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?