You raise an interesting point, re: the multiple computers with MP3s on them. There was a demo at MacWorld where Steve used Rendezvous to have other Macs broadcast their libraries, which appeared in the left-side shelf in iTunes. Very slick. Now, if Rendezvous becomes a real standard...
As for the non-networked PCs thing, I imagine you'd only have to gather the files once. It is an iPod, after all.
I believe the iTunes Library file itself is quite small. Surely small enough to not make a dent on a multi-gig drive.
I can think of a variety of different scenarios in which I might not be able to register something in Apple's proprietary software and thus have a difficult time with music playback -- ie. files spread out on various PCs and CDs I don't have the time to register. No other portable MP3 player has this intentionally placed shortcoming with the playback of MP3's; why should Apple's, one of the more expensive MP3 players on the market?
Not to be coy, but... have you actually used one? I only mention this because of the tells in your post; it contained the words 'Jobs cult' and 'proprietary'; it smacks of homebrew FUD.
I'm not slamming you, really, but look, the iPod's 'DRM' consists of an invisible folder and a database file. If you really wanted to get something 'down' from the iPod, it's trivial. *Trivial*. Hell, you can download a program and put it on the iPod itself; then it can 'download' to any Mac.
Apple has not built this ability in for you. That is not the same as 'crippled'.
Are you saying 2 hours only because those news.com articles are gonna be./-ed drawing much attention or are did you miss the fact that this is the second article from them with this link? ([Oct 3 [com.com]] and [Oct 7 [com.com]])
No, I caught that, but I think you're spot-on with the publicity angle. Those links have no clout until they make something like Slashdot.. and then...
Alien: It's only natural that humans would use a base-10 number system. You have 10 of everything. 10 fingers, 10 toes, 10 planets in your solar system...
We didn't pick the pricing structure, it was merely foisted upon us, and we accepted it because they put fluoride in our water supply.
Seriously, you're right, it's really stupid, but now it's set. It becomes especially problematic for someone like me who uses only a mobile as his primary phone.. and then you get calls from telemarketers...
(Although for the record I can't believe you guys have been paying for metered local landline calls for years - that seems insane to me.)
Speaking of spam... (and, slightly OT, but what the hell)
There's an ability in OS X Mail that I've not seen anywhere else. You can bounce mail. Maybe it's nothing new, but it's sure new to me. There's even a little icon you can put in the toolbar.
This, by itself, has single-handedly reduced my spam intake by 99%. Too bad Apple's own rules won't allow me to configure a spam-tastic auto-bouncing rubber inbox.
If you wan't to project HIGH quality images or make archival prints, digital looses (don't give me crap about the new epson inks, they haven't been proven and still can't hold a candle to platinum prints).
Yeah... now. You're missing the point.
Do you not see the progress being made here?
It's painfully obvious you're really attached to your old tool, and I say: bravo. Hang on like grim death. But don't bitch about more options. Yeesh.
Like the fncking Mac-bashers. Fear. Much fear in you. Why? Ignore it if you think it's crap, dude.
To everyone who thinks Apple is "sticking up for your rights" or some crap: Get a clue. This is purely marketing...
Justa quick correction: Apple doesn't say anything about DRM, or lack thereof, in any of it's ads. It's just not mentioned. We're talking about the SiliconValley.com article.
I believe that the "screenshots" in this article are fake. A little blur in Photoshop helps them to sell their expenisive cables.
You have got to be kidding me. They're not faked. While the lay person may not be able to see a big difference if you show them a composite signal, and then a component signal... put the two side-by-side and it's night-and-day. Really. Don't believe me, go check it out for yousrself the next time you're in an electronics shop. Use a DVD.
There's a real cult around expensive cables, especially amoung the audiophile croud. It's simply ridiciculous that some people who have a 5000$ stereo spend 1000$ on the cables. There is no difference in sound. A copper-cable's resistance is the same, no matter wheter you payed 20$ or 300$ for the cable.
While I agree with you, it's a diminishing-returns kind of thing. There are guys out there who will insist that they can hear the difference between 1"-thick copper and regular lamp-cord. Maybe that's even true - in an anechoic chamber. If you've got even so much as a set of curtains in that room (or worse yet, a square listening room), that difference is gonzo.
Having said that, I sprang for a $20 component cord for my PS2, which is hooked to a Sony Wega 27". I'd say a 30% difference in colour saturation and clarity, easily (I'm a graphic designer by trade). Composite is really fuzzy. But the difference between my $20 component cable and an $80 Monster component cable (with no audio!) is probably less than 5%.
Now, to those who say the fuzziness provides a nice 'soft' look... yup, that's true. It depends on the game, and how badly it flickers (say, Armored Core vs. Silent Hill, the former being brutal). Luckily the Wega lets you adjust the sharpness through a method called Velocity Modulation. I turn it on and off depending on the game.
So that's my 2 pesos. As for this...
Please slashdoters. Don't believe that crap.
I agree. Check the cables on your tv/system/games. Buy to taste. But don't tell me it's a scam, it's just not true.
I always thought that this was one of the reasons HDTV was slow to catch on (political shenanigans notwithstanding).
FOX used to run these ads that had a little, shitty picture at first, with (?!?) bad sound.. then it expanded to encompass the full glorious resolution and sound of... my regular TV.. to demonstrate the hi-def superiority. Made me laugh every time. People are impressed by HDTV when they see a real one, but how often is that?
Back OT - does anyone know if this Sharp model 3D LCD does that half-brightness' thing when switching to 3D? I remember an earlier prototype used 2 LCD panes to simulate the effect, with the result being that one mode had half the brightness.
(While I have no idea what level the offending software is implemented at...)
If you're running OS X, you can get the Ultrapeer/swarm-downloading goodness of LimeWire without that bitter SpyWare aftertaste. Have a look at Acquisiton. It uses the LimeWire core with a Cocoa front-end. While still very early, using Acquisition after using LimeWire is like... using OS X after Xp (oooh! Bad troll! how'd you get in here?!?)
I don't know the guy who writes it or anything, but he's a fellow Canadian so I feel the need to plug.
Do you know that Apple's past comments comparing pipeline depths of powerpc processors to the pentium 4 was complete and utter FUD?
How do you figure? The branch-prediction demo was pretty straightforward, if you ask me.
The plain truth is that powerpc processors and Macs have been lagging behind in performance for a long time. Top of the line G4s use 1.25Ghz processors. Even if they were twice as wide superscalar (I don't believe they are) AND the majority of programs could take advantage of all the extra execution units most of the time (which is not often the case on any superscalar CPU), they would still not match the performance of a top-of-the-line P4. Not to mention the fact that the Apple hardware would STILL be much more expensive.
You're not taking into account a gigantic range of things with your simplistic argument. AltiVec, for example. Yes, you need instructions that are highly parrallel to make it work. Instructions like the ones Photoshop asks for. See, that's the thing: Apple computers are designed for specific kinds of tasks, namely multimedia. You big-iron-overclockers just do not understand that. I doubt you can understand that, without going to work as a designer.
Of course you can buy something that's faster than a PowerPC. Yes, that chip exists. You know what? There are even chips that out-run your Hammer chip. Yes! It's true. Who cares?
As for your 'expensive' comment, that has been destroyed over and over again and I won't take the time to further refute it here. They cost more up front, less over time.
Ok, I'm on fire now, but I don't care. I don't understand the animosity towards Apple stuff. It's just another choice. It's not trying to take away your PC, man. Apple is not a threat to you. Just see it for what it is: another vendor. They've got some interesting stuff. When AMD come sup with a new chip we're all 'ooh, nice new chip, that'll drive cometition!' but when Apple does it, you try to rip it down. No, it is not superior stuff in every single way. But all the speed in the world doesn't make a goddam bit of difference when your operating system makes you want to kill yourself.
Again, sorry for the flameage, but fucking hell, I get tired of some of the rhetoric. Just take a pill and relax. You don't like Apple? Ignore them. But save your own FUD, willya? It makes me tired all over.
You do realize that this sort of thing took hours and hours on a $100,000 Avid previously. And now you're doing it on (approx.) $5k worth of Apple hardware with no special boards or drives.
I feel your pain, but let's get some real perspective. Video is almost always going to need some sort of rendering, especially when dealing with uncompressed (or nearly) video. That's upwards of 600K per frame, times 30 per second. Just for the data.
I used to have all these stats for explaining to clients why 'video rendering' always takes so long. My favourite: one minute of Cinepak (old-school!) video requires more math than the Apollo missions did. Sure, it's a whack stat, but it get's the point across, eh?
The G4 is no slouch. Realtime Video Everything requires a massive bank of DSPs, or a CPU that does not yet live.
I like the argument in a way. It says, "Hey, I didn't go beyond my authorization to do this. Their site already had the authorization wide open for me to do this!" On the other hand, it can be used to justify anything.
No kidding. Somebody should tell that to the wireless guys at Nokia.
I'll wait for the
DVD+r+RW+CD-RW=CD+RW=R-Z+DVD-D burner.
THAT's what I really want. If they manage to innovate the rest of the alphabet in there too, hot damn.
aside: the acronym situation is totally out of control. It's an RIAA ploy. When we can't tell what we're buying anymore, suddenly the piracy will stop...
I think it's a fine idea. My own slant has always been this: if it's free, as in beer, then subjecting yourself to ads is fine. You pay, no ads.
On a side note, I think the reason advertising on the internet gets such a negative response is that they are designed badly. Why do banners animate? Banners should not animate. Nor should things pop up/under what you are working on. People are just fine with the ads in magazines and such because they aren't constantly dancing around and flashing things at you. It's distracting, and detracts greatly from the reading experience. I'm sure static banners would raise a minimum of fuss in the average user.
I mean, we're predators, and our eyes are automatically attracted to movement. That's why good UI design calls for animation only when you want the users attention for something important.
Aww crap, I just answered my own question. I hate people.
Of course, if you go to MacKiDo's main page, you'll also notice an introduction note; in summary, it says that OS X was a mistake, as Apple's primary focus is no longer on the UI. And you know what? I couldn't agree more. Say all you want about OS X bringing Unix to the masses, but the fact is, the masses would have been better off without Unix. OS 9, despite having less eye candy than OS X, was architecturally better for the home user in just about every way than OS X - the only significant development X had was Cocoa, and that could easily have been ported into an OS 9 upgrade instead.
No, actually he does not say that. What I read there is that he doesn't necessarily agree with Apple's "new direction", and has decided that the difference between PC and Mac interfaces is now negligible. Obviously, a lot of people disagree.
Cocoa could not, no-way-no-how, have been ported to OS 9. While I miss my old spacial Finder too, I realize that it does not scale at all for the large numbers of files UNIX - and indeed, things like digital photography/music collections - requires.
By switching to OS X, Apple threw out 15 years of hard work, just to release an OS with an inferior UI on an inferior kernel. And their interface in many ways no longer follows the principles that Apple themselves set out so brilliantly back in 1984, and others tried to emulate with varying degrees of success (don't even get me started on the Dock).
Inferior kernal? Smoke another one, buddy.
I've heard these arguments over and over about the Dock. No one has a problem with the dock unless they are already thoroughly entrenched in some other mechanism. I'm convinced that it is the pain of un-learning something else that makes people hate the Dock. Try this - put some newbies in front of Mac OS 9 and tell them to launch the browser. They won't be able to do it. Where is the browser? 4 levels down, inside the Apps folder, with no visible way to get there. OS X solves this. The dock may have some significant limitations, but it's hardly the disaster some make it out to be.
As for throwing out 15 years of work, if you'll check the aforementioned Aqua UI guidelines, you'll see that it's not true. They have built upon that foundation. It's practically identical. I still have the original 10-book set of UI guidelines, and it really hasn't budged. If anything they've added to it - such as the new mode for dialogs (status, reason, action). Things like 'verb' button-labels remain.
But there's absolutely no point in buying a closed platform when the software, specially designed for that platform, sucks. At least with PCs, I can run BeOS on a laptop; with Macs, such is no longer an option.
While you make some good points, I must risk repeating myself - most of your complaints are addressed already in OS X. Which makes me think you haven't used it much, though you imply that you do.
There are a handful, and they do have a use: application bounce when launching, zoom-rects (navigational feedback), the genie effect, and the Dock magnify. All can be disabled or changed to faster settings (Scale vs. Genie).
Most find these features annoying and useless.
No, they are useful. Like I said,
A bouncing icon to indicate a prompt? Why not just have a red arrow next to it instead of a black one? A bouncing icon indicated that a program is launching, or wants your attention. Not a prompt. You can change this to a flashing arrow in System Prefs.
Zooming when a window is minimized wouldn't be needed if windows minimized to their icon on the dock, and hold clicking on that appicon would bring up a list of all instance of that application running. You can do this. Right-click on an app icon with minimized windows. Seriously, try it, it's there.
One should be able to completely disable zooming. Most users prefer instantaneous reactions to their commands, and don't care to see the progression of a window "travelling" from point A to point B. Just do it at the speed of light. *sigh* Yes! You can turn it all off! Really!
Dock magnify is another very annoying feature; one should have the option to turn it off, or eliminate the "scaling in it" (just make it small to large, instantaneously). Dude, c'mon! Yer killin me! Apple Menu -> Dock -> Turn Magnification Off.
Also, one should be able to specify a scroll up/down dock, thus eliminating the need for having such tiny dock icons. You can put it on the left or right, if that's what you mean, but notice that your monitor is wider than it is high - that means the icons will be smaller in this config.
Also, a problem with icon zooming is it makes it harder to change the focus to the next icon, because the large icon overlaps with its neighbors. That's simply not true. OS X never lets icons overlap in the dock. What you're saying is impossible in Apple's implementation, as the mouse zooms up whatever it's pointed at, when magnification is on.
A better solution would be to create a larger icon right next to that appicon on the dock, with the name of the application beneath it. Huh?
While we're on the dock, text for the appicon should display instantaneously when you move your mouse over it, not so slowly. See, this is what I'm talking about. It does appear instantly. It does this on the lowliest beige G3. Everything I've seen.
Yes, it is, and it wouldn't be the main way to quit/load an application. The idea is that when an application is running, you can see its appicon on the dock with a black arrow next to it.
YOU CAN SEE A... look, I give up. Check your facts. I don't think you are really running OS X; I think you've played with it briefly. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here; otherwise I would have to conclude that you should... check your glasses.
Windows should be completely vectorized. This is faster to load than bitmaps, takes up less RAM, and less hard-drive space.
Mac OS X actually uses bitmaps for all the UI widgets still; they are being manipulated through vector transformations.
As for turning off effects that have no use - OS X is actually not so effects-laden, really. There are a handful, and they do have a use: application bounce when launching, zoom-rects (navigational feedback), the genie effect, and the Dock magnify. All can be disabled or changed to faster settings (Scale vs. Genie).
Minimization/maximization. Windows should minimize to their appicon on the dock, and hold clicking on that appicon should bring up a pop-up menu of the instances of it running.
If it did that, I couldn't do the cool Tiny QuickTime Movie trick.
Dragging the appicon of a running application off the dock should quit that application, while dragging an instance of it off the apicons menu should close that instance. After the app's closed, dragging the apicon off the dock again should remove it from the dock, if it was a permanent member. Maximization should maximize to the entire screen.
You know, I read this a few times and I'm still not sure exactly what you mean. Drag-and-drop application launching is kind of a neat idea, but a little slow, don't you think?
Bring back Apple menu, with all the nifty menus. The old apple menu was great -- had applications, control panel, and many other useful menus. The new one should get those features back. Btw, control panel options should be entirely accessible through menuing: why make us open up a whole new window?
The old Apple menu was basically a menu Dock, when you think about it. Just a Place to Put Stuff. The new association of Apple menu to 'system' commands (like Sleep/Shutdown, Logout, etc.) makes more sense to me.
I do agree about System Preferences, I don't know why they can't just add the extra hierarchical menu to the Item there now.
Apple has long had issues with keyboard control -- namely, that you can't do everything you want from the keyboard. I suggest a very simple and traditional fix: F1 opens up File, F2 opens up Edit, F3 opens up View, and so on and so forth; in other words, they F# opens up the #th menu item.
If you check Keyboard under System Prefs, you will find a tab called Full Keyboard Access. It has a Custom mode.
Up/down scroll bar buttons should be available at the top and bottom of a scroll bar column.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, now I'm just feeding you.
These people have robot dogs, and robot fish, and giant robots with guns for heads.
Yeah, that's right Norton, get on the m*therfucker.
Perspective is everything.
As for the non-networked PCs thing, I imagine you'd only have to gather the files once. It is an iPod, after all.
I believe the iTunes Library file itself is quite small. Surely small enough to not make a dent on a multi-gig drive.
Not to be coy, but... have you actually used one? I only mention this because of the tells in your post; it contained the words 'Jobs cult' and 'proprietary'; it smacks of homebrew FUD.
I'm not slamming you, really, but look, the iPod's 'DRM' consists of an invisible folder and a database file. If you really wanted to get something 'down' from the iPod, it's trivial. *Trivial*. Hell, you can download a program and put it on the iPod itself; then it can 'download' to any Mac.
Apple has not built this ability in for you. That is not the same as 'crippled'.
No, I caught that, but I think you're spot-on with the publicity angle. Those links have no clout until they make something like Slashdot.. and then...
Alien: It's only natural that humans would use a base-10 number system. You have 10 of everything. 10 fingers, 10 toes, 10 planets in your solar system...
Human: Uh, that's nine planets.
Alien: Keep looking.
I give it 2 hours until they carefully de-link that DeCSS, max.
We didn't pick the pricing structure, it was merely foisted upon us, and we accepted it because they put fluoride in our water supply.
Seriously, you're right, it's really stupid, but now it's set. It becomes especially problematic for someone like me who uses only a mobile as his primary phone.. and then you get calls from telemarketers...
(Although for the record I can't believe you guys have been paying for metered local landline calls for years - that seems insane to me.)
Now Japan, they've got it sorted. Oh wait...
There's an ability in OS X Mail that I've not seen anywhere else. You can bounce mail. Maybe it's nothing new, but it's sure new to me. There's even a little icon you can put in the toolbar.
This, by itself, has single-handedly reduced my spam intake by 99%. Too bad Apple's own rules won't allow me to configure a spam-tastic auto-bouncing rubber inbox.
Yeah... now. You're missing the point.
Do you not see the progress being made here?
It's painfully obvious you're really attached to your old tool, and I say: bravo. Hang on like grim death. But don't bitch about more options. Yeesh.
Like the fncking Mac-bashers. Fear. Much fear in you. Why? Ignore it if you think it's crap, dude.
Justa quick correction: Apple doesn't say anything about DRM, or lack thereof, in any of it's ads. It's just not mentioned. We're talking about the SiliconValley.com article.
You have got to be kidding me. They're not faked. While the lay person may not be able to see a big difference if you show them a composite signal, and then a component signal... put the two side-by-side and it's night-and-day. Really. Don't believe me, go check it out for yousrself the next time you're in an electronics shop. Use a DVD.
There's a real cult around expensive cables, especially amoung the audiophile croud. It's simply ridiciculous that some people who have a 5000$ stereo spend 1000$ on the cables. There is no difference in sound. A copper-cable's resistance is the same, no matter wheter you payed 20$ or 300$ for the cable.
While I agree with you, it's a diminishing-returns kind of thing. There are guys out there who will insist that they can hear the difference between 1"-thick copper and regular lamp-cord. Maybe that's even true - in an anechoic chamber. If you've got even so much as a set of curtains in that room (or worse yet, a square listening room), that difference is gonzo.
Having said that, I sprang for a $20 component cord for my PS2, which is hooked to a Sony Wega 27". I'd say a 30% difference in colour saturation and clarity, easily (I'm a graphic designer by trade). Composite is really fuzzy. But the difference between my $20 component cable and an $80 Monster component cable (with no audio!) is probably less than 5%.
Now, to those who say the fuzziness provides a nice 'soft' look... yup, that's true. It depends on the game, and how badly it flickers (say, Armored Core vs. Silent Hill, the former being brutal). Luckily the Wega lets you adjust the sharpness through a method called Velocity Modulation. I turn it on and off depending on the game.
So that's my 2 pesos. As for this...
Please slashdoters. Don't believe that crap.
I agree. Check the cables on your tv/system/games. Buy to taste. But don't tell me it's a scam, it's just not true.
FOX used to run these ads that had a little, shitty picture at first, with (?!?) bad sound.. then it expanded to encompass the full glorious resolution and sound of... my regular TV.. to demonstrate the hi-def superiority. Made me laugh every time. People are impressed by HDTV when they see a real one, but how often is that?
Back OT - does anyone know if this Sharp model 3D LCD does that half-brightness' thing when switching to 3D? I remember an earlier prototype used 2 LCD panes to simulate the effect, with the result being that one mode had half the brightness.
If you're running OS X, you can get the Ultrapeer/swarm-downloading goodness of LimeWire without that bitter SpyWare aftertaste. Have a look at Acquisiton. It uses the LimeWire core with a Cocoa front-end. While still very early, using Acquisition after using LimeWire is like... using OS X after Xp (oooh! Bad troll! how'd you get in here?!?)
I don't know the guy who writes it or anything, but he's a fellow Canadian so I feel the need to plug.
How do you figure? The branch-prediction demo was pretty straightforward, if you ask me.
The plain truth is that powerpc processors and Macs have been lagging behind in performance for a long time. Top of the line G4s use 1.25Ghz processors. Even if they were twice as wide superscalar (I don't believe they are) AND the majority of programs could take advantage of all the extra execution units most of the time (which is not often the case on any superscalar CPU), they would still not match the performance of a top-of-the-line P4. Not to mention the fact that the Apple hardware would STILL be much more expensive.
You're not taking into account a gigantic range of things with your simplistic argument. AltiVec, for example. Yes, you need instructions that are highly parrallel to make it work. Instructions like the ones Photoshop asks for. See, that's the thing: Apple computers are designed for specific kinds of tasks, namely multimedia. You big-iron-overclockers just do not understand that. I doubt you can understand that, without going to work as a designer.
Of course you can buy something that's faster than a PowerPC. Yes, that chip exists. You know what? There are even chips that out-run your Hammer chip. Yes! It's true. Who cares?
As for your 'expensive' comment, that has been destroyed over and over again and I won't take the time to further refute it here. They cost more up front, less over time.
Ok, I'm on fire now, but I don't care. I don't understand the animosity towards Apple stuff. It's just another choice. It's not trying to take away your PC, man. Apple is not a threat to you. Just see it for what it is: another vendor. They've got some interesting stuff. When AMD come sup with a new chip we're all 'ooh, nice new chip, that'll drive cometition!' but when Apple does it, you try to rip it down. No, it is not superior stuff in every single way. But all the speed in the world doesn't make a goddam bit of difference when your operating system makes you want to kill yourself.
Again, sorry for the flameage, but fucking hell, I get tired of some of the rhetoric. Just take a pill and relax. You don't like Apple? Ignore them. But save your own FUD, willya? It makes me tired all over.
I feel your pain, but let's get some real perspective. Video is almost always going to need some sort of rendering, especially when dealing with uncompressed (or nearly) video. That's upwards of 600K per frame, times 30 per second. Just for the data.
I used to have all these stats for explaining to clients why 'video rendering' always takes so long. My favourite: one minute of Cinepak (old-school!) video requires more math than the Apollo missions did. Sure, it's a whack stat, but it get's the point across, eh?
The G4 is no slouch. Realtime Video Everything requires a massive bank of DSPs, or a CPU that does not yet live.
No kidding. Somebody should tell that to the wireless guys at Nokia.
THAT's what I really want. If they manage to innovate the rest of the alphabet in there too, hot damn.
aside: the acronym situation is totally out of control. It's an RIAA ploy. When we can't tell what we're buying anymore, suddenly the piracy will stop...
On a side note, I think the reason advertising on the internet gets such a negative response is that they are designed badly. Why do banners animate? Banners should not animate. Nor should things pop up/under what you are working on. People are just fine with the ads in magazines and such because they aren't constantly dancing around and flashing things at you. It's distracting, and detracts greatly from the reading experience. I'm sure static banners would raise a minimum of fuss in the average user.
I mean, we're predators, and our eyes are automatically attracted to movement. That's why good UI design calls for animation only when you want the users attention for something important.
Aww crap, I just answered my own question. I hate people.
Hey! This isn't aintitcoolnews! what the....?
(seriously, why is this story here...?)
(That's a DTP joke, for those of you in the back)
No, actually he does not say that. What I read there is that he doesn't necessarily agree with Apple's "new direction", and has decided that the difference between PC and Mac interfaces is now negligible. Obviously, a lot of people disagree.
Cocoa could not, no-way-no-how, have been ported to OS 9. While I miss my old spacial Finder too, I realize that it does not scale at all for the large numbers of files UNIX - and indeed, things like digital photography/music collections - requires.
By switching to OS X, Apple threw out 15 years of hard work, just to release an OS with an inferior UI on an inferior kernel. And their interface in many ways no longer follows the principles that Apple themselves set out so brilliantly back in 1984, and others tried to emulate with varying degrees of success (don't even get me started on the Dock).
Inferior kernal? Smoke another one, buddy.
I've heard these arguments over and over about the Dock. No one has a problem with the dock unless they are already thoroughly entrenched in some other mechanism. I'm convinced that it is the pain of un-learning something else that makes people hate the Dock. Try this - put some newbies in front of Mac OS 9 and tell them to launch the browser. They won't be able to do it. Where is the browser? 4 levels down, inside the Apps folder, with no visible way to get there. OS X solves this. The dock may have some significant limitations, but it's hardly the disaster some make it out to be.
As for throwing out 15 years of work, if you'll check the aforementioned Aqua UI guidelines, you'll see that it's not true. They have built upon that foundation. It's practically identical. I still have the original 10-book set of UI guidelines, and it really hasn't budged. If anything they've added to it - such as the new mode for dialogs (status, reason, action). Things like 'verb' button-labels remain.
But there's absolutely no point in buying a closed platform when the software, specially designed for that platform, sucks. At least with PCs, I can run BeOS on a laptop; with Macs, such is no longer an option.
You know, that is an opinion.
There are a handful, and they do have a use: application bounce when launching, zoom-rects (navigational feedback), the genie effect, and the Dock magnify. All can be disabled or changed to faster settings (Scale vs. Genie).
Most find these features annoying and useless.
No, they are useful. Like I said,
A bouncing icon to indicate a prompt? Why not just have a red arrow next to it instead of a black one?
A bouncing icon indicated that a program is launching, or wants your attention. Not a prompt. You can change this to a flashing arrow in System Prefs.
Zooming when a window is minimized wouldn't be needed if windows minimized to their icon on the dock, and hold clicking on that appicon would bring up a list of all instance of that application running.
You can do this. Right-click on an app icon with minimized windows. Seriously, try it, it's there.
One should be able to completely disable zooming. Most users prefer instantaneous reactions to their commands, and don't care to see the progression of a window "travelling" from point A to point B. Just do it at the speed of light.
*sigh* Yes! You can turn it all off! Really!
Dock magnify is another very annoying feature; one should have the option to turn it off, or eliminate the "scaling in it" (just make it small to large, instantaneously).
Dude, c'mon! Yer killin me! Apple Menu -> Dock -> Turn Magnification Off.
Also, one should be able to specify a scroll up/down dock, thus eliminating the need for having such tiny dock icons.
You can put it on the left or right, if that's what you mean, but notice that your monitor is wider than it is high - that means the icons will be smaller in this config.
Also, a problem with icon zooming is it makes it harder to change the focus to the next icon, because the large icon overlaps with its neighbors.
That's simply not true. OS X never lets icons overlap in the dock. What you're saying is impossible in Apple's implementation, as the mouse zooms up whatever it's pointed at, when magnification is on.
A better solution would be to create a larger icon right next to that appicon on the dock, with the name of the application beneath it.
Huh?
While we're on the dock, text for the appicon should display instantaneously when you move your mouse over it, not so slowly.
See, this is what I'm talking about. It does appear instantly. It does this on the lowliest beige G3. Everything I've seen.
Yes, it is, and it wouldn't be the main way to quit/load an application. The idea is that when an application is running, you can see its appicon on the dock with a black arrow next to it.
YOU CAN SEE A ... look, I give up. Check your facts. I don't think you are really running OS X; I think you've played with it briefly. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here; otherwise I would have to conclude that you should... check your glasses.
Mac OS X actually uses bitmaps for all the UI widgets still; they are being manipulated through vector transformations. As for turning off effects that have no use - OS X is actually not so effects-laden, really. There are a handful, and they do have a use: application bounce when launching, zoom-rects (navigational feedback), the genie effect, and the Dock magnify. All can be disabled or changed to faster settings (Scale vs. Genie).
Minimization/maximization. Windows should minimize to their appicon on the dock, and hold clicking on that appicon should bring up a pop-up menu of the instances of it running.
If it did that, I couldn't do the cool Tiny QuickTime Movie trick.
Dragging the appicon of a running application off the dock should quit that application, while dragging an instance of it off the apicons menu should close that instance. After the app's closed, dragging the apicon off the dock again should remove it from the dock, if it was a permanent member. Maximization should maximize to the entire screen.
You know, I read this a few times and I'm still not sure exactly what you mean. Drag-and-drop application launching is kind of a neat idea, but a little slow, don't you think?
Bring back Apple menu, with all the nifty menus. The old apple menu was great -- had applications, control panel, and many other useful menus. The new one should get those features back. Btw, control panel options should be entirely accessible through menuing: why make us open up a whole new window?
The old Apple menu was basically a menu Dock, when you think about it. Just a Place to Put Stuff. The new association of Apple menu to 'system' commands (like Sleep/Shutdown, Logout, etc.) makes more sense to me.
I do agree about System Preferences, I don't know why they can't just add the extra hierarchical menu to the Item there now.
Apple has long had issues with keyboard control -- namely, that you can't do everything you want from the keyboard. I suggest a very simple and traditional fix: F1 opens up File, F2 opens up Edit, F3 opens up View, and so on and so forth; in other words, they F# opens up the #th menu item.
If you check Keyboard under System Prefs, you will find a tab called Full Keyboard Access. It has a Custom mode.
Up/down scroll bar buttons should be available at the top and bottom of a scroll bar column.
This is trivial to do with TinkerToy.