The Roadmap to Leopard?

Alexandros Roussos writes with a link to the site MacScoop, which claims to have obtained a roadmap for the months leading up to Leopard's release. It's a straightforward article, stating how much access individuals outside the company will have access to the product prior to October. "Major build on early August - In a little more than a month, Apple's development team targets a feature-full build. The build that was provided to developers during the World Wide Developers Conference earlier this month is actually not totally feature frozen. Some minor features are currently being finished for the system. These features will arrive in the August build along with user-interface improvements, sources told MacScoop. If you expect major 'wow' features or interface changes, you will be disappointed. What we may expect is additional settings and [some] user interface polish[ing]. Among the most criticized parts of the new user interface [are] the new menu bar and Dock."

Sensible timeline?

[Baumi]

FTA:

In a little more than a month, Apple's development team targets a feature-full build.
[...]
The milestone that will follow the total feature-freeze is slated for September, as the target of Apple's internal development team is a totally feature-full and stable Final Candidate version of Mac OS X Leopard.
[...]
In early to mid October, Leopard should reach the Golden Master status and Apple will be launching the DVD and packaging production.
[...]
Finally, the release is scheduled for late October

Is that a realistic time frame? Seems to be an awfully short to me, then again I've never been involved in projects on that kind of scale.

Re:

[node 3]

How long are you thinking it will take to press a disc, stick it in a box, and ship it to the store?

Given that FC is in Sept., and FC is the first *intended* final version, a month+ of going through fine-tuning, and a week or two of manufacturing, seems more than adequate.

WTF?

[Penguin Follower]

Among the most criticized parts of the new user interface [are] the new menu bar and Dock."

OK, I watched the WWDC07 demos of Leopard and I thought the new Dock and menu bar looked good. What's the beef? I've not read any "reviews" yet. No matter what happens - come October this MacPro will be running Leopard.

The menu bar...

[ZxCv]

...seems to be the main complaint among the bits I've read. And after having used it now myself, I'd have to agree.

Personally, I like the new look of the dock. The menu bar, however, is something I really hope they make an option. For the same reason that I (and many others) don't want or use semi-transparent windows, I don't want a semi-transparent menu bar. It's like they threw readability and usability out the window, all in the name of looking "cool".

Re:

[aichpvee]

I think they're copying from microsoft again on this "feature."

Re:

[toddestan]

Who isn't copying these days? It's too difficult to be innovative, really.

Funny, I don't see people posting things like that in the Vista articles around here.

Re:

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

I've had leopard installed for about two days now and the semi-transparent menu bar is actually pretty nice. It doesn't jump out at you when you look near the top of documents.. It's just kinda.. there, but in the background.

The reflections from the dock are also very nice. It actually reflects everything, even video.

Patterns are bad

[ghutchis]

The more small patterns you have in the image (or section of the image near the top), the worse the menu bar looks.

I have my Mac set to change the desktop once a day. At first, everything was great -- it was picking images with sky at the top -- essentially solid color. Then it brought up a zen rock garden, which is one of my favorite images.

On Leopard, it makes the menus unreadable. The dark/light pattern in the rocks makes it impossible to find letters in the menu. I've also found many pictures will make it difficult to read or identify menu extras on the right side of the screen.

They need to fix this ASAP. Oh, and the new Finder icons are horrible too. There's zero color contrast to identify the different folders.

Re:

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

I have something like a star field cluster for a background. Pretty much a bunch of black with greenish white dots. There's some of the cluster behind the "Help" menu but it doesn't keep me from being able to read "Help" and it doesn't look bad, either. The regular menus being transparent over my open document/browser/whatever actually is pretty cool.

Translucency sucks

[Steeltoe]

Translucency really, really sucks. It is distracting and makes it harder to read. Just look at Word for Mac or iTerm. The translucent effect just makes it harder on the eyes, while providing NO benefit. It should really be optional overall.

Now, MenuShade is a program that gives your menu a less-brighter shade. THAT is a good idea, because it prevents the menu from burning in your fancy LCD. Im using it all the time, and it is easier on the eyes, AND simple to read.

Re:

[node 3]

I've heard it's optional (an interview with someone important at Apple (Steve?), or maybe even during the keynote). Have you checked in System Preferences? A "defaults write" command? Or maybe that feature is one of the "interface polishes" that are yet to happen.

Regardless, I think the translucent menu is a good idea, and one that probably doesn't grab you at first, but takes some acclimation. Also, I think having it be configurable via System Preferences (or at least via defaults), is also a good idea.

The Solution(s)

[LKM]

If there's no defaults write command, just make the top part of your background image a solid color, or use one of the thousands of utilities that will appear (and have already appeared [manytricks.com]) doing something like this.

Re:

[LKM]

Actually, animations in Mac OS X usually serve a purpose (windows "flowing" in and out of the dock tell you where you can find them) and/or tend to only appear when they aren't annoying (menus don't "fade in" because that is annoying when you want to select a menu item, but fade out after you've made your selection).

Re:

[Baumi]

I haven't played around with Leopard myself yet, but I imagine a semi-translucent menu bar and a reflecting dock could get confusing sometimes.

E.g., I've read in a review that the new indicator for running applications - a small glowing dot - is sometimes difficult to spot between reflections on the dock. If that's the case, it seems like an unfortunate case of valuing eye candy higher than usability. I haven't read anything similar about the menu bar, but translucency on major interface items can be a pain

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

"I've read in a review that the new indicator for running applications - a small glowing dot - is sometimes difficult to spot between reflections on the dock."

I would have to agree. I've had some confusing issues with it, when trying it. I hope Apple fixes it.

The Dock & the Menu Bar

[Gary W. Longsine]

People have complained that the dock doesn't look as cool on the side. The reflection design is really an artistic element that only works well when the dock is on the bottom, and always showing. Fine for demos in a keynote, but most people who use their computer move the dock to the side, to make more screen real estate in the vertical dimension, where it's badly needed. I guess teh menu bar looks a little "flat" to some people. I like it myself. I don't want it to be flashy and distracting.

Re:

[DDLKermit007]

Guess I must just be the oddball then. The dock stays on the bottom for me. Key is having it hide when not in use. Such a waste to have screen real-estate eaten by icons you need intermittently.

You're not alone.

[Penguin Follower]

I keep my Dock on the bottom as well. I wanted more screen real estate, so I bought a Samsung 22" widescreen. Problem solved. Oh and I love DVI.

Re:

[Penguin Follower]

My 22" widescreen has the same vertical resolution as a standard 4:3 19" monitor. Most people don't need more vertical than that. OTOH, I work with annoyingly-wide spreadsheets on a regular basis at work, so having a widescreen both at home and at work is very nice. :D

Re:

[Tickletaint]

I'm not using OS X but my KDE is trying to resemble it

Aren't you missing the whole point? It's look and feel. Skins won't replicate the subtle behaviors of every carefully crafted aspect of every user interface element. You, and the Firefox developers, would do well to learn that beauty is never skin deep.

The Dock: The Left Side

[Gary W. Longsine]

I know quite a few old time NeXT users who keep the Dock on the side, even though NeXTSTEP had it on the right. This is because the left side position clusters the controls better. Less mouse travel between app launch on the left and menu selection on the top/left. I know a bunch of ordinary users (old school Mac users and Windows switchers) who try it in different places and wind up with it on the left, too.

It would be interesting to know what the statistics are for dock position.

Re:The Dock & the Menu Bar

[node 3]

most people who use their computer move the dock to the side

I highly suspect this isn't true.

Re:

[iluvcapra]

It's a common thing where I am, since all of our systems are built for one main application (Pro Tools) that you usually use in a one-window fullscreen mode, and you do a lot of side-scrolling, thus the dock gets in the way if it's at the bottom. The left edge is a compromise, since you're trading horizontal real estate, unless you have a wide monitor.

Re:

[node 3]

I realize it's common, I just don't believe that a majority of the 60 million or whatever installs of OS X there are out there have their docks on the side.

I suspect, for the aggregate of Macs, it's: dock on the bottom > dock on the bottom + audohide > dock on the side.

Although certainly, among some subsets of the Mac user base, docks on the side are going to be more prevalent than among others, perhaps so much so in some as to make up the majority. But in the general sense (which is what I was replyi

Re:

[LKM]

I think most "normal" Mac users I know don't even know that they can move the Dock, and don't care, either.

Re:

[boscosmith]

I maintain 12 macs for different friends and family. The people using them are not power users, but they know how to configure their machines. Anyway, of the 12, ONE person moved their doc to the side. Something to do with Final Cut Pro and wanting to have the video time slider at the very bottom of the screen. Other than that, everyone leaves it on the bottom.

Re:

[solios]

but most people who use their computer move the dock to the side,

Of the dozens of Mac users I've met and hung out with over the years, I know of only ONE who kept her dock on the side. One out of dozens is hardly "most."

I tried it on the side, but a few minutes in photoshop convinced me otherwise. So it's on the bottom on all of my machines - the same place I keep my Windows start bar. Not only is it less obtrusive, it's the default - one less thing to worry about.

Agreed

[pavon]

I think the transparent menu is unnecessary, and perhaps counterproductive, but not a huge deal. I'm curious about what is disliked about the dock though. Stacks seemed a nice feature, and other than that there really wasn't much to right home about. Oh actually I do have a complaint about the stack - smartly, the last item placed on the stack is the one visible in the dock, but when you go to fan them out, it become the farthest one away making it the hardest to click, even though it is the one you are most likely to open.

I'm also curious about how they are handling mounted volumes. I noticed that they were not on the desktop anymore (yea! I hate using the desktop for anything but wallpaper). It didn't look like they were available in the dock though either. Is the finder sidebar the only place you will be able to find them now? I'd love it if they were accessible via a special stack in the dock, with newly inserted ones showing up on the top. I use DragThing right now to do something similar.

While I'm drifting off subject, I've wondered how the shared volumes will work for large networks. Jobs mentioned that any computer will automatically be found (via netbios or zeroconf?) and will show up in the finder sidebar. What happens if you are on a company or dorm network - hundreds of computers in the sidebar? I'd hope not. Maybe after a certain number of computers, it is replaced with a "see entire network link" where you can browse and/or pick which computers should be in the sidebar.

Re:

[Penguin Follower]

I,too, am interested in stacks. And Spaces. I always made use of multiple virtual desktops on my Linux boxes. Oh and since I am bad about doing backups any more regularly than twice a year, I'll probably use Time Machine as well.

Core Animation is sweet. As is 64 bit from top to bottom.

Oh and what's the deal with the blazin' speed of Steve's demo machine that was at WWDC07? I've got quad-core 2.66GHz MacPro that just doesn't have the snappiness of the MacPro Steve demo'ed. Is there that much of a diffe

Re:

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Jobs probably had it packed to the limit with RAM. How much better would your system run with 16GB of RAM?

Re:

[Penguin Follower]

From my understanding, the MacPro suffers from increased latency if you fill all the memory slots. So 8GB of RAM would be the balance between the most RAM and keeping latency down. The performance review I read, which unfortunately I cannot remember which site I read it on, stated that using only 4 memory slots was best if you wanted to keep down latency. For me that's the only knock on the MacPro is that it uses FB-DIMMs (expensive RAM and more latency). Other than that I really like this machine.

You know...

[SvnLyrBrto]

> I'm also curious about how they are handling mounted volumes. I noticed
> that they were not on the desktop anymore (yea! I hate using the desktop
> for anything but wallpaper).

You can take HDs, CDs, iPods, servers, and mounted disc images off the desktop right now, if you're so inclined.

Go to Finder>Preferences, or use command-comma while Finder is the selected app. From there, just uncheck the top three ("Show these items on the Desktop") boxes in the "General" pane. Bamf... nothing on your desktop but what you purposely put there.

cya,
john
 

Re:

[dr.badass]

I'm also curious about how they are handling mounted volumes. I noticed that they were not on the desktop anymore

The current Finder preferences have the option to not show volumes on the desktop. In all probability they've just changed the defaults. I've been using it this way for so long I didn't even notice they changed it.

Re:Agreed

[Firehed]

I just pray that Leopard's Finder doesn't flip out if a network share suddenly goes missing, as Tiger's does. It's enough of a pain that I need to fully quit out of Azureus and iTunes which I have configured to do all of their storage on a network drive, and it's entirely my fault. But when my computer flips shit and locks up for fifteen minutes because I unplugged the network cable before unmounting all the shares... you get the idea. An auto-mount option, preferably with location-based configuration (sort of how I use MarcoPolo.app right now, with its scripting tools) would be great, but I'd be content if it simply gracefully disconnected from network shares that have become unavailable.

Finder flipping out when network shares go missing

[Gary W. Longsine]

I think this issue of the Finder flipping out is due partly to the finder and partly due to the automounter (autofs [apple.com]), both of which appear to have received a major overhaul in Leopard. Autofs has apparently been threaded. If the Finder is instrumented with NSOperation (I can find no publicly available documentation to that effect), then the combination of those efforts should be a "Finder" which appears to be much more responsive than on previous versions of Mac OS X.

Re:

[Guy Harris]

I think this issue of the Finder flipping out is due partly to the finder and partly due to the automounter (autofs), both of which appear to have received a major overhaul in Leopard. Autofs has apparently been threaded.

If nothing is in the process of being automounted, the automounter has precisely nothing to do with any Finder hangs.

With the old single-threaded automounter, if a mount was in progress, the automounter would be incapable of responding to any other requests. As the old automounter was a

Mounted Volumes on Desktiop is a Finder option

[LKM]

Showing mounted volumes on the Desktop was always a Finder option. Maybe Steve simply had it turned off. I think early versions of OS X did not have this option, and Mac users complained, so Apple put it in.

Re:

[foo fighter]

Yes.

Put your Documents folder under the Finder icon on the doc. Then click and hold on either to see them popup like the "Stacks" feature coming in Leopard.

That's right, Stacks is already available on OS X, just with a less shiny UI.

I think this is much more efficient than having to clear windows to see the Desktop to access mounted volumes.

The problem with the new dock

[alms]

is that you can't tell which applications are running and which are not. In the Tiger dock, running applications have a very visible black triangle under them. In the Leopard dock, there is a much more subtle shadowing effect that indicates running applications. It needs to be less subtle.

Amazing insight!

[ZxCv]

Is it just me, or is the "timeline" the article talks about not just something you could reasonably deduce, knowing where Leopard is at right now and when they plan to release it?

Didn't seem like there was any real new info here, but maybe it's just me.

Transparency craziness...

[Anonymous Coward]

"What we may expect is additional settings and [some] user interface polish[ing]. Among the most criticized parts of the new user interface [are] the new menu bar and Dock."

Okay, I was wondering what the "new menu bar and Dock" were referring to. Here's Apple's page [apple.com] on the subject. Damn, I was really hoping they were bringing back NextStep-like vertical menu bars a an option, but, nooooo, they're making the menubar transparent. Useless. One of the most key UI elements transparent? Why? For a few extr

Re:

[26199]

Ew.

Windows reflect in the dock... that strikes me as a really horrible idea.

What I'd like to know

[An Anonymous Hero]

Has it been announced (e.g. on Apple developer mailing lists) what versions Leopard will have of

• apache
• bash
• ksh
• openssl
• perl
• postfix
• python
• ruby
• sqlite
• ssh
• svn (?)
• zsh
• x11

etc...?

Re:

[mgv]

Has it been announced (e.g. on Apple developer mailing lists) what versions Leopard will have of

* apache
* bash
* ksh
* openssl
* perl
* postfix
* python
* ruby
* sqlite
* ssh
* svn (?)

Re:

[An Anonymous Hero]

NDA

Yeah, I kind of expected this reply, since of course the answers are a --version away for anyone with a beta build. That's why I specifically asked about anything said on the mailing lists, e.g. by Apple engineers, which I guess is then fair game to repeat. (I've seen that done before, those are not HUGE secrets; just didn't follow this time.)

if the package you want isn't the most up to date, Apple won't stop you installing it

Of course. It's more about what I can expect other people, who won't bother

Re:

[mgv]

Of course. It's more about what I can expect other people, who won't bother to use fink or macports, to have as the standard versions.

Think happy developers.

Michael

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't speak for the final release, but the WWDC beta has the following versions:

apache - 2.2.4
bash - 3.2.9(1)-release
ksh - Version M 1993-12-28 s+
openssl - 0.9.71
perl - 5.8.8
postfix - 2.4.0
python - 2.5.1
ruby - 1.8.6
sqlite - 3.3.17
svn - 1.4.3
zsh - 4.3.4
x11 - Xquartz server based on X.org Release 7.2, built on ?P

Re:

[An Anonymous Hero]

Thanks. Good news! This essentially matches what's currently available in macports:

$ port info --version apache2 bash ksh93 openssl perl5.8 postfix python25 ruby sqlite3 subversion zsh-devel xorg
version: 2.2.4
version: 3.2.17
version: 2007-01-11
version: 0.9.8e
version: 5.8.8
version: 2.3.8
version: 2.5.1
version: 1.8.6
version: 3.4.0
version: 1.4.4
version: 4.3.4
version: X11R6.8.2

Re:

[An Anonymous Hero]

Well typically point updates (e.g. 10.4.x) have rarely if ever updated those components; except perhaps ssh in security updates.

So, I would expect that the 10.5 versions are already being tested in current builds, and that we'll be stuck with them for quite some time.

Multitouch !

[tronnolon]

What about multitouch? -- It's already incorporated into the iPhone interface,

and the iPhone is running Leopard ...

Re:Multitouch: Already there in Mac OS X 10.4

[atrocious cowpat]

"What about multitouch? -- It's already incorporated into the iPhone interface, "

Actually you have (limited) Multitouch-capability already in OS X 10.4. The MacBooks' and MacBookPros' Trackpads will interpret actions you do with two fingers differently than actions you do with one finger. Examples:

click [one finger] = "left click"
click [two fingers] = "right click" ("control click" for you 1-button-mouse-maccies ;) )

drag [one finger] = nothing (unless trackpad-button is depressed, then it's "drag sel

Re:

[mmeister]

I'd definitely pick me up a 24-inch multitouch iMac. That would rock!!

OSX is Mac OS X, with extraneous bits removed

[Gary W. Longsine]

The iPhone operating system is OS X, and it's probably a Leopard variant. Although I haven't seen reliable indications of this, I'm sure such details will emerge after people get their hands on the iPhone. There are a few hints that iPhone's OS X is probably Leopard based, however. Certainly the iPhone could have been developed *without* some of these technologies, and some could have been back-ported to Tiger, but it seems more likely that iPhone is based on Leopard code. Some of the hints include:

1. i

Re:

[Guy Harris]

multi-threaded network stack is probably useful on a device that runs multiple network connections concurrently (WiFi and cell phone voice network)

Yeah, it's not as if it'd be useful for servers running OS X [apple.com], after all, so it must've been done for the iPhone.

Re:

[Lars T.]

. (1) The distinction between Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server is non existent. It's the only commercial operating system in the world where that's true.

Do you realize Windows NT since 1992 has had a shared code base between the client and server versions. (You could literally make Windows NT Workstation into Server by changing a registry key.) Why are all the Mac experts clueless to anything non-Mac?

He didn't say difference, he said distinction. Why is it that Windows experts can never tell the difference between two distinct words?

Re:

[TheNetAvenger]

You mean 'distiction' as in:

"Condition of being different; difference"

Is using a dictionary really that hard for Apple nuts? No wonder Jobs said that more than one button on the mouse would confuse his customers...

Re:

[Lars T.]

You mean 'distiction' as in:

"Condition of being different; difference"

Is using a dictionary really that hard for Apple nuts? No wonder Jobs said that more than one button on the mouse would confuse his customers...

So you admit YOU can't use a dictionary, including not being able to tell the difference between different and distinct. The distinction is in the way Microsoft treats the two, you confused Microsoft user (both by Microsoft and yourself), too dumb to use a one-button mouse.

Not to mention that you admited that Windows and its Server versions are different, if only by a setting in the Registry.

Re:

[TheNetAvenger]

So you admit YOU can't use a dictionary, including not being able to tell the difference between different and distinct. The distinction is in the way Microsoft treats the two, you confused Microsoft user (both by Microsoft and yourself), too dumb to use a one-button mouse.
Not to mention that you admited that Windows and its Server versions are different, if only by a setting in the Registry.


Actually that DEFINITION was from the dictionary, you freaking idiot.

NT is a shared code base and it is a commerical

Dock 3D is a major improvement

[gig]

> Among the most criticized parts of the new user interface [are] the new menu bar and Dock."

The menu bar obviously needs a control of some kind in Preferences, that enables you to set the amount of the new effect, even to zero. There is already a third-party app that fixes this for the developer preview, they can make it a non-issue entirely with a single check box or slider.

The new Dock is awesome, though. It is not 3D eye candy, it actually is 3D. Instead of a strip of flypaper with 2D photos stuck on

Re:

[dr.badass]

The new Dock is awesome, though. It is not 3D eye candy, it actually is 3D.

No, sorry. It's 2D that looks 3D. You don't need 3D to create the reflection effect, or to have objects appear to be behind other objects. Also, Stacks don't work quite how you seem to think. They're just a different view for Dock folders. You can't create a "second row" of apps, for instance.

It's "two-and-a-half" D, no?

[argent]

It is not 3D eye candy, it actually is 3D.

Really?

In the videos it looked like a typical "two-and-a-half" dimension interface, where the third dimension is an effect applied to a two-dimensional interface, like the "3d" drop shadowed-windows in OS X, or the "3d" buttons that have become the norm for windowed GUIs over the past decade and a half: you would get the same functionality with a short vertical stack of objects in two dimensions.

This isn't intended to put it down, or anything... I don't think that f

Docklets

[LKM]

Docklets existed in early versions of OS X. They were removed because (I guess) not a lot of people used them. It probably makes more sense to have a real application that updates its Dock icon regularly.

Re:

[argent]

They were removed because (I guess) not a lot of people used them.

Not a lot of people used early versions of OS X, for that matter. It wasn't stable enough for production until Jaguar. :p

Blu-Ray & HDDVD Support?

[aldheorte]

Does anyone have definitive information on what HD formats Leopard will support? Last I checked. rumors swirled around support for one or the other or none. I use a Mac Mini as media center and if Leopard does not support the HD formats (and someone does not come out with an affordable combo, or at least HDDVD. drive), it does not sound like a very appealing upgrade for that use.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple has backed Blu-Ray for a very long time now. They even joined Board of Directors [apple.com] of the Blu-ray Disc Association. Thus, Bu-ray support is a certainty. That said, however, rumors have it they will also hedge their bet by supporting HD-DVD.

Aqua tweaks

[Y-Crate]

I would hope that the Aqua interface elements get a reworking before the final release. They look absolutely out of place in the new unified interface scheme. If they simply copied over the iPhone style Leopard would look a whole lot better. Take a look at them side by side [appleinsider.com] and tell me which you prefer.

It's like Copeland all over again!

[Bones3D_mac]

Personally, I think Apple has finally lost it after several years of producing innovations that have changed much of the world. The fact that they are touting a transparent menubar as a major feature suggests their idea pool for MacOS X development is starting to collapse in the same way Copeland did in the mid 90's. They've become too focused on presentation and eye candy, rather than improving what goes on under the hood.

Of course, that isn't to say MacOS X hasn't been a mess in terms of the Human Interface Guidelines (on which the Mac OS was based) since the earliest public releases, but making the one visual concept that has remained consistent and immediately recognizeable in all versions of the Mac OS almost completely invisible has to be the single worst offense to date. The menubar was supposed to be a fixed (and always visible) reference point for the user to rely on while the rest of the desktop evironment continually changes during each session of use. It's the one part of the OS that keeps everything else organized and easily understood.

Aside from Leopard, we'll soon have the iPhone to contend with, which is sure to be a nightmare once the early adopters get past the hype and Steve Jobs' Reality Distortion Field and start to realize just how confining the device really is due to all the red tape that comes with it. It will probably sell as expected, but in the end, it may go down in history as on of the worst products in Apple's history, next to the Lisa, as a result of all the artificial limitations imposed upon it that kept it from being the killer product everyone really wanted it to be.

By the time this all plays out, Steve Jobs may get ousted for both 10.5 and the iPhone, much like Gil Amelio was due to Copeland and mac cloning.

Re:It's like Copeland all over again!

[mmeister]

Wow.. do you absolute NOT know what you're talking about.

Copland failed because it was much too ambitious. They wanted 100% backward compatibility + protected memory and other modern OS goodies.

As for the menu bar reference point -- it is still fixed, as always and is still quite visible. There may be some bugs where certain images make it disappear, but I'd call that a bug at this point. It isn't a major feature (the feature is the improved desktop which focuses on removing clutter so you can see more of your digital images). Stacks is a big deal. Once you actually start using it, you'll realize it vastly improves the dock.

Why would iPhone be a nightmare? Sure, there's the Steve RDF, but it seems pretty clear that for the first time, an emphasis on usability has been placed on a smart phone. I'm sure that there will be issues, but they'll be solved with software updates and I think calls that this will be a flop are incredibly premature. I'm sure you want it to be a flop, that is clear from your statements.

Steve Jobs will not get ousted for 10.5 or iPhone.

I think Mac OS X 10.5 is going to be a very solid release. Perhaps it is not as end-user feature laden as some would like, but it has plenty of useful features that will make it worth the $129 upgrade. More importantly, the features and functionality added for developers means that there will be some very cool apps coming down the pipe.

The iPhone will do well. The secret is that much of the functionality is in software that can easily be updated via syncing with iTunes. Bugs can easily be addressed. Improvements can be made and sent out much in the same way Apple does for its standard applications. I'm sure there will be glitches (when several hundred thousand people start using something, there are bound to be edge cases that come up). And the 2nd generation will do even better.

I predict that Apple will have an iPhone battery replacement program (much like for the iPod, possibly better since you'll likely take it to a AT&T store) which, while not resolving the user replaceable battery, will relieve the anxiety of what to do after two years of battery use.

In the end, I'm sure there will be some limitations, as this is a 1.0 product, but those limitations will be worked out. There will be some very vocal nay sayers out there, but based on what I've seen thus far (and my own experience with previous phones), Apple is changing the game here. It is putting emphasis on the end user experience -- something that's apparently new to the industry -- and I think they will be successful because of it.

Re:

[Bones3D_mac]

Sure, Apple *did* spread their resources thin considering the initial goals they set out for. But that was not the only issue involved. The fact is, they never *achieved* those goals before they started concerning themselves with the superficial areas of the OS, such as the goofy new themes ("Hi-Tech", "Gizmo", "Drawing Board") that would use non-square windows and large isometric icons, among other things.

Mac OS X has been development for nearly a decade now and Apple still doesn't have something as simple

Re:

[mmeister]

If Apple put half as much effort into what's going on under the hood as they put into making the OS shinier, maybe we'd have machines that are better at getting a job done rather than acting as a "my computer is prettier than yours" conversation piece. Dumb "innovations" like a transparent menubar aren't going to improve the efficiency or usefulness of the user interface.

Let's look at just a *few* of the things that have been added under the hood in just Leopard: 64-bit GUI APIs (and the ability for 32-

Re:

[real gumby]

Thanks for the thoughtful note.

[...]I think Mac OS X 10.5 is going to be a very solid release. Perhaps it is not as end-user feature laden as some would like, but it has plenty of useful features that will make it worth the $129 upgrade. More importantly, the features and functionality added for developers means that there will be some very cool apps coming down the pipe.

Yeah, I think most people, and the mainstream press in particular, don't understand what to look for (the mainstream press doesn't cover Oracle's feature set, nor Dell's, but Apple has decided to play in that area and so that's part of the deal.)

I also hope (for my own sake, as a Mac user) that 10.5 stresses robustness and solid under-the-hood foundations. I don't need for Apple to spend much energy at all on showy stuff -- I want the results, showy or not, in the apps I use

WWDC 2007 Keynote vs. Leopard feature set

[Gary W. Longsine]

Everybody has their undies in a bunch about the 10 things the Jobs showed in the recent keynote. Those things were carefully chosen by Jobs, likely with a great deal of input from other executives and managers at Apple, probably more such input than any keynote ever before. Why? Because Apple was trying to motivate the 5000 developers at WWDC to be more innovative with their use of some of the Mac OS X technologies. Apple focused that keynote on things like creative use of CoverFlow in several places, a

Re:

[LKM]

Yeah, a transparent menu bar is hardly revolutionary or even worth mentioning. That doesn't mean Leopard doesn't have a huge amount of new stuf. It's just that most of the changes in Leopard are in APIs.

other elements

[Gary W. Longsine]

Well, not really. The unified look and feel is quite nice. It's much less of a distraction. The way emphasis of the window of current focus has improved a lot since Tiger, too.

Re:

[mmeister]

I completely agree. The unified window look makes a huge difference. And it addresses a major complaint with end-users and developers (plain vs. metal vs. unified toolbar vs. HUD vs. other). So kudos to Apple for listening to its customers.

Re:Uhm

[WrongSizeGlass]

That's basically ALL that changed in Desktop: the menu and the dock.

I believe your forgot about the dewy grass Desktop image.

Won't somebody think of the dewy grass!

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

please oh please submit feedback to ADC

[Gary W. Longsine]

You should consider providing feedback to . It sounds like the behavior of the stacks could be improved with a little effort, rather than ditching the concept altogether. [apple.com]

Re:

[bwy]

I'm not sure what you tried to link to, but it doesn't go to a forum post or anything like that- just the developer homepage. Anyway I agree, stacks needs work. I'm curious if you found a post or something about this that we can add our 2 cents to.

Re:

[Gary W. Longsine]

The ADC (Apple Developer Connection [apple.com] page has a way to sign up at the top right of the page. Once you've signed up you can log in and submit bugs to their Bug Reporter [apple.com] system. In my experience that is the most effective way to submit enhancement requests or defect reports to Apple. The "Feedback" pages are another option.

Re:Please oh please oh please, DITCH STACKS!

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. In grid mode, the icons display with file names, and a right-click gets a menu, and one of the items is to open the folder in the Finder. Yeah, there are some rough spots that need fixing up, but because of the NDA I won't go into that. But I figured I'd stretch the NDA a little when I saw blatant misinformation about dock behavior, from someone whom I'm guessing doesn't actually have the beta but is just passing on misunderstood info.

Re:

[mgv]

ullshit. In grid mode, the icons display with file names, and a right-click gets a menu, and one of the items is to open the folder in the Finder. Yeah, there are some rough spots that need fixing up, but because of the NDA I won't go into that. But I figured I'd stretch the NDA a little when I saw blatant misinformation about dock behavior, from someone whom I'm guessing doesn't actually have the beta but is just passing on misunderstood info.

I'm torn between (a) breaking my NDA, (b) refusing to post anony

Re:

[Tickletaint]

Those who block AC comments don't deserve to be informed.

Re:

[Don_dumb]

Some of us are stuck with old IE6 at work and that seems to have problems with the AC postings.

And anyway, blocking AC postings by choice probably raises the average quality of the discussions.

Re:

[porcupine8]

If you have folders within folders, how does it handle that? Do you wind up with yet another grid? I really like having my Documents folder in the dock, with a right-click I can get into all the subfolders by hovering and get to documents much more quickly than through a finder window.

Re:

[FLAGGR]

You have the best sig ever.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right that by default the Stacks sort by and use the last added item icon, but you can change to different sort criteria and thus a different icon will be reflected in the stack.

It may be possible to manually change the stack icon but i haven't looked into it very much.

Another big complaint people had with Leopard is that a previously advertised feature of screen sharing within iChat appeared to have been moved to the new Finder instead. While the Finder does indeed support screen sharing i can stat

Re:

[mgv]

A coworker came back from WWDC with his copy. Unless I'm mistaken, stacks are HORRIBLE!!!

You are mistaken.

I think that there is enough from the keynote alone to demonstrate that it doesn't operate entirely as you have stated. Beyond that I can't say (NDA). And, in any case, this is still in beta, so don't get tied down on minor points.

As TFA states, there are several releases planned - and I think that whilst I don't know the timescale for the releases any more than you, I'd be stunned if the Developer pr

Re:

[dr.badass]

. Unless I'm mistaken, stacks are HORRIBLE!!!

You are mistaken. Both views have a "Show In Finder" option, and the grid view most certainly does contain text. The screenshots on Apple's site, as well as the keynote demo both show this, which casts some doubt on everything else you've said.

Re:

[jimicus]

ICBW, but if memory serves people were saying similar things about the Dock when Mac OS X 10.0 was in development.

I'm pretty sure they're not saying that now.

Re:

[mgv]

They do exactly one of two things: if they have 8-9 items, they open up in that stupid fan shape. More than that, you get a dopey grid. (No text, nothing but icons. Yeah, *that's* useful.)

Actually, someone (not me!) has posted this stuff online:

Example of Stacks [brightcove.com] (Needs Flash, so it won't work on an iPhone!)

I think this shows enough to contradict what you have said.

Check this out before apple no doubt removes it and sets the lawyers on the website.

Michael

Re:

[fermion]

I seldom complain about mods, but this post is indicative of why the mod system does not work well. It seems many people on /. mod to protect corporate stock prices, rather than promote realistic discussion.

I don't know how stacks are going to work. I suspect that I will not like them, in the same way I ddi not like dock. I still have issues with the dock, but have made it work for me. Any changes they make to the dock, might be to the better.

I am not sure what is happening with menus. What I do kn

Re:

[Goaway]

On of my favourite changes when I moved from Windows to OS X was getting rid of the goddamn resizing borders.

Re:

[XaXXon]

yeah, but half the resizing options are two-step processes. I want to make the top of a window higher? Move the window up. Straight up - not perfect with the mouse? Gotta get it where you want it horizontally again. Now, drop the bottom down. Better move your mouse peftectly down. What? You didn't go straight down? Now you get to line it up horizontally on the right side now.

PITA.

Re:

[Goaway]

Perhaps the solution is to get rid of this habit of obsessively resizing windows.

Re:

[LKM]

Your comments soulds trollish, but I have actually found that I manually resize windows under Windows much more often than under Mac OS X. The thing is, most often I want to see "all of it." If I open a an image and zoom it, I want the window to fit the zoomed image. If I open a file browser containing files, I want the window to fit the width and height of its content. This is easy on OS X, you just click the "zoom to fit" button. On Windows, there is no "zoom to fit," just "full window" or "normal." So se

Re:

[oliderid]

I had to work on a mac for the last two weeks.
I have to confess that I had real difficulties switching from Windows to Apple...(I do work on KDE/Linux too) Finder/Application is probably the most difficult (relatively speaking )concept to apprehrend when you come from the windows world ...

The overall impression that they are simply too many windows :-). The desk quickly becomes a mess. the Application top menu is sometimes confusing. Some keys aren't even represented like [] (on a QWERTY keyboard), you have

Re:

[toddestan]

It wouldn't be so bad if Apple would give us a maximize button. On a Mac, you have to drag the window to the top left, then move the mouse cursor to the bottom right of the window, then drag it to the bottom right of the screen. Be sure to get all the way over too, or else you'll end up clicking on something else when you try to apply Fitt's law to the scroll bars. Compare to one mouse click on any other OS.

Re:

[Goaway]

Sorry, most of the rest of us are capable of multi-tasking, and don't need to compensate for lack of brain capacity by maximizing windows.

Re:

[toddestan]

Well, I'm not always multitasking all the time, sometimes I'm just surfing the web (for example). Why not have the web browser take up the entire screen? Yeah, I know about the "Zoom" feature, but why should I be constantly rezooming every time I go to a site with a different layout? Just maximize the window and be done with it.