Mac OS X 10.4 'Tiger'
 

The Steve will be announcing it at the keynote of WWDC 2004 on June 28th, 10:00 AM Pacific time.

Any of you going to be there?

NeXT Wow?
 

I had once asked in a previous posted "...what would warrant my forking out more money for 10.4?". Since Panther is working fairly smoothly, it would have to be something pretty spectacular. Fast user-switching alone was worth the $139 upgrade price for Panther. I can't even think of what the next dramatic advantage would be. The only thing I can think of is a slew of user controls over the OS such as TinkerTool on styroids.

Rumor has it that there will be built in screen reader software for the blind. That'll be worth the money for any blind or visually impared Mac users.

It's not just a rumour. Here's the Apple page about this:
http://www.apple.com/accessibility/spokeninterface/

My "list":
full metadata support with priority over file extensions

file extensions used for compatibility reasons only

iChat audio conferencing (more than 1 to 1), and possibly video conferencing

piles

folders that can be the dynamic results of a find. being able to tab them into the sides/bottom of the screen would be nice too

I'll add more if it comes to me.

Just go sit on a cold concrete floor for a long time... My old man used to say "you'll get piles from sitting there!" :D :D

Wow! That's pretty quick turnaround. Panther's only been up since, when, October or thereabouts?

You don't suppose it comes available in a 64-bit native version by any chance?

Well, it's being previewed at WWDC, I wouldn't expect it to ship until around the end of the year.

It's pretty sure to be more 64 bit than 10.3, how much more is anybody's guess.

I hope that it's not shipped until late 2005, personally. I hope they build some truly meaningful upgrades into the OS. To charge $129 a year for a "newish" OS is preposterous. Not even Wild Billy Greedy does that.

I read an article about Longhorn a few weeks ago and Bill is considering something worse than that. Since Longhorn isn't going to be ready until at least 2006, they're thinking of releasing another XP OS to make money until then. Here's the kicker... it's the same as the current XP just with security fixes. At least Steve gives us a new OS... not just a patched old one.

My humble "list".

A Preference Manager.
The way this works, instead of searching for and trying to interpret pList files, we have a utility where you can choose the application, there it lists all the hidden preference attributes and states. It will have a quarantine routine for troubleshooting as well as a cleaner to clear out unused items.

Overhaul Keychain utility.
Right now, when I ask Keychain to remember my login and password for Windows servers, it will not. It never has. Keychain is very flawed and difficult to manage. You also have to give it permission to make a single change every single doggone time!

Dedicated utility to have system-wide control over auto-fill.

True global choices for view options.
Choice of view options is only limited to the current folder and rarely works globally. Choose a new folder and invariably it appears in icon view. I want to see true global choice where if a .DS_Store file is not present, your view defaults to YOUR choice, not Apple's.

Add an automatic "Hide all but current apps" preference.

Allow drag-and-drop capability within Expose.

At least catch up to Windows Explorer!
Did you know that Windows XP provides 32 choices for file information in an open explorer window. Macintosh provides only 9 in a Finder window! 9!!! Why should Windows excel in ANYTHING over the Mac? Yet I can find so many issues like this.
How about Contextual Menu items--very robust in Windows, very lackluster in OSX. If I am a poweruser and I have to buy a new 2-button mouse, why should I also have to hack in things that are basic and default in Windows?
The ability to manipulate files in an open/save window is available in Windows, but not in OSX. Why?
The ability to copy and paste files is available in Windows, and has been since what, Windows 95? Not in OSX.
Even a button to go up one heirarchal menu step is available in XP and not OSX, and how easy would it be to make one?
Windows Explorer far exceeds OSX Finder in useability, I would like to reverse this trend.

Note: Above has been sent to Apple.

It is, in Panther.

Drag & drop does exist within Exposé. I use it all the time. You start dragging a file, then tile the windows with Exposé, move the mouse over the destination window, wait a second or so for it to come up to full size, then drop the file where you want in the window. (You can't drop a file on the small versions of the windows since the drop location is not always unambiguous - e.g. in a Finder window, it matters where inside the window that you drop it.)

You can add a control that shows you the folder hierarchy in a drop-down list. This suffices for going up one step (or more).

Huh?? Command-uparrow. Been that way since, I dunno, System 7.0.1 or thereabouts?

Or am I missing what you're asking for?

I'm sorry, I meant to say CUT and paste. Thanks!

Your way of doing it is a good work around, however, I believe drag-and-drop should work everywhere in OSX, and to not work while Exposé is active, I think is a bit unMac-ish.

Yes, that is what I use now. However, the issue is choice, I do not have an "up" button to choose to use or not to use. In Windows I do, that's what bugs me. Thanks just the same!

The command-uparrow is exactly the function, but I have no button to choose for my customized menu. Why? It would be so easy to make and provide. It's like I said, it is available in Windows and not in OSX.

Well, since folks seem to want this to be another 'Wish List' thread it's moving to the 'Wish List' forum.

I don't understand how you would like it to work. I don't think my way is a work-around - I think it is the intended behaviour.

A large part of user-interface design involves judiciously removing choice.
Many people, especially those raised on Windows (or developing for Windows) seem not to understand this. It is not good design to give the user lots of different ways of doing a task. And if a task is sufficiently rare, it is often a good idea to remove a specialized one-click method for doing it if there exists some other way to execute the task - even if that other way is a lot slower (e.g. multiple-click). (I'm not saying that moving to the parent folder is a rare task - I'm speaking about design issues in general.)

User-interface design is engineering - i.e. there are always tradeoffs.
E.g. adding another choice to the customization options for Finder might be the straw that breaks the camel's back for many users who might recoil at the huge number of options and thus not do any customization whatsoever.

When I click to see all windows, I can drag a file from one window to another while still in the tiled mode. Expose would be a better application if it resized the actual windows rather than "screenshots" to choose from. Is that more clear?

As for your thoughts regarding Interface design:
"A large part of user-interface design involves judiciously removing choice."
If what you are saying is true, why not remove Get Info and Action buttons? I don't use them nor do I think they are necessary as buttons. Or is it that other users find them necessary?

A good interface design provides the ability to create a working environment for how YOU work. If you limit the user because you feel it does not fit your personal computing habits, you limit the interface. This is what I like about the "Customize Toolbar" you can leave it in its default design, remove everything or customize your own button layout.

Yes, but it's not because he's being nice. It's because Windows code has become such spaghetti that they can't develop fast enough. Every few years they're reinforcing the foundation rather than expanding at the top. OS X has a rock solid foundation that makes Apple's programmers far more productive. The annual upgrades have been worth every penny.

Chris

Not sure what you think it is doing - i.e. it is resizing the actual windows. E.g. if you are playing a movie, the movie continues to play while in tile mode.
I already pointed out that I think the reason why you can't drag & drop onto a tiled-mode window is that the destination might be ambiguous - you can't see very well in a small window where it is that you are dropping the file and for some windows (e.g. Finder windows) that matters a lot.

About the Action button: I recall reading that it was introduced precisely because it was found (via empirical studies) that many users did not use the facilities of the context menus. The Action button gives users a visual target.

As I explained above, even providing the ability to customize the interface comes at a cost in complexity. This cost may not be worth it. We're talking greatest good for the greatest number here. If it makes 4% of the users 20% more productive, but the added complexity makes the remaining 96% of the users 1% less productive, it is a net loss.

I think that's what schneb is saying -- as you drag a file over a window, magnify that window (like the Dock) so you can do more intelligent dropping. When you drag past the edge of the window, it would shrink back down to normal tiled size.

Which makes a certain amount of sense. Of course, I can't guarantee that I interpreted schneb's thoughts correctly.. :)

I don't think that would work very well. With a lot of windows in tiled mode (my usual situation), they would be jumping up and down in my face as I traversed the screen towards my destination window. To avoid this problem, there would have to be a delay - which is precisely the way it works now.

Hmm. I can't say I've used this before, but after a bit o' testing I see what you mean.

In all honesty, I barely use Exposé -- just not used to thinking that way, I suppose.

How about a Finder that actually WORKS!! It drives me absolutely crazy how slow the Finder is to update, even in Panther... It really is inexcusable. Talk about confusing to the average user! "I just saved that to the desktop; where is it???" I've run into that very scenario more times than I care to say. Then there's the fact that file sizes, free disk space, etc can take MINUTES to update!! Why???

Apple: FIX THE FINDER!!!

</rant>

Well, as long as we're doing wish lists, here's mine:

Fix file sharing. From an administrative account I ought to be able to select any folder on any volume and share it to any named account with any permission I want to share it (readonly, drop box, full editing), under whatever resource name I want to give it, by any protocol (SMB, AppleShare IP, oldfashioned plainvanilla AppleTalk; also, incidentally, FTP if I want it) I choose.

Or if it would be administratively easier, let us put a symbolic link to any folder in our home folder such that, when our home folder is shared, the contents of the folders referenced by the symlink appear when the remote user doubleclicks the symlink.

I don't need it much these days (we have Timbuktu extensively installed) and so I actually hadn't noticed until recently how screwed up it is, but file sharing under OS X is worse than anything since System 6.

That's some good stuff Allan, and I agree whole-heartedly.

Let me see if I can clarify how I would like Expose to behave. Picture in your mind's eye that I have four different folder windows open, various sizes and overlapping. I press F9 and all these open windows tile via Expose. Right now, with my finger still pressing F9, I can only "choose" a window for activation. What I WANT to do is select a file in one window and drag it to another. If one of these windows happens to be an application (such as GarageBand), I can drag a file to this application's window.
So basically, all Expose would do is temporarily resize "live and active" windows to the tile mode and then upon release of the hotkey, snap back to its original disorganized state.

The problem is that Exposé has to work consistently no matter how many windows there are. If you have a lot of windows, they will be too small to be able to manipulate objects that are inside those windows without the likelihood of error.

schneb,

The vast majority of the time, don't you know what file you want to act on before you invoke Exposé? If that's true, you simply start dragging the file, THEN invoke Exposé; then you're free to drop it on/in any of the windows that are open. How is this different from what you want (at least in any major way)?

That is a good point, it may be my prejudice to have drag-and-drop work no matter what. That is what seperates what Mac "does" vs. what Windows "attempts". I guess it just seemed lacking to not even give me the ability to do so.
A rousing debate that stayed grounded in good thought process. Well done and have a good weekend!

schneb--

what you are asking already exists. but, you have to initiate the move BEFORE you activate exposé.

i use this daily: grab a file you want to move to another directory. while still holding the mouse button down, hit F9. drag the file to the window you want to move/copy it to; it will come to the front. release the mouse button.

furthermore, i've set F9 to my wheel-button.

it takes a bit of practice to get the dexterity down. but, now i can easily drag, mouse-button-F9, drop.

this isnt a workaround...this is what makes exposé usable for me. i rarely use it in any other situation.

Jeez, I don't even have Panther yet! I really like Jaguar and I haven't had the spare cash to buy Panther.
Teri

You must be a windows user. Finder works far better than anything microsoft ever made, so I don't know what you're looking for, but quit complaining.

I don't use them as buttons, but then again I know a lot of the keyboard shortcuts. I know a lot of people that don't know the power of Get Info, which IMO is very necessary. So providing a button I think is a great idea.

It allows you to set which applications will open which files or kind of files, change permissions, get the size of the file and other interesting info, etc.

v

schneb:
Well, back in the System 7 days there was a spectacularly cool 3rd-party control panel called PopupFolder. Better than spring-loaded folders, better than Exposé, it let you click any volume and thereby invoke a hierarchical menu of its contents; you could reach in and grab a file with a "grab hotkey", then having snagged it drag it onto another volume which would popup its own hierarchical menu so you could drag it for copying or onto any app for launching.

(It also gave you cool functionalities in Open/Save/Save As dialog boxes that only Default Folder has come with in shouting distance of).

As far as I'm concerned, the only improvements needed would be the addition of all volumes to the Finder's contexuttual menu (so you don't need to get to the actual volume) and a the replacement of the System 7 era "grab hotkey" with a control-click or a right-click for multibutton mice users. Give me that and Apple can ditch Exposéé and those silly spring-loaded folders.

Vonleigh:

That was my point. I was arguing with Hayne regarding Interface Design. He said that an interface is better when choices are removed. I felt the opposite was true. So I used a littly hyperbole by saying "Why not get rid of these two button then... I don't use them." The point being, just because I do not use them doesn't mean that others don't as well. The "customize menu" is a very important part of OSX, but it lacks a few important button choices IMHO. And that is why I am hoping Tiger will answer the call.

Allan:

I spent alot of years on OS7 and yet never saw that utility. Cool I guess all my needs were taken care of with my beloved NowUtilities.

I think it actually proves hayne's point. The most important functions are made into buttons, less important than that - menu items with shortcuts, less important than that - simply shortcuts. I don't see how you saying "let's eliminate something I don't use" proves anything at all. Notice I used important instead of popular.

Users don't want too many choices. If you give them too many choices you confuse them. Usually, when explaining computers, I'd go into the details of whatever was asked of me, and it would always confuse them. Nowadays I just tell them what they need to know with little background and they are much happier for it. I don't get into detail unless the user really wants that detail (and very few do).

You may well be right that it's missing some important buttons. Personally I don't even use the buttons so I wouldn't know. But as hayne says it's engineering, it's a tradeoff.

You ask for a button to go one level up. I don't see how that would be very useful, there's already umpteen ways of doing it: If you use column view it's not really necessary as you can see the parent folder, if you navigated to the folder you can use the back button, you can also use the path button and select any of the enclosing folders. Additionally if you know your shortcuts you can press apple-up arrow, or leave the apple key pressed and click on the name of the window (which does the same as the path button).

v

The ultimate self-customization utility, limited only by the user's ingenuity. ;)

That really ought to be possible in that it's already provided to a large extent in Mac OS X Server since at least v. 10.1 (which is--alas!--what I am using for Server). I don't understand why that kind of functionality hasn't been provided on OS X (client) as it's certainly useful and was included on Mac OS prior to 10.0.

Actually, I think it proves MY point. ;-) The reason I say this is that there are several kinds of users with several skill levels. Now Apple is trying to do something very difficult here, make an OS powerful enough for advanced users, yet easy for newbies.
So, you argue that too much confuses the newbie, and I would agree. Out of the box, OSX should be set up for ground-level usage, as it basically is now. However, do not limit the other users just because it might confuse newbies.
Now, what does it matter if there are 20 buttons to choose from in the Customize Menu option? Newbies will never see them, you will never use them, I can pick which one best suits the way I work, and Window Switchers can adjust their environment to what they have become accustomed (ie they had "up" and "undo" buttons available to them).
Now my Interface arguments lies in this basic philosopy. Provide many tools for customization to advanced users, but keep them in a place where the newbie will not be overwhelmed. Keep it clean, keep it simple, but make it very versetile and customizeable.
This is the reason why I would like to expand the use of Contextual Menus. The newbie will never see it (out of the box comes a single-button mouse) and the power user (who buys a two-buttom mouse) will have access to more robust control and commands. Does CM make OSX better or worse? To me, it makes it better.

I think you're missing the point, the buttons are there for the newbies. Most power users know all their shortcuts, so they have no need for the buttons (the only one I use is search). There should not be millions of buttons to chose from, every one should be well considered before adding it, there's already 24.

The more customizable you make it, the more choice you have, the more complicated it is. One of the reasons Linux is not as user friendly is because you have _too much_ choice[1]. Eventually things will probably settle a bit, some standards will arise, etc. But for now, the overwhelming choice and power deter from it's simplicity.

I agree that it makes it better (I use a two button mouse) but I believe CM has the potential of making the OS worse. Fortunately apple has handled it very well, where anything available in the CM is available elsewhere. This makes the CM a tool for quick manipulation, instead of a must have feature. In win, if you don't have a two button mouse you're pretty much screwed.


v

[1] I don't think this is a bad thing at all, just that all that choice maybe needs to be integrated a bit better so that the apps work together.

Contextual menus must not contain functionality that is unavailable elsewhere (in a more visible form). It's not just a good idea - it's the law:
Apple User-Interface Guidelines

That is a big assumption. I have been on the Macintosh since OS6 (Mac+) and was using the GUI rather than the key shortcuts. Why? Because the various applications I used had myriads of them. Except for the basic copy, cut, paste, trash etc, I use buttons or menu commands. I have spent years trying to perfect user interfaces at my job creating CDs for a large GIS software company as well as my own CD project, the Holyland Virtual Tour. And yes, the less there is, the better. But do not limit availability for those of us who prefer buttons to shortcuts.
I am not asking for millions of buttons, I am asking for what I think is necessary. In Finder, I think "up" and "undo" are two basic and necessary buttons. And where do you get 24? I count 14 (back, path, view, action,eject, burn, customize, new folder, delete, connect, find, get info, idisk and search. The remaining three are for layout.

No, thank you very much, I've never been a Windows user. WTF difference does it make if it's better than anything M$oft has ever done?? That's not even relevant! And don't tell me to "stop my complaining" either.

The current Finder in OS X is just plain lousy, and you'll find many here who agree with me about it. Apple needs to fix it, period.

Can anybody second that? Who here thinks that Panther is "just plain lousy?"

Excuse me...
 

I did not say that Panther is lousy, I said the Finder is. I think Panther is great, no, fabulous! I just think the Finder needs a LOT of work.

Just to clarify...

It might be amusing to keep this thread somewhere on the same planet as the original topic, OK?

If that's too difficult, just let me know and I'll see what I can do.

Thanks Craig, duly noted. I do think, though, that the question of whether or not Apple needs to make some real improvements to the Finder in the new release is relevant to the discussion. And when my statements are misrepresented, I feel it necessary that I correct them.

Otherwise, I'll go back to my corner now... ;-}

Just to try to steer back "on topic," here, but is there any indication of changes in the Finder for 10.4?

Maybe the Tweaking/Wish List forum would be a good one for a discussion on just the Finder.

Well, there is some hope that the filesystem (HFS+) may receive some more overhauling. And the networking code is likely to be revamped again, probably for better clustering support, since that's a hot item. The Finder (and the Frameworks for talking to the local and remote filesystems) will need to be updated to deal with whatever changes are made.

Otherwise, maybe the brushed metal will be available in iPod Mini colors. ;)

I hope HFS+ isn't updated.. I don't want to have to backup-erase-reinitialize_as_HFS++-reinstall! :)

I don't think you'll have to reinitialize until they do a major overhaul, if it's small changes it might be as painless as turning on journaling.

I do hope that eventually a major change happens, especially since they hired Dominic Giampaolo of BFS (Be File System) fame. Interesting read if you're up for it here:

<http://www.nobius.org/~dbg/>

I'm still waiting for a version of the OS that wil make my flat panel iMac dance and do the limbo.

That would be the new Flash-based kernel. Goes along with the HFS# filesystem. :p


To repeat my original question: 'lo these many posts ago: anybody here going to be attending the WWDC keynote?

As the one who started the whole postal chaos, I will answer and say "no". However, my CD (see link below) was entered into the Quicktime developer contest since it runs heavily on the QT engine with VRs, video and MP3 audio.

I agree with you that a perfect OS should:
1. allow the advanced user to customize anything
2. provide the basic user only with safe and clear default options
3. allow any user to choose her own degree of customization

I personally like to adapt an OS interface to my own needs, and I hate when I cannot change/remove some built-in options that I find useless or annoying. But probably not any user has the same needs and some would be overwhelmed by too many options. The solution? Granularity :cool:

<OT>
As for CM, you probably know that there is a very nice freeware called OMCEdit that allows you to customize Panther contextual menus at will with Unix commands
</OT>

Backtracking a bit: Even so, we're nowhere close to having 64 bit apps yet, are we?

That's not clear, yet. To some extent, it depends on what you mean by '64 bit.' It's even less clear as to what apps would benefit from being 64 bit. Some databases, and maybe the high end video stuff.

Two things to remember: the current G5 model doesn't actually have 64 bit memory addressing; see this Tech Note. The System Controller ASIC only really does 36 bit addressing and 64 bit data. Still getting apps to address 36 bits would be like 64 gig which would certainly be a huge improvement.

The second point is that the current PPC 970 design still uses an awful lot of 32 bit instructions with 32 bit operands, which means doing a 64 bit manipulation can still actually take twice as long to perform. Instead of "load 64 bits -> do operation" it's "load top 32 bits -> shift to upper part of register -> load bottom 32 bits -> do operation." It's a fast processor, but the hybrid nature of the design means it's not fully optimized for 64 bit.

Sorry to visit yet another planet, folks. :o

Oy Craig, another planet is right!

Couldn't folks doing huge Photoshop files benefit from 64bit?

Man, dartar, we are totally on the same page. But what is meant by granularity? I have heard the term used before.

I think that OSX should at LEAST offer as much interface control and customization as XP. I think I mentioned this before. There are only 9 folder view option items available in OSX. Compare that with 32 in XP. Here is a good example. In my job, I needed to produce 500 images under 1000px with individual thumbnails at 200px and 150px. In OSX, I had no way of knowing which images were 1000px, 200px or 150px, or which may have been batched incorrectly. In XP, I added "dimensions" to my folder view, clicked to sort by "dimensions" and there were all the sizes lined up properly. With one glance, I was able to see which images went over 1000 and was able to select in one swipe, all the 200s to batch change the filename. This is only one example.

Don't get me wrong, OSX rocks in many areas, but the limitation of the Finder and its lack of options can be a real pain.

I wish I knew programming. I can barely do simple Terminal commands... sigh.

that alone would be worth the upgrade to me


also... allow the use of aqua throughout instead of the newer chrome view... i think aqua is prettier

What you're asking for is the Be FileSystem (BFS), who's author was hired by apple and is working on HFS.

The BFS is very cool in that you can add any metadata to the file, be it dimensions, size, usage, whatever you want, then you can sort by this new added metadata. Not only that, results are indexed so it's almost instantaneous. So you could create a folder for each size of your images and without caring where on the HD it is, you could have all your images of certain size in that folder.

So instead of being limited by what the programers think you should have, you can come up with your own.

I'm currently reading the book on it and it's fascinating. If you're interested:

<http://www.nobius.org/~dbg/>

Actually, when Expose is activated it IS resized actual windows, and in fact NOT screenshots.

This can be proved by opening iTunes, or a QuickTime movie or anything that has window activity, and using the Show All Windows Expose key.

There you go, the window activity is still working, iTunes's visualization still runs, the QuickTime move still runs :)

No, but I did get a call from India today asking me if I would be attending. That was a first..

The "screenshot" description was my clumsey way of saying I could not select a folder, drag them, or work with them. This is what I meant to say. Yes, it is still "visually active", but not in a workable way as if the actual windows were just resized temporarily.

Yes, that does sound awesome, but does that mean it is automated? For example, I did not have to enter the "dimensions" information, XP just knew it already. However, putting in your own metadata and sorting accordingly sounds like it has some great advantages as well, especially if you can do multiple selections to change the information (rather than one file at a time).

A subjective request, of course. However, this is why I think the individual user needs more control over the look. Some folks like the newer chrome view, others do not. The people that don't like it are told to "live with it". I would like to see some control over the Theme. Not enough to cause TechSupport calls, but more than is allowed now. For example, I think the color and texture of the aluminum windows, buttons tifs, default icons, initial welcome screens and backgrounds, as well as providing a few more "blessed" fonts for menus and lists can be changed with zero breakage to the OS. We can change our desktops and a few colors here and there. But on the most part, we are stuck with what Apple thinks we should like. And, I might add, Apple is getting inconsistent at this. GarageBand has a woodgrain/black brushed metal look, while other Apple apps have either the brushed aluminum look or the smooth Panther bar, and Photoshop CS has the light grey horizontal lines. Just centralize the textures in a System folder or go with solid colors. Inconsitancy does not make for a good interface.

$130 is quite a bit of money for me right now, so it will be interesting to see what Steve-o can pull out of the hat this time.

I wish for a stable system. All the rest is fluff!

Don't get upset but I am still running 10.2.8 on my 1G TiBook and I have no problems. I am actually afraid to upgrade because it works so nicely. I run Photoshop, after effects Avid et al and they work just fine. I keep hearing upgrade nightmares of black screens and blank disks. Having used macs forever, these new improvements (from 10.2-10.3) are no big deal--nice, fun but not crucial to the task.

Heck, my edit system at work is on 9.2 and it works great. I love OS X but even us pros don't REALLY need all the dodads. for me as long as its pumping out frame accurately w sync sound, and the spot is broadcast quality, who cares what system is running (except 8- I proudly skipped that horrorshow). I'll put my media composer on 9 against FCP on 10.3 any day!
Bring it on!!!

Now Multifinder, THAT was something worth buying

I guess the trick is skip every-other "upgrade" :)


But what do I know???? :eek:

I don't see how you have such a low opinion of 8. I actually stayed on 8.6 until I jumped to X. I never really went through nine for the reason you quote, it just all worked so well.


v

Obviously, if you are doing video on the Mac, you know quite a bit.
I do not blame you for not updating. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is a perfectly valid attitude. What Panther offered for me was fast user switching. So now my wife and I can pop back and forth on the same computer super-fast and easy.

I don't know about those horror stories, Panther has been quite stable for me.

The "fluff" that I am concerned about has to do with snapiness and ease of navigation. I find it terrible that I still see the spinning lollipop at version .3!

i understand the if it aint broke don't fix it attitude

but with the "boot off firewire" option you can use carbon copy cloner to copy your drive.... then install OS X from a friends copy to the new drive to give it a test run as a video platform for a few days....

and if you like it you just buy OS X and install your legitimate copy

Only in some parts of Panther
 

Ah, but not in a save or open dialog. In Windows, I got used to being able to:

Do a "save as"

In the Save dialog, highlight the original file

Do CTRL-C, then CTRL-V, to back up the original

Hit ENTER to save

This is a quick easy way to make backup copies that have automatically sensible names [Copy 1 of ... Copy 2 of ...], and still keep the current version named the same. It's better than having to put version numbers on files myself--less error prone--and quick.

And I've been doing it over ten years--not exactly a new idea.

See heirarchy -- from the keyboard?
 

Is it possible to show the folder hierarchy in a drop-down list via keyboard commands? I can't figure out how. It'd be great if it did -- heck, it be great if it were possible to use the Mac without having to touch the mouse except to draw. I don't see much on any computer that can't be accomplished with keyboards quicker than with a mouse, and, anyway, the damn thing's not accessible enough to disabled persons until it's totally free of the need for a mouse, anyway.

Weeeelllll... so you have to do some slightly different things with OS X and possibly use some forethought. If you're already in a Save dialogue, why not just name the file something else for your back up?
IMO, OS X shouldn't be copying everything Windows does, plus do what it does. Talk about bloat..

But we digress. This thread was started as an 'are you going to WWDC?'.
I must say, besides the multiple phone calls I've gotten asking if I'm going, I've also recieved multiple emails asking me to attend. I don't remember this from years previous, think attendance is down this year?

Forethought? How about reading the post next time?
 

I believe I made that clear already, but let's restate it for you: when the OS names a file with incremental numbers, it doesn't make mistakes, but sometimes people do. The Windows method also relieves the user of thinking up a naming convention [saving time and reducing another source of error], and, finally, it is faster -- requires fewer keystrokes and fewer operations of the mouse.

Finally, nowhere in my message was it suggested that OSX should "copying everything Windows does, plus do what it does." I don't see a post where anyone else has suggested such nonsense, either.

Seems like a subtle desire of all those who attempt to compare functionalities they are used to in Windows to those that are missing in Mac OS X. Think of it as a general misplaced observation on my part, certainly not a crack at you.
People certainly do make mistakes. I'd just be happy if most of my users actually remembered to not work on original documents. Again, we're digressing from the o.p.'s thread.

I would like to second OSXPounder here.

If Apple were following Yellow's approach, they would have never brought in Fast User Switching. Steve Jobs was not afraid to admit that there was something that XP was doing right that Mac was doing wrong. No one wants to turn the Mac into a PC, however, there are some very important features that OSX is lacking in its user interface that are gradually creeping in. I do agree that there needs to be a cut and paste folders and files ability--to me this is just BASIC navigation and editing.

While I am on this subject, I also think that there should be a preference to turn on the keyboard shortcut command underline (where one letter is underlined in a menu command to allow cntrl-letter selection) so that EVERY menu item is available via the keyboard. But we may be too late for that now.

Mac OS X keyboard shortcuts

Enjoy . . . and discuss at the WWDC! :p

Must.. not.. continue.. thread... digression...
 

My 'approach' isn't to wear blinders and ignore all the good things that could come out of expanding the usability in OS X by borrowing from other OSes. My 'approach' is (in some instances) there are existing alternative methods to do things. They might not be performed the way that someone expects when they migrate from another OS and are accustomed to doing it in a certain way. It might just take a bit of 're-learning' to make it work for you. I see a lot of posters with bitter sentiments because OS X doesn't work the way they think it should. Personally, I think I've gotten along pretty well for a very long time without all those bells and whistles.
Ignorance is bliss I guess...

I can't wait for WWDC '04!!!!

Cap'n Hector reads over the list.

Cap'n Hector reflects on the fact that he was at Apple HQ on Monday…

To answer your feature requests:

Yes, no, yes, yes, no, maybe, no, no, 14, a big one, yes it is, Steve would never go for it, perhaps, slightly, 34x, of course, free, 1.56, dogcow, no, no, yes, no but Sun did, never, not until the next release.

I hope this helps.

I'm with you all the way on all these ideas, schneb
 

I'd love to see that, or an alternative. To clarify: I don't imply OSX should imitate any particular OS, but I do note that one well-known and disliked OS does have some nice features I want, and have grown accustomed to. I believe my explanation accounted for reasons other than habit; I mentioned speed and error reduction, in fact. The reason I developed the habit is because I saw the wisdom therein. I got a little sarcastic; I should not have.

I'd love to discuss this at WWDC, but I can't attend conferences this year at all -- sinking budget year. :( I usually like to attend SIGGRAPH, though.

no one has seemed to mention isync yet. hmm, wonder why?

If it is because the "iApps" are not considered to be a part of the OS please forgive my opinion that they should be.

Everyone knows that isync is a piece of garbage in it's present condition (who ever keeps their contacts unfiled, or of a 10 minute sync?) but the thought of the integration with the entire system is pure brilliance. It has been really just a test... until now. Because now, Apple really needs it.

Now that PalmSource has stopped supporting Mac, the sad truth is that if Apple wants to maintain it's market share this needs to be an important item on it's agenda. As handhelds get increasingly more powerful and versatile, people become more and more reliant on them. I know that I probably log just as many hours on my PDA than as on my desktop. (although I am sure this is not true for those who work with photoshop, etc.)And unless MarkSpace's MissingSync for Cobalt is dramatically different than any of their present products, syncing a PDA with a Mac will be like fixing a car with tape.

This is NOT the responsibility of a 3rd party developer. This is Apple's problem. We are Mac OSX users. We deserve to have the very best of software and integration because the company that makes our computers is undoubtedly the best there is. There should be iTunes, iPhoto, iCal and Address book integration out of the box and it should be all plug and play.

Why? Because that is what I have come to expect from Apple.

They've flipflopped on this issue. PalmOne will be providing some sort of Palm<->Mac sync, though the route (in-house vs. 3rd party) has not yet been decided on.

Note that Palm is now officially two separate companies. My take on this is that the software Palm company has officially abandoned the Mac. The hardware Palm company is saying, "wait a minute here, we want to sell more hardware to Mac folk!"

So the hardware Palm people will try to do a deal with a 3rd party vendor. However, that leaves out other PalmOS hardware manufacturers, they will have to make their own deals with a 3rd party vendor, or abandon Macs.

What is granularity?
 

As I understand it, granularity refers to resolution, or the level of detail, with which you are dealing. The more granularity, the more fine detail, or number of details, are available. Less granularity implies less detail or fewer details. A boss around here likes to ask for reports that are "less granular", adding that she'll ask for "more granularity" if she decides she needs to know more details. I hope that helps, and hope I have it right.

OK, I see.

My view is that by default, out of the box, OSX should be super simple with a simple Finder (rememeber that?). However, I think there should be an application called iTheme where I can set the level of granularity-- complex Finder, Local Network Access, Administration tools, etc. As someone who knows my Mac fairly well, I should have the ability to complex it up to whatever I need. Within iThemes there can be settings for various user levels--Novice, Intermediate, Advanced and Custom. This way, everyone is comfortable.

Granularity 'n' stuff
 

Hrm, to me "granularity" is not necessarily "level of detail" in itself but a characteristic that allows you to distinguish one concept/item from another. In other words, to me, "low granularity" means a system or set that appears more homogenious while "high granularity" means system/set items are more descretely distinct. This can be apparent at either a high or low level.

I found this link on Google.

The best two definitions in the list are...

The degree to which a system contains separate components. Systems with greater granularity are more flexible.
The level of detail at which an information object or resource is viewed or described.

So OSXpounder and Rusto are right, but the above definitions are a bit more detailed to the earlier post. - Thanks all.

Does anyone know if this keynote will be broadcast live? If so, do you have a link? Thanks!

No. There is expected to be a delayed broadcast on:

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/whatson/appleevents/

later. Maybe later today, maybe tomorrow.

Ah, ok. That was where I've been looking and was surprised not to see any info about it. Thanks!

I don't think that it is supposed to be live.

I've been depending on MacCentral for frequent text updates.

A similar one at MacRumors did not work well for me. Nor did this feed work for me.

Here is an excerpt from the Macrumors page for getting a direct IRC feed:
---------------
Alternatively, join us on IRC for live coverage.

If you have an IRC client, please join server irc.tecknohost.com, #macrumors OR EFNet (irc.efnet.org), channel #macrumors. EFNet will likely have less load on it.

If not, Download our MacRumors IRC Client (FULL)
Finally, you can use this web based client: http://irc.tecknohost.com

---------------

Here's a summary page:

http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/

Automator was something needed for the average user for some time! In fact, I'd been morning the loss of MacroMaker for years!

I wonder if it will totally replace Youpi Key for me. I know I'll be upping to Tiger anyway, but I'm so curious because I'm just a fan of OSX.

In my case, iKey. If it allows the automatic typing of text, then yes it will, at least for me.

Let me see Tiger has replacements for...

Konfabulator - $25
Lauchbar - $20
Quickeys - $100

I'm being flippant, but just for grins. Guess I'm trying to justify purchasing Tiger though, so far, it offers nothing I truly need.

I'm surprised by people thinking that Automater will be a replacement for keyboard utilities. In my reading of the web page that Apple has supplied on Automater, it seems to provide an easy way of creating a script of actions. It doesn't seem to provide any keyboard facility for running that script. The web page says "After you create a Workflow, you execute it by clicking the Run button in the Workflow document window."
Am I missing something?

I'm sure you are right, Hayne, but I'm not quite sure all it can do yet. That is OK seeing that iKey is a great macro utility for this purpose. I for one may upgrade to Tiger based on Automator alone since I could never get a good grip on AppleScript.

Who said it would replace anything?
 

Hayne, no one in this thread has assumed [yet] that that Automator will be a replacement for keyboard utilities. I wondered if it might; Schneb offered the possibility it might, "if" it replaced the functions of iKey. We are hopeful, it seems, and, speaking for myself, I will definitely look into Automator as more details become available. It's not the reason I plan to upgrade, though -- I work in a multimedia production facility and we keep the machinery and software upgraded, so I'll be getting Tiger whether or not its Automator proves of any use to me. So, no, I don't think you're missing anything.

I have to admit, the similarities between Apple's description of Automator and Photoshop's Actions automation give me pause -- I'd be much happier with a utility that recorded any/all user interaction for later playback & for playback a given number of repetitions. Others will have different needs, but those are particularly what I am hoping for.

That reminds me ALOT of MacroMaker back in the OS6 days. Remember the cassette recorder layout? What a great utility!!