Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
OS X Businesses Operating Systems Apple

Tog Takes on Mac OS X 10.3 670

Rick Zeman writes "Bruce 'Tog' Tognazzini, founder of Apple's Human Interface Group years ago, has finally pointed his electrons to Mac OS X 10.3. He's been dormant for while, and hasn't said anything since the early days of Mac OS X. His new articles include 'Panther: The Good, The Bad and the Ugly' and 'The Top Nine Reasons why the Dock Sucks,' all coming from A Guy Who Knows."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tog Takes on Mac OS X 10.3

Comments Filter:
  • by Valdrax ( 32670 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @02:07PM (#7975422)
    Thanks you, no, but I've been a long, long critic of the Mac OS X interface. While some of the problems from the 10.0 release have been fixed over the years, I've always been extremely irritated that Apple didn't just preserve the Mac OS 9 interface like they did in the very early Rhapsody builds (in case you don't remember) rather than drop this whole new mess on us.

    No, I still in many ways prefer Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X. However, all my modern application require Mac OS X, and I've permanently forced myself into the newer OS via breaking out of the old 31 character filename limit. Otherwise, I'd still be using Mac OS 9 because it best fits my workflow.

    Just because I disagree with you and happen to agree with someone more public doesn't make me a sheep.
  • Re:Finder (Score:3, Interesting)

    by WWWWolf ( 2428 ) <> on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @02:07PM (#7975423) Homepage

    Never mind about wasted screen space.

    Why oh why they have to stick brushed metal look everywhere? It was sort of tolerable in QuickTime Player and iTunes, since those aren't too "serious" applications, but... Finder???? I didn't know my files and directories were supposed to be eXXtrEME steel-molded things!

    Wish the next iteration would look like Nautilus with some tweaks - that is, retractable or possibly even detachable sidebar, possibly with the locations, and the ability to use dynamic window resizing (or zooming) depending on how many items the folder has. And no brushed metal kewliness.

  • by wankledot ( 712148 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @02:08PM (#7975431)
    The problem with that is the dock icons can represent at least five different things:

    Running applications, non-running applications, folders, files, and open windows (minimized.)

    So by moving things to the desktop... what are you asking it to do? Move the application? create an alias? move a window to the desktop (can't really do that.) move a document to the desktop? a folder?

    Also, you can drag a dock item off to somewhere other than the desktop, such as a document or application window.

    A fundamental idea of the dock is that it's not the actual file/program/window. It is just a representation of it, manipulating the dock icon of an object does not actually move, delete, edit, etc. the object. making the dock affect the actual item makes it dangerously powerful.
  • Re:Finder (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jared_hanson ( 514797 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @02:11PM (#7975464) Homepage Journal
    I find the new Finder (10.3) to be better and actually take less space.

    In Jaguar, I had to customize the toolbar to put buttons for my Documents, Pictures, Music, etc folders. This made the finder require more room vertically and horizontally. (I could save the horizontal space by clicking the button which shows a fly out menu of hidden tool buttons, but I don't like that)

    Now, in Panther, it actually takes less space vertically and horizontally. The vertical space comes from the fact that the toolbar buttons are smaller in size. And, I don't have to have 5 different buttons taking up horizontal room for my most used folders. Those go in a convienient sidebar for access.

    Granted, the folder sidebar may take up horizontal room if you don't use it much, but Apple is pushing widescreen displays, so it makes more sense to use horizontal area than vertical area. The finder does this well.
  • by holt ( 86624 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @02:13PM (#7975490) Homepage
    Why are you double-clicking anything on the dock? You don't have to. Just click once.

    And honestly, in all the time I've used OSX (full-time since 10.0) I've never accidentally dragged something off the dock. Nor have I ever accidentally resized it. The dock isn't perfect, but those complaints are kinda dumb, if you ask me.
  • by WWWWolf ( 2428 ) <> on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @02:13PM (#7975496) Homepage

    Window Maker []'s Dock is similar to Apple's, both getting their ideas from NextStep.

    Window Maker has this nifty "Lock (prevent accidental removal)" checkbox for each docked program. Dragging so marked stuff out of the dock does not undock them.

    I believe this could be extended to cover things like locking whole dock at once, locking the resizing of the dock, etc etc...

  • by jkabbe ( 631234 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @02:23PM (#7975622)
    When icons are dragged off the dock, instead of going *poof* they should be moved to the desktop, unless they are dragged into the trash (and of course, the trash can't be removed)

    1. As a power user I would hate this. It would mean that I would have to then find the icon on the desktop (auto sorted) and delete it. Why add an extra step???

    2. I have yet to see any reasonable analysis or anecdotes that the *poof* behavior is confusing to new users (who probably dont drag things to the dock anyway)
  • by jkabbe ( 631234 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @02:32PM (#7975731)
    I want the dock in the middle because that's where my mouse usually is.

    Also, putting the dock in one corner pretty much removes that corner as useful for any of the corner actions that can be programmed in (the bottom left and right being most useful because the menu is on top)
  • by thefinite ( 563510 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @02:32PM (#7975736)
    Mac OS X has been a huge leap backwards in useability

    I think this is an overstatement. Most of the functionality of OS 9 (and previous) is still there. The desktop, icons, windows, and applications' interface all behave essentially the same way. You can ding it for the dock and other such changes, but the truth is that many people (myself included) actually prefer those changes.

    Now add improvements like centralizing control panels into the System Preferences (you could put many OS 9 control panels *anywhere*), the services menu (which is an awesome idea still highly underutilized), and greater uniformity in applications' menus (how many different places can you find an application's preferences in OS 9?) and you get some significant gains. That is not the end of list of changes for the better.

    My point, I guess, is that OS X is progress, contrary to the small group of critics that is getting smaller as OS X continues to improve. In my opinion Panther is ahead of OS 9 in usability and the worst you can really call it is a trade-off.
  • Sorry (Score:3, Interesting)

    by HarveyBirdman ( 627248 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @02:33PM (#7975754) Journal
    But I can't take seriously the word of anyone who seems to think the Applications menu and Apple menu from OS9 were some sort of holy duality of perfection. And I rarely heed the word of grown adults who still use the word "sucks".

    The Dock is not perfect, but his ranting against it comes across as just so much hyperbole. I get along with it just fine. The problem of identical icons is gone now that I can put my project folders in the Finder's side bar, and I don't minimize folders and documents much anymore thanks to Expose.

    He may be a Guy Who Knows (or was at one time), but he's flat out wrong here, and there definitely a hint of an axe being ground. It also comes across as simply "I got used to this way. I never want to change. Whaaaaa!"

    Some of the reasons can be combined (6, 7 and 8, for example). Some are purely subjective, like 5. I have zero problem trashing things.

    The rest seem to read like "people's hands have minds of their own, and those minds are retarded, so they can never get used to the Dock. It's Fitt's Law, which is as immutable and perfect as the Laws Of Thermodynamics, dammit!".

    And I love "Oh! I dragged something out of the dock and it puffed into smoke!" Wow. So call 911, you silly man, and tell them you need an IV with Zoloft or something. Sheesh.

  • No perfect solution (Score:2, Interesting)

    by stuffedmonkey ( 733020 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @02:41PM (#7975828)
    At the risk of being called flamebait - I have to say that Mr. Tognazzini thinks a little too highly about himself. Yes, he makes some valid points - but he refuses to recognise that there is not One Universal Soltuion to design. One example - he loves the use of corners to activate Expose windows, and loves having active Konfabulator widgets. I think expose is great - but I would never activate it by mousnig to the corner when there is a single key assigned to it. And while I think Konfabulator makes an amazing demo, (much as Mr. Tognazzini says the dock does) after a few hours having a massive analog clock in the center of your screen gets old, no matter how neat it once looked. What works for one person does not work for everyone, even if they have done amazing work in the past. This is also a problem of someone who was intimately involved with a company at one point, doing groundbreaking work on a groundbreaking product - but now he can only critisize from the outside. He has a vested interest in romantisizing the "good old days" of OS 1-9.
  • Whoa kid. The Dock solves a few problems the MacOS has always had, while maintaining very little screen real estate (none at all if, like me, you hide it). And it introduces so much new functionality that I can't imagine a mac OS without it.

    The dock tells you:

    What programs you have open, but that have no client windows left (without having to check the Application menu, which took up space in the already crowded program bar and had no keyboard shortcuts other than option tab)

    Which programs are open, but hidden, again without having to check a menu.

    Informs you when (and often why) a certain program needs your attention in a very noticable but inobtrusive way. And the bouncing can be seen even when the dock is hidden (the icon bounds up at the bottom/sides of the screen).

    Programatic control of icons can offer all KINDS of useful information at a glance without needing to switch programs...everything from the date in iCal's icon to full memory and process indicators.

    The dock allows you:

    An easy way to start, stop and switch programs without having to browse the hard drive. Most programs have useful controls added to their dock icon as well...and you can access these functions with a single interface.

    An easy way to access the trash bin without having to expose the desktop at all times (so annoying)

    Access to the discs in a convenient cascading manner. This has allowed me to access common files and PROGRAMS without taking up resources at all times.

    In short: The dock accomplishes all of the functions of most OS' taskbars, menus and so forth in a much simpler, much more powerful, much more intuitive and above all CUSTOMIZABLE fashion. It kicks ass.

    And you're griping about the loss of the two most useless UI controls ever invented...oh my god, i just responded to a TROLL, didn't I?!?

  • Me too. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by torpor ( 458 ) <ibisum@gm a i l . com> on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @03:03PM (#7976144) Homepage Journal

    I have no problems with the Dock whatsoever. It sits there, hidden until I use it, and tells me whats going on with my system. I like that. I don't need anything else.

    Of course, I've registered and use Launchbar.

    And I tell you what: I *hate* going back to my Linux box (KDE) after a few hours working on my tiBook ... it just feels so lame to not have complete hotkey control over my entire system. I know, I know, I can set it up however I want, but I'm quite happy just ssh'ing to my linux machines from OSX and using them that way ...

    Just today someone was complaining "no right mouse button?!!" on their new Mac, and I realized (and told them) that I rarely ever use the Mouse for anything other than dragging/dropping ... everything I do on OSX is a total keyboard experience.

    Being a Unix lover, this is important to me. To have such a nice looking GUI experience (hey, Jaguar -is- nice looking) and total control from the keys, well ... its like OSX is the 'vi' of User Shells.

    But, I suppose, "keyboard only control" isn't sexy any more, and I guess you -have- to use the mouse to be a 'modern user experience', eh?

  • by zgwortz962 ( 641208 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @03:04PM (#7976161)
    I've used every single Mac OS since the Lisa. :-)

    Yes, Tog has a number of good points. But he misses the fact that for every problem the UI changes to Mac OS X introduces, it *fixes* at least as many, if not more, problems that existed in previous iterations of Mac OS X.

    Sheets are about the only area I do agree with, but they *do* need to be attached to their windows, otherwise there's no way to associate their functionality with the right document, espeically if you use lots of windows. I'd love to see a "roll up the sheet" button which would allow seeing what is underneath temporarily, but I wouldn't want them to detach. OTOH, I note that most Open dialogs *are* dialogs intstead of sheets. Which is as it should be.

    The Dock has it's issues, but it also solves much more than the problems it caused. Particularly in the area of notifications and being able to drag documents to a specific application. (I don't even have it autohiding unless I'm starved for real estate, like on my laptop...)

    As for Finder... Since 10.0, I got used to keeping two finder windows open all the time, side by side, in Column View, and it's awesome. I do almost everything in those two windows, and only occationally open another window (usually to show package contents...).

    I'm not, however, fond of the Panther change to add the volumes and known folders to the left side of the window -- it eats up a column, and I'd rather have that stuff back in the toolbar. But I could switch to having my two windows positioned vertically -- it's not so much a problem as a change in user behavior.

    Even though I disagree with Tog on these issues, I'll point out that he is mostly positive to Mac OS X, and is only being a squeaky wheel about those areas he's not fond of. Which is how it should be.

  • How about a poll? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by siskbc ( 598067 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @03:07PM (#7976206) Homepage
    It's still vastly inferior to the experience of Mac OS 9

    I'm not going to say you're incorrect, but you're not exactly correct either, as that was a completely subjective statement. That said, I'd love to see some stats on people who like the new OS more/less compared to the old one, broken down into old Mac fans and those who came on the scene after the advent of OS X.

    Personally, I love OS X and find it extremely usable. Additionally, I avoided previous iterations of Mac OS like a plague, and would have rather used an abacus than a mac back then. Bascially, the lack of a good foundation (compared to the BSD-based guts it has now) and a terminal was a killer.

    That said, I guarantee that Apple will sell out its core fans to get new markets (ie, people like me). As you say, what else are you going to use? Windows?

    (If there's one thing I can't stand more than anything else, it's the whole "like it or leave it" attitude. NOTHING would ever get improved if all people were like that.)

    I do agree with your sentiment there. People usually do that when they can think of nothing intelligent to say. It's most commonly found among nationalistic morons (ie, America: love it or leave it!). As if criticizing features of one's government (or favorite OS) somehow means one should abandon it.

    My one greatest compliment to OS X is that it has come so far (mind-blowing, really) in so little time. It's ceased being a toy OS for artsy people (so was the stereotype) and has become incredibly powerful. And I'll admit, there are some UI issues. I guess I'd say to give it time

  • by b1t r0t ( 216468 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @03:36PM (#7976558)
    Oh yeah, I'd just love to have my applications moved to the desktop when I drag them out of the dock.

    My own personal gripe about the dock is when you drag something to the trash. The "add a document to the dock" behavior has priority over the "throw a document in the trash" behavior. What that means is when you try to drag a document to the trash, the trash icon moves away from your cursor! I would be surprised if Tog hasn't griped about this particular bit of stupidity, but I can't check right now because the site is slashdotted.

    My second biggest gripe is when you're trying to drag a dozen documents to an application's icon in the dock, and you miss it by hitting the area between the icon and the edge of the screen. (see Fitts' Law) Suddenly you've got a dozen documents in the dock, and you have to remove them one by one. Now try it with 50 documents.

  • by AC-x ( 735297 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @03:40PM (#7976655)
    Well I can't read the article as it seems to have been /.ed, but the main thing I don't like about the dock is that everything is basically an icon. That's fine if you mainly do graphic design, where you can see what minimised photoshop windows are, but if you do a lot of text/html work then the only way to see what minimised windows contain is to mouse over them one by one. Windows XP, despite its hideous default theme has the best "taskbar" I've seen on any OS. Say I've got a load of dreamweaver files open as well as some folders open, they're grouped neatly into 2 items on the bar that I can expand to see a list of all the html files or folders that I have open. Of course as Macs were (and still are?) considered to specialise as graphic design workstations this feature at least seems to make some sense.
  • by iso ( 87585 ) <(slash) (at) (> on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @03:41PM (#7976674) Homepage
    The Application Menu!? Come ON. When I first started using the Mac OS (OS 8) it took me FOREVER to figure out where to stick stuff so it appears in the apple menu. It makes absolutely no sense to climb into the System folder just to add an application shortcut.

    The Dock may not be perfect, but it's a hell of an improvement. Drag and drop. Plus the finder has the Applications button always visible by default (even better with the Panther sidebar) so it's easy to get to non-dock applications. This makes SO much more sense than the application menu.

    Tog's got some great points, but a lot of his complaints these days have been more "greybeard" than objective.
  • Citizen Kane (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Graymalkin ( 13732 ) * on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @03:41PM (#7976677)
    Tog has some very valid points on some aspects of OSX's interface. On the other hand it is obvious he really liked the way OS9's interface worked. His favorite interface hacks are ones that bring back elements from OS9. While Classic MacOS has some very good interface elements not all of them need to be ported to OSX.

    Window shades were a good idea when there was nowhere else for the windows to go. In OSX the Dock is the out of the way window repository and for the better I think. Since the Dock now adds an ownership icon to windows it is easy to see what is in the window and what it belongs to. If you've got a Word document and Safari window in the Dock you can easily tell which is the one you want to bring back up by the ownership icon. With window shades it was easy to lose a shaded window behind other windows or not be able to find the particular window you were looking for. The Dock keeps the windows in a common area and gives a visual representation of them.

    I agree with Tog on white space to a degree. Some widgets in Classic MacOS were in desperate of added white space. Then other widgets were given too much white space. The white space added to windows controls was a very good idea in my opinion. The Platinum window controls were ridiculously close to one another which made it easy to be sloppy and close a window without meaning to. The added space is also good on tools windows. At 1280x960 the close button on tool windows was teeny tiny. Its Aqua counterpart is much easier to hit and more noticable. The amount of space given to buttons and labels however is bordering on absurdity. Interface builder suggests no less than four miles between buttons and labels on an interface. Too many small developers are using the suggested window metrics and ending up with horribly spaced windows.
  • by mbourgon ( 186257 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @03:45PM (#7976735) Homepage
    It was like the boys from NeXT came in and simply assumed they knew better than everybody else
    I wish they had done it, rather than the compromise they came up with. With 10.3, the finder window is now pretty decent. I remember the NeXT browser being a bit more elegant, but this will work. The dock is not as good as the NeXT dock. Especially with the widescreen displays the macs have these days, the original NeXT dock would've rocked.
  • "As crisp as 9.2.2"? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tholomyes ( 610627 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @03:48PM (#7976768) Homepage

    In the article he claims that Panther is as "crisp... as OS 9.2.2". In my experience, 9.2.x was just kludged together to make it forwards-compatible with OS X, and introduced a lot of undesirable behavior.

    In fact, I found this to be true with MacOS 9, period. 8.5 seemed a lot more stable and user-friendly. What did 9 have that 8.5 didn't?

    My only problem with the Dock is dragging, say, 20 or 30 picture files on to Preview so you can look through them all; if you miss the Preview icon and the button slips-- WHAM!-- 20 more icons added to the Dock. Well, that and accidentally clicking on a program that takes a while to boot.

  • The Hositing (Score:2, Interesting)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) * on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @04:11PM (#7977082)
    No. A "locked" state would prvent accidental removal of dock icons. It would not be possible for ignorant friends using your laptop without your permission/cats/etc to accidently remove icons.

    I have never accidentally removed dock items as it's not that easy... and a cat certainly would not as they have yet to master drag-n-drop.

    As for friends, why would you let them use your account instead of a guest account? Do you make a habit or turning over an admin account and keychain to your friends, never mind the dock? I'll bet your "friend" is a lot more interested in posting some embrassing article to Slashdot using your identity that removing Mail from your dock.

    Oh please, can we have a little less conceptual zealotry?

    Well, that's a nice petard you have placed in the air for hositing sir!

    It's funny to hear a usability fanatic calling someone *else* a zealot as if it were a terrible thing. Admit you are one as well and move on.

    The reason why this would be an improvement is that, in its current incarnation, it's very easy to accidently carry out an irreversable operation; removing an item from the dock. When this happens there is no quick intuitive undo... the user is forced to hunt down whatever was accidently removed and readd it if they so desire... and this provided they actually saw what they removed by accident and therefore know immediately what needs to be replaced.

    Moving the icons onto the desktop would make for a simple undo... it would also provide a sensible counterpart operation to dragging something onto the dock in the first place.

    All I can say is that I would detest such a change (yes, I have feelings on the matter so I am also a zealot). The reason? I drag stuff out of the dock all the time - on purpose!! I don't want it on the desktop as what is in the dock is not real and at most I'm moving a link. I use the dock as a shortcut bar of favorite apps/docs, and when I'm not using them as much I don't want them on the dock. I am very picky about what goes on my desktop, and would find it far more annoying to have things created on my desktop (which I might not even be able to see to know it went there). Even worse than a slightly hard to reverse action is an action that has consequences the user does not see!!

    Or, if you're really such a conceptual fanatic, how about simply having icons return to the dock unless they're dragged explicitly into the trash?

    That's not a good idea because you are not "trashing" anything - you are removing the dock's knowledge of that item. Trashing a dock item is what would really be scary! The trash is meant to remove an item from the system altogether, and should only be used to say "I never want to see that item again".

    "The Dock adds a whole new behavior: Object annihilation. Drag an object off the dock and it disappears in a virtual puff of smoke. This is the single scariest idea introduced to the Macintosh since the original bomb icon. How would you feel if you spent eight hours working on your first Macintosh document, only to have it disappear entirely when you try to move it from the dock to the desktop? Pretty disorienting, no? This is a completely unnecessary concept for the user to have to learn, particularly in such a painful way. Makes for a 'hot demo' though, doesn't it?"

    Well Tog strikes me as not having thought this point out. You cannot "save to the dock", Indeed, the only way something gets there is if a user drags it. Presumably given that they are the one who placed the link there they would also remember where it was from... again, the dock is for things you use most often so you know where they really are. The dock is meant to change all the time and is built to make that easy. The vision you and Tog have is of an app that is not the dock, it is something else that third parties provide.
  • Re:Point-by-point (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) * on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @04:32PM (#7977363)
    2) Your common apps in the dock are no more in fixed positions than those in the Apple menu -- you just have control of their order

    The thing is, the order is most important to me. I want PhotoShop and iPhoto and iPhoto librarian together. If they shift position it's not a big deal as I have a pretty big target to hit.

    1. The point is that the Dock is the only thing in Mac OS X where you drag and item from it to destroy it (instead of moving or copying it). This is inconsistent behavior, which is another black mark in UI design. They added the little puff of smoke because it confused users. Now it just acts as an irritant to new users until they learn its bad behavior.

    I disagree with your assesment. When I drag something off the dock, I am "moving" it out of the dock. Since nothing is actually destroyed, how can it be anything else? Perhaps the puff is a poor indicator of what is happening, but that does not make the action itself wrong.
  • by Wetware ( 599523 ) <ase AT english-in-america DOT com> on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @04:35PM (#7977427)
    Are you sure about that? Because the dynamic resizing that occurs when the magnification feature is active is pretty fast and smooth (and has been ever since 10.0 as I recall), and the icons look great at any size during the transformation.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @04:54PM (#7977724)
    You have a valid point. Saying:

    open -a 'Microsoft Word'

    To start MS Word is more awkward, but, if it is any consolation, I did not have to add anything to the command path first to make this work. It is already set up, and works for any other application installed in the standard places (e.g., open -a 'iTunes'). Also, I can say:

    open Resume.doc

    And, assuming I have Word and that ".doc" files are the application bound to them, it will start Word and load that file (same for "open *.jpg" or similar file options, and I can override the default application by including the -a option already demonstrated -- more details at "man open").

    I suppose I could make a shell alias for "word", "itunes", etc. I would be tempted to just drop it in the dock for a one-click solution instead, though dock space is limited. It works for scripts too, if you use wrappers such as Platypus [].
  • by wazzzup ( 172351 ) <astromac@fastm[ ].fm ['ail' in gap]> on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @05:19PM (#7978006)
    Doesn't expose address the criticisms of the dock? It doesn't get in the way of those that love the dock and provides an alternative to those that don't.

    Don't like using the dock to switch applications? Use expose to show all open windows - or command+tab for that matter.

    Don't like it when you have 7 Word documents open and you can't tell one document from the other by its icon in the dock? Use expose's show windows by application.

    Don't like getting to a desktop buried by open windows by minimizing windows or hiding applications in the dock? Use expose to move all the windows offscreen.

    As a longtime Mac user, I think the dock is clunky but expose and command+tab have been a dream. My friend that recently switched from Windows to the Mac loves the dock and can't understand why people hate it. With Panther, everyone is happy.

    Tog's arguments and this thread would be valid in a pre-10.3 timeframe but Apple listened and provided a wonderful alternative in expose. Are people just not using it or are these people complaining about an OS that is a generation (or four if you count OS 9) old? Hell, let's start a thread about Windows for Worgroups shortcomings.
  • by MasonMcD ( 104041 ) <masonmcd@m a c . c om> on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @05:30PM (#7978202) Homepage
    Here's a table [] of original HCI group members that seems to be updated occasionally. Note that some key HCI personnel still work at Apple.

    I think you could make the argument that the group is now more product focused now than before.
  • by divbyzero ( 23176 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @05:37PM (#7978325) Journal
    I've never understood this surprisingly popular opinion. Nobody complains that printers have too high resolution. Why do they look at high resolution in a monitor as a bad thing?

    Scalable fonts and vector graphics (both of which are used pervasively in OS/X) work even better at higher resolutions than they do at low ones. In other words, when you have more pixels per inch, you don't have to keep drawing your fonts at 13 pixels tall, making them too tiny to see. Instead, draw them at the same 12 point (1/6 of an inch) tall, but with more detail.

    To answer your question, a 12 inch diagonal, 1200 dpi screen would be sheer bliss for me, and far preferable to something larger but with lower resolution.
  • by bwy ( 726112 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @05:50PM (#7978496)
    I'm not a expert Mac user, I'm quite new, but when I installed my Java IDE (IDEA) on my new iBook, I had a problem right away with the dock.

    The installer stuck the icons in the dock, I think. InstallAnywhere lets you pick one place to put icons but not multiple.

    I didn't want the icon in my dock anymore so I dragged it off to my desktop. And there it went. Poof! Now you have someone who has used various operating systems over 15 years staring at the LCD wondering what in the hell just happened and how to get it back! Everybody says Mac is this greatly intuitive system but this particular feature is pretty un-intuitive if you ask me.
  • Shredding... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by DarkRecluse ( 231992 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @06:07PM (#7978645)
    Augment it by adding shredding capability, a nice adjunct to the new File Vault encryption capability. (Shredding should be done on a document-by-document basis, since by its nature it takes a long time.) Couple the shredding with the ability to "clean:" your Mac. It does no good to shred a document if a RAM image persists in virtual memory on the disk. If we're going for privacy, let's make it a complete solution.

    There is a Secure Empty Trash option in the Finder Menu the last time I checked.

    I have to wonder whether it's a good idea to start messing with virtual memory in use by applications. How is the Finder supposed to know if that data is still in VM considering the program likely to be viewing it has already given up that space to free resources. Even if you do have a static VM are you sure that those resources are not being shuffled to various sectors on the disk?

    Do you want to zero data when resources are released? Do you want to have the hard drive sitting there until the residual magnetic field has shifted to match your new dataset?

  • My wish list (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @09:47PM (#7980944)
    There are certain things I prefer in OS 9 over OS X... for example the finder windows were a lot simpler. Opening an OSX finder window feels like opening a huge window with all those silly stuffon the side.

    Regardless, I wish Apple would add the capablity type in the file path in Finder windows... at least as an option that is intially turned off.

    Abilty to open a finder window like the Windows key combination (windows key + E in Windows)

    Should be able to maintain the color you pick in icon view for other views as well.

    The Finder windows side icons should be resizeble as well... hate the big icons on the side.

    Would definitely like an Application Menu... the Dock just dosent cut it.

    System Preferences
    Can't we haver a Cancel/Save button in Preferences? Some times I might change a value then change my mind about the change...

    Seems like OS X forgot about the simplicity for the user... but I still like some of it.

If it's not in the computer, it doesn't exist.