can use acceleration so that I get smooth precise accuracy when moving slowly, and blistering speed to warp across monitors. Don't even bring up "Keyboard Access." It's a joke. The whole point of keyboard access is being able to hit off a menu function or something with a minimum of two key strokes. Try doing that with X, you are tabbing and leaping out of the home-row to use arrow keys, repetively, just to access one function. It is quicker to use the Rat.
Yes, having many multiple terminal windows open is nice, but guess what! Because of X's idiotic single instance limitation, all of those terminals are children of the same proc. Crash one of them and all twenty of your tasks go down in a horrific pile of smoke. I'll take single threaded rxvts or xterms, thank you.
Yes, I've seen the "slew" of "die-hard *nix geeks" switching to OS X. Eh, I don't listen to crowds for one, I don't know why people keep throwing that phrase around. I suppose other people are easily influence. I do whatever is best for me, not what unknown ex-Linux user froth's about. Secondly, whenever I read these articles you can tell these guys aren't really die hard. Sure, there are rare exceptions, but most of them sound as if they never really got Linux in the first place, and were trying to use it like Windows or Mac OS intends to be used. That's fine for them, and I don't think I'm any better or worse than they are -- but it isn't who I am.
Weird, I wonder what this jaguar print AOL CD that says "Macintosh 10.2 required" does?
Secondly, any user on a Debian system can have their own .menu directory which overrides the declarations in /usr/lib/menu. So if you don't mind making a few dreadfully simple text file overrides, you can create persistent changes to the Debian menu system that work on all your window managers. The only catch is that under the default configuration; if the user sets up a .menu directory, they'll need to run update-menus periodically. One could easily tweak this behavior though.
Easy, drop a couple of nukes on civilian cities to end a war. They managed to spin that one quite well.
Even if you could prove a decline in the Debian user base, it still wouldn't prove a decline in the type of person you indicated. At the very least it could just demonstrate that that demographic was shifting out of Debian for some reason. The expansion of Gentoo is probably a good example of that.
Citation? What possible evidence do you have for this statement?
Wouldn't that 90% be MSWorks that you are talking about? Already done, already bundled with low end to middle end computers. It even will sometimes include a full copy of Word, and Encarta.
The Apple method also has another flaw in that it uses the arrow keys, which are situated on the right side of the keyboard. This either means sweeping your left hand all the way across the keyboard after hitting the menu access key -- or removing your right hand from the mouse. Already at that point, a speedy user could have selected the menu action with the mouse, and we haven't even started arrow key navigation.
All of this might sound a bit picky, as if I'm too lazy to take an extra second, but if you work on time sensative projects all day long, every little second helps, and split second menu access is vital.
The second issue is dock access. When comparing it to the Windows methods, one has to consider that the dock is more powerful than the task bar, so you cannot strictly compare it to Alt + Tab application switching, since you can also launch applications/documents from the dock. So Apple gets a point there, but once again, it opts for a vastly more clumsy method, relying upon a left hand access method and then a right hand arrow key navigation with arrows to select applications. Since you switch applications more often the launch them (at least I do) Apple loses two points for making this method too clumsy. It is still easier to switch applications with the mouse.
So, there is the "Select Window or Next Behind It" option. This behaves in a strange manner that doesn't really accomplish good task switching, so I never use it. Half of the time it seems to pick random windows. I'm sure there is a system, but I'd rather have something come up that shows me what it wants to select *before* it selects, not as it is selecting.
I just don't subscribe to this model in the specialist market. People who spend 12-16 hours a day on a computer, and are intimate with its inner workings shouldn't have to be fenced in with people who spend 12 hours a month, simply for the convenience of machine consistency. This is why I am staunchly opposed to the thin client model as a global solution.
It's a silly analogy, but you wouldn't expect a biochemist to use the same exact pocket calculator that mother used to balance the check books. A few here and there might be satisfied with that arrangment but they are the exceptions. Sure, having One pocket calculator button layout would make for a more consistent and convenient world where you wouldn't have to hunt for the 'off' switch on an HP 48G, but it wouldn't address the specific needs of expert users either. The same goes for computers. Some people live and breathe these things, others use them like a toaster, or a television set, or a book.
I completely agree with the notion that the Mac OS, both 8-9 and X era is a wonderful philosophy for entry level to mid-level users, and in some cases, even some higher level usage. But the moment it turns into a religion and people start saying that experts should be happy with one button and a relativey unconfigurable interface is when I start quirking my eyebrow.
Oh, and by the way, in response to your user name: Ruby. :)
Preference of choice is a big thing with computer experts. They usually do not want their systems to create a barrier, and when they do, they like systems that allow them to circumvent that barrier. This is why the workstation *NIX systems have grown to be so popular among those who'd rather not put up with system limitations.
While the Macintosh OS, in my humble opinion, is superior to the Windows OS in interface and underlying design, it still has a barrier that I run in to, and this is where we come to preference. You are comfortable within the set of rules Apple lays out, and that is perfectly fine, I and plenty of others are not comfortable. I'd rather be able to switch the stock OS X window manager out with something that has a smaller footprint, for instance, and something that allows me to have transparent control over the system. Blackbox is my favorite window manager. I've grown used to the power that it provides, along with its clean simplicity. I cannot really do this swap with OS X though. Sure, I could set it to boot to X11 and just use the Darwin kernel and BSD system, but then I would have all manner of configuration nightmares since OS X doesn't use the standard /etc files. At that point, I might as well just install FreeBSD or Linux on Apple hardware (which is something that I do. I own an iBook, and it dual boots between Debian and OS X on a regular basis.) I find that when I want to get some serious work done, the Debian system caters to that, and when I want to grab photos from my camera, email them to a few friends, or watch a DVD, it is generally easier to do that with OS X. The right tool for the job.
Incidentally, with that said, I am completely enjoying learning the OS X Cocoa toolkit, and Objective-C. I'm finding that I am more inclined to create custom applications for myself in OS X than Linux.
I'm digressing. The point of the matter is that configuration and optimization should be laid bare for the experts, if they so choose to use it. The fact that you can only change a minimal set of features with OS X's window manager is an example of catering to inexpert users. That's fine and dandy, but it's a frustrating environment for me to work in. That doesn't mean that I am any more expert or inexpert than you, it just goes to show that people are different, and if the OS cannot anticipate and allow people to be different, it has barriers. You just happened to get lucky in that your preferences lie within the barriers.
True, but it isn't exactly an efficient method of navigation yet. They should have just bitten the bullet, copied MS, and used Alt-Letter hot points to jump around forms and menus. It's a two key solution to what often times amounts to many subsequent presses of tab keys and modifier keys (often with inconsistent results) in X. I think keyboard access on X, at the moment, is mostly intended for handicapped accessibility.
Now some applications do use other keyboard modifiers to adjust mouse behavior, typically graphics applications do this. A common one is the spacebar. Usually there is only a handful of these, and usually I bind these functions directly to the mouse buttons (since I have seven of them.) It makes for a cleaner operation, and leaves my left hand free to do other keyboard operations while I pan around with the mouse.
The other "alternative" right click with the Mac is the click-hold, which is clearly designed for novice users. Professionals who are payed for their time typically don't want to sit around waiting for something that could be instantaneously accessed with an additional mouse button. I don't know any pro Mac users who actually prefer a one mouse button. Generally the first thing they do is plug a real mouse into the keyboard and use the Apple supplied mouse as a decoration element. I've got nothing against a one mouse button GUI philosophy, especially for folks who'd rather just use their computer casually. This aside, I don't think anybody could rightfully defend the single mouse button as being something adequate for advanced usage. Even the Apple developers have implied this left and right by allowing "power" users to access more advanced features of the GUI with all manner of ridiculous keyboard combinations that are hard to remember, and rarely menmonic. I think they should just get over their Pride and sell three+wheel button mice as a pro add-on and have these advanced parts of the OS accessible by default using consistent mouse bindings.
The Macintosh platform is an entirely different beast, with an entirely different target group. Even the professionals that use the Mac are, in my six years of experience in the graphics field, less technically inclined on average (there are always exceptions, of course.) They are artists, not computer science gurus, hence the general fondness for the Mac platform amongst them.
Taking an application that was intended to be run on an operating system that is designed for advanced users, and running it on an operating system that is designed for less advanced users -- and calling said software crap because it relies upon conventions that advanced users are used to, is just silly.
Except that XMMS is not an MP3 player. It happens to have an MP3 decoder bundled with it as an input module -- and it happens that MP3s are what most people use it for -- but it can decode a *ton* of other formats, OGG included, and as a player it won't die. Just take the MP3 module out of the distribution.
Not to mention that fact that as these hard core collectors move over, they are going to be purchasing more movies than might be typical, to replace their VHS collections. This would help explain the inflation in sales as compared to the number of players. My guess is that the percentages will stay pretty much the same, as the collector activity tapers off, the rest of the market will slowly ramp up and fill the gap -- then after a a period of 7 - 10 years, VHS will no longer be easy to find in stores, just as cassettes can no longer be found in music stores.
They aren't for everyone, but they are not in danger.
Another DVD that is really beneficial from this angle is 12 Monkeys. Terry Gilliam and crew put a rather long series of documentaries on the post production process of the film. They talk in depth about the very process you've described. Flavoring scenes by using different cuts with different qualities. Quite often, the same scene will use different cuts, because one of the actors really did something excellent, while something else fell flat.
Another thing this DVD did that I haven't seen on any other is actual footage they took of themselves, the key individuals behind the movie, before and after the first screening of the movie. The intense emotion, exhaustion, and waiting for the cards to come back in. Will they like the movie? Will they hate it? At one point, Terry whips out a bunch of pens and just starts doodling on a drafting board as he thinks out loud to the rest of the group. It's a really candid experience.
It gives a lot of insight into the post production, and how the editor is by far, usually one of the most understated careers in the business.
RPM or DEB must also die.
The end result of this attitude is an operating system that resembles commercial offerings. One choice, tough luck. I'm sorry, but most of the people who moved to Linux as a workstation alternative moved there precisely to get away from that ideology. Ultimate customization, if you can handle it. If you can't, format the partition and get back to work. If you want "tightly integrated functionality,"[1] then start up an group to do that. You'll end up with a nice, tidy distribution I'm sure -- and the people who like such things will choose to use it. The others will choose to stick with Debian/Redhat/Slack/SuSE/Gentoo or whatever other distribution suits their vision of the best form of an OS.
The notion you have, that is unfortunately a common one, is faulty. You only need to look at some examples of software out there. The Gimp for instance, is pretty much one of a kind. Yes, there are other image manipulation projects here and there, but none of them are close to the Gimp. Yet, compare the Gimp to GNOME, or even KDE. Is it on par with them? I'm not asking you to compare them, since they are completely different softwares, just compare the quality. In my opinion, they are all about the same. They are all pretty sophisticated, well thought out, and very usable. Gimp has the advantage of being The Only One -- according to your theory, it should be lightyears ahead of where it is, but it is not -- or more accurately, GNOME and KDE should be far behind where it is, but they are not.
[1] I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean. Personally, my work station is "tightly integrated" because I made it that way from the choices that exist. Not only is it "tightly integrated" with itself, it is "tightly integrated" with the way I think and work -- which to me is a vastly higher priority than whether or not it all works with itself perfectly. No human on earth works in the precise manner I do, expecting them to is ridiculous. Expecting one software integration movement to match all people equally -- is just as ridiculous.
The footnote carried the more salient issue, I should have just put it in the body of the reponse. Yes, it is fairly trivial to get XFree86 running stand-alone on the system. The bigger issue is maintaining the system. Without the Aqua based configuration tools, the basic *NIX underpinnings are crippled. So you are stuck with either a static system with a real windowmanager, or a configurable system with a remedial windowmanager.
It's a good operating system, no doubt about that.
That is really besides the point, in my opinion. Whether or not it is a true UNIX. The fact of the matter is, installation aside, GNOME and KDE have been very user friendly for a while. I've seen SuSE installations where you don't even touch the command line once, and keeping the system maintained is much the same in simplicity. At least with SuSE you are able to edit the configuration files by hand if you wish, though.
The concept is not innovative, though Apple did it best, I'll give them that.
Nope. On the 800MHz version it is pre-installed. That's all.
I think that is what I meant. *confusion*
I need to check out those iBooks. This hunk of Titanium is beautiful, but I also need something cheaper and lighter that lasts longer.
Thanks!
Or technically IEEE 1394, was invented in 1986. Sixteen years ago. I'd say the qualifies for not being "a real innovation in years."
User-friendly UNIX
It is debatable whether or not MacOS X qualifies as being a true UNIX. It being effectively shackled by a dumbed down user interface that cannot be easily[1] disabled or swapped out for another would probably be the biggest point against it.
However, it does resemble UNIX, just as Linux resembles it (though I would say it is a bit further than even Linux.) So if you go that way, there has been user friendly Linux solutions around long before MacOS X was even alpha, let alone on the streets.
Running Photoshop natively is not an Apple innovation, no matter how you slice it. I believe Adobe develops that application.
On-board 802.11
Only their very latest PowerBooks include a built in AirPort interface card. Previously, you needed to purchase it seperately.
Besides, this is stretching the limits of the word "innovation," and it is debatable as to whether or not they were actually the first to provide the capability out of the box. WLANs have been around for a long time. Longer than the AirPort.
6+ hour battery life on laptops.
Eh, I don't know how you got that figure. From the marketing hype sheets on their web site? Let's stick to reality. My PowerBook gets about 2.5 - 3 hours, and that is with the screen dimmed low enough to be barely legible. Trying watch a DVD in a situation that has bright lighting, battery time will plummet.
Handwriting Recognition built into the OS
Hopefully you are not thinking of the upcoming Jaguar release. For one, it doesn't exist on the market yet, secondly it is by far not an innovation. A great many operating systems have been using handwriting recognition -- for years. Palm OS is the most obvious example.
Now, if you were thinking of the Newton (which I doubt, since you seemed to be glued to the hype sheets instead of the history books,) I would be more willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. However, as any cursory glance of recent electronic history will show you, the Newton was not the first either.
Rendezvous
This is a subset of ZeroConf's IETF, started financially in September 1999. Similar services have been available for years in the form of netBIOS, and in stripped down terms, DHCP.
So yeah, it's new, and it has a spiffy code name -- but it isn't an Apple Innovation.
Fanless Computers
Again, these have existed for a long time, way before the Cube was dreamt up. When was the last time you saw a fan in a PDA?
Okay, so that isn't quite what you meant? You meant "Big Computers." Well, fanless water cooling has been around for quite some time in the overclocking community. It has only recently become cheap, but it predates the Cube.
Final Cut Pro
Heh. This was an acquisition. FCP used to be a Windows NT application. I don't know how much you use the program, or what you use it for, but as any professional who has to use it on a daily basis will tell you, it is loaded with bugs and nightmares. Hardware support is spotty, the built-in scripting implementation seems to change from version to version, PAL to NTSC conversion is unacceptably poor, ect ect. Trust me, I work with it on a daily basis. Final Cut Pro is *far* from being innovative. Non-Linear editing has been around for a long time, and it has been done *much* better than FCP.
Any Questions?
No, but I suggest you start asking them more often. Or at least do some research from time to time.
----- /etc conf files are deactivated. At that state, you might as well just install Debian/PPC and get a heck of a lot more computing power.
[1] Yes, technically you could, with a lot of tweaking, get it to boot up into XFree86 instead of Aqua, but have fun trying to maintain the system. Much of it requires an extremely messy set of XML configuration files. Most of the pure UNIX
I've noticed that I'm not getting too many repeats from the same banks anymore, whereas I used to get spam from the same banks over and over.
Their new cases are a reversal on this philosophy. I took a peek inside one, and they've got a pretty much screwless system now. Swapping hard drives is a ten second affair. Everything is pretty easy to get at, even the power supply flips out with the flip of a friction lever.
One negative I noticed was that it only had three PCI slots, and one serial port. I can see the rationale behind the serial deal though. In light of the fact that it has six USB ports on two busses, and 9-pin serial being a dying beast -- forgivable.
Progress makes its changes upon the present day in bursts and halts. Some things change rapidly, other things take decades. Typically, the things that change the quickest are the "everyman luxuries" such as cars, computer devices, and clothing. Our ever evolving concept of what "looks modern" is part of what drives that. Take a look at a six year old computer, it looks boxy and antique already -- yet when that computer was produced, it was likely at the height of what people considered Neat. The things that do not change as rapidly are extreme luxuries, and non-luxury items. Of course, there are always exceptions, but in general this is the case.
To bring this back to the film, the types of things that you saw looking wildly different and futuristic were precisely the types of things that go through rapid periodic aesthetic modification. Cars, electronic devices, watches, and clothing. The types of things that did not change are the things that haven't really changed in the past few decades for us either.
Secondly, as far as logos go, these do not rapidly change too much either, at least the bigger companies do not, and for a very good reason. If you go about changing your logo every two years, it stops having as much subliminal impact -- unless your company is already a behemoth, and then changes can actually be considered innovative, and people come to expect them -- however they usually revolve around the core idea. Pepsi Corporation is a good example of a company that has reworked their logo frequently, while always retaining the basic design that we all know by sight. How often has Proctor & Gamble fiddle with their logo? Even Microsoft has managed to hang on to their logo for a few decades now. Changes are made, but they usually are not often made, and rarely are they drastic.
I for one think that the concept of the future was quite realistic, and I found it refreshing in a way to see a design team correctly assess the way the world changes. I absolutely love the way Blade Runner looks, it is one of my favorite movies, and the design is a big reason why -- but it isn't necessarily all that realistic.
Neat, except that I listen to streaming broadcasts to find new music. I hear something I like, jot down the name of the group and purchase the CD later on. Oh, and nine times out of ten the p2p networks do not have the types of music I listen to, they are just filled with commercial glut. Especially now that AudioGalaxy is gone.
I pretty much only purchase lesser known releases, and very rarely do I make a purchase that I regret. I use various tools to find out whether it will be good stuff or not. Mp3s are a great resource, and I end up purchasing much of what I download. The stuff I do not purchase, I don't like, and it gets deleted. Web zines that focus on indie artists are good to check in to. Even using main stream tools such as AMG can find you a lot of interesting stuff that makes a relative safe purchase. Streaming net broadcasts, forums ... there are plenty of ways to keep your finger on the pulse of the unknown, without spending a dime, or even lifting yourself out of the chair.
I'll admit, I enjoy "the hunt" more than the average person. It is my hobby, so I dedicate more time to it than most people would probably be willing to donate. So yes there is a price, but it is far from impossible, and certainly doesn't require wanton random purchases.