Someone please tell Steve Jobs . . .

Discussion in 'Apple' started by John Rethorst, Aug 19, 2005.

  1. After some years of OSX, the smoke has cleared and:

    1. The Dock is interface design on drugs. Xerox PARC found that menus work and
    users like them. Do we have to think _that_ different?

    2. For Apple to put such extensive and intelligent development into AppleScript,
    and then for newer Mac programs not to support it (e.g. Pages, the new word
    processor, is not scriptable, TextEdit only partially so) does not make sense.
    Will his next step be to sell hardware which no OS will run on?

    3. The enormous overhead of users and permissions on OSX wastes everyone¹s time.
    The age when the family shared a computer is like the age when the family shared
    a TV set - dead and buried. Employees in large corporations don¹t need it either
    since they don¹t use Macs. Creative people, who do use Macs, don¹t need it since
    they can¹t get along with anyone well enough to share a computer no matter how
    much file permissions is implemented. But it¹s the first thing you should fix
    when troubleshooting.

    4. $129 for an OS upgrade that comprises one spiffy search feature plus a bunch
    of junk is not good business. I know that Jobs wants to _be_ Bill Gates, but why
    put that on the backs of the users?

    But I hear it¹s a real bear to convince Jobs of anything. I think that¹s why
    Wozniak left Apple to teach kindergarten, to get some peace and quiet.
     
    John Rethorst, Aug 19, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. The permissions layer is a whole lot more than just simple
    multiple-user capability. With all respect, that "waste of time" is a
    very significant reason that the Mac OS is not nearly as susceptible to
    viruses and spyware the way Windows is. It *prevents* rogue programs
    from having the same access the user does, because any installed
    program has to be authenticated by a password. This is a GOOD thing.

    Allowing users -- and their programs, with or without their knowledge
    -- to have full run of the system has been Windows' biggest failing. I
    *don't* want it on the Mac OS, thanks.

    If that's all the 10.4 upgrade was to you, that's a shame. The
    underlying OS was improved *substantially*, both in speed and
    stability. Before you assume very little has changed, I suggest
    reading this article:

    http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars
    A full MacOS installation costs $129. A Windows XP Pro upgrade is
    $199, and a full XP Pro installation is $299.

    $129 sounds like a bargain to me. The $199 family pack is a steal.
     
    Garner Miller, Aug 19, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. We can have both. I added 'Yadal' to my dock and now I have both icons
    and menus. I find the Dock convenient for the 5 or 6 applications I
    use constantly (and having the new mail indicator + IM indicator there
    is nice), and it keeps them off the desktop (which I like to keep
    relatively clean).
    Yes, Apple should make their new applications scriptable, but you are
    exagerating now with your 'what next' comment. I suspect that Apple
    will add scripting features to these applications as we move forward.
    Those pesky file permissions keep your Mac safe from all kinds of
    malicious software and individuals. The BSD Unix that underlies the
    spiffy GUI is extremely secure and is quite virus resistant. Doing
    what you say is one of the MAJOR problems with Windows - that any user
    or any program can do anything - thus making Windows more susceptible
    to virus attacks and hackers.

    Of all the things that could be done, this is probably the most dangerous!
    So don't buy the upgrade. That's your choice. But for me, I bought
    the family pack, with a rebate, and it cost $150 bucks or so to upgrade
    all 5 Macs at my house - thus $30 per system. YMMV.
    Woz left a long time ago for a host of reasons....Jobs was part of it,
    but not all of it. And that was BEFORE Jobs came back the 2nd time to
    run the company.

    -Stephen
     
    Stephen M. Adams, Aug 19, 2005
    #3
  4. John Rethorst

    Steve Hix Guest

    The Dock works, and users like it, too. It does things that menus
    largely don't, and vice versa.
    It's not all that unexpected for new software to not have scripting, or
    to have it only partially implemented. Check the next release of Pages.
    Get used to it; it's a foundation part of U*ix, and like it or not, Mac
    OS X is Un*x at heart.
    Good thing, then, that Tiger (and Jaguar and Panther before it) were
    much more than "one spiffy feature plus a lot of junk".
    Because they want a lot of the new features, and they're willing to pay
    for it?

    Or do you think that Apple should give all its products away for free?
    Shows a significant gap between what you "think" and what actually is.

    Cut down on the caffeine for a while...it probably will help.
     
    Steve Hix, Aug 19, 2005
    #4
  5. You must be confusing the XP Start menu and Taskbar with the Dock. I
    had docks on my MacOS 9 system. MacOS X's wasn't enough so I continue
    to use DragThing. YMMV (duh).
    in the fullness of time...
    You also probably think we should go back to MacOS 9 with it's shared
    memory management model rather than MacOS X's more modern virtual
    memory. File permissions prevent the spread of Trojans and worms and
    sharing computers is very much still going on. Or do you prefer letting
    little Johnny be up in his room using his system doing god knows what
    without any parental supervision?
    When was the last time you bought a Windows upgrade?
    Sniff. Yep. Smells like a troll.

    Why not just stay on the version of MacOS X you're running or go back to
    Windows XP. You'll be much happier (and so will we). Smoke aside, I
    think you need to really research the points you're making. They have
    very little basis in fact.
     
    Michael Vilain, Aug 19, 2005
    #5
  6. John Rethorst

    fishfry Guest

    Some of us have hated the Dock since day one, and still do.

    Apple gets a pass here. OS X is Unix. Under the hood a lot of processes
    are running and it's good to have different users with different
    capabilities. Even on a one-user system, there are user-level operations
    and system-level operations.

    Apple does love to abuse its customers. But what's our alternative? They
    make the Mac.
     
    fishfry, Aug 20, 2005
    #6
  7. John Rethorst

    Anybody Guest

    Some of us have hated the Dork (it's true name) since BEFORE day one,
    when you could tear-off application menu, usually accidently. The Mac
    OS X Dork is a waste of screen space, even when "hidden". :-(
     
    Anybody, Aug 20, 2005
    #7
  8. John Rethorst

    El Groló Guest

    Well, I'm glad Apple doe4sn't punish me for another persons sins
    (as if using a computer while half asleep is a sin).

    That's like Java designers saying "Operator overloading has caused
    some disasters in C++, therefore we'll make it impossible." (Never
    mind that Ada made it safe in 1983)
     
    El Groló, Aug 20, 2005
    #8
  9. John Rethorst

    ZnU Guest

    Stuffing running apps into a single menu was a reasonable way to cram
    app switching to the classic Mac UI -- which was developed without the
    idea of running multiple apps in mind.

    It's not such a great idea these days, though, when multitasking is the
    rule, not the exception. Dock icons are easy to recognize (the brian can
    pick out pictures much faster than words), they're always visible (so
    they can give useful feedback), there's one less click needed to get at
    them, and they provide nice big targets to quickly hit with the mouse
    (unlike menu items, which are only, what 16 or 20 pixels high?).
    The NeXT side of the new Apple didn't take AppleScript too seriously,
    initially. There are some signs it's getting more attention now.
    The Mac is being taken more seriously in the corporate market these
    days. And you're forgetting about the academic market, which has pretty
    much the same needs in terms of this sort of feature.

    Moreover, permissions are not just about multiple users on the same
    computer. They're also about security. Particularly with any machine
    that will be providing services on a network.
    I've never actually run across a problem that was fixed that way. While
    fixing permissions is possibly useful in some cases, and it makes sense
    to try it before engaging in manual troubleshooting because it's quick
    and easy, bad permissions are not actually a significant cause of
    problems in OS X.
    Tiger has *massive* under-the-hood improvements as well. If new users
    features + massive under-the-hood improvements aren't enough for you,
    what exactly do you *want* from an OS update?

    Would you prefer that Apple followed the Microsoft model and only
    updated once every five or six years?
     
    ZnU, Aug 21, 2005
    #9
  10. John Rethorst

    Anybody Guest

    "One less click"?!? The old application menu only needed one click
    anyway - press the mouse button (and hold) on the menu bar title,
    scroll down and let go. I know many people don't even know how to use
    menus properly so they click-move-click, but that's not an OS fault.

    The old application menu also had images which although small are
    perfectly adequate (unless you've got eyesight problems). Do you REALLY
    need a photographic quality icon that takes up so much screen space?

    For those who really wanted a Dork taking up screen space there is the
    shareware A-Dock application and others - including tearing off the
    menu iteself.
     
    Anybody, Aug 21, 2005
    #10
  11. John Rethorst

    El Groló Guest

    Don't need it, but it's nice. And it takes up only
    as much scree space as I set it for. Currently,
    all of my dock icons are smaller than a pencil diameter.
     
    El Groló, Aug 21, 2005
    #11
  12. John Rethorst

    Roger Guest

    The Auto-Hide/Show feature of the Dock makes it the best of both worlds
    for me. I generally know the location of the icon I want and I don't
    have to scroll-and-locate to access it like I did with the Apple Menu.

    Rog
     
    Roger, Aug 21, 2005
    #12
  13. John Rethorst

    ZnU Guest

    Which probably took three or four times as long as clicking a Dock icon.
    Screens these days start off with four times the area the classic Mac UI
    was originally designed for. I think we can afford it.
    The problem with those approaches was that apps didn't know anything
    about them, so either your app switcher or your other apps ended up
    getting covered frequently.
     
    ZnU, Aug 21, 2005
    #13
  14. John Rethorst

    Anybody Guest

    Not if you've got the Dock using the Hide option - which many people do
    since older iMacs have small screens and many applications insist on
    making their windows full height so that some of the gadgets are hidden
    behind the Dock.


    Only if you've bought a brand new Mac. Older iMacs still have smallish
    screens and some people prefer using 800x600 so the text is bigger.


    A-Dock and the tear-off application menu actually sit in a floating
    window that is ALWAYS above all applications (A-Dock has a lower
    priority and gets hidden by the application menu if using both in the
    same area), just like the Mac OS X Dock.
     
    Anybody, Aug 21, 2005
    #14
  15. John Rethorst

    El Groló Guest

    It's hardly Apple's fault that someone writing an App
    for an OS with a Dock fails to write for an OS with a Dock.

    Except when Apple does it, which unfortunately has
    happened occasionally.
     
    El Groló, Aug 24, 2005
    #15
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.