Zarf in Mac OS X Land 414
baruz writes "Andrew Plotkin (aka Zarf), award-winning interactive fiction author and Mac and Unix programmer, has not-so-recently posted a secret diary of his experiences installing and using Mac oh ess ex."
Real Programs don't use shared text. Otherwise, how can they use functions for scratch space after they are finished calling them?
Don't send in your info (Score:5, Informative)
Another "journalist" complained about this then X first came out.
It's quite simple: when running then installer fill in the info, then when it asks if you have an internet connection, say no. When it asks if you want to register with Apple, say "later."
After it boots, go set up your Networking preferences, etc.
No info sent to Apple. I mean, how dumb do you gotta be to not realise that you dont HAVE to send anything in?!
Re:Don't send in your info (Score:2)
Re:Don't send in your info (Score:3, Funny)
Ummm.... just about dumb enough to buy Windows XP. Oh wait- that's a "feature," never mind.
:)
Emacs (Score:5, Funny)
Man, I'd love to travel back in time five years and tell a bunch of Mac advocates that within five years, Emacs will come pre-loaded on a Mac.
Re:Emacs (Score:2, Funny)
Dancin Santa
Re:Emacs (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Emacs (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Emacs (Score:2, Funny)
Summarization (Score:5, Funny)
Hates Dock.
Doesn't get why you wouldn't want to have root access always on.
Doesn't like font handling.
Has strange habit of referring to Apple computer engineers and UI designers as 'Steve'
Re:Summarization (Score:3, Funny)
now, here's my (o-ess-ex user's) article-o-meter:
'stupid diary! - 57'
'good point! - 3'
Re:Summarization (Score:2, Informative)
> Likes American McGee's Alice.
The full quote is "Pico-review: visually brilliant. No plot, ten-second gimmick idea for character. McGee thinks he's going to make a movie out of this? Then again, I went to see Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within."
I'm not sure that indicates like.
> Doesn't get why you wouldn't want to have root access always on.
hmm, I don't think this is what he was saying. Rather, his normal login was in fact 'admin' on OSX, but it still made him type a password (his own password), and the method of figuring out how to type a password was nonintuitive. And he seems to have been fine with using 'su' to install software, except for some reason (hard to tell from what he says) it wasn't immediately clear that this was specifically necessary.
> Doesn't like font handling.
I think what he said is that he didn't like the font selection interface.
Re:Summarization (Score:2, Informative)
This should be obvious... (Score:2, Insightful)
PEBKAC
Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair.
Re:This should be obvious... OT (Score:5, Funny)
A few years back, a non-tech co-worker asked if it was fair for a local computer shop to charge her $65 to fix problem. $65 is a bit much for a 30 minute fix I my mind, so I asked her what the problem was. She said that the shop owner told her it was just aother "Windows I.D. Ten T" error. Needless to say after I agreed it was a fair price and that she wasn't being ripped off, I about fell out of my chair laughing.
I.D. Ten T = id10t
Re:This should be obvious... (Score:2)
Or, as it's known where I work, it's the CKI, or "Chair to Keyboard Interface."
Re:But it isn't obvious! (Score:2, Insightful)
The big confusion, for me at least, would be that if I'm already logged in as an admin, why should I have to type my password again?
It does sound like the sudo dialog box wasn't worded very well, but on the other hand he should know that if there's ever an authentication step to go through, clicking on images of a lock or a key is usually the way to go.
The rant about the difference between icons for objects versus actions was very insightful - somebody should really apply that interface metric to Windows and Linux systems as well. Sounds like Mac OS really took a step backwards there.
Re:But it isn't obvious! (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree in principal, but at the same time I know that novice users (still a big apple market) love having little icons everywhere. That favorites icon (the heart) which bugged this guy so much will be adored by many consumers ("I just click on the litte red heart, and my favorites come up! Oooh! Aaah!"), and it's easy for the people who don't like it to turn it off. Ditto for the interface tricks he doesn't like ("Look at the animations! Wheeeeee!"). I don't think it's a step backwards. I'm sure they would have gotten lot more criticism if they, god forbid, made a toolbar with a bunch of text-only buttons.
UNIX programmer? (Score:2)
Re:UNIX programmer? (Score:2)
I also found his point about installing device drives to be pointless. Last time I used yast2 with SuSE, it kept asking for my password before I could even install applications. Why should OS X be any different.
Re:UNIX programmer? (Score:2)
For security reasons I log in as administrator and just use 'sudu' whenever I need to make root level changes.
Re:UNIX programmer? (Score:2)
Re:UNIX programmer? (Score:2)
Re:UNIX programmer? (Score:2)
True, if you want an honest-to-goodness root account, you can pop into the Netinfo manager and enable it, but there really is never any need to. "sudo su -" or "sudo {sh,tcsh,bash}" work wonders...
Re:UNIX programmer? (Score:2)
Sorry? (Score:2)
Re:Sorry? (Score:2)
OSX is NOT a single user machine. Like any good UNIX box it can have as many users as desired. Furthermore, if it is connected to the net, it most certainly does need security. Lemme have root access to your machine and I will show you what can be done by someone who (unlike me) may have sociopathic and malicious tendencies.
Re:Sorry? (Score:2)
how can you justify that? (Score:2)
Re:UNIX programmer? (Score:4, Insightful)
It made me laugh... (Score:5, Funny)
RARRR! No like OSX! Icons EVERYWHERE! Stupid Steve! HULK SMASH!
Boot partition? (Score:2, Funny)
I guess he's talking about the 1024 cylinder limit on older BIOSes, which crippled earlier versions of LILO, so the kernel image had to be on a partition within the first 1024 cylinders (usually 512 MB) of the hard disk.
But I thought that was an x86 platform specific issue. What kind of bootloader do the Macs use?
Usability Woes (Score:2, Funny)
Maybe it's Zarf, maybe it's me, I can relate to the metaphor but I swear it was easier for me. On both accounts.
I've been using OS X for a while now (Score:4, Insightful)
Command+V (Score:3, Informative)
Enjoy.
Delete user (Score:2)
"The item 'guest Deleted' cannot be moved to the Trash because it cannot be deleted."
What??
This is for security reasons. In order to delete the user, go to terminal and type "sudo rm -rf
Re:Delete user (Score:2, Funny)
On a totally unrelated note, does anyone know why my friend Steve Hortname who sometimes uses my machine lost all his stuff? They guy had some great mp3's in his home directory...
say it with me... (Score:2, Informative)
Ten Ten Ten
"Ecks" is reserved for X (as in X11)
thank you.
Re:say it with me... (Score:3, Insightful)
"X" is an "ecks", not a "ten" to us English-speaking folk. If we were discussing a Roman operating system, I might agree with you, but in the US, "X" is a letter, not a number!
I mean, if Apple released an operating system calles "MacOS +" everyone would call is "mac oh ess plus", not "mac oh ess ten" even though "+" is the Japanese character for 10.
I say, as long as it says "OS X" on the box, we can call it "oh ess ecks". The hell with what Steve Jobs calls it, what does he know about Macs anyway
Re:say it with me... (Score:2)
Pretty good article (Score:5, Insightful)
In general, though, this article was really on point with a lot of the interface crap Apple has piled on in recent years (I hate Sherlock!!!). Although his hatred of animations might have shown a need to move on from OS9 - does he realize OSX is preemptively multitasked, thus allowing you to do other things while the app icon slides out of the dock?
All in all, even with the occasional human interface snafu, I love MacOS X. It's still a mite bit slower than OS 9, but the overall experience and quality makes booting into 9 seem like travelling back in time 20 years. The development environment is unmatched, and it's like running 3 OS's worth of software (OS9, OSX, and GNU/Linux/BSD/OSS/Gnome/what-have-you).
Plus I like those little animations.
Re:Pretty good article (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Pretty good article (Score:2, Insightful)
OSX preemptive multitasking allows the CPU to do other things, not the user. During a 1-2 second animation, the CPU can do plenty more than animate. But I can't do anything but wait.
Some animation is cool and non-intrusive like the dock icons sliding about when apps open and close. But this prefs pane is really irritating.
And you want me to pay for this? (Score:4, Funny)
If you don't do better, I won't subscribe and tweak my Squid+SquidGuard config to ignore big ads Slashdot on my OS X box.
So there! Plus I haven't gotten a wedding invitation, yet!
Re:And you want me to pay for this? (Score:2, Funny)
Be careful about repartitioning a new Mac! (Score:2, Informative)
Back to the subject, I bought my Mac when iTunes was new. I fooled around with it for a few minutes, and found that it came with a HOARD of good MP3 files. I dumbly thought that the Software Restore CD would put them back after I wiped the drive and repartitioned.
I was wrong
Re:Be careful about repartitioning a new Mac! (Score:2)
Re:Be careful about repartitioning a new Mac! (Score:2)
If your drive fails you're still screwed. I knew a guy who partitioned a drive into two like partitions and then mirrored them. I suppose it could have been worse. He could have done three partitions and used one as a hot backup.
Re:Be careful about repartitioning a new Mac! (Score:2)
Nope! I'm got one of those god-forsaken IBM Desktar shit-drives (OEM drive on my G4) that was mentioned on slashdot. Same model number. It's toast. I've got to get it replaced under warranty, but that's a pain in the ass. And then I think they'll just give me another shit-star (every IBM drive I've had has failed. Stupid IBM.).
However it's got 2 partitions, and the toasted part is only on one of them. So I'm currently 'clean' on one partition (15 GB out of 60 GB, sniff). I've been running that way for a few months now (damn I'm lazy), and I know it's dangerous, but, damn I'm lazy.
Lesson: always make a partition. 99.9% of the time, it's just directory damage, which DiskWarrior can clean up easily. But DiskWarrior won't operate on it if the only drive you have to run it off of is the damaged and startup drive.
OSX Migration (Score:5, Interesting)
I would love.. (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm a Windows (at work) and Linux (at home) user who is growing a little fed up with both (okay, HATE Windows; Linux is starting to drive me a little nuts).
Fact is, I've got a clean RH 7.2 install sitting on nice hardware and half my apps don't work properly (Konquerer crashes, old Netscape sorta runs but has rendering problems, Mozilla -- forget it, Opera won't even start up -- haven't installed the just released beta yet).
I prefer KDE to GNOME, but after being into computers for over 15 years, the fact is, none of these systems work as well as they should. We've got 20+ years of consumer-level industry experience behind computers and they still suck.
Windows 2000 is almost serviceable, but XP is the bastard son of MS' strategy for hobbling half the OS against 3rd party media app incursions.
There are power management, sleep and hibernate issues that MS won't fix in W2K and that aren't that much more stable in XP. Hibernate twice and chances are things will start dying if you try anything. Drivers suck -- I can't set my desktop to sleep because the f&$king HP USB drivers pop up a dialogue after the machine wakes up every time. The only option is to LEAVE MY PRINTER DISCONNECTED BETWEEN USES. But yeah, my wife's a media artist -- she kinda needs the color printer. So much for my Energy Star compliant computer.
My laptop has 256MB ram and web pages can still choke media. My desktop has 512MB ram and switching among 2 users make it feel like a slug.
My latop is 1.5 years old and shipped, without me noticing (my bad), with ACPI. No linux power management..
I'm inclined to tell people who want to buy a computer not even to bother. Use the one at work for your email and spare your home life from the misery that is the modern computer industry.
Re:I would love.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Make sure to take a look at some of the postings by Evil Dr. Go in the forums - he just switched from an OpenBSD system to a G4 running OS X, and has been posting his experiences with it.
Playing the Old Games Now (Score:2)
Zarf vs. Steve--This Time, It's Personal! (Score:5, Interesting)
I honestly can't say that I've encountered anywhere near the level of frustration that Zarf seems to have met with in his foray into the world of OS X. Maybe I've just been lucky; or, maybe I've spent more time actually trying to use my Mac than trying to beat the bejesus out of the UI until it perfectly matches my own personal internal representation of the perfect interface.
Don't get me wrong: I think it's perfectly valid to point out OS X's present shortcomings, or to mention areas of the UI that you wish were different. But for Christ's sake, please stop construing the fact that Apple didn't personally ask you how to implement each aspect of the UI as a failure on their part.
In the end, the diary gave me a vicarious headache as I envisioned the author's bitter moment-to-moment struggle with Steve's hegemony over his desktop. At points, particularly during the Administrator Password Crisis, it started to sound like the Al Gore sketch that Darrell Hammond did on SNL during the Florida mess.
Andrew Plotkin bad! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Andrew Plotkin bad! (Score:2)
BAD STEVE!
I was reminded of Being John Malkovitch, "Malkovitch Malkovitch Malkovitch" except "Bad Steve, Go Steve" -- who the hell is he talking about? Some guy that beat him senseless as a child?
I think the only thing that could have made this little "diary" more amusing and childish was if it was written in crayon.
One reason why he has problems... (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyhow. He partitioned his harddrive four ways. It gave him troubles from day one. Not big ones, just little ones. The GUI didn't fit how he was using his Mac. The Application button, now was meaningless, the Documents button was meaningless, He never used his Home folder. He fought the interface to do it "his way". Looked for and downloaded shareware apps to help him OS 9ify his computer. He fought his computer for a year, changing this, changing that, trying to make his GUI work his way. That's fine as long as you don't want to get any work done.
So I tell him...."kill the partitions and use the supplied UI elements the way they are meant to be". He says no. Off and on, we have this conversation and he always wants it "his way".
Then one day, he decides that he will try my advice. I tell him how to save his mail and prefs, he backs up his "essentials" on CD. Un partitions, Reinstalls, updates, etc. For one week, he decided to actually USE the UI elements as they were meant to be used. That was 4 months ago. All that shareware he bought is now useless to him. He no longer fights his computer and has found that OS X is EASIER to use than OS 9 as long as you are willing to change a few habits. Not only that, changing those habits took very little time.
In the article, this guys first action was to ceremoniously declare (via instant format and partition, which he complains didn't go over as smoothly as he wanted) "f**k this setup, I want the set up to be TOTALLY different" and has been fighting OS X ever since. I'm willing to be if he set aside his precepts and used it the way it is set up, one week later, he would not be fighting his machine and would be back to getting work done.
Re:One reason why he has problems... (Score:2)
what does that mean? most INIX people I know are computer smart.
Re:One reason why he has problems... (Score:2, Funny)
I'm picturing someone named Inez creating an Irix clone...
Re:One reason why he has problems... (Score:2)
On the one hand, Apple brags about how its OS is based on BSD. On the other hand, Apple software (from the OS itself on down to the supremely moronic iPhoto) encourages -- nay, all but demands that you format your entire 60 GB drive as a single partition for all your application files, libraries, developer tools, logs, etc., etc.
I ask you ... what legitimate BSD administrator ever worked that way?
Don't get me wrong. My primary home computer is a Mac, I use it nearly every day, and my primary OS on that computer is Mac OS X. But I, like the author of this article, continue to spend a great deal of time trying to fight the OS to work the way I want to work -- or at least, trying to get the OS to stop fighting back. And I don't know why I have to do that, because from where I sit, Apple's way of doing things isn't right. Mine is.
Re:One reason why he has problems... (Score:2)
I have 4 partitions on my laptop:
/
/Users
/Applications
/swap
I don't mean to insult you by being blunt, but something is wrong if you can't partition your drive.
My only problem with the setup is that when I reboot it will fail to mount
If you need help, this is what I used: http://www.kung-foo.tv/xtips.shtml
Re:One reason why he has problems... (Score:2)
And BTW, I don't mean to insult you by being blunt, but something is wrong if you partition a drive and then can't mount the partitions.
Re:One reason why he has problems... (Score:2)
I can mount the partitions. Boot using apple-s and then execute 'mount -a' and /Applications and /Users mount correctly.
It is the OS that fails to mount the partitions, and I'm trying to figure out if there's a particular order in which the boot process expects things, and if that order isn't (yet) being respected. If you know anything of this, can you help?
Anyway, why do you accuse me of being a troll? You said On the one hand, Apple brags about how its OS is based on BSD. On the other hand, Apple software (from the OS itself on down to the supremely moronic iPhoto) encourages -- nay, all but demands that you format your entire 60 GB drive as a single partition for all your application files, libraries, developer tools, logs, etc., etc.
I gave you a link that shows you that nothing forces you to a single partition for applications (Mine is on /Applications), libraries (my ~/Library is in /Users, my /System/Library is on /), developer tools (on /), logs, etc., etc. (I have my swapfiles on /Swapfile)
Yes, the Apple installer is moronic in assuming that all the apps are in their default locations, but the installer still works if you use different partitions. The problem is if you put iPhoto in /System/Library, then the updater tries to put the updated files in /Applications/iPhoto.app
Apple *does* have a one view mentality, but it doesn't force it. The fact that some of Apple's installers can find my apps (like iTunes, iMovie, or DVD Player) while others can't (like Image Capture, Mail, or iPhoto) speaks of inconsistency and incompetence, not draconian fist.
Re:One reason why he has problems... (Score:2)
Re:One reason why he has problems... (Score:2)
No matter how you slice it, the ULTIMATE arbiter of what works/what doesn't is the enduser. Sure, there are some nicely researched UI truisms to follow that are broadly applicable but it is dead-ass wrong to come out and basically say: "This is THE way the UI will be and YOU, the enduse will use it OUR way, period." No. Wrong. The enduser knows best, not some programmer or CEO.
It is one thing to start from a common framework upon install (you do have to start somewhere) but there should be NO (none, zero, zip, nada, nul, nechevo) hindrances to altering the layout, look, etc, of a UI to fit any given individual's preferences, conceits, pecadillos.
With OS X, there is the automatic and inevitable inertia of having longtime users have to switch from the old-way OS ..7,8,9 to the new, almost totally different way of things, but that doesn't excuse not permitting proper individual customization. That is one of the things everyone always gets all emotional about on /. when GUI/environment comparisons come up.
Sure, with any environment there has to be some basic parameters which is what makes any given GUI or environment its particular flavor, but the strength of the linux GUIs or environments is the ability to diverge from the standard way with little pain at all. Apple would be well served to accept that fact early. Allow very wide latitude for the user to change this or that and NOT break anything (like the help tool as described in the diary).
Trust me, I DO know the best way to setup MY system to work for ME, the way I like to work, the way I prefer to work, the way I work best. No one else, ME, the enduser, knows this stuff.
Because nothing could ever improve that way (Score:2)
To me, X is an enormous improvement to 9. For one thing, the "text that looks like hand-set type" is so beautiful I hate going back to anything else. Once I saw that, and got to try true multitasking on a Mac, I really hated going back to 9.
I haven't done any serious work in 9 since Final Cut Pro for MacOS X came out.
D
Re:will you macheads ever understand (Score:4, Insightful)
Because they (or rather the user interface designers that work for them) most likely know more about user interfaces than you do. Contrary to popular belief (particularly with Linux users) customisability is very poor user interface design and this is pointed out in Jeff Raskin's book "The Humane Interface".
When it comes down to it, you are far better off adjusting your habits to something that is more productive instead of continuing to use less efficient techniques to save relearning time. A new OS doesn't come out that often, take some time to appreciate it's new features and benefit from them or there's simply no point in upgrading.
Re:will you macheads ever understand (Score:4, Informative)
There are many quantitative methods of proving that customisability is not a feature of good UI design in most cases. The best way would be to get a large random sampling of people and let them use a program, half with customisability enabled and half with it disabled. After a few months give them a task and see which group finishes it first. When this kind of test is performed it consistently finds that a well designed interface which is not customisable is better than the customisable interface.
There is no reason that the UI could not be shipped exactly as it is, defaulting to that scheme for most users while allowing power users to change things to their liking.
There's no reason why it can't be done but there is a very good reason why it should - it's bad design. In fact, it's bad design on two very basic counts. The first is the fact that when you customise a good interface you invariably make it less productive and just don't realise it. Secondly, it is extremely poor user interface design to have two modes - one for new users and one for power users.
Computers should be flexible and shouldn't needlessly constrain you, however you are much better off taking the time to relearn a few habits to become more productive, even if you feel constrained while you are relearning.
Basically, go away and read the book then you have something to argue. Right now you're spouting off with no evidence to back yourself up. Not everything is as it first appears.
Re:will you macheads ever understand (Score:2)
If efficiency was king we sure as sh** wouldn't be using linux now would we? To type in any standard linux commnad takes, on average, about 2-3 times as long then a simpler GUI interface. But, we LIKE to. *I AM GEEK HEAR ME TYPE*. I want to be able to do just about anything to my OS b/c that's how *I* want to do it. Not Steve, or Bill, or some 'efficiency expert'. If i want to convert my OS to only accept Hex commands thats my right!
I understand your point, too much customization can be a bad thing for the average user, but not allowing users hardly any control over there GUI is not the solution either. And, god I hate to say this, microsoft actually did the right thing when they allowed WinXP to be changed to 'classic' windows format ( -1, flamebait). Happy medium people.. happy medium.
Re:will you macheads ever understand (Score:2)
Without meaning to sound offensive - if that's what you want, use Linux. When you want to be productive use the right tool for the job (sometimes Mac, sometimes Windows, sometimes Linux....). Also note that I've not come across anyone who used OS X for a long period of time, tried out the way it does things and actually wanted to go back. Now, part of that is that people get annoyed with it and leave, however the other part of it is that people don't know what they want until they've tried all the options. When I first tried OS X I hated the way it did things and went back to OS 9 (admittedly this was the public beta not the final release). Later when it was properly released I gave it another go and this time tried doing things it's way - now I can't imagine how I lived without it.
I understand your point, too much customization can be a bad thing for the average user, but not allowing users hardly any control over there GUI is not the solution either. And, god I hate to say this, microsoft actually did the right thing when they allowed WinXP to be changed to 'classic' windows format ( -1, flamebait). Happy medium people.. happy medium.
I would agree that some *limited* customisability is a good thing - but it generally shouldn't be in the way you do things, but in the way things look. For instance a user who has sight problems will likely appreciate a high contrast look to their computer, graphics professionals wanted to neutralise the colour scheme of OS X so it didn't affect the perception of colour. Neither of these things affect the way that things are done with the program though.
I would have to disagree that WinXP being able to be changed back to 'classic' windows format is a good thing in principle though. Backwards compatibility should not prevent you from improving your interface. The only time that you'd provide the ability to change back to the old interface is when you don't think your new interface is any good (or if you think users will revolt but that consideration doesn't come into the area of user interface design).
Now, it just so happens that there are some elements of WinXP that really are worse than the classic Windows way - the constantly changing start menu is a particularly bad idea (and proveably so). For these options even I change them back to the old look, however this is an indication of poor user interface design and not a count against customisability. (Probably comes as a surprise that I'm using XP too.... I have an OS X machine upstairs...)
Re:will you macheads ever understand (Score:2)
I said a good interface.....
The beauty of a customizable interface is that it can adapt to the way you want to work. I frequently want to open links in a new tab, so it saves me time and effort to turn a menu operation into a single middle-click. You cannot convince me that I am not better off.
I'm not going to try to - this modification should have been the default in the first place. (Remember I said a good interface) One of the choice off-hand comments in "The Humane Interface" is "On the other hand, if a program's interface is as dismal - to voice an opinion - as that of Microsoft Word 97/98, the situation is reversed. Almost any change the user makes is an improvement, to exaggerate only slightly."
Raskin makes a couple of other points that are significant here:
By providing preferences, we burden users with a task extraneous to their job function. A user of, say, a spreadsheet has to learn how to use not only the spreadsheet but also the customizing facilities. Time spent in learning and operating the personalization features is time mostly wasted from the task at hand.
Customization sounds nice, democratic, open-ended, and full of freedom and joy for the user, but I am unaware of any studies that show that it increases productivity or improves objective measures of usability or learn-ability. Adding customization certainly makes a system more complex and more difficult to learn.
It is important to recognize that users will customize an interface in such a way that it appeals to their subjective judgement. As has been observed in a number of experiements, an interface that optimizes productivity is not neccessarily an interface that optimizes subjective ratings. (For example, see Tullis 1984, p. 137).
So, we can plainly see that all of the evidence indicates that a good user interface should not need to be customized. You can provide all the anecdotal, heresay evidence you like but the actual tests that have been done show that you are wrong and that customizability is generally a bad thing.
Re:will you macheads ever understand (Score:2)
And you are STILL dead wrong. The computer is not the master, the USER is. It belongs to the user to do with as they please. It is a tool with builtin flexibility. Let it be flexible.
I work MUCH faster on linux with my customized KDE than I do on the Mac (OS 9). I know what works best for ME. The computer is mine, it serves me. Customizing is NOT a waste of time. Hell, it takes a few minutes. Once you set it up to the proper way of doing things (your individual preference) you are done. There is no more tweaking necessary. Also, psychology plays here more than in simply having a base UI design that is efficient. If I cannot STAND the layout/workings/look/feel of a UI and I am not allowed to change it, it causes me stress. Undue and unproductive and damaging stress. This is bad, wrong, stupid. If I can personalize the UI to MY way of doing things (the right way...for ME) then I am happier. A happier me is a more productive me. I do not need nor want to have to fight a UI. The UI must ultimately serve ME, not me it.
You choose the wrong master (Jobs and some coders/academic pinheads). I am my own master fully capable of making my own productive decisions. In any case, a PROPERLY designed interface will allow for customization on a per-user basis so that when I log in, it behave MY way. When I log out and another logs in, it behaves THEIR way (ah yes, the beauty of a true and beautiful multi-user system like linux). The system is broken for other users, it is setup to behave MY way only when I am logged into it. Everyone else has their way which might be the default or their own tweaks. That is the TRUE path.
Re:will you macheads ever understand (Score:3, Insightful)
What you have failed to realise is that there is always some relearning time when moving to a new interface regardless of whether or not that interface is good or bad. If you "cannot STAND the layout/workings/look/feel of a UI" then you are experiencing that change over period. If you take the time to learn the interface you will most likely find (assuming it is a good interface) that you are more productive and are not affected by stress from the interface but instead actually come to like it).
Now my challenge for you - find a study which shows that customizable interfaces are more productive using objective measures.
Re:will you macheads ever understand (Score:3, Insightful)
Have to mention - a more efficient interface for Minesweeper would be to show you where the damn mines are from the start.... poor interface design is actually what makes most games fun (for certain values of poor).
The other way to improve Minesweeper would be to remove it altogether and get back to your real work. :) (Same goes for /.)
Re:will you macheads ever understand (Score:2)
True, however there are a basic set of attributes about humans that are extremely pervasive and these attributes are almost always enough to design an interface around. So it is possible to create an interface that is the most productive solution for everybody with only very rare exceptions. I do agree however that there needs to be some degree of customizability but that it should not affect the way things are done but more asthetic concerns. (I mightn't like Aqua and would prefer a nice lime green but when I click the lime green button it does exactly what the aqua button would have.)
However, being that the financial health of the company is paramount (to the company at least) the overriding factor is going to be, and must bem what the user demands. Alien interfaces will discourage upgrading and reduce profitiablity. Incremental changes tends to produce a better profit margin.
Sadly this is true - in terms of a business model you are usually better off appealling to subjective ratings rather than objective ratings - ie: keep the customers happy even if they are less productive. Incremental changes are particularly bad because they extend the length of the learning time for the changes, but allows you to sneak improvements in under the users nose which in a business sense is often required.
Re:will you macheads ever understand (Score:2)
A computer is a tool. As a tool, it's capability depends on using the tool properly. Like using a hammer to pound in screws, or a screwdriver to strip paint, or a hacksaw to trim hedges.
Which means that, like a tool, there was a envisioned usage. Unlike a screwdriver, however, a computer is at least as flexible as the user, so that the machine can become much more powerful than a single purpose, single usage tool.
I own a Mac, so I feel free to comment. I don't know if you do, so I am unsure as to how valid your comments are.
The UI is not the tool. The OS is not the tool. The UI and the OS is the controls, the manner in which I as a person leverage my goals and drive. With my Mac, with iMovie and Quicktime Pro (two tools), I have the flexibility and power to do things the way I want to. With gcc and the BSD layer, I have the flexibility and power to do things the way I want to.
I do not muck about with the way gcc handles #defines and directives, code parsing, or assembly. I *can*, if I want to look at the source, but I don't. Likewise the OS handles the file naming, location, sharing, UI, and networking. I personally do muck around with all of those, but I don't have to, either. Mucking around with gcc source or with an OS UI is not about a computer adapting to the user, it's about the user trying to improve the underlying functionality.
One thing I found cool. (Score:2, Insightful)
Customization out of the box? (Score:2)
Miracle! Noticed "Customize Toolbar" option in Finder
And the like. "One True Way"... It reminds me of trying to deal with older engineers who have solidifed their ways of doing things and are unwilling to seriously consider input.
I've been using OSX for about 9 months. Every time I've had an issue/wish with it, I've gone directly to the apple forums, maxoshints and others (stepwise.org is a real gem). There's no mention of seeing outside help until day 9.
Reminds me of psychology readings about brain chrystalization...
proh-nun-ci-a-tion (Score:2)
It's been said a hundred times, though probably not here. It's spelled "Mac OS X"; it's pronounced "Mac O.S. TEN."
Geez...
Triv
Re:proh-nun-ci-a-tion (Score:2)
MacOS VIII.VI i suppose?
From a company who supposedly values consistency so highly, you'd have to assume they are on crack.
It's got a big goddamn 'X' in it's label, so thats what I call it.
I spose youre one of those people who says 'GIF' as 'Jif'
Snarfegnugen (Score:2, Interesting)
From the first time I installed OSX, I have had *no* trouble understanding when/how to use packages and when/how to enter which passwords. The lack of an active 'root' user was a bit disorienting at first, but was figured out/resolved/activated within a couple of minutes (BTW- Rather than the oft-posted "use NetInfoManager.app to activate...", I simply gave the root user a password in Terminal.app... same effect). I must say that I feel the article announcement's brief bio on the author's background (UNIX experience) set me up to be rather surprised at his inability to *grep* (ha!) the various pieces... that's why I've assumed that he's taking on the role of a newbie and not necessarily so confused himself.
I love OSX. I want it to improve. I know it will. Surely, it will improve to some degree by user feedback... but, I don't think that feedback is altogether useful when delivered in the form of: "stupid [designers]" or "lack of [some pre-existing feature]?!?!?! Apple/Steve is KILLING ME!!!!!". Sadly the vast numbers of people yelling in such manner, in ernest, also drags down the 'humorous' nature of such satire.
All the above: IMNSHO
Sherlock Replacement... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sherlock Replacement... (Score:2)
I just downloaded a file and don't know where I put it. Let's run Locator. Oops... it's not there.
Why? Because the database has been last indexed the night before.
Well, just run updatedb to reindex the database and do the search again.
Wanna bet this takes twice as long as using Sherlock?
picky (Score:2)
Doesn't like icons, doesn't like generally anything related to ease of use. Just get a pc, install some distro without X and deal if you want it to be difficult.
I can understand some of his gripes though. Configurability is definitely a virtue in an OS, and (while I doubt his accuracy) he descriptions hows it o be lacking such a virtue.
Upgraded my mom last night...(really!) (Score:2)
Thrusday, 19:05 EST
Mom's iMac was preventing access to mission critical application (System folder corruption not allowing AOhell to let her into msnbc crossword puzzle with morning cup o' tay)
"No problem" says I.. "plunk down a wad for OS X"
Financing and resources secured. I arrive for a gnarly bit o dinner + boredom watching installation bar creep.
Mundanity ensues and my 1st install of OS X goes well after last touching a mac when options included a mac, or a mac without a mac.
Gratuitous use of AOHell under OS X (they stole my KDE backdrop dammit!) embarks and I am stumped by 10 Across.
Foregoing urge to insert foot into crt, I depart.
Friday, 17:27 EST
21+ hours later and no whiny calls about iMac. I kick the cat instead. Job well done: Thanks APPLE!
Review of review. (Score:4, Insightful)
Ran through the OSX registration procedure
He complains about being forced to register... this has already been commented on. But having no true option is stupid.
Big dialogue box came up: "You need an Administrator password to install the software." Below this, icon of a padlock: "Click the lock to make changes." Totally baffled. What do I do now? No clue how to enter administrator password.
Yeah, that can be confusing. You don't know that your password is an administrator password (it never tells you about the concept of administrators, or that you're it).
Just so you know, he actually took three days to finish Alice (and that was in Easy mode and with a couple of hints on how to beat the bosses. Plus liberal use of cheat keys in final battle.)
I'm better at Alice than he is.
Getting more experience working with new Finder. No longer feel totally mummified, but still not comfortable. Column view -- bleah. (Remember using NeXT boxes in college. Didn't like column view then either.)
Bah, column view was something I always wanted in the Finder. It's good, get used to it :P It's better if you have more folders than files (it's good at finding files deeply nested, and makes it more convenient to have your files deeply nested).
Hit cmd-F to search partition. Oh, no. Sherlock. Forgot how awful Sherlock has become
Sherlock is a bane on the Mac's usefulness. Stupid Steve.
[Dock:] Can click app icon, wait for window list pop-up -- but this is slow and confusing. All Terminal windows have same name anyway
You can Get Info on a Terminal window and change the name. Very useful. Otherwise they have the ttyp# in the name.
Only missing UI element: configurable Apple menu. Or some way to do pop-up menu with hierarchical structure showing a directory tree. Needed for One True Way MacOS structure.
Well, get used to column view, and you've got it. Try this:
This animation takes approximately 0.75 seconds. After approximately 0.375 seconds, I am banging on computer top, screaming "Get move on!!"
Yup, there's too much stupid animation in OS X. A lot of it is warranted and doesn't get in your way, a lot of it (like hitting Command-S(ave), return) takes too damn long as the sheets come and go.
How hard would it be to write a freeware Dock item which navigates folder tree, without delays?
Dock menus pop up instantly if you control-click. Or if you have a two button mouse and right click. He finds that out later, but not the two-button thing. I'm happy with one button... I use two at work because I got one there.
Spent more time selecting fonts. Font selection is annoying.
Font selection is pretty awesome, the Font panel resizes. When the panel is small you get popup menus for your fonts. At a bigger size you get scrollable lists. You can organize fonts into your favorite groups (like Monospace fonts, it doesn't do it for you). And you can set your Favorite fonts, and while you're browsing your favs you get a nice little custom UI for it (favs include bold/point size in one click).
More generally: Carbon and Cocoa apps have different font-rendering.
Actually, CoreGraphics (Quartz 2D) and QuickDraw have different font rendering. The Finder is a Carbon app. Some (many) Carbon apps don't want to jump to Quartz because (a) the developers know QuickDraw and (b) Quartz 2D isn't on OS 9, so the app won't run on both platforms.
(Five minutes later: Selected "Get Mac OS X Software..." from Apple menu. Nothing happened. The hell? I've got menu option eating space in Apple menu, can't get rid of it, and it doesn't work? Stupid Steve!)
He deleted IE, and has not set his default web browser (IE is always the fallback browser if it can't find the preferred web browser). Until he goes to Internet prefs and sets his browser of choice, it (and anything else that wants to launch an http url) won't work.
I've deleted IE, the OS X version is an amazing pile of do-do; absolutely busted functionality. OmniWeb [omnigroup.com], Mozilla, and Chimera [mozdev.org] rulez.
On the other hand, have sworn off using Help system anyhow, due to annoying animations.
And it takes about 30 seconds to load.
Justified Comments (Score:3, Informative)
Zarf's experience confirms three issues about using Mac OS X:
-If you are an experienced Mac OS 9 user, you will do things to your computer (and vice versa) that will be adverse. Example--moving applications out of the Applications folder. OS X updaters expect to find all Apple-installed apps in their original locations. Previous OS versions generally did not care, but this breaks OS X updates.
Tip: LEAVE OS X application locations alone. X apps and other non-Apple OS X apps can be placed whereever you want, but the Applications folder is preferable.
--If you are an experienced UNIX/Linux user, OS X feels fine, but the GUI gets a little in the way, particularly when you're trying to get to the CLI and stay there awhile. The way OS X handles configuration files threw him, too--OS X preferences can be edited, but you don't have dotfiles, but
--If you hate the fluff of Windows, a few interface issues will annoy both kinds of users. Fortunately, unlike Windows XP, the OS does not attempt to find a way to sell you something on launching any app. Also, (Office X excluded) Mac apps are usually not so overly helpful that you want to assassinate the MS Clippy team and their families for bringing up the "assistant" idea.
It will be interesting when he installs XDarwin for an XFree86 GUI (it can run concurrently w/Agua or alone on the display)
The reason... (Score:2, Insightful)
Which he said he deleted.
Userfriendly? (Score:2)
This is like fingernails down a chalkboard (Score:4, Interesting)
Apparently, I learned more about the UI in twenty minutes than he did in several days.
It should stand as a testament to X's ease of use that someone who doesn't even understand how and why "root access" works can still partition and install multiple operating systems on one machine.
Zarf full of diary-a (Score:2, Interesting)
Was this necessary? (Score:2, Insightful)
It might have been vaugely interesting A YEAR AGO, when OS X was released.
Here's my biggest complaint about my G4... (Score:3, Insightful)
So I run the previewer. Guess what? It takes about a second to render a page. Well...sometimes it's about a half. I try acrobat reader. Even slower! Come on Apple. When I used to use a NeXT running at 40MHz I could read postscript documents at this kind of speed. It's inexcusibly and unforgivably slow. On a 500MHz pentium I can drag PDF documents up and down the screen at about 10-15 fps. It's just like having a paper document that I can scan up and down. But un a supposedly more powerful machine on which PDF is native it's about 5-10 times slower. This is truly pathetic. This is 2d graphics. It's barely a million monochrome pixels that need rendering. What's the CPU doing for all this time? Am I really going to have to write my own PDF viewer?
Otherwise MacOS X is the dog's bollocks!
Mac users (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Mac users (Score:4, Insightful)
He was spot on with the problems with the Installation dialog. It doesn't matter how long it too to figure it out, it is that he had to figure it out in the first place. I'm not complaining about the fact that you need authorization to install an app. I am complaining about the fact that the UI expects you to know that the little lock, inside a circle, is a button, and the only way to install the software. It would have been _much_ better UI to have an authenticate and install, rather than a quit button.
This is not to mention that the installer does not have an authenticate option in the menus. Remember, in a good UI, icons are nouns, menus are verbs and buttons. Therefore having an authenticate button (not an icon) and a authenticate menu item would be much better than the current situation.
The fact that you cannot delete a deleted user's home folder is stupid and _must_ be remedied. I would suggest that the folder needs to be moved to the admin's folder, and him given full privs to everything. Of course this should only be able to be given to certain admins.
He also complains about the restore disks, and how it is not customizable. Having searched for the iTunes sampler that I accidentally deleted from my Wife's iBook, I understand his pain.
Sherlock sucks, 'nuff said.
Again Apple learned years ago that translucency sucks, yet they insist that all Macs come with translucency.
Apple learned years ago how to make files and folders not rely on file paths, yet they insist on using an installer that requires things to be where the installer thinks they should be. My computer is MINE. I can understand a change to "the home folder and applications folder is MINE" but then we learn that the apps folder is not really yours either. Oh, and if I want to put other apps in my home folder, they won't register services either. Of course, if there was anything as infinitely cool as services for Mac OS 9, it would register at startup, and be done with it.
I hope that Apple did enough UI testing to time the animations for optimum usage. I like the animations, especially the genie effect. They aid in assisting clueless users. Testing should have found the optimum speed for animations to not hinder most users. Oh, and it doesn't matter than you can do something else in the meantime if everything you are doing requires that app to be functional.
Re:OS "Ex" or OS "Ten"? (Score:3, Funny)
The correct pronunciation is: Mac OH YES! SEX!
(Saw that in Dr.Dobbs I think)
Re:OS "Ex" or OS "Ten"? (Score:2)
I had just recently installed the public beta of OS X on my G4 Cube. A friend of mine and his girlfriend dropped by to visit and take a peek at it. His girlfriend was a Mac user and wanted to see what OS X would be like.
I was demonstrating some of the new features of the dock, etc and she turned to her boyfriend and whispered, "I want oh-ess-ex." He heard it as "I want oh sex." and answered, "What? Here?!"
Seems confusing OS X with OH-SEX can happen. Perhaps its not a bad thing to make an note to refer to it as oh-ess-ten.
Re:Brilliant (Score:2, Informative)
You should play his games, then. Zarf's narrative is immersive, evocative and depressing at the same time. "So Far" [eblong.com] is a massive cathartic trip.
I really don't care much for the problem-solving side of IF (I don't enjoy playing games, I'd rather solve math problems :-), I wish he would write a novel some time, because I do believe he has The Gift(TM).
fait accompli (Score:2, Insightful)
Steve Jobs may have wanted us to pronounce SCSI "sexy" not "scuzzy", but SCSI is (unfortunately) "scuzzy". Similarly, he may want us to call it "Oh Ess Ten" - uncharacteristically, he wants us to avoid saying sex - but it is "Oh Ess Ex", because that's what millions of people call it.
By the same token, Hoover PLC may own the brand name Hoover, but if you're in the UK, a vacuum cleaner is just a hoover, no matter who makes it. Copyright law is insignificant - they're called hoovers, because people call them hoovers.
Re:Correction (Score:2)
Re:Silly sod... (Score:2)
No problems at all for me.
His final conclusion seems to be that he'll do just fine with it, which is doubly odd, all things considered.
D