Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
OS X Businesses Operating Systems Apple

ArsTechnica Posts Mac OS X 10.2 Review 120

Posted by pudge from the and-one-for-the-road dept.
hype7 writes "ArsTechnica have posted their review on Mac OS X 10.2. John Siracusa has been writing the reviews of Mac OS X since way back with the developer previews, and in my experience they've been the most thorough, thoughtful and unbiased reviews of Mac OS X on the web. Well worth a read." He does do a fine job; so if you needed one last fix of looks at Jaguar, here you go.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ArsTechnica Posts Mac OS X 10.2 Review More

ArsTechnica Posts Mac OS X 10.2 Review

Comments Filter:

  • Fat, Slow and Flawed (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ..that's what it's been called here [lowendmac.com] on Lowendmac by some bloke.

    • Maybe it's because Jaguar isn't supposed to run on "low end Macs" that's the problem?

    • I don't think so.

      I'm running OS X 10.2 on a Grape iMac DV/400 (that is a slot loading G3 400 for those that don't know) and in my experience the only machines it won't work well on without tinkering is the Old World machines.

      Most of those don't run X anyway except with something like X Post Facto from OWC. The exception being the original iMac and Beige G3s.

      Zoom for me is well worth it although Zoom needs a little polish but, works well.
  • I went into this expecting this to be the usual review of Jaguar: speed improvements, new programs like iChat, whoopie heard it all before. After reading a large chunk of the article and skimming the rest, I must say I was pleasantly surprised. Frankly, it's a much better introduction and manual for Jaguar than the one Apple puts out. I'll have to go through it all when I have time. Ultimately, he sums up Jaguar well:

    But I will stop short of saying that Mac OS X has "matured." There remain too many "unfinished" corners of the OS. All the little details that used to separate Mac OS from more user-hostile OSes have not yet been added to Mac OS X. Even tiny things like the aesthetically unpleasing default placement of progress dialog boxes in the Finder (wedged into the upper-left corner of the screen, with no surrounding space) contribute to the feeling that there is still much work to be done to match the fit and finish of classic Mac OS. The one thing that I would add to that is that Jaguar has matured OS X to a point where the casual Mac user still on OS 9 should switch over.
    • Not when you consider that John overlooked some state of this release. He could have waited for the first update and done the world a bigger favor.

      Read this from the disc recording developer list...

      ==============

      First things first ... let's get down to the nitty gritty. Jaguar marks the first public release of these APIs, and there are several fairly big known problems and issues already that we want you to be aware of. The largest number of issues are in the filesystem generation code.

      Known issues in 6C115:

      (1) [Content] ISO-9660/Joliet broken - there are problems in the ISO/Joliet structures written to disc which make files deeper than the root directory unreadable on Windows 2000 and XP. (Specifically, the parent directory pointers in the path table are incorrect.) Some ISO-9660/Joliet implementations can read these discs successfully, but you should not rely upon them to work everywhere.

      (2) [Content] Virtual filesystem hierarchies broken - the APIs to create and burn virtual hierarchies (DRFile.h, DRFolder.h, DRContentFile.h, and DRContentFolder.h) do not work. You will get an error when burning, and in some cases may crash due to a bad pointer reference inside the filesystem generator.

      (3) [Content] HFS+ CDs report a (harmless) "bitmap needs minor repair" when run through Disk First Aid.

      (4) [CoreEngine, DiscRecUI] Certain notifications having to do with the drive tray state may not be sent. When a disc is ejected via the keyboard eject button, or when the tray is opened via the front panel eject button on the drive, you are supposed to get a device status changed notification, but won't. This is visible in the DiscRecording UI components as well; we're waiting on a bugfix and an additional feature from IOKit before this will work.

      (5) [Content] Virtual links (symlinks, aliases) are mostly untested and may not work correctly. (6) [Content] UDF is not yet available in the first release.

      (7) [DiscRecUI] Carbon/C APIs to the UI components are not yet available in the first release.

      That's all I have on my notepad at the moment. The good news is, the first three have been fixed already and scheduled for release with the first Jaguar update. I don't have timeframes available for when, other than "soon". The remainder are being worked on but I don't have timeframes available for those either.

  • From a Mac geek... (Score:5, Informative)

    by singularity ( 2031 ) <nowalmartNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday September 05, 2002 @05:19PM (#4202715) Homepage Journal
    10.0.x were for the true bleeding edge.

    10.1.x were for most Mac users.

    10.2 is for every Mac user.

    A fairly computer illerate mac user asked me about a week ago if they should get Jaguar (10.2). I replied "With 10.2, there is no reason anyone with a machine that Apple says can run OS X is not running it."

    Unless you are running a specialized application that does not run under Classic, there is no reason not to be running OS X if your machine supports it.

    The speed, support, and stability are all there to make this a great operating system.

    The fact that I was able to throw in an old video card, a spare 100Base-T card and a USB card into my G4 at once and have them all immediately recognized and supported is simply amazing. Apple has done wonderful work with this transition.

    And I have a two-button scroll optical mouse natively supported, for everyone who might chime in with that.
    • My logitech dual optical worked out of the box. Scroll wheel and all that good stuff works in every app I've used thus far.
    • 10.0.x were for the true bleeding edge.

      Oh come on. Why do even Mac fans slander apple by saying 10 wasn't ready for prime time?

      I ran the point zero release right out of the box and it worked great. I had:

      Zero crashes.
      Zero bugs that I noticed.
      Zero issues that impacted productivity.
      Zero problems running my old apps under classic.

      Sure, I'm a developer, don't like the bleeding edge and never installed any of the betas. As a guy I work with said, pre-release of 10.0 when we were discussing whether to upgrade "I trust the engineers"... and we do, and did and had no problems with it.

      Anti-Apple bigotry is at such a high level that even those who support Apple feel compelled to bash it in some small way, lest they seem biased.

      But nobody calls the obvious bias of explicitly anti-apple organizations, such as ars technica. Why is that? (Yes, I know I'm going to get flamed/modded down for pointing out ars bias.)
      • Not trying to stir the flames, but I think that comment may have been based more on the lack of driver support and native/carbonized apps for 10.0 rather than about crashes and ease of use. I didn't switch to OS X until the Holy Trinity of apps I use became OS X native, Photoshop, Illustrator and Dreamweaver.

        And jagwire is.... astounding.
      • Myself, I installed the Public Beta, then 10.0 final, but all I did was boot it up for a few hours every few weeks to play with it. I didn't have a real native app until Quicken 2002(which isn't that great), and didn't really start using it that often until 10.1. Heck, my iSub didn't work in X until 10.1(and didn't get its own volume control until 10.2), so I certainly wasn't using the early version of iTunes for X.

      • I believe that 10.0 was released right when it should have been. I am not one of the Mac fans that believe that Apple should have waited to release it until it was about 10.1 quality.

        The point I was trying to make was in who should have adopted it at that time.

        10.0 should have been released when it was, but it was still a little rough around the edges, and there were some problems with some programs running under Classic. Since there were not a lot of programs that were running natively under 10.0, I stand by my assertion that most people were better off waiting for 10.1
        • If they had waited until now to release the first version of OS X, the application support would still be where it was back when 10.0 was actually released. And everyone would be complaining about that.
          They put it out there as an option for those who wanted it.
          ...and I is one :-)
          (been using OS X as my primary OS since the public beta)
    • "With 10.2, there is no reason anyone with a machine that Apple says can run OS X is not running it."

      I have a feeling that I've seen it officially
      stated somewhere that Blue and White G3's with
      DVD drives and hardware decoding don't have DVD
      playback under 10.2.

      For me, that's a perfectly good reason not to run OS X.
    • I can think of many reasons why "every" Mac user should not upgrade just yet. Maybe after 10.2.1 or 10.2.2.

      For starters, there are still some basic things missing, or at very least not "user friendly". I spent a long time trying to figure out how to make Jaguar print to a Windows printer. Apple has been VERY careful about not saying Jaguar can do that, and rather goes with the more general statement of "Windows network compatibility".

      It came down to me having to create a symbolic link between a samba utility and a CUPS directory. This is not something I would consider ready for every Mac user.

      There's also some issues with applications becoming buggy with the release of Jaguar. Even Virtual PC is problematic since I updated to Jaguar. Is this Apple or Jaguar's fault. Not really, but updating to Jaguar IS the cause of some of my problems and instabilities with applications.

      So, I'd say "every Mac user" should wait for 10.2.1 or 10.2.2...or at VERY least, wait for applications that you might use to release their updates for Jaguar compatibility.

      And as for my background, I came through the Linux route, have several years experience as a *nix sys admin (small [.com startup] and big [IBM] systems). And now, I'm a senior software engineer.

      Just my $0.02.
      -Alex
      • Connectix had a copy of 10.2 for months and they should have found the error. Is is not Apple's job to make sure every application works, it is their job to make new releases available to developers so they can test and fix. Can anyone say Apple did not make 10.2 available?

        I have been using 10 since 3/24/01 on both of my machines, full time. I almost never boot back into 9 and have gotten things done. It has been a downhill ride since 10.0.0. Each release made things easier and each iApp has opened a whole new world for me in terms of music (never listened to MP3 before my iPod), digital photos with iPhoto and hopefully video soon.

        They have not done everything right (upgrade prices for those of us who bought 10.1) but they are still the best out there, and so is OSX.

        BZ
        • I didn't say it was Apple's fault. In fact, I implied heavily that it was NOT Apple or OS X's fault.

          The point is not that Apple who is to blame for the problems. The point is to address the statement that 10.2 is an OS that "every Mac user" should blindly upgrade to. And regardless of fault, many apps are not ported to 10.2 just yet. Most work, but there are some issues. And as such, people should take care before just taking the plunge.

          I've been using OS X since March '01 as well. I never used 9 except to see what all the hub-bub is about. I came from the Linux path to OS X. And from my perspective 10.0 was more user friendly and prepared for main stream than what I had been using. But I could get around in either, so I am not a good representation of the average user.

          So, while I agree that OS X is one of the best OS's out there, I do NOT agree that it is ready for prime time, nor does the ArsTechnica article author from what I read. It's close, but not quite. And as we all know, technically superior does not mean everyone will be happy with it. And happiness is important to the success of the OS. Many people are happy with OS 9. And the things that they still expect from a computer are just short of a full reality with OS X.

          So... I agree with you on your feelings of OS X. Hell, I have 2 Mac's now, and about 1.5 years ago, I wouldn't have thought about touching a Mac. But, regardless of MY feelings about using OS X, there are still issues that need to be resolved. And I want to see them resolved, because they are key to the success of the OS, IMHO.

          Cheers,
          -Alex
      • Hey! Do you think you could tell me what you had to do with Samba and CUPS? I just finished compiling/beating Samba 2.2.5 (because the provided 2.2.Suck wouldn't read my 2.2.5 smb.conf) and I had to turn off CUPS support in order to get it to compile.
        • Well, I dunno about all your tweaks to the base system. I'd be concerned about what happens when you update. I tried modifying "Apple" system files, and it bit me in the ass when something I'd done was reverted with an update. They are getting better about having "user" protected areas for system wide configurations, but still need to work on it (configurable system wide cshrc would be nice).

          Anyway... I should have posted the relevant links. Here they are.

          Configuring cups for SMB:
          http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/OSX/cups_printing _in_ja guar.html

          Additional good quality drivers for CUPS:
          http://www.allosx.com/1030154694/index_html

          In that second page, you can search for "Alex S" and see a post I made that also lists a sample of the SMB URL. I followed the instructions of the first link (up to creating the symbolic link). I then installed the additional drivers of the second link. This increases the options for available printers (by a LOT).

          I then used the "OptionKey + AddButton" method for adding a printer in the Print Center with the "Advanced" mode being available. I like gimp-print's instructions for adding a printer more than the first link's steps. BUT, you need to do that symbolic link think in the first one, to get the Samba option.

          I hope that helps.

          -Alex
    • How on EARTH did this post get a "5 Informative"???? It's almost entirely opinion, or minimally Informative. I could see maybe a 2 or 3... but 5????

      Come on slashdot'ers... lets be a little more critical about where we apply mods. Don't just do a +1 because you saw someone else do it. If you have extra mod points to use, choose to let them expire rather than mod up without thinking!

      *sigh*

      Just my thoughts.
      -Alex

  • Very Good (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 05, 2002 @05:27PM (#4202771)
    You can see he's UNIX/Mac hybrid user.

    He tends to balance things out quite well without getting bogged down in stuff that is too far over people's heads or way below them. He strikes a good mix between the obvious and the not so obvious when it comes to what material to include in the text.

    I agree with practically everything he commented on and although I haven't actually got a copy of Jaguar yet on my system, I've heard and read enough to know a great deal about it. This review has helped to outline some of the aspects not included in the mainstream reviews which, on the whole, tender to bend over backwards in Apple's favour.

    The Finder and Metadata may sound old hat but they represent serious issues, as do the incorporation of the many missing featuress that are present in OS9.

    It's good to see someone speaking out so openly on these subjects

  • It's not supposed to be personal. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by elocutio ( 567729 ) on Thursday September 05, 2002 @05:33PM (#4202818)
    John's review was very thorough, as usual. While the Mac enthusiast is bound to disagree with his overall sentiment, I think the review is a must-read for the deeply entrenched Linux fan.

    I do think that he began picking at nits somewhat (who cares if people call it Jag-Wire), and ultimately, he drew all of his 10.2 comparisons on a combination of the earlier incarnations of itself (like 10.1) and some unknown ethereal ideal (like "PerfectOS, version 3").

    The charts on window server performance with Quartz Extreme were pretty neat, and while the review does not offer an exhaustive look at Jaguar's new features, the information offered was remarkably detailed and helpful, which allows readers to draw their own conclusions.

    I was really hoping to see more comparisons of OS X versus other Linux flavors, or even Windows or Solaris. Instead, the review often sounded almost adversarial and at least reactionary, which I could personally do without. Whether or not he had an axe to grind, John is a very talented writer and computer savant. This lengthy review is worth your time to read.
    • no, I don't think the Mac enthusiast will necessarily disagree with him. I don't. unlike many 'linux users' John comes across as someone who appreciates just how advanced the MacOS was in certain ways, how those advances were picked up on and extended in Be, NewtonOS and NeXT, and how so many of them seem to have been squandered in X. That Apple CAN'T - realistically - implement the advanced features and structures in an OS and hope for it to succeed is a testament to the legacy thinking that's slowly choking the IT industry. Remember, Apple is trying to woo Win users, and that means - unfortunately in many cases - giving them what they know. The OSX Finder shows why this is such a bad idea, Apple's continued prosperity perhaps shows why it's a good one.
    • I was really hoping to see more comparisons of OS X versus other Linux flavors,

      I'm glad that such comparisons weren't made. Most Macintosh users can't figure out why people might prefer Linux, and Linux users can't figure out how Macintosh users can put up with the Macintosh.

      The article told you much of what you needed to know to draw your own conclusions; I think that's the way articles like that should be written.

    • Small nits, pickwise (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fm6 ( 162816 ) on Thursday September 05, 2002 @07:42PM (#4203597) Homepage Journal
      I do think that he began picking at nits somewhat (who cares if people call it Jag-Wire),
      Or what kind of graphics are used for the box or startup screen!

      Of all the system architecture pundits I've read, Siracusa is the most literate and intelligent. But he has a certain tendency to get bogged down in minor details and issues. Which keeps him from developing much influence outside the Mac user community. Which is a pity.

  • Fix Wish List (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Jack Auf ( 323064 )

    10.2 is oh so much nicer than previous releases, but I still wish for:

    VT102 emulation (FKeys damnit) in terminal. GlTerm works for now. I guess.

    At least an *option* for sloppy focus / click to raise - click-to-focus-and-raise just sucks ass.

    Where is the 1400x1050 screen resolution? This res works just fine on my 19" Sony under Linux.

    Can I please have a *global* icon size setting and a *global* view style - nav down through a folder heiarchy in 10.2 and the view will automagically switch from list view to icon view. Super annoying.

    How about a 0-100% transparency setting for the dock.

    An API for a real honest-to-god VWM. Space works for now. I guess.

    If Apple are serious about wooing *nix users they really need to fix at least some of these. Most of these are minor issues and should be easily fixed. It's beyond me why they haven't been fixed yet.

    (I didn't even bother to mention middle-mouse-button paste).

    • Re:Fix Wish List (Score:3, Insightful)

      by foobar104 ( 206452 )
      (I didn't even bother to mention middle-mouse-button paste).

      I agree with what some of what you said, and I disagree with some. But this is just wrong. X11's cut-and-paste behavior is just dreadful. Once you get used to it, it's not so bad, but I've been using X11 on my desktop for years and years now, and it still frustrates me regularly. I don't know how many times I've highlighted something, moved to another window, accidentally or thoughtlessly highlighted something else, then tried to paste the first thing I highlighted. Oops.

      Explicit cut-and-paste is better by a mile.
      • You are confusing cut-and-paste with paste-the-selection. The two are different mechanisms and X11 supports both (as do most toolkits and many applications).

        From a usability point of view, the selection-based mechanism is arguably better since you always see what you are about to paste; with the clipboard, there is no visual indication at all. It's mostly switching back and forth that makes it confusing.

        • with the clipboard, there is no visual indication at all

          In the Finder, last item under the Edit menu. "Show Clipboard." It's pretty neat. Been there since, oh, at least System 6, and probably earlier than that.
          • That's a separate application and a workaround; Windows, X11, and other desktops have that, too, but nobody uses it. In day-to-day usage, the paste-selection mechanism always shows you clearly what you are pasting, automatically and in its original context.

            In any case, as I was saying, X11 gives you both, so take your pick. Most X11 users prefer paste-selection, and for good reason, I believe.

            • Okay, I think I see your point. But this brings up another issue. (Sorry to sound argumentative.) Others have asserted, and I believe, that when you give the user two mechanisms for accomplishing the same thing, the user wastes more time deciding which to use than he would have spent using the either of the two methods. So choice is not always a good thing. It seems that sometimes, when designing user interfaces, that it's better to pick one way of doing things and make it consistent. So while choice and flexibility are all fine and good in principle, they're often bad for usability.
              • Others have asserted, and I believe, that when you give the user two mechanisms for accomplishing the same thing, the user wastes more time deciding which to use than he would have spent using the either of the two methods.

                That result refers to GUIs like what you get in Visual C++--GUIs that put up zillions of buttons, menus, and entry widgets, many of which do the same thing.

                That result does not apply to configurable systems. You don't waste any time thinking about options you either don't know are there in the first place (your situation with cut-and-paste under X11), or have already decided not to use.

                I agree that consistency is good. And it is configurability that allows users to make their systems more consistent. I frankly don't care at all whether you find that the way I have configured my Macintosh is consistent with the way you have configured yours. What I care about is that my Macintosh is consistent with the other machines I use and with the way I'm used to using computers. In order to achieve that, I need to change the behavior of my Macintosh to deviate substantially from Apple's guidelines. We aren't all little clones of each other--our needs and experiences differ.

                The notion that you achieve a consistent user experience by imposing a single standard on a platform only works if there is only a single platform. That may be Gates's and Jobs's pipe dream and master plan, but it is profoundly user-hostile. And users will work around such attempts at imposing "consistency", as the numerous tuning and modification programs for the Windows and Macintosh GUIs show.

        • You are confusing cut-and-paste with paste-the-selection. The two are different mechanisms and X11 supports both (as do most toolkits and many applications).


          Can you PLEASE tell me the "standard" way to use the real cut-and-paste on X11? I am not trolling, I work regularly with Solaris, Linux and Cygwin and this really affects me. I thought the only standard option was the middle-button paste which really mortifies me...
          • I'm not sure what you mean by "the standard way". Most modern applications put Cut/Paste entries into their menus (almost all Gnome and KDE applications have it) and they work as expected. Note that they also handle selections, so "middle button" or its equivalent will paste the selection, while Paste will paste the clipboard. If the selection pasting bothers you, just don't use it (you can even rebind the button to do something you find useful).

            A small number of old applications (most notably, xterm) are still in use and don't have any menu entries corresponding to clipboard operations. I can't think of any such old application that is still needed. For example, instead of xterm, just use gnome-terminal, which behaves like you probably expect it to.

            I think it's a tribute to the design of X11 that things like xterm still work and are still useful to many people, even if they don't support a few features. Imagine, in comparison, how a 16bit real-mode graphical DOS application runs under today's Windows XP operating system.

    • Re:Fix Wish List (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Philip Trent ( 596548 )
      "VT102 emulation (FKeys damnit) in terminal. GlTerm works for now. I guess."

      Open up a terminal window and select Show Info from the File menu. In the Inspector window that will appear, choose Emulation from the pop-up menu. You'll find an option for "Strict VT-100 Keypad Behavior."

      "At least an *option* for sloppy focus / click to raise - click-to-focus-and-raise just sucks ass."

      "An API for a real honest-to-god VWM. Space works for now. I guess."

      These are terrible ideas. The idea behind OS X was to take Unix and make it act like a Mac, not take a Mac and make it act like Unix.
      • Open up a terminal window and select .....

        There's a big difference in keymapping between VT100 and VT102. (Had you spent any time on DEC hardware you'd know this). Gee maybe that's why I stated I wanted VT102.

        These are terrible ideas. The idea behind OS X ....

        Exactly how is including an option (as in optional) a bad idea? Why not leave the defaults as they are and put in the options for those of us that would like that behavior instead of simply enforcing some dogmatic behavior on the user? Hmmm...what other large software comapany has a tendency to do that?

        Just like you have the option to set your desktop icons to 128 pix. It's probably not a good thing for you, but for a small child it might not be a bad idea

      • "An API for a real honest-to-god VWM. Space works for now. I guess."

        These are terrible ideas. The idea behind OS X was to take Unix and make it act like a Mac, not take a Mac and make it act like Unix.

        What you say? Virtual window managers have NOTHING to do with Unix. Heck, I could argue that the first VWM I ever saw was...Switcher, which worked on a Mac 512KE back in 1985 or 1986. (Yes, Switcher was more than that, but let's focus on that aspect of the thing.) One of the most hugely sucky things these days on an otherwise great OS X 10.2 is being forced to have overlapping windows. With my VWM set-up on a Linux box in my lab, I can (and do) have a 3 x 3 screen containing up to 9 applications. Now it's true that with the tabbed browsing in Mozilla, I don't *need* 3 browser windows like I used to, but I sure as heck still want a screen of nothing but emacs and terminal windows that can safely use 18 point fonts. Really, it's a very simple concept here: the only thing you see at any given time should be things that need to be seen together. Overlapping windows are a hack; VWMs are not.

    • Re:Fix Wish List (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Mononoke ( 88668 )
      Can I please have a *global* icon size setting and a *global* view style
      There is a global icon size setting: With a finder window open, select "Show View Options" from the View menu. The first choice at the top of the preferences window is "This Window Only" or "All Windows".

      You're not given this choice at desktop level; You must have a finder window open.

      As far as your window style preference: You can select "Open New Windows in Column View" in the Finder Preferences pane. Personally, I prefer that to List View anyway.

      • Re:Fix Wish List (Score:2, Informative)

        by Jack Auf ( 323064 )
        There is a global icon size setting: With a finder window open, select "Show View Options" from the View menu. The first choice at the top of the preferences window is "This Window Only" or "All Windows".

        Yup. And it's broken. Has been for quite awhile.

    • Re:Fix Wish List (Score:3, Informative)

      by cbowland ( 205263 )
      Regarding the VWM and Space: you might want to check out Virtual Desktop [codetek.com] . Its not free in any sense (except for a trial/limited functionality version - 2 desktops only) but seems to be worth the price compared to what Space offers for free. Of course, when space gets a few versions older, Virtual Desktop might not be so far ahead.
      • This is a very nice piece of software, thanks for the link.

        Space always seemed to be the kind of app that leaves things completely messed up once it crashes. That feeling does not come back with Virtual Desktop.

        Neat. :-)
      • Damn good call. VirtualDesktops used to be kind of crap, but this is really sweet. Terms on multiple desktops and everything! Thanks for the tip.
    • At least an *option* for sloppy focus / click to raise - click-to-focus-and-raise just sucks ass.

      An API for a real honest-to-god VWM. Space works for now. I guess.

      If Apple are serious about wooing *nix users they really need to fix at least some of these. Most of these are minor issues and should be easily fixed. It's beyond me why they haven't been fixed yet.

      (I didn't even bother to mention middle-mouse-button paste).

      Yeah... Yeah! And also:

      How about something called Your Documents on the desktop? I really want that.

      A buttom somewhere that pops out a menu where I can select applications, system preferences, etc.

      An app called Manage Applications or something, where I could add/remove programs centrally, instead of having to put them in the trash.

      'Trash' sounds so... harsh... They should rename it to 'Recycler' or something.

      If Apple are serious about wooing Windows users they really need to fix at least some of these. Most are minor issues and should be easily fixed. It's beyond me why they haven't been fixed yet.

      (I didn't even mention putting menus in application windows instead of always at the top of the screen.)

      dalamcd

      (include sarcasm tags as you feel appropriate)

    • Open a terminal and type:

      defaults write com.apple.Terminal TerminalOpaqueness 0.0

      When you open a new terminal it will be 100% transparent. any value between 0.0 and 1.0 (0% to 100%) will change the opaqueness.

  • Ars Technica? (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by BitGeek ( 19506 )


    Why would we care what a PC-fanboy, mac hating, non-technical website would have to say about an Apple OS?

    That they criticize weird things (like the placement of finder windows-- something I've never seen, they've been correctly placed for me.) or complain that its not windows does not surprise me.

    This is like telling the world about a KKK review of a michael jackson album. Or letting us know that Microsoft doesn't yet recommend that we switch from windows to OS X.

    I'm serious. IF there is a bastion of non-technical technical "opinion" ars technica is it. The only people who think they are an authority are non-technical people who don't know better.

    Of course, I'm going to get modded down for "flamebait" by those mac haters who want to see mac bashing go unchecked. But its not flamebait or trolling when its true.

    Like the guy wondering why Apple hasn't fixed the problem running 1400x12000 resolution on a 19 inch display-- its not a PROBLEM for Apple to Fix. Its the *correct* way things should work. Ars Technica is a collection of self-styled authorities who lack a basic understanding of computer technology.

    Don't put them forth as an "unbiased" authority-- they are neither.

    • Re:Ars Technica? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Van Halen ( 31671 ) on Thursday September 05, 2002 @06:42PM (#4203257) Journal
      Give me a break. I know from reading many of your posts that you're a very thoughtful, intelligent sort of person. But I also know that you rush to defend the Macintosh platform at all costs, throwing that thoughtful intelligence to the wind if absolutely necessary. It's getting kind of old.

      The guy provides the most in-depth, unbiased technical review of Jaguar that I've seen to date. Overall his review is very positive and enthusiastic. But he also points out the things that still need fixing or improvement. As soon as you read that part, I'm sure your brain was thinking "Blasphemy! Must defend beloved, infallible OS!"

      Puh-lease.

      Sure, he gets a little nitpicky with a few problems that bother him personally, but the fact is that they remain problems that Apple needs to fix. You may not agree with everything he says either, but to dismiss the entire thing because he makes a few good points that expose weaknesses in your beloved platform is like walking around with blinders on.

      I absolutely love the Mac platform. Mac OS X is, far and away, the best OS I've ever used (out of all flavors of Windows, Linux, FreeBSD, IRIX, HPUX, AIX, Solaris, VMS, DOS, OS/2, BeOS, you name it). Like you, I tend to be quick to defend Apple and Mac OS X against FUD and damaging misinformation. Case in point: the graphic designer at my wife's job has to use dialup to get his email because the MCSE network guys said "Macs can't network." I hear that all the time - Macs can't do this, Macs can't do that - and have to correct it. Sometimes it's infuriating to see the ignorant biases against the Mac platform.

      But this particular review is very well researched and thought out - and accurate! The shortcomings he lists are, indeed, shortcomings. I really hope the engineers at Apple read every one of his reviews and take them into account - the next version of Mac OS X will be that much better because of it. Imagine that - as good as Jaguar is, imagine having something even better. Great, isn't it?

      • But Ars *IS* baised... (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        And not only do they admit as much, they proudly proclaim it in their tagline: "the pc enthusiast's resource"!

        So, when they actually go about reviewing Macintosh products; OS, Apps, Hardware, or otherwise; you can't really take them with much more than a grain of salt. Shortcomings will be exaggerated, and advantages will be understated. It's a guarantee, based on their proudly admitted bias.

        It all goes right along with their being wintel drones. Remember a while back when they put a considerable amount of verbage into "debunking" the advantages of RISC, in their efforts to be intel's "CISC rul3z" fan boys?

      • Re:Ars Technica? (Score:1, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Imagine that - as good as Jaguar is, imagine having something even better. Great, isn't it?

        Linux has a couple shortcomings, but because of open source, it is getting better FASTER! Just wait and you'll see Linux wipe Jagwyre off the map.

  • dock and menu extras (Score:4, Insightful)

    by EccentricAnomaly ( 451326 ) on Thursday September 05, 2002 @07:48PM (#4203621) Homepage
    The article comments on how Apple has gone out of its way to break third party menu extras and how apple blocks full functionality of a dock replacement.

    I don't mean to be an apologist for apple, but I can see a valid reason for doing this. I think apple wants to prevent any third party from replacing the dock (a menu extra could replace the dock). If a third party dock becomes very popular developers may decide to develop for it rather than use apple's dock and apple's APIs. Some sort of super-dock (or super-menu) could hijack OS X software development by offering extra functionality in an API that Apple doesn't have.

    Say some developer decided to embrace and extend OS X by replacing the dock with a "task bar" that mimicked the windows look and feel and implemented .NET so that windows apps could be ported more easily... Apple would provide hardware, a kernal, and a PDF windowing system, but a third party would control the UI...

    I know this is being paranoid... but I think it's reasonable for apple to keep control of the dock and the menu extras until they feel that their software has matured.
    • Dock replacement? I've been using DragThing happily with the dock tiny and minimized, and LaunchBar for spiffy keyboard access, and neither have broken through any 10.x upgrade.

    • Re:dock and menu extras (Score:4, Insightful)

      by cpeterso ( 19082 ) on Friday September 06, 2002 @12:51AM (#4204734) Homepage
      Misuse of the Dock is a very real danger. In Windows 95, Microsoft originally intended the System Tray (near the taskbar clock on the lower-right corner) to only be used for occasionally alerts. These days, it seems like every vendor (such as Real) hijack the System Tray with "quick launch" icons. Many Joe User's have a System Tray that is so bloated with useless icons, it stretches halfway across the taskbar.

      I can easily imagine Apple developers (who LOVE quirky UI extensions) to hijack the Dock in a similar fashion.
  • The new dual optical drive towers are shipping with build 6C125 rather than the 6C115 that shiped in the jaguar retial boxes. Could anybody explain the difference?
  • I've been wondering why I've been waiting six weeks for a fairly straightforward XServe custom configuration to ship. As the ITWorld article pointed out, the demand has been higher than Apple anticipated due to new commercial sales.

    As an educational user used to fast turnaround on orders, there's some compensation in noting the extra wait reflects Apple picking up new business with enterprise server resellers.

    Awright!

  • Like I said... (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by Matthew Weigel ( 888 )

    On MacSlash, until Siracusa sees the light shining out of my ass on the evils of HFS+ metadata, he's just one more Mac bigot.

    The way Classic MacOS worked with regard to file types was unforgivable. That he wants them to go back to it is ludicrous. I don't care about file type being encoded in the filename; it's better than letting a publisher tell you with what program you will read their documents.

    • Extension bigotry (Score:4, Interesting)

      by fm6 ( 162816 ) on Friday September 06, 2002 @12:45PM (#4207178) Homepage Journal
      On MacSlash, until Siracusa sees the light shining out of my ass on the evils of HFS+ metadata, he's just one more Mac bigot.
      OK, you've just called me a "Mac bigot" -- since I agree with Siracusa about metadata -- and that has me scratching my head. You see I've never owned a Mac, never used a Mac for any extended period. I just don't like file extensions.

      Filename extensions where invented back in command line days. They made a certain amount of sense when you didn't have a lot of different file types, or a robust file system for keeping track of them. Now you have dozens [isi.edu] and dozens [filext.com] of file types.

      File extensions are just not adequate to record this level of information. Too many have multiple meanings. (My favorite example is .WMZ, which means "Compressed Skin" to a certain media player and "Compressed graphic metafile" to a certain office suite -- both from the same company!) And how are users supposed to deal with them? If you have to specify an extension every time you copy or rename a file, Captain Murphy will make sure you get it wrong at the worst possible time. (Even worse for non-techies, who often don't know/forget that extensions are important, or can't remember all the ones they need to know.) If you leave it up the system, you're at the mercy of applications that play with extension associations without telling you and that impose "descriptions" that are more advertisements than useful classifications.

      If there are problems with the way Classic does metadata, that's an implementation issue, not a flaw in the concept. Anyway, is file-type fascism on the Mac any worse that extension stealing on Windows?

      If I have an issue with Siracusa about metadata, it's that his arguments on the subject tend to wander into obscure abstractions and complicated psychophilosophical rants. Computer science has some arcane roots, but computer people are a pragmatic bunch -- you can only convince them with specifics.

      I have to comment on your use of the word "bigot". My American Heritage Dictionary defines "bigot" as "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." Dismissing other people's opinions by with simplistic stereotypes and scatological insults would seem to fit that definition.

      • Can I Say YES YES YES?

        File extensions are the spawn of the Devil and should be shot and put out of my misery.

        Where for art thou type and creator??

      • Blockquoth fm6:

        OK, you've just called me a "Mac bigot"

        Sloppy thinking. Until Siracusa sees that I'm right, he is just one more Mac bigot: I say that because I know more about him than that.

        Too many have multiple meanings.

        On Windows. But we're not talking about a Windows implementation, are we?

        If you have to specify an extension every time you copy or rename a file

        You don't have to do that in Mac OS X.

        If you leave it up the system, you're at the mercy of applications that play with extension associations without telling you and that impose "descriptions" that are more advertisements than useful classifications.

        In Mac OS X, you're not at the mercy of applications that play with extension associations; there is a simple user interface to controlling the information. Further, you may have noticed how, during a file's lifetime, it tends to continue to be one particular file type; and, at least in Mac OS X, those types are associated by a single largely impartial entity, so they aren't advertisements (I don't know what you're thinking of in Windows that would qualify, but I'll assume you know what you're talking about).

        Looks to me like you have generalized from Windows' poor implementation that file extensions are bad; the same mistake I think Siracusa makes. Believe me, file extensions are imperfect, but right now Mac OS X has the best type system available in a high-volume operating system.

        I have to comment on your use of the word "bigot". My American Heritage Dictionary defines "bigot" as "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." Dismissing other people's opinions by with simplistic stereotypes and scatological insults would seem to fit that definition.

        I must admit, I am biased against those who do not think clearly. I am impatient with their comments, and generally don't concern myself with what they say.

        But in fact, I am not dismissing Siracusa's opinions out of hand with simplistic stereotypes; I've just gotten tired of re-writing an essay on why he's wrong every time I come across a group of Mac users who think he's the cat's meow and think that hes conclusions on metadata are authoritative. If you'd like to read some of them, look on MacSlash, or look at old articles here on Slashdot where Siracusa's "definitive" articles have been posted.

        Oh, and one more thing... the "scatalogical insult" to which I must assume you refer was, if you look at it, deprecating humor directed at the vehemence with which I disagree with Siracusa; in general, people refer to sweet holy light shining out of someone else's ass, to describe the unreasoning holding of their belief.

        • Of course I know you didn't directly state that I was a Mac Bigot. (Have we even met?) But you did say that Siracusa was a "Mac bigot" because of his belief in Classic MacOS Metadata. By inference, anybody who shares this belief is also a "Mac bigot". Go draw a Venn diagram if you can't figure that out.

          Even if that's not what you meant to say, somebody had to shoot down your linkage of metadata technology with Mac true-believers. Look, every theory has its kneejerk, dittohead followers. Has nothing to do with whether the theory is right or wrong.

          But in fact, I am not dismissing Siracusa's opinions out of hand with simplistic stereotypes; I've just gotten tired of re-writing an essay on why he's wrong every time I come across a group of Mac users who think he's the cat's meow and think that hes conclusions on metadata are authoritative. If you'd like to read some of them, look on MacSlash, or look at old articles here on Slashdot where Siracusa's "definitive" articles have been posted.
          You said "Until Siracusa [figures out how dumb his opinions are] he's just one more Mac bigot". Only with a rude, contemptuous [goatsex] metaphor to express the concept in square brackets. Does anyone else here not see this as dismissal? Don't all raise your hands at once!

          First you identify Siracusa with his less intelligent followers, then you say, "it's not him, it's his followers." I think we need another Venn diagram.

          As for your trauma in being forced to converse with uncritical Siracusa true-believers -- well, that doesn't mean you're not a bigot. You're still rudely dismissing Siracusa, you're just using the actions of other people to justify doing so. In other words you're a self-justifying bigot. Most bigots are.

          Looks to me like you have generalized from Windows' poor implementation that file extensions are bad; the same mistake I think Siracusa makes. Believe me, file extensions are imperfect, but right now Mac OS X has the best type system available in a high-volume operating system.
          OK, now that's actually a technical argument. And it's even a valid point. I have to confess ignorance of exactly how extensions work in OS X. I gather there are extension-handling feature [mamasam.com] that are better than those in Windows. But as long as a user can mung the data type of a file just by changing its name, I don't see how you can complete (or even mostly) avoid the problems I describe.

          • Blockquoth fm6:

            But you did say that Siracusa was a "Mac bigot" because of his belief in Classic MacOS Metadata.

            Nope. I stated

            "... until Siracusa sees the light shining out of my ass on the evils of HFS+ metadata, he's just one more Mac bigot."

            I stated that a) he is a Mac bigot, and b) there is a condition under which he could cease to be a Mac bigot. Nothing more, nothing less.

            linkage of metadata technology with Mac true-believers.

            I linked belief in the value of HFS+ metadata with being a Mac true-believer; you misread me, and opined that I must think you were a Mac bigot for thinking that file extensions were inappropriate or bad. In fact, I really do think that anyone who believes that HFS+'s metadata handling is excellent, or even better than the way current versions of Windows or OS X handle metadata, is biased (or bigoted) in their point of view.

            Does anyone else here not see this as dismissal?

            Read my comments about the common usage of the phrase I used: a reasonable person could not take it as anything but self-deprecating. Perhaps if I had said, "Siracusa needs to realize that the holy light of truth doesn't shine out of his ass," it could be completely dismissive and maybe (but probably not) rude. But I didn't say that.

            First you identify Siracusa with his less intelligent followers, then you say, "it's not him, it's his followers." I think we need another Venn diagram.

            Nope, I said that I'm tired of explaining my reasons for dismissing him, as a defense against the claim that I dismissed him out of hand; I have ample evidence that I have a lot of reasons for dismissing him, and just because I didn't post them this time doesn't mean I don't have them.

            I also didn't characterize him as having followers, just people who thought his opinion was worthwhile and valuable on the topic.

            You're still rudely dismissing Siracusa,

            Is this whole thing over my use of the word "ass"? Take a look here [google.com], and tell me whether it was rude to him for me to describe myself that way.

            OK, now that's actually a technical argument.

            Ya think? Tell you what... if you want to argue this some more, why don't you read my other posts about metadata, posted in the last article on Siracusa's reviews of OS X (for 10.1), and on MacSlash (ditto). See if you agree or disagree with what I said there.

            I have to confess ignorance of exactly how extensions work in OS X.

            No need to confess it; it was clear last time, which is why I bothered to describe the OS X behavior. Perhaps you will consider, in the future, thinking about whether you should assume you know all the details of something you haven't used.

            But as long as a user can mung the data type of a file just by changing its name,

            There is no way to do that without being aware of the danger involved in doing so. You can change it easily with "mv" from a shell, but using a shell presumes the competence to not do it trivially; you can change it from the Finder only by reading a warning and clicking on the non-default button of the warning. The default interface hides extensions and preserves them across name changes; I have a file that looks like "PDA Phone" in ~/Documents that is actually "PDA Phone.txt" - renaming it to "Ack! Stupid Visorphone" from the Finder actually changes the name to "Ack! Stupid Visorphone.txt", and changing it to "foo.bar" changes it to "foo.bar.txt" (because .bar isn't a valid filetype, it's considered part of the name). Trying to change it to "PDA Phone.rtf" pops up a dialog asking me if I know what I'm doing; which is correct behavior.

            PS- please be more rigorous in your use of quotation marks in the future - either quote directly and put it in quotes, or paraphrase without quotes.

            • I guess the only topic you really care about who, "Who's the biggest jerk." You'll excuse me if I go look for a more interesting topic...

              • That was being a jerk?

                I'd hate to see what sort of words you reserve for punks that can't understand a technical discussion and instead go in for incessant personal attacks.

                Oh yeah, you call those people fm6 [slashdot.org].

    • Actualy, speaking as a mac user, I absolutely dispise file extentions (even if they are hidden). I prefer to old OS 9 way of doing things (creator code / type) To me it was much more effiecient and reliable. And I never had to have the publisher tell me what could and couldn't open what files. I just opened the program I wanted to use,and then opened the file. If that didn't work, there is a wonderful program called Cambio, which allows you to change the creator anf type of any file, and even has a list of the most common.

      On top of that, C/T gives me better info than a 3 letter extention. As was pointed out by another poster, some programs use the same extention for different documents. With the C/T codes, I can look at the creator, and know what the document was supposed to be, even if the extention is the same.

      • Blockquoth MoneyT:

        I absolutely dispise file extentions

        Ah, spoken with a truly open mind...

        To me it was much more effiecient and reliable.

        Sorry, it's contrary to Apple's own pundits on UI design: if you want to edit document x, manipulating x is the correct way for the interface to let you do it. Opening random application y is not the correct way, whether y is the application you want to edit x in or an application to let you control which application x is edited in.

        As a practical matter, going off and finding y in the Finder in order to "directly manipulate" x via drag'n'drop is also unreasonably difficult compared to just pulling up a context menu or Info window.

        Further, Type codes aren't as reliable as filename extensions when transmitting files; apparently, people tend to do that a lot, a lot more than they rename a file they already have.

        As was pointed out by another poster, some programs use the same extention for different documents.

        Not on Mac systems, and not in files that Mac users tend to concern themselves with. Apple does the same type registry that they did with Type codes, with filename extensions.

        With the C/T codes, I can look at the creator

        Doesn't happen with C/T codes either, because of Apple's central registry.

  • Am I the only one here who's surprised that the author's neuron's didn't fire to associate the following two bits of his own review...?

    Exhibit A

    This screen is not specific to the installer. All Macs running Jaguar will show this image when starting up. Also, note the total lack of color...you know, just in case Mac OS X ever needs to boot on a device without a color screen... (cue X-Files music ;-)

    Exhibit B

    As fun as Ink is to play with, its presence in Jaguar is a bit puzzling. Its recognition ability isn't really all that bad--my handwriting is mostly to blame for the comical results above. But a keyboard is a much more efficient (and accurate) input method. The only logical conclusion is that Ink is the first step towards hardware that can run Mac OS X but lacks a keyboard. Although waiting for an Apple tablet or PDA is like waiting for Godot, what other possible conclusion can be drawn? Does Apple really think that pen-based text input will ever be used when a keyboard is available. Like I said, puzzling...

    • Exhibit C (Score:1)

      by pohl ( 872 )
      Like the Address Book, iChat is another brushed metal application. Unlike Address Book, it is not clear why it's brushed metal. As far as I can tell, it isn't an "interface for a digital peripheral", or an "interface for managing data shared with digital peripherals", nor does it "strive to re-create a familiar physical device." It's just...metal.
  • This article, though very thorough from a geek's p.o.v., almost completely ignores the graphic design/creative market. What about printer support/scanner support/Quark support/XTension support/Acrobat Distiller support/speed improvements for design apps? That's the stuff that's going to sell 10.2 to the already-Mac-user crowd. I need that to convince my boss that it's not just a great OS for home, but also work. I need justification for an OS 9 creative office to upgrade to the goodness that is OS X.

    Multiple paragraphs on the Terminal app (though useful) don't help sell it to the installed Mac user base that MS complains hasn't Switched. A little more info for the right demographics would be great.

    • Re:Great for techies, what about creatives? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Spencerian ( 465343 ) on Friday September 06, 2002 @09:42AM (#4206037) Homepage Journal
      I'm currently supporting (indirectly now) the very class of professionals you wonder about.

      I agree with your initial comment, but first note that the article can't possibly contain every viewpoint for every profession that uses Macs. For that, look elsewhere (maybe even my website--see my sig).

      Don't blame Apple for Quark dragging their feet in their QuarkXPress/OS X support. Quark is historically notorious for very slow development and very buggy software in its initial run. QuarkXPress would be one of LAST apps I would use on its OS X release because of how buggy it tends to be, and how it has even rendered whole projects damaged beyond resurrection.

      Scanner support is still weak, but better than 10.1. Plug-ins for applications is a concept that may phase-out in the way you describe to maintain system stability, but that functionality should still be available. Printer support is already there as well--the problem is that most users are used to maintain this themselves thanks to the ease of the Chooser and AppleTalk. Rendezvous and a good Mac technician should clear this up for most.

      I've already made my recommendations to make the move to OS X 10.2 for the graphic crowd. There's very little to stop the move now, unless you're really stuck on Quark. I would say to unstick yourself if your business allows it and take a serious look at InDesign 2.
    • How much research have you done to help convince your boss?

      Just as a suggestion, get a list of all your applications, all your peripherals (scanners, printers, network, etc) all our plug-ins and go to the web sites for these companies and see:
      1) If they work for Mac OS X 10.2 (some printer drivers for instance need to be re-written for Mac OS X 10.2).
      2) What is the COST going to be? Do it right, assume you are going to do it all legitimately and buy enough copies of all software (including Mac OS X 10.2). If your company is big enough remember most products can be purchased by site license, including upgrades. Don't forget some companies (like Umax) are starting to charge for driver software. Also don't forget that if designers use Photoshop plugins, they aren't going to be able to use them in X until they are updated as well.

      If you have a spare machine, set it up under Mac OS X and see how it runs. Do all the printing, scanning and designing that your company needs to do and see how it feels.

      Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to scare you off Mac OS X, but I have heard from a lot of people who jumped too quick into Mac OS X and got into a dreadful tangle because they forgot to check that their current stuff would work, and then blamed it all on X because it took them weeks to sort it out, where a little foresight and planning would have given them a troublefree cross-over (how hard is it to check the web first?).

    • Thanks for the thoughts, you guys. I understand that the article can't possibly hit all bases and Apple can't control what 3rd parties do. I think it was very well done, as I mentioned.

      I'm already a die-hard OS X guy at home, I only open Classic for Quark (I also have InDesign 2, which I think is superior, but the print world still clings to Quark unfortunately). I've written several lengthy emails to my superiors about OS X and tried to send links to as many reviews as possible. I hadn't heard about the TWAIN support, that's going to go a long way in convincing the ppl with the $$

      I /love/ the idea of setting up a "test" machine to try it out at work to let everyone see what it can do! I'm going to suggest that for sure. Thanks for the replies
    • OK, what Part of ArsTECHnica didn't you get?

      I'm a creative professional myself (Web Art Director) and even though what you are mentioning are interesting to me too, I know what I'm going to when I read the regular ArsTechnica Mac OS X review.

      The way you convince your boss that it's worth it for the office is to try it out yourself at home first. Then you'll have first-hand experience on which to base your arguments on.

      FYI, Quark runs great in Classic, printer support is getting better (CUPS for instance opens up a whole new world of previously windows-only printers), XTensions won't change in classic Quark. Speed for classic apps is mostly the same, sometimes slower, sometimes faster.

      Hope this answers a few of your questions.
  • He ingored the information about how more than one API was broken in 10.2, and thus resulting in things like CD support for Windows being broken as well.

    My point is that 10.2 has some rather tender flesh on it's bones, and until 10.2.1 etc. come out, there are many areas that shouldn't be reviewed just yet.

    His article is flowery and premature...wait a while and this will be obvious. OS X 10.2 is a teenager with acne. Let it's balls drop before you write about it's ability to get off the porch and run with the BDs.
  • This page [arstechnica.com] is the best, it mentions the coolest screensaver I've ever seen: Marine Aquarium [serenescreen.com]. And it describes other fun things you can do leverage the power of Quartz Extreme. I'd love to have a QE compatible video card to enable this screensaver as my desktop using that nice little comannd line: /System/Library/Frameworks/ScreenSaver.framework/R esources/ScreenSaverEngine.app/Contents/MacOS/Scre enSaverEngine -background
  • The author complains about how pointless the feature of Tablet Gestures are and "why would you use this if you had a keyboard infront of you?"

    This guy obviously hasn't seen Minority Report with the hand-gesture interface - can't he see that this is where apple wants to go!!? Now THAT would be sweet!
  • And here's why
    1) bass ackwards command keys. Command N should be NEW FILE. Not new window. I live by my shortcuts and that's just stupid.
    2) Where the HELL did file selection ala keyboard go in open and save dialogs? You can't type the name of your file and select your file. ARRRRGGH! Die Steve Die!
    3) Where is the Type and Creator info? Why in the name of all that is holy and good did Apple drop that for the .xxx extension based crap? I wants my types and creators in the damn files. Put the info in the headers fer god's sake and ax the foocking extensions
    4) LET ME RENAME MY SYSTEM FOLDER WHEN I WANT TO.
    5) There is NO graphical indicators to indicate when you should single click or double click on an item. I find this very disconcerting. Save me Tog! Save me!

    Oh, I'll spare everyone at this point lest I rant.

    Oops.

    It seems that details that matter to the Few, the proud, the hardcore Mac faithful aren't there. I can get the pinwheel of death to show in a g4 667 or a g3 400 just by doing basic stuff.

    The fine tuning that made 9 WORK for me that I live on is not there. For me, Unix is user hostile and it may be the underpinnings of a stable foundation for the OS but I want to be even more isolated from it.
    • 1) A result of the new UI where you navigate in a browser window. BTW command N never created a new file, it created a new folder.

      2) I dunno, ask steve

      3) A result of switching to the UNIX underlay. UNIX (being a CLI system) like Windows (based on a CLI system) use file extentions. Classic OS (not CLI based) never user a CLI thus never needed the extentions and could use a more reliable and superior system

      4) Again, result of using UNIX. Compatibility mean using what's already standard. Sucks to not be proprietary anymore doesn't it? But that's what happens whne the PC whinners get their way. Besides, it's a small trade off.

      5) First rule of thumb in mac OS, if it's an icon, double click. If it's anything else, single click.
  • One point that the review missed that surprised me was exactly how spookily good the "networking" under system preferences has now evolved to become. As the saying goes...it just works. The other day I had to tweak some stuff with wireless networking on a ThinkPad. It wasn't that horrific, since I did sort of know what I was doing, but I couldn't help but think "this really sucks compared to Jaguar...".

    And I'll spare you the account of my tears of joy when USB printer sharing both a) worked again and b) was way more pleasant than under MacOS 9. Wow. You really have to see this to believe it.

Slashdot Top Deals

On the eighth day, God created FORTRAN.

Close