I doubt if the GIMP developers would agree to sign the NDA to look at the source.
He said "take a look at it" not read the source. You don't need the source code to see how many features are in pixelmator, and how easy it is to use compared to Gimp. When you look at how few developers there are working on it, then yeah the Gimp guys might feel a bit devastated. Of course Gimp is mostly Linux based, thus can't take advantage of all the free work Apple did on the back end for CoreGraphics.
He said it right here when he used the word arbitrary, he implied that it was used in Leopard and that it was bad: "...The phrase "arbitrary graphical change" has become increasingly applicable, and the sheer number of possible looks for any given element of the OS has exploded."
That's an argument against the way transparency is being used in Leopard, not against its use in general.
I think you're right that it's possible that it's just flashy, but that would go against the history of Apple and their usability
I don't think you'll find many UI experts who have not noted that when Apple incorporated all the NextStep engineers and all the traditional UNIX people into their organization their focus on UI became less so (focused). They've made a number of usability errors that would not have made it past the old organization.
To recap, it is a latent spatial depth cue adding to the Gestalt of the UI, towards a more 3D metaphor of operating systems in congruence with real world objects.
Except that cue as indicated by transparency is not tied to the linked objects, so it fails to tie the menu with the windows of an application, providing an inaccurate clue. At the same time it reduces readability. Even Apple must have noted this since they reduced the amount of transparency in later builds. None of us can know for sure what Apple's usability tests showed, but from a basic UI design perspective, it does not seem to make sense.
You just want to bash Apple and OS X
Please refrain from the strawman arguments. They don't help your case.
...such as being forbidden from maximizing windows without wasting large amounts of time
If you don't like this, talk to the app developer. Unlike Windows, OS X leaves the behavior of the maximize button up to the developer to decide if it works better to maximize to fill the whole screen or maximize to fit all the content and leave as much room for other windows to be seen. Some make poor choices, but I find it hard to argue against letting the developer decide. I suppose Apple could add a user override to this behavior, but mostly this complaint is just from people trained on Windows and who want to duplicate things exactly. I usually prefer it if I can still see my other applications. For example, if a Web site doesn't need all the screen, I can still see my chat program.
the number of mouse buttons on their laptop
As a person who has seen usability tests on this, multiple buttons seems to be the problem, not just one.
Thats the sort of thing that ruins OS X for people who need to do more than read email once in a while or spend their entire career in a single application. Even managing your own files is painful in OS X.
I work at a company that develops and sells really expensive, Linux based network security servers. We get a choice of either MacBooks or Thinkspads. At this point, about 65% of the company is using MacBooks running OS X and probably 80% of engineering. Remember, this is by choice. Of all these engineers and other users I know of only one who switched to OS X and then switched back (he develops for a desktop Linux distro as a hobby and did not want to give it up). Everyone else who actually has tried OS X on the desktop has stayed with it over Windows and Linux. Most of these people are regular contributors to Linux and/or one of the BSD projects.
OS X has some serious usability problems. You might even say, the UI is broken, until you compare it to any other system available today, all of which are more broken.
As a recent OS X convert myself, my experience has been exactly the opposite of yours. I used to be able to work a lot faster, a lot smoother, without having to stop and interrupt my flow of thought -- yes, on Windows XP. Linux has been slightly less usable, but still more so than OS X.
Often when people are power users, there is a big learning curve to get up to speed on a different system. The people I know who have the most trouble are those who insist on trying to exactly recreate their workflows from an old system and who are not open to learning new ways. People coming to OS X especially have problems because Apple often only really polishes one good workflow for a given task. At the same time OS X has some really useful new workflows and abilities that are often completely ignored by people who just want it to be exactly like Windows or Solaris or OpenBSD or whatever.
Please note, OS X is not the best platform for all tasks. Personally, I use OS X, Linux, and WinXP daily for different tasks and they all have their strengths and weaknesses. I don't advocate any given OS for everyone and everything.
First, the shortcuts are not consistent from program to program.
Actually, I find them more consistent, with the exception of a small subset of programs that are quick and dirty ports or which intentionally try to maintain a cross platform interface based on another platform (like Firefox or Word). Have you tried Camino?
Oh, and using Open Office is not feasible in OS X. I'm sorry, but it plain sucks (slow, inconsistent, requires X11...)
OpenOffice is not well implemented on OS X. That is true. Try NeoOffice/J. It is the currently supported version and does not require X11. You must be using the really old and no longer supported X11 version.
I notice all the problems you mention so far are with using some given program that you used on another platform and which is different on OS X. Maybe you should consider the tasks you need to accomplish and then find the best software on OS X to accomplish them, instead of trying to find a port of what you used to use.
Second, window switching is abysmal. In fact, you can't switch between windows. You switch between applications. THEN, and only then, can you switch between windows with Command ~.
For very small numbers of open windows, OS X users suffer a slight penalty. For very large numbers of windows, the OS X way is significantly superior. Consider 100 windows open, 10 applications, each with 10 windows. On windows, to navigate from app1, window1 to app5, window5 you have to push 49 keystrokes. On OS X, you have to push 8 keystrokes (4 to switch to the right application and 4 to switch to the right window). That is a very serious usability win, even though it requires users learn to different keystrokes.
Furthermore, you can't even switch windows if one of them is minimized. Yep, you have to fish for it with your mouse (this makes the minimize button and Expose completely useless).
I see no reason in OS X to ever minimize a window. I think it is mostly a legacy control from pre-OS X MacOS. I recommend cutting it out of your workflow entirely.
Third, I have had weird things happen with my MBP -- fans just started spinning at 6000rpm for no good reason. I had to reset the PRAM. Why? Also, when the battery goes empty and the system goes to sleep, plugging it in does not let you turn the system back on! Err what? I have to wait 10 minutes or so for the battery to get charged at least a little.
Sounds like you are having hardware problems. My Macbook works fine while plugged in, even if I have no battery in it at all. All manufacturers will have hardware problems, but the consensus is Apple is right at the top of the pack for reliability, so I don't see that you can argue logically that this is a problem compared to Windows or Linux.
First, it doesn't matter if Linux or Vista already has some feature, since Linux and Vista do not have other features that may determine which OS a geek uses for a given task. For example, Linux lacks proper system services, easy migration to new hardware, and support for some software (like omniplan). As a result, a lot of geeks use OS X for tasks where those are important. Just because Linux already supports MAC or something.
2)64 bit
Oh come on. Only bloody faggots would think it's worth to mention 64 bits support. Linux had the WHOLE system recompiled in 64 bits for ages. You can have ALL The apps in your system recompiled for it. OS X is a mix of 64 bits kernel and some 64 bits libs and most of the rest 32 bits.
Sigh. Are you one of those "64 is bigger than 32 so it must be better" people? Some code benefits from being 64 bits and some is hindered. With Leopard, you have seamless support for both, depending upon the platform code is run on and the developer's decisions. That is a big win.
P.S. using slurs against people of a given sexual orientation does not help your case, it provides the impression that you're a 13 year old who's still unsure if he's gay and trying hard to make sure no one knows.
Unix certification
This has nothing to do with geeks and everything to do with bureaucracy.
Agreed.
5)Sandboxing.
Linux had it for ages and it's called SElinux, an implementation of Mandatory Access Control. I think some other proprietary unixes might have something similar.
Yes FreeBSD has jails, and Solaris has MAC as well. The thing is, I don't know any Linux distribution that ships with it setup and running by default so that developrs can count on all their users having it to work with an application they code. The Firefox team can't assume Linux users will have SELinux installed and thus use it to sandbox their code, but the Firefox team can now make that assumption for OS X users. Further, since so much mainstream hardware requires WINE on Linux, setting up sandboxes for those applications (or really an applications) can be a huge pain in the ass, even for competent people. Now developers for OS X will be coding with the assumption that sandboxing is a concern.
6)Terminal improvements (lots of them)
It can't be hard to improve on a TURD. Tiger terminal is a real, browny turd.
Again, this is a matter of perspective and how it is used. If you're planning on SSHing into 100 remote servers at once, their are probably better terminal applications that terminal.app. If, however, you're tunneling to a private IRC channel and would like integrated, translation between English and Japanese and German, well terminal.app is probably your best bet.
10)More efficient and more widespread use of threading.
For a desktop os that had the worst multitasking subsystems, it's expected to improve on its smelly shit. Windows 2000 and Linux had much better SMP support and efficient use of threading than OS X at the time.
Independent evaluation shows this is not true. It all depends upon your resource constraints.
12)Boot Camp
The mac is the only desktop platform so fucked up it needed a software like this to allow you to install multiple OSes on your computer.
Probably 99% of the populace would never attempt to install a dual boot system. Even for geeks who do so, installing a boot manager and getting all the drivers for both OS's can be a huge pain. Bootcamp is just a boot manager and set of Windows drivers for the hardware, nicely packaged. You don't need it, it is just really convenient.
It's too bad Vista and OSX will never compete with each other directly.
Well, sort of. Because of MS's monopoly influence in the market, if OS X were to be placed in direct competition, it would lose, regardless of the relative merits of the systems. That mean OS X would go away, giving us fewer choices. If, however, the desktop OS market were repaired, Apple's current bundling would put them at a significant market disadvantage and Apple would be forced to unbundle and compete directly with both Vista, and whatever other competitors would be pulled into the market.
I'd never consider buying a computer I couldn't rebuild or modify (or build entirely) so using Apple's software is never an option for me.
You have unusual priorities, luckily, since otherwise there would be even less choice for consumers and MS would have even less incentive to make any changes users want.
What makes him qualified to nitpick these changes?
Well, I've done UI design and testing professionally, taken classes specifically on the subject as part of my undergraduate degree, and attended a number of conferences and lectures on the subject. I've got to say, he does make some good points (in my opinion).
Translucence is part of a real world set of Metaphors. It's not Eye Candy.
I must have missed where Mr. Siracusa argued against using transparency. In fact, I seem to recall him saying that it can be a useful interface feature. What he was arguing against was is being used where it provides no benefit or where it is actually detrimental. Anyone who has ever worked on such a project will be able to tell you, without formal testing, usability cannot be determined and presumably, Apple has done such testing and should know better than Mr. Siracusa. However, almost everyone who has ever done such testing will also tell you at least one anecdote where a manager or marketer has pushed hard for ignoring the results of such testing in favor of making something look "flashy." It is entirely possible, that is what happened with several elements in Leopard and if I had to guess without seeing formal usability testing results, I'd have to lean towards Mr. Siracusa's view.
Having the menu bar translucent does not make its purpose any clearer or serve to make people more accepting of it in any way I understand. It does seem to make it slightly less readable in some situations. Why is it you think it was not changed to "look cool" and "sell boxes" instead of to maximize usability?
All of the reviews I've read thus far, including Ars, have been very positive.
All of the technical reviews from people who know what they're talking about seem to have been fairly positive overall. On the other hand, go check out the Google news archive for all the mainstream news reviews. They tend to be short, uninformed, often negative, and a number of them have been factually incorrect.
It's amazing how much can be done in a corporate/development culture like Apple in 2.5 years compared to the debacle that is Vista, which MS took 5+ years to produce (not that there's nothing at all positive about Vista, but looking in comparison).
I don't know. MS has done a lot in Vista, it is just that 50% or more of the work was things that are designed to benefit MS financially while hindering their customers. That is the difference between a company that is forced to compete in a healthy market (Apple in the personal computer market) versus a company that has monopoly influence in a broken market (MS in the desktop OS market).
How hard would it be to install this on a Pro? I hear that EFI makes this impossible.
Theoretically, the chipset used in the 8800 GT supports EFI. The issue is if Nvidia decided to include support on the chip they used and if they decided to write drivers. They hav thus far not bothered to talk about anything but Windows. I suspect they have not, but may release such a version in the future, aimed at the Mac market and at a different price point. Expect this situation to continue until MS supports EFI for a non-server version of Windows (promised to be in a service pack for Vista eventually).
But if that's the case, why buy a desktop machine that's upgradable if you can't upgrade it?
Just because one particular card is not supported at launch does not make having an upgradable machine pointless. There are dozens of cards with different features and price points available now, and probably will be in three years when you decide you want to update your graphics card.
May I ask what the heck you need 8-10 virtual desktops for? Especially on a box like this which I wouldn't think of as being able to run some 10-30 apps simultaneously (at least one, three per desktop seems like a sensible assumption to me).
The heaviest users of virtual desktops I know are people administering a large UNIX or Linux server environment. I've seen people with hundreds of terminal windows with SSH sessions to remote servers running simultaneously. This does not require much horsepower either. Personally, I usually only have 4-6 terminal sessions going and I manage them by setting them to different colors and using Expose. Beyond about 10, however, I imagine you would not have enough distinct colors, and virtual desktops would be really useful.
I don't get it, I have all of those features on my Linux box with couple of tweaks. And guess what, its open source and it costs nothing.
wtf is everyone so excited about mac?
The last time I got a new (Apple) laptop, plugged a firewire cable into my old one and selected the upgrade from old mac button. Then, I went and got some coffee. It migrated everything over flawlessly including user accounts, files, preferences, applications, bookmarks, and stored passwords. There was zero work on my part and I didn't even have to have a network connection.
Do you know how I "tweaked" my Linux install to do the same thing? I stored it in a VM on my Mac.
You are trying to give Apple a pass on an issue they really don't deserve one.
Well, yes and no. I have no problem with Apple dropping support for classic in default installs of OS X. Very few legacy apps are still useful and people wanting to run them should be content to run an emulator. What I do have a problem with is that OS 9 and earlier were tied to a ROM image that Apple refuses to license to anyone for redistribution. As a result any emulator you find will require you to jump through hoops to acquire an old ROM image, extract it on a machine that still uses OS 9, and then copy it to your emulator. As a result, if you buy a brand new Mac, but would like to play an old game you still have from way back when, it is an enormous pain in the butt to get an emulator (like sheepshaver) installed and running.
For that I cut Apple no slack. They should adopt one of the open source emulators and either give them a license for the ROM, or distribute it themselves with the ROM included.
They named it "Time Machine" instead of "Apple incremental, real-time, journaled backup." As a result a lot of people are unclear as to what it does and how it works. Two minute demos of it being used don't really answer all the questions so people post lots of uninformed questions and concerns. In 6 months OS X users will have experience with it and these questions will be reduced to just uneducated jabs from people who have never used it and don't ever plan to but are looking for some reason to hate.
While they must have lowered their standards in the last few years, originally microsoft was only hiring top graduates from top schools like MIT and CMU.
I know a lot of people who have worked at MS. They do hire a lot of people directly out of school. Mostly, the culture promotes hiring people who have "drank the kool-aid." People straight out of school have often not been exposed to a lot of different, real-world solutions. Smart and experienced are both valuable characteristics, but MS seems to actually avoid the latter intentionally as part of their culture (for standard hiring practices, not in all cases).
My company is really picky about hiring. Occasionally we hire people from MS who are looking for a change. MS has never hired anyone away from us, although Apple, Google, and Sun all have. Apple, on the other hand has a blended culture, including the old guard Apple UI experts, the NextStep rebels, and people from the traditional UNIX and Linux backgrounds. I think Apple is currently benefitting from the diversity of experience they have, while MS is suffering from group think and over management.
Also, being a monopoly MS makes money no matter what they do, whereas Apple goes out of business or people get fired if they don't consistently improve the product. At the highest level, Apple has to compete which drives them to innovate, while MS does not have to compete to make money and in fact can make more money by figuring out technological methods of gouging their existing customer base. How many of the technologies added to the last few versions of Windows were designed to benefit MS and MS's partners RIAA, MPAA, rather than to benefit end users.
But that's the point: Normal users aren't really supposed to figure this out. As a software developer and UI designer, it's part of my job to make sure every UI decision doesn't result in a new preference. 90% of the time, preferences are cop-outs: If the design team can't decide on what solution is best, they make it a checkbox. Don't do that. It's your job to figure out the best solution, don't burden the user with it.
I disagree, slightly. Apple already has a properties editor for editing the XML of these files without using the CLI. It is probably more cumbersome for the average user, than the CLI is, but some people are unnaturally afraid of command line interfaces, having been trained to fear them in the past. For settings like this, I'd be even happier if they just put an "advanced" button on the dock control panel that would open an editable and human readable list of all these settings, that relate to the dock. I fundamentally disagree with using poor usability as a way to discourage users from doing what they want.
That said, this is so far down my list of desired features that in practice I'd rather Apple devoted their resources to improvements of more interest to me.
Sure you can argue the correct solution but, my way is the easier solution... Given most people they will go with the easy solution. Put it on a public location turn on file sharing tell them to go to this address, then turn it off after they got the file, delete the file from that dir and you are all set.
Or easier yet you can include it in an IM chat or e-mail, which is what most people do these days and which is no less secure than what you describe.
For most cases it will take a while for a hacker or whatever to find the file and get it, durring the 10 minutes it is public.
Sure, but you're advocating lousy security instead of real security. Do tell, how is your method "easier" than e-mail or chat file transfers?
How do it know? When is a file a version and not a new one?
That's easy. It tracks the changes to the files. If you create a new file by using "save as" that won't be deleted and neither will it's history, but that is obvious because the original file still exists. If you move a file, it is still the same file. If you copy a file, you've made a new file, based upon the old one.
What would happen if you had an important file you temprarly drop it in a public location then move it out. once the person downloaded it.
If it is an important file, why would you drop it in a public location in the first place, instead of just transferring it directly to that user or putting it in a password protected location or them? The scenario you envision is already a security problem because you're posting private data in public temporarily. I'd argue the right solution, is not to do that at all.
Time machine is a security hole from hell. Just suppose you record some pr0n of yourself using the built in iSight, then think better of it and delete the files. Now anyone can casually sit at your desktop and retrieve all the compromising files.
Apple just made it easier to recover deleted files, if you're using backups. If you're not using backups, there is no problem. OS X has also long had a "secure delete" option that not only deletes the file, but writes over it with random data multiple times, ala DoD requirements. I'd be willing to bet that also does the same on your time machine backups.
Network neutrality laws, as currently drafted, would forbid discriminating based upon the source or destination of traffic, not based upon the type of traffic. This is often misunderstood, partly because of FUD spread by big network operators. They do not restrict traffic shaping or even completely blocking a given type of traffic.
See, I told you! It's not just a "a few geeks" unlocking their phones. It's a full 18% of iPhone customers thus far. That's a pretty significant number. Expect it to grow, BTW.
Actually, I expect the percentage to shrink. I know three people who bought and unlocked iPhones. All three of them live outside the US in a country where there was no local provider offering the iPhone. Between the number of other countries with a provider and Apple's moves to disable these phones via updates, I think the motivation to stay with another provider is dropping off.
And just in case you were still thinking you wanted to see proof that the lock-in to AT&T is all about the Benjamins, here it is:
I have no doubt money is a concern, but I also think Apple is being strategic. Without a big partner pushing both the phone and the services that run on it, the iPhone would not be selling anywhere near the numbers it is. Imagine if instead of the experience users have now, they could buy an unlocked phone for a $150 more, but no provider was offering it as a subsidized phone and not all of the features would work or work well on a given network.
Apple needed and still needs AT&T to get the iPhone to market and to the public. Once the exclusivity contract expires, however, I expect Apple will realize more profit with devices for multiple carriers or unlocked devices or both. In fact, I wonder how long their exclusive agreements in Europe are for, given the additional bargaining power they had. I don't think any of those have been made public yet.
...if they were planning on this, why did they sign up for a *five* year deal with AT&T?
If they'd managed to sign a two year deal, AT&T would currently be downplaying the iPhone and trying to push other models to prevent Apple from gaining to much leverage on them. AT&T needs to feel secure that the iPhone will be making them a lot of profit for some time to come. Also, a longer term deal means a better share of the profits for Apple, and Apple needs the iPhone to pay for itself and be proven successful in the long term.
In future, Apple will do whatever will make them the most money. If other device manufacturers step up and compete, that will almost certainly be multiple carriers and may be complete unlocking. Apple goes with the market. When the market demanded DRM that did not get in the way and allowed for CD burning, they provided it. When the market demanded no DRM, Apple provided that. The trick is getting enough competition in these locked down, cartel controlled markets (music, phone service) so that people can find some innovative provider. I'm hoping for a Google cell phone and service, myself.
Maybe its just me, but who cares about the iPhone? Normally I'm pretty excited about Apple products, but it really seems like just another phone. Yeah, it has a few more bells and whistles, but its not revolutionary or anything.
Personally, I don't care a lot about the iPhone and don't plan on buying one anytime soon. I felt the exact same way about the iPod and still do. That doesn't mean, however, that I don't recognize that Apple is pulling off another revolution with the iPhone, akin to what they did with the iPod. The iPhone is revolutionary in the exact same way.
Do you remember "no wireless, less space than a Nomad, lame." That assessment was not wrong, it just failed to account for the market. The iPod was not a lot more featureful than existing MP3 players, or cheaper. What it was was easier to use and learn and provided a smooth easy experience. The iPod was the first portable, digital music player that was easy enough for the average person to rip their CDs, load them onto the device, buy new music online, and play it while jogging. It didn't steal market share from existing MP3 players... it opened up the market to the 95% of people who were still using portable CD players.
The iPhone does the same thing, but for smart phones. It is the first smart phone that is easy enough to use and learn for normal people. It may not have all the features of other smart phones and it may not steal market from RIM's blackberry, but it opens up the market to the 95% of people who just have a regular cell phone and don't even use half of its features because they are too cumbersome. It opens up the market to people who don't even have cell phones but who think having all those features, usable, anywhere they are is worth the price.
Apple's winning strategy is top notch user interface and even more importantly, overall user experience. I'll probably buy an iPhone one of these days, unless someone else catches on that it isn't the look of the device, or how many features are listed as bullet points, or what brand it is and actually delivers a really good smart phone I will actually enjoy using and not be frustrated by.
Slashdot Mirror
He said "take a look at it" not read the source. You don't need the source code to see how many features are in pixelmator, and how easy it is to use compared to Gimp. When you look at how few developers there are working on it, then yeah the Gimp guys might feel a bit devastated. Of course Gimp is mostly Linux based, thus can't take advantage of all the free work Apple did on the back end for CoreGraphics.
That's an argument against the way transparency is being used in Leopard, not against its use in general.
I think you're right that it's possible that it's just flashy, but that would go against the history of Apple and their usabilityI don't think you'll find many UI experts who have not noted that when Apple incorporated all the NextStep engineers and all the traditional UNIX people into their organization their focus on UI became less so (focused). They've made a number of usability errors that would not have made it past the old organization.
To recap, it is a latent spatial depth cue adding to the Gestalt of the UI, towards a more 3D metaphor of operating systems in congruence with real world objects.Except that cue as indicated by transparency is not tied to the linked objects, so it fails to tie the menu with the windows of an application, providing an inaccurate clue. At the same time it reduces readability. Even Apple must have noted this since they reduced the amount of transparency in later builds. None of us can know for sure what Apple's usability tests showed, but from a basic UI design perspective, it does not seem to make sense.
You just want to bash Apple and OS XPlease refrain from the strawman arguments. They don't help your case.
...such as being forbidden from maximizing windows without wasting large amounts of timeIf you don't like this, talk to the app developer. Unlike Windows, OS X leaves the behavior of the maximize button up to the developer to decide if it works better to maximize to fill the whole screen or maximize to fit all the content and leave as much room for other windows to be seen. Some make poor choices, but I find it hard to argue against letting the developer decide. I suppose Apple could add a user override to this behavior, but mostly this complaint is just from people trained on Windows and who want to duplicate things exactly. I usually prefer it if I can still see my other applications. For example, if a Web site doesn't need all the screen, I can still see my chat program.
the number of mouse buttons on their laptopAs a person who has seen usability tests on this, multiple buttons seems to be the problem, not just one.
Thats the sort of thing that ruins OS X for people who need to do more than read email once in a while or spend their entire career in a single application. Even managing your own files is painful in OS X.I work at a company that develops and sells really expensive, Linux based network security servers. We get a choice of either MacBooks or Thinkspads. At this point, about 65% of the company is using MacBooks running OS X and probably 80% of engineering. Remember, this is by choice. Of all these engineers and other users I know of only one who switched to OS X and then switched back (he develops for a desktop Linux distro as a hobby and did not want to give it up). Everyone else who actually has tried OS X on the desktop has stayed with it over Windows and Linux. Most of these people are regular contributors to Linux and/or one of the BSD projects.
OS X has some serious usability problems. You might even say, the UI is broken, until you compare it to any other system available today, all of which are more broken.
As a recent OS X convert myself, my experience has been exactly the opposite of yours. I used to be able to work a lot faster, a lot smoother, without having to stop and interrupt my flow of thought -- yes, on Windows XP. Linux has been slightly less usable, but still more so than OS X.
Often when people are power users, there is a big learning curve to get up to speed on a different system. The people I know who have the most trouble are those who insist on trying to exactly recreate their workflows from an old system and who are not open to learning new ways. People coming to OS X especially have problems because Apple often only really polishes one good workflow for a given task. At the same time OS X has some really useful new workflows and abilities that are often completely ignored by people who just want it to be exactly like Windows or Solaris or OpenBSD or whatever.
Please note, OS X is not the best platform for all tasks. Personally, I use OS X, Linux, and WinXP daily for different tasks and they all have their strengths and weaknesses. I don't advocate any given OS for everyone and everything.
First, the shortcuts are not consistent from program to program.
Actually, I find them more consistent, with the exception of a small subset of programs that are quick and dirty ports or which intentionally try to maintain a cross platform interface based on another platform (like Firefox or Word). Have you tried Camino?
Oh, and using Open Office is not feasible in OS X. I'm sorry, but it plain sucks (slow, inconsistent, requires X11...)
OpenOffice is not well implemented on OS X. That is true. Try NeoOffice/J. It is the currently supported version and does not require X11. You must be using the really old and no longer supported X11 version.
I notice all the problems you mention so far are with using some given program that you used on another platform and which is different on OS X. Maybe you should consider the tasks you need to accomplish and then find the best software on OS X to accomplish them, instead of trying to find a port of what you used to use.
Second, window switching is abysmal. In fact, you can't switch between windows. You switch between applications. THEN, and only then, can you switch between windows with Command ~.
For very small numbers of open windows, OS X users suffer a slight penalty. For very large numbers of windows, the OS X way is significantly superior. Consider 100 windows open, 10 applications, each with 10 windows. On windows, to navigate from app1, window1 to app5, window5 you have to push 49 keystrokes. On OS X, you have to push 8 keystrokes (4 to switch to the right application and 4 to switch to the right window). That is a very serious usability win, even though it requires users learn to different keystrokes.
Furthermore, you can't even switch windows if one of them is minimized. Yep, you have to fish for it with your mouse (this makes the minimize button and Expose completely useless).
I see no reason in OS X to ever minimize a window. I think it is mostly a legacy control from pre-OS X MacOS. I recommend cutting it out of your workflow entirely.
Third, I have had weird things happen with my MBP -- fans just started spinning at 6000rpm for no good reason. I had to reset the PRAM. Why? Also, when the battery goes empty and the system goes to sleep, plugging it in does not let you turn the system back on! Err what? I have to wait 10 minutes or so for the battery to get charged at least a little.
Sounds like you are having hardware problems. My Macbook works fine while plugged in, even if I have no battery in it at all. All manufacturers will have hardware problems, but the consensus is Apple is right at the top of the pack for reliability, so I don't see that you can argue logically that this is a problem compared to Windows or Linux.
First, it doesn't matter if Linux or Vista already has some feature, since Linux and Vista do not have other features that may determine which OS a geek uses for a given task. For example, Linux lacks proper system services, easy migration to new hardware, and support for some software (like omniplan). As a result, a lot of geeks use OS X for tasks where those are important. Just because Linux already supports MAC or something.
2)64 bit Oh come on. Only bloody faggots would think it's worth to mention 64 bits support. Linux had the WHOLE system recompiled in 64 bits for ages. You can have ALL The apps in your system recompiled for it. OS X is a mix of 64 bits kernel and some 64 bits libs and most of the rest 32 bits.Sigh. Are you one of those "64 is bigger than 32 so it must be better" people? Some code benefits from being 64 bits and some is hindered. With Leopard, you have seamless support for both, depending upon the platform code is run on and the developer's decisions. That is a big win.
P.S. using slurs against people of a given sexual orientation does not help your case, it provides the impression that you're a 13 year old who's still unsure if he's gay and trying hard to make sure no one knows.
Unix certification This has nothing to do with geeks and everything to do with bureaucracy.Agreed.
5)Sandboxing. Linux had it for ages and it's called SElinux, an implementation of Mandatory Access Control. I think some other proprietary unixes might have something similar.Yes FreeBSD has jails, and Solaris has MAC as well. The thing is, I don't know any Linux distribution that ships with it setup and running by default so that developrs can count on all their users having it to work with an application they code. The Firefox team can't assume Linux users will have SELinux installed and thus use it to sandbox their code, but the Firefox team can now make that assumption for OS X users. Further, since so much mainstream hardware requires WINE on Linux, setting up sandboxes for those applications (or really an applications) can be a huge pain in the ass, even for competent people. Now developers for OS X will be coding with the assumption that sandboxing is a concern.
6)Terminal improvements (lots of them) It can't be hard to improve on a TURD. Tiger terminal is a real, browny turd.Again, this is a matter of perspective and how it is used. If you're planning on SSHing into 100 remote servers at once, their are probably better terminal applications that terminal.app. If, however, you're tunneling to a private IRC channel and would like integrated, translation between English and Japanese and German, well terminal.app is probably your best bet.
10)More efficient and more widespread use of threading. For a desktop os that had the worst multitasking subsystems, it's expected to improve on its smelly shit. Windows 2000 and Linux had much better SMP support and efficient use of threading than OS X at the time.Independent evaluation shows this is not true. It all depends upon your resource constraints.
12)Boot Camp The mac is the only desktop platform so fucked up it needed a software like this to allow you to install multiple OSes on your computer.Probably 99% of the populace would never attempt to install a dual boot system. Even for geeks who do so, installing a boot manager and getting all the drivers for both OS's can be a huge pain. Bootcamp is just a boot manager and set of Windows drivers for the hardware, nicely packaged. You don't need it, it is just really convenient.
Well, sort of. Because of MS's monopoly influence in the market, if OS X were to be placed in direct competition, it would lose, regardless of the relative merits of the systems. That mean OS X would go away, giving us fewer choices. If, however, the desktop OS market were repaired, Apple's current bundling would put them at a significant market disadvantage and Apple would be forced to unbundle and compete directly with both Vista, and whatever other competitors would be pulled into the market.
I'd never consider buying a computer I couldn't rebuild or modify (or build entirely) so using Apple's software is never an option for me.You have unusual priorities, luckily, since otherwise there would be even less choice for consumers and MS would have even less incentive to make any changes users want.
Well, I've done UI design and testing professionally, taken classes specifically on the subject as part of my undergraduate degree, and attended a number of conferences and lectures on the subject. I've got to say, he does make some good points (in my opinion).
Translucence is part of a real world set of Metaphors. It's not Eye Candy.I must have missed where Mr. Siracusa argued against using transparency. In fact, I seem to recall him saying that it can be a useful interface feature. What he was arguing against was is being used where it provides no benefit or where it is actually detrimental. Anyone who has ever worked on such a project will be able to tell you, without formal testing, usability cannot be determined and presumably, Apple has done such testing and should know better than Mr. Siracusa. However, almost everyone who has ever done such testing will also tell you at least one anecdote where a manager or marketer has pushed hard for ignoring the results of such testing in favor of making something look "flashy." It is entirely possible, that is what happened with several elements in Leopard and if I had to guess without seeing formal usability testing results, I'd have to lean towards Mr. Siracusa's view.
Having the menu bar translucent does not make its purpose any clearer or serve to make people more accepting of it in any way I understand. It does seem to make it slightly less readable in some situations. Why is it you think it was not changed to "look cool" and "sell boxes" instead of to maximize usability?
All of the technical reviews from people who know what they're talking about seem to have been fairly positive overall. On the other hand, go check out the Google news archive for all the mainstream news reviews. They tend to be short, uninformed, often negative, and a number of them have been factually incorrect.
It's amazing how much can be done in a corporate/development culture like Apple in 2.5 years compared to the debacle that is Vista, which MS took 5+ years to produce (not that there's nothing at all positive about Vista, but looking in comparison).I don't know. MS has done a lot in Vista, it is just that 50% or more of the work was things that are designed to benefit MS financially while hindering their customers. That is the difference between a company that is forced to compete in a healthy market (Apple in the personal computer market) versus a company that has monopoly influence in a broken market (MS in the desktop OS market).
Theoretically, the chipset used in the 8800 GT supports EFI. The issue is if Nvidia decided to include support on the chip they used and if they decided to write drivers. They hav thus far not bothered to talk about anything but Windows. I suspect they have not, but may release such a version in the future, aimed at the Mac market and at a different price point. Expect this situation to continue until MS supports EFI for a non-server version of Windows (promised to be in a service pack for Vista eventually).
But if that's the case, why buy a desktop machine that's upgradable if you can't upgrade it?Just because one particular card is not supported at launch does not make having an upgradable machine pointless. There are dozens of cards with different features and price points available now, and probably will be in three years when you decide you want to update your graphics card.
The heaviest users of virtual desktops I know are people administering a large UNIX or Linux server environment. I've seen people with hundreds of terminal windows with SSH sessions to remote servers running simultaneously. This does not require much horsepower either. Personally, I usually only have 4-6 terminal sessions going and I manage them by setting them to different colors and using Expose. Beyond about 10, however, I imagine you would not have enough distinct colors, and virtual desktops would be really useful.
The last time I got a new (Apple) laptop, plugged a firewire cable into my old one and selected the upgrade from old mac button. Then, I went and got some coffee. It migrated everything over flawlessly including user accounts, files, preferences, applications, bookmarks, and stored passwords. There was zero work on my part and I didn't even have to have a network connection.
Do you know how I "tweaked" my Linux install to do the same thing? I stored it in a VM on my Mac.
Well, yes and no. I have no problem with Apple dropping support for classic in default installs of OS X. Very few legacy apps are still useful and people wanting to run them should be content to run an emulator. What I do have a problem with is that OS 9 and earlier were tied to a ROM image that Apple refuses to license to anyone for redistribution. As a result any emulator you find will require you to jump through hoops to acquire an old ROM image, extract it on a machine that still uses OS 9, and then copy it to your emulator. As a result, if you buy a brand new Mac, but would like to play an old game you still have from way back when, it is an enormous pain in the butt to get an emulator (like sheepshaver) installed and running.
For that I cut Apple no slack. They should adopt one of the open source emulators and either give them a license for the ROM, or distribute it themselves with the ROM included.
They named it "Time Machine" instead of "Apple incremental, real-time, journaled backup." As a result a lot of people are unclear as to what it does and how it works. Two minute demos of it being used don't really answer all the questions so people post lots of uninformed questions and concerns. In 6 months OS X users will have experience with it and these questions will be reduced to just uneducated jabs from people who have never used it and don't ever plan to but are looking for some reason to hate.
...did Apple improve how they do threading in the finder?I don't have the beta, but supposedly they have reworked network processes to be threaded and I've heard reports that the situation is much improved.
I know a lot of people who have worked at MS. They do hire a lot of people directly out of school. Mostly, the culture promotes hiring people who have "drank the kool-aid." People straight out of school have often not been exposed to a lot of different, real-world solutions. Smart and experienced are both valuable characteristics, but MS seems to actually avoid the latter intentionally as part of their culture (for standard hiring practices, not in all cases).
My company is really picky about hiring. Occasionally we hire people from MS who are looking for a change. MS has never hired anyone away from us, although Apple, Google, and Sun all have. Apple, on the other hand has a blended culture, including the old guard Apple UI experts, the NextStep rebels, and people from the traditional UNIX and Linux backgrounds. I think Apple is currently benefitting from the diversity of experience they have, while MS is suffering from group think and over management.
Also, being a monopoly MS makes money no matter what they do, whereas Apple goes out of business or people get fired if they don't consistently improve the product. At the highest level, Apple has to compete which drives them to innovate, while MS does not have to compete to make money and in fact can make more money by figuring out technological methods of gouging their existing customer base. How many of the technologies added to the last few versions of Windows were designed to benefit MS and MS's partners RIAA, MPAA, rather than to benefit end users.
I disagree, slightly. Apple already has a properties editor for editing the XML of these files without using the CLI. It is probably more cumbersome for the average user, than the CLI is, but some people are unnaturally afraid of command line interfaces, having been trained to fear them in the past. For settings like this, I'd be even happier if they just put an "advanced" button on the dock control panel that would open an editable and human readable list of all these settings, that relate to the dock. I fundamentally disagree with using poor usability as a way to discourage users from doing what they want.
That said, this is so far down my list of desired features that in practice I'd rather Apple devoted their resources to improvements of more interest to me.
Ron Paul is a Republican representative with a (farfetched) presidential bid, but he certainly seems to be a staunch supporter of states' rights.
Or easier yet you can include it in an IM chat or e-mail, which is what most people do these days and which is no less secure than what you describe.
For most cases it will take a while for a hacker or whatever to find the file and get it, durring the 10 minutes it is public.Sure, but you're advocating lousy security instead of real security. Do tell, how is your method "easier" than e-mail or chat file transfers?
That's easy. It tracks the changes to the files. If you create a new file by using "save as" that won't be deleted and neither will it's history, but that is obvious because the original file still exists. If you move a file, it is still the same file. If you copy a file, you've made a new file, based upon the old one.
If it is an important file, why would you drop it in a public location in the first place, instead of just transferring it directly to that user or putting it in a password protected location or them? The scenario you envision is already a security problem because you're posting private data in public temporarily. I'd argue the right solution, is not to do that at all.
Apple just made it easier to recover deleted files, if you're using backups. If you're not using backups, there is no problem. OS X has also long had a "secure delete" option that not only deletes the file, but writes over it with random data multiple times, ala DoD requirements. I'd be willing to bet that also does the same on your time machine backups.
Network neutrality laws, as currently drafted, would forbid discriminating based upon the source or destination of traffic, not based upon the type of traffic. This is often misunderstood, partly because of FUD spread by big network operators. They do not restrict traffic shaping or even completely blocking a given type of traffic.
Actually, I expect the percentage to shrink. I know three people who bought and unlocked iPhones. All three of them live outside the US in a country where there was no local provider offering the iPhone. Between the number of other countries with a provider and Apple's moves to disable these phones via updates, I think the motivation to stay with another provider is dropping off.
And just in case you were still thinking you wanted to see proof that the lock-in to AT&T is all about the Benjamins, here it is:I have no doubt money is a concern, but I also think Apple is being strategic. Without a big partner pushing both the phone and the services that run on it, the iPhone would not be selling anywhere near the numbers it is. Imagine if instead of the experience users have now, they could buy an unlocked phone for a $150 more, but no provider was offering it as a subsidized phone and not all of the features would work or work well on a given network.
Apple needed and still needs AT&T to get the iPhone to market and to the public. Once the exclusivity contract expires, however, I expect Apple will realize more profit with devices for multiple carriers or unlocked devices or both. In fact, I wonder how long their exclusive agreements in Europe are for, given the additional bargaining power they had. I don't think any of those have been made public yet.
...if they were planning on this, why did they sign up for a *five* year deal with AT&T?If they'd managed to sign a two year deal, AT&T would currently be downplaying the iPhone and trying to push other models to prevent Apple from gaining to much leverage on them. AT&T needs to feel secure that the iPhone will be making them a lot of profit for some time to come. Also, a longer term deal means a better share of the profits for Apple, and Apple needs the iPhone to pay for itself and be proven successful in the long term.
In future, Apple will do whatever will make them the most money. If other device manufacturers step up and compete, that will almost certainly be multiple carriers and may be complete unlocking. Apple goes with the market. When the market demanded DRM that did not get in the way and allowed for CD burning, they provided it. When the market demanded no DRM, Apple provided that. The trick is getting enough competition in these locked down, cartel controlled markets (music, phone service) so that people can find some innovative provider. I'm hoping for a Google cell phone and service, myself.
Personally, I don't care a lot about the iPhone and don't plan on buying one anytime soon. I felt the exact same way about the iPod and still do. That doesn't mean, however, that I don't recognize that Apple is pulling off another revolution with the iPhone, akin to what they did with the iPod. The iPhone is revolutionary in the exact same way.
Do you remember "no wireless, less space than a Nomad, lame." That assessment was not wrong, it just failed to account for the market. The iPod was not a lot more featureful than existing MP3 players, or cheaper. What it was was easier to use and learn and provided a smooth easy experience. The iPod was the first portable, digital music player that was easy enough for the average person to rip their CDs, load them onto the device, buy new music online, and play it while jogging. It didn't steal market share from existing MP3 players... it opened up the market to the 95% of people who were still using portable CD players.
The iPhone does the same thing, but for smart phones. It is the first smart phone that is easy enough to use and learn for normal people. It may not have all the features of other smart phones and it may not steal market from RIM's blackberry, but it opens up the market to the 95% of people who just have a regular cell phone and don't even use half of its features because they are too cumbersome. It opens up the market to people who don't even have cell phones but who think having all those features, usable, anywhere they are is worth the price.
Apple's winning strategy is top notch user interface and even more importantly, overall user experience. I'll probably buy an iPhone one of these days, unless someone else catches on that it isn't the look of the device, or how many features are listed as bullet points, or what brand it is and actually delivers a really good smart phone I will actually enjoy using and not be frustrated by.