Mac OS X: a misnomer
Steven
Here is what the message stated:
====
I feel with the advent of Mac OS X the Mac will be dead. It seems to me Steve
Jobs has cornered a market, people who love the Mac (you know, the computer
with the system folder, the fonts folder, the finder etc) and invested heavy
in it, to force his NeXT project down their throat. I think Mac OS X is a
misleading name for this product. What I heard so far it lacks just about
everything that makes a Mac a Mac. Except the superficial appearance of the
screen. Don't get me wrong, this new OS may have some significant advantages,
I just don't think it is a Mac OS, and naming it that is misleading. I feel a
bit manipulated. I wonder will the Real Mac OS still continue to develop or is
this a brain transplant after all? Any thoughts?
====
Have a flashback at what arguments were used back then:
http://www.sifre.demon.nl/news/Mac_OS_X_a_misnomer.sit
Drop the file in the mail folder in the Netscape prefs folder or import it
in Outlook. It's a folder with 223 posts.
Now that it is becomming clear what Mac OS X entails I don't see anything that
will change my position on this:-(
Steven
Matt Johnston
Last night NIMUG had their OSX introduction. We had a total of abut 14
people drifting in and out and having a good poke around. The results were
generally positive. Who knows what will happen in the final cut but I think
that OSX is considerably less daunting than a lot of people on this group
would make out.
None of them asked about the innards or the value of what makes a Mac a Mac.
They warmed to the Dock, played with the minimise function. launched Classic
once or twice, surfed the web, retrieved (my) email, added some additions to
my Dock and littered my desktop with downloaded nonsense.
I think Mac OS X qualifies as a Mac. The changes are not that sweeping that
people can't play or people can't mess around. There will be a learning
curve but it will be as subtle as someone moving from System 7 to OS9.
Learning new behaviours and new features is a consequence of upgrades and
not the end of the world as we know it.
----------
In article <39E8BB81...@sifre.demon.nl>, Steven
<ste...@sifre.demon.nl> wrote:
> What I heard so far it lacks just about everything that makes a Mac a Mac.
So...what does make a Mac a Mac? Obviously for me it is something different
to what you expect.
> Except the superficial appearance of the screen.
If it looks and acts the same, is it the same? Is it "feel"? Aesthetics?
Something in between?
> Don't get me wrong, this new OS may have some significant advantages,
Granted - else what would be the point.
> I just don't think it is a Mac OS, and naming it that is misleading.
Runs on a Mac, produced by Apple, Menubar at top, untidy mess of files on
desktop. Sounds like a Mac to me. What else is there?
> I feel a bit manipulated.
You don't have to buy it. In fact, OS9 with Carbon is not only good til the
year 29K or so but Carbon will ensure it still has some life in it in the
next couple of years.
> I wonder will the Real Mac OS still continue to develop or is
> this a brain transplant after all? Any thoughts?
There are still people using System 6, System 7 and OS 8 on their Macs. Some
people never upgrade. Some people are still using Amigas, Apple IIs, Atari
STs, Amstrad PCWs...whatever...
> Now that it is becomming clear what Mac OS X entails I don't see anything that
> will change my position on this:-(
The question is - will you buy it?
Second question being - in three years time, will you buy it?
Third question being - when you update your hardware and X comes
pre-installed...what happens then?
M.
Tony Sayles
<mjoh...@nortelnetworks.com> wrote:
> people can't play or people can't mess around. There will be a learning
> curve but it will be as subtle as someone moving from System 7 to OS9.
> Learning new behaviours and new features is a consequence of upgrades and
> not the end of the world as we know it.
Whoah! While I have nothing against X having been using it constantly
since Paris, it is one hell of a lot steeper learning curve than 7 to 9.
This is a whole new ballgame with no similarity to old operating systems
beyond (partially at least) the GUI. Anyone used to just dropping or
pulling out extensions to add or decrease their system capabilities is
in for one enormous shock. The simplicity of customizing the MacOS (for
the greater majority of users) is gone with X. Doubtlessly many
extensions will be replaced by X compliant accessories but it will never
be anywhere near as easy again.
The move from 7 to 9 was like going from a tricycle to a bicycle, same
basis method of movement and customizing but refined, faster and
sleeker. Going from 9 to X is more like going from that bicycle to a
Challenger tank. Little similarity between them and a lot more complex
to adjust internally. Not the end of the world but certainly the end of
the MacOS as we knew it.
Tony
William F. Adams
>It's not the Mac Desktop/Finder,though. It's an X window
>manager/desktop environment/GUI/whatever.
Hardly. One doesn't even get old NeXTstep style nxHosting. There's no
Server/Client functionality, and one doesn't get weird, ``build it yourself''
UI and functionality, but rather the monolithic Mac menu bar, the desktop to
clutter with files, etc.
X-Window, it is not---though I do look forward to that being an option---though
I think Apple should shop around for promising opensource programs like LyX
<www.lyx.org> to port to Cocoa and bundle.
>I assume that OS X has gcc or something?
Darwin does and there's a script over at maximumlinux.com to swipe the
development CLI stuff from Darwin for Mac OS X pb.
William
--
William Adams
http://members.aol.com/willadams
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
Matt Johnston
----------
In article <sayles-59919F....@news.btinternet.com>, Tony Sayles
<say...@netwide.com> wrote:
> Whoah! While I have nothing against X having been using it constantly
> since Paris, it is one hell of a lot steeper learning curve than 7 to 9.
I'm not sure what the definition of a learning curve is...with knowhow on
the Y and time on the X axis it would seem that steep is good. Maybe m graph
labels are wrong - I know what you mean...
I disagree (obviously).
With the transition from 7-9 you have to cope with:
1. hierarchical apple menu
2. popup folders
3. spring loaded folders
4. yellow tags for dialogues
5. control strip
6. open transport
7. everything is grey and 3D-ish...except Navigator (why?)
8. buttons at the top of the windows have changed
9. now you can copy stuff and keep working
10. Quicktime looks weird
11. Find is seriously damaged/different...I mean...look at it
12. Learning to use the Search Internet function
13. minimum colour depth is 256 greys. So much for NetTrek
14. I have to pay 29.95 for quicktime????
15. where is Sharing Setup?
16. where is PC Exchange?
17. you can change the order of columns in List view
18. Finder icon in application menu has changed ..hmm...
19. Hmm...desktop pictures...great..where's that 20 MB pic from my holiday
20. Extension manager
21. Hmm...they DIDN'T change Calculator, Chooser, Key Caps....why not?
> This is a whole new ballgame with no similarity to old operating systems
> beyond (partially at least) the GUI. Anyone used to just dropping or
> pulling out extensions to add or decrease their system capabilities is
> in for one enormous shock.
Most people DON'T do this however. I know a couple of people with older
hardware who make use of Extension Manager sets but most people seem to just
accept what they have and leave extension manager alone.
> The simplicity of customizing the MacOS (for
> the greater majority of users) is gone with X. Doubtlessly many
> extensions will be replaced by X compliant accessories but it will never
> be anywhere near as easy again.
Things you can do now: add menu clocks, drop down calendars, launcher-type
things, add screensavers, change icons...
Things you can't do now: hose your system because an app was open and you
just changed one of its resources, disable the appearance manager and find
your system won't boot, clean out the System Folder because "you didn't
create it".
And this is with a system that hasn't even been released yet....
> The move from 7 to 9 was like going from a tricycle to a bicycle, same
> basis method of movement and customizing but refined, faster and
> sleeker.
I disagree for the 21 reasons above... and possibly more...
> Going from 9 to X is more like going from that bicycle to a
> Challenger tank.
Going from any version of MacOS to X is easier than 7 - 9 in my opinion - or
at least the difference in difficulty is trivial.
New users have een confused by the application menu (to the point where they
keep launching apps til they run out of memory and then they restart), the
usage of the Apple Menu and how to add things (but last time I went into the
System Folder I couldn't restart my machine afterwards) and adding a little
applescript in the apple menu doesn't cut it. It SHOULD be drag and drop.
> Little similarity between them and a lot more complex
> to adjust internally. Not the end of the world but certainly the end of
> the MacOS as we knew it.
The most difference will be for those people who who work ON their Mac and
not those who work WITH their Mac. I presume you are like me and run a
pretty lean system - featured enough for what you do but missing some stupid
extensions that you never access.
I see the ability to do this as a necessity in the current MacOS but as
unnecessary in the new MacOS.
Looking forward to a little more discussion on this.
M.
Charles Kooy
> Callus said:
> >It's not the Mac Desktop/Finder,though. It's an X window
> >manager/desktop environment/GUI/whatever.
>
> Hardly. One doesn't even get old NeXTstep style nxHosting. There's no
> Server/Client functionality, and one doesn't get weird, ``build it yourself''
> UI and functionality, but rather the monolithic Mac menu bar, the desktop to
> clutter with files, etc.
>
> X-Window, it is not---though I do look forward to that being an option--
>-though
> I think Apple should shop around for promising opensource programs like LyX
> <www.lyx.org> to port to Cocoa and bundle.
John (or is it Michael? I forget) Carmack, he of id software fame, has
apparently written an X-window server for OSX.
ck
Andrew Parkhouse
> The move from 7 to 9 was like going from a tricycle to a bicycle, same
> basis method of movement and customizing but refined, faster and
> sleeker. Going from 9 to X is more like going from that bicycle to a
> Challenger tank. Little similarity between them and a lot more complex
> to adjust internally. Not the end of the world but certainly the end of
> the MacOS as we knew it.
Anyone played GoldenEye on the N64? Oddly enough OS X reminds me
literally of driving the tank in that, loads of firepower, but you
couldn't get around as directly, quickly and easily as you could just
being James Bond. On the other hand, you could mow down the enemy
without batting an eyelid.
Cheers,
The North
/ I make no claims for the entrtainment value of this posting. /
Johnathan Brady
(in message <8sbumk$3mn$1...@bcrkh13.ca.nortel.com>):
> In article <sayles-59919F....@news.btinternet.com>, Tony Sayles
> <say...@netwide.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Whoah! While I have nothing against X having been using it constantly
>> since Paris, it is one hell of a lot steeper learning curve than 7 to 9.
>
All the above is not an example for a new learning curve requirement.
for example, your #7 'every thing is grey', call me stupid but do you
have to 'learn' how to perceive the color grey instead of white?
All that you mentioned above are simply new features, if you don't
know about them, you simply don't use them and you keep working the
old way until you discover them one by one gradually.
>> This is a whole new ballgame with no similarity to old operating systems
>> beyond (partially at least) the GUI. Anyone used to just dropping or
>> pulling out extensions to add or decrease their system capabilities is
>> in for one enormous shock.
>
> Most people DON'T do this however. I know a couple of people with older
> hardware who make use of Extension Manager sets but most people seem to just
> accept what they have and leave extension manager alone.
>
>> The simplicity of customizing the MacOS (for
>> the greater majority of users) is gone with X. Doubtlessly many
>> extensions will be replaced by X compliant accessories but it will never
>> be anywhere near as easy again.
>
> Things you can do now: add menu clocks, drop down calendars, launcher-type
> things, add screensavers, change icons...
>
> Things you can't do now: hose your system because an app was open and you
> just changed one of its resources, disable the appearance manager and find
> your system won't boot, clean out the System Folder because "you didn't
> create it".
>
> And this is with a system that hasn't even been released yet....
>
>> The move from 7 to 9 was like going from a tricycle to a bicycle, same
>> basis method of movement and customizing but refined, faster and
>> sleeker.
>
> I disagree for the 21 reasons above... and possibly more...
All the arguments that you presented above make you seem like a troll
instead of a serious person.
>> Going from 9 to X is more like going from that bicycle to a
>> Challenger tank.
>
> Going from any version of MacOS to X is easier than 7 - 9 in my opinion - or
> at least the difference in difficulty is trivial.
>
> New users have een confused by the application menu (to the point where they
> keep launching apps til they run out of memory and then they restart), the
> usage of the Apple Menu and how to add things (but last time I went into the
> System Folder I couldn't restart my machine afterwards) and adding a little
> applescript in the apple menu doesn't cut it. It SHOULD be drag and drop.
>
>> Little similarity between them and a lot more complex
>> to adjust internally. Not the end of the world but certainly the end of
>> the MacOS as we knew it.
>
> The most difference will be for those people who who work ON their Mac and
> not those who work WITH their Mac. I presume you are like me and run a
> pretty lean system - featured enough for what you do but missing some stupid
> extensions that you never access.
>
> I see the ability to do this as a necessity in the current MacOS but as
> unnecessary in the new MacOS.
>
> Looking forward to a little more discussion on this.
I'm not sure this could be a relevant discussion. You make it seem as
the transition to Mac OS X is going to be very simple for Mac
experts, while ignoring the fact that Mac OS X is not a Mac system in
the real meaning.
In a simple transition you don't have to relearn the inner working of
the system. In moving from 7 to 9 all you have to learn are the new
features that are added, and maybe getting used to a slightly
modified interface, but the basics of the system are the same.
For example: Deleting an application, in system 7 you drag the
application or its folder to the trash and select empty trash, and
surprise surprise in system 9 you drag the application or its folder
to the trash and select empty trash.
Now lets try to apply the same thing in moving from 9 to X and see
what happens.
In X you drag the application or its folder to the trash and select
empty trash. What happens?
You get the message that the application cannot be deleted. Does it
tell you why? NO.
Your being a Mac expert that have been working with the Mac OS for
ten years is going to do you squat when you're trying to solve this
problem. And if you're working with the beta and not the finished
system, even a superficial Windoze experience won't help. You go to
the installer and find the application installation receipt and there
is no uninstall option.
So your Mac experience does not help, so what does that mean?
It means you have to learn a fundamentally new way of working with
the system.
To solve the above problem you have to learn the ways of Unix, and no
amount of Mac experience will help.
If nobody told you that you have to log out and log back in as root,
I don't think you'll figure it out on your own if you didn't have a
bit of Unix experience, especially that the new finder or should I
say Desktop Application does not give you a way to become a su to
empty the trash when there is applications in it.
Now lets go a little more complex task.
Installing and removing a complicated demo.
In Mac OS 9, you install a large demo that installs a whole bunch of
things in your system folder, let's say MS Office. You want to remove
the demo. A Mac expert will delete the application folder and go to
the extension and preference folders and delete anything that have
'Microsoft' in the name unless you want to keep IE working then you
keep some things. So being a Mac expert gives you certain flexibility
to know what needs to be kept and what needs to be tossed.
Try to apply the same expertise to installing and removing Tenon's
iTools from the beta. You won't be able to do it.
To restore the old functionality of the system, your only recourse
would be to reinstall OS X from scratch. If you simply delete itools'
folder and applications, then Apache won't run, and good luck trying
to figure out what should be changed to restore that functionality.
I pride my self on being a Mac Expert. My system 9 has not crashed in
months because I know all the inner working enough to know what would
crash it and what does not, and I run at least 10 applications at the
same time.
I've never, ever had to reinstall the Mac OS before.
In trying the beta I find myself having to learn Unix - a totally new
system. And let me tell you it's not that easy.
However, if you look at it from the simpleton Mac user, you know, the
one that uses it without bothering to learn the inner workings of it.
The one that you mentioned that they keep launching applications
without knowing that they should quit others to make room for new
ones in the memory. The ones that would be totally stumped when they
install a new extension that conflicts with another and their system
keeps crashing and they can't fix it, then for those, moving to Mac
OS X will not be as hard because their Mac experience is not that
relevant to begin with.
--
J Brady
William F. Adams
>All the above is not an example for a new learning curve requirement.
>for example, your #7 'every thing is grey', call me stupid but do you
>have to 'learn' how to perceive the color grey instead of white?
In classic Mac OS, support for dimmed background windows is on a
per-application basis---this is _very_ confusing to new users, and can result
(especially with window-shading) in printing the wrong document for example. By
contrast (sorry about the pun), NeXTstep's value-associative window-ordering
system is obvious and natural, since value is naturally associated with
atmospheric perspective. Mac OS X doesn't go to the same extreme, but with
Cocoa and Carbon apps, this sort of thing works much better.
>All that you mentioned above are simply new features, if you don't
>know about them, you simply don't use them and you keep working the
>old way until you discover them one by one gradually.
And one has to figure out why a folder dragged to the bottom of the window has
transmogrified itself, etc.
>All the arguments that you presented above make you seem like a troll
>instead of a serious person.
Well then, respond on a point-for-point basis.
>I'm not sure this could be a relevant discussion. You make it seem as
>the transition to Mac OS X is going to be very simple for Mac
>experts, while ignoring the fact that Mac OS X is not a Mac system in
>the real meaning.
We've already had this discussion---Mac OS X is easier for new users, and
merely requires those experienced with the classic Mac OS to learn a few new
concepts.
>For example: Deleting an application, in system 7 you drag the
>application or its folder to the trash and select empty trash, and
>surprise surprise in system 9 you drag the application or its folder
>to the trash and select empty trash.
>Now lets try to apply the same thing in moving from 9 to X and see
>what happens.
>
>In X you drag the application or its folder to the trash and select
>empty trash. What happens?
>
>You get the message that the application cannot be deleted. Does it
>tell you why? NO.
Depends on which application and why---if it's a core system app owned by root,
I'm sure that Apple will add a message explaining that.
>Your being a Mac expert that have been working with the Mac OS for
>ten years is going to do you squat when you're trying to solve this
>problem. And if you're working with the beta and not the finished
>system, even a superficial Windoze experience won't help. You go to
>the installer and find the application installation receipt and there
>is no uninstall option.
It's a beta. The uninstall option is there, and does work in NeXT/OPENstep, and
I fully expect it to work with Mac OS X final.
>It means you have to learn a fundamentally new way of working with
>the system.
Well at least you got that part right.
>If nobody told you that you have to log out and log back in as root,
>I don't think you'll figure it out on your own if you didn't have a
>bit of Unix experience, especially that the new finder or should I
>say Desktop Application does not give you a way to become a su to
>empty the trash when there is applications in it.
And why would one need to delete such an app? Holding down Option to force
deletion for a locked item in the classic Mac OS is intuititve?
>Now lets go a little more complex task.
>
>Installing and removing a complicated demo.
>In Mac OS 9, you install a large demo that installs a whole bunch of
>things in your system folder, let's say MS Office. You want to remove
>the demo. A Mac expert will delete the application folder and go to
>the extension and preference folders and delete anything that have
>'Microsoft' in the name unless you want to keep IE working then you
>keep some things. So being a Mac expert gives you certain flexibility
>to know what needs to be kept and what needs to be tossed.
At the expense of a great deal of rote memorization---you're also ignoring that
doing as you describe will for example, break MS Word import in Quark.
>Try to apply the same expertise to installing and removing Tenon's
>iTools from the beta. You won't be able to do it.
Once they fix packages, it won't be an issue.
>I pride my self on being a Mac Expert. My system 9 has not crashed in
>months because I know all the inner working enough to know what would
>crash it and what does not, and I run at least 10 applications at the
>same time.
Could you send me a list of the extensions and apps you use? I'd dearly love to
be able to set up the Macs here to be that reliable.
>In trying the beta I find myself having to learn Unix - a totally new
>system. And let me tell you it's not that easy.
Then skip the beta and wait for the final version---I never touch Terminal.app
in NeXTstep save that using a CLI for some file stuff is more efficient.
>However, if you look at it from the simpleton Mac user, you know, the
>one that uses it without bothering to learn the inner workings of it.
>The one that you mentioned that they keep launching applications
>without knowing that they should quit others to make room for new
>ones in the memory. The ones that would be totally stumped when they
>install a new extension that conflicts with another and their system
>keeps crashing and they can't fix it, then for those, moving to Mac
>OS X will not be as hard because their Mac experience is not that
>relevant to begin with.
That Apple is trying so hard to make Mac OS X workable for such naive users
shows that Apple considers their experience very relevant.
``Simpleton'', huh? In retrospect, I shouldn't've gone to the effort to not use
the phrase ``Mac zealot''
Steven
>
> Callus said:
> >It's not the Mac Desktop/Finder,though. It's an X window
> >manager/desktop environment/GUI/whatever.
>
> Hardly. One doesn't even get old NeXTstep style nxHosting. There's no
> Server/Client functionality, and one doesn't get weird, ``build it yourself''
> UI and functionality, but rather the monolithic Mac menu bar, the desktop to
> clutter with files, etc.
You mean "to clutter with aliasses".
Steven
Steven
> > Now that it is becomming clear what Mac OS X entails I don't see anything that
> > will change my position on this:-(
>
> The question is - will you buy it?
No, that's not the question. That's just your way to change the subject.
> Second question being - in three years time, will you buy it?
Will Apple still exist in three years? These are all hypotheticals.
> Third question being - when you update your hardware and X comes
> pre-installed...what happens then?
See what I mean?
Steven
William F. Adams
>You mean "to clutter with aliasses".
Although Mac OS X Server might've had this limitation, I've been quite able to
put files, not links, not aliases, files, on the desktop---darned nuisance too.
Steven
>
> Steven said:
> >You mean "to clutter with aliasses".
>
> Although Mac OS X Server might've had this limitation, I've been quite able to
> put files, not links, not aliases, files, on the desktop---darned nuisance too.
Files that are on other drives than the startup drive?
Steven
William F. Adams
>Files that are on other drives than the startup drive?
Haven't tried---if they've done away with files from other drives appearing on
the Desktop, it's all to the good to my mind---entirely too painful to watch a
naive user drag a file from a removable drive to the desktop and then erase the
disk and wonder where their file went.
Johnathan Brady
(in message <20001015151813...@ng-fi1.aol.com>):
>> It means you have to learn a fundamentally new way of working with
>> the system.
>
> Well at least you got that part right.
Yeah, I got all of it right, and it would be nice and more efficient
for you to read the post that I was replying to.
I know the differences between classic Mac OS and Mac OS X. I was
pointing out the real differences to somebody that was saying that
moving from 9 to X is easier than moving from 7 to 9.
--
J Brady
Matt Johnston
----------
In article <Pine.SOL.3.95q.1001015170510.5724A-100000@sis>, Andrew Parkhouse
<ap7...@bris.ac.uk> wrote:
> Anyone played GoldenEye on the N64? Oddly enough OS X reminds me
> literally of driving the tank in that, loads of firepower, but you
> couldn't get around as directly, quickly and easily as you could just
> being James Bond. On the other hand, you could mow down the enemy
> without batting an eyelid.
But is that because you've used OSX for X months while you've been with OS9
for 5X months? And 8.5 before it?
M.
Matt Johnston
----------
In article <01HW.B60FAB6C0...@news.worldonline.dk>, David
Blangstrup <da...@blangstrup.dk> wrote:
> It's really nice to see a good argument on X pop up among all the whiners
> that miss their applemenu or, like the MacAddict crew, is whining about how
> apple+n creates a new finder instead of a new map. Whoa! How difficult can it
> be? How old or oldfashioned are people? Something new? But we are USED to
> this old mac. And the superusers? They now all have to learn something new.
> Ouch!
Um. I appreciate the back slapping but you're more likely to get their backs
up.
I'm enjoying searching this new OS for the new and shinies.
Our local support people are a little scared of it.
1. They know MacOS inside out.
2. They don't know UNIX.
3. They can't get enough hardware from Apple to keep up with demand.
4. Increased customers means increased support.
These poor buggers don't even have the time to look at OS X never mind
figure out how it is meant to work. It hasn't been out long enough for them
to have formulated what to do if things go wrong.
I have the time, they don't. They don't say it to my face but they are
worried. Especially when any of their customers could walk in tomorrow and
say "Bought that public beta thing and hosed my machine. Fix it!"
Matt Johnston
----------
In article <01HW.B60FAB590...@news.worldonline.dk>, David
Blangstrup <da...@blangstrup.dk> wrote:
> I really like your approach! :-) Keep up the good fight! Just keep in mind,
> these folks HATE change! Nine has become a christmas tree of extensions, just
> to keep it up to date. Going from X to 9 to play games, is like going back to
> the stone age. But they won't admit it. They've become USED to the stone age.
> David
It may end up that Daniele and a few of the faithful string us both up....
I find it painful (ugh..flat interface...no depth...so grey and bland) and
fearful (is it going to crash now? How about now?) going back to 9.
Not everyone can accept this sort of change. Most of these people are highly
adaptable people - some of them work in Support and deal with new and
exciting challenges every day. These people are not stupid, not primitive
and not resistant to change itself.
Mac OS 9 is still cool. But its where Windows will be in 2010. OS X is year
3000 stuff. Still the future for most of the population...but...geez...
Matt Johnston
----------
In article <39EA0AA8...@sifre.demon.nl>, Steven
<ste...@sifre.demon.nl> wrote:
> Matt Johnston wrote:
>
>> > Now that it is becomming clear what Mac OS X entails I don't see anything
>> > that will change my position on this:-(
>>
>> The question is - will you buy it?
>
> No, that's not the question. That's just your way to change the subject.
I'm asking you will you buy it? I'm not looking to change your point of
view. That would be pointless.
>> Second question being - in three years time, will you buy it?
>
> Will Apple still exist in three years? These are all hypotheticals.
That's avoiding the question.
>> Third question being - when you update your hardware and X comes
>> pre-installed...what happens then?
>
> See what I mean?
There is a certain inevitability about it.
Even if the OS looked the same there would still be differences.
Some people are nervous about the "troubleshooting" aspect and others are
worried about the "interface" change. Some are concernd about both.
But in getting a system with protected memory - which the Macintosh sorely
needed - did we expect that nothing else would change?
Were we all that naive?
Matt Johnston
----------
In article <01HW.B60F5C600...@enews.newsguy.com>, Johnathan
Brady <jbrady....@storiesonline.net> wrote:
> I'm not sure this could be a relevant discussion. You make it seem as
> the transition to Mac OS X is going to be very simple for Mac
> experts, while ignoring the fact that Mac OS X is not a Mac system in
> the real meaning.
Actually I don't make the assumption that it will be easy for experts but
that it will be generally easier for the mean user.
> In a simple transition you don't have to relearn the inner working of
> the system. In moving from 7 to 9 all you have to learn are the new
> features that are added, and maybe getting used to a slightly
> modified interface, but the basics of the system are the same.
When they rename, recolour, move, hide, combine or otherwise obfuscate
components then they increase the chance of user confusion.
I used the word COPE...in another message I admit that was too strong.
Relearn is a better way to say it.
> For example: Deleting an application, in system 7 you drag the
> application or its folder to the trash and select empty trash, and
> surprise surprise in system 9 you drag the application or its folder
> to the trash and select empty trash.
I tried that with Palm Desktop and it told me I couldn't empty the trash. So
I restart....still gives me the error...I know what is going on here but
someone else might not.
> Now lets try to apply the same thing in moving from 9 to X and see
> what happens.
>
> In X you drag the application or its folder to the trash and select
> empty trash. What happens?
> You get the message that the application cannot be deleted. Does it
> tell you why? NO.
Actually..I've done this. I've dragged apps to the trash and they are gone.
Example: I want to remove Internet Explorer and all its MS crap from my
system. Under X I drag it to the trash and delete. Under 9 I have to comb
for extensions.
<snippage>
> So your Mac experience does not help, so what does that mean?
We all have to learn new things.
Did people expect to get a pre-emptive and protected memory system and not
have to learn new things?
What happened when 9 got Multiple Users. We learned new stuff.
> It means you have to learn a fundamentally new way of working with
> the system.
>
> To solve the above problem you have to learn the ways of Unix, and no
> amount of Mac experience will help.
Actually I hosed my OSX system with an old version of Norton and used "The
Mac Way" to fix it.
> In Mac OS 9, you install a large demo that installs a whole bunch of
> things in your system folder, let's say MS Office. You want to remove
> the demo. A Mac expert will delete the application folder and go to
> the extension and preference folders and delete anything that have
> 'Microsoft' in the name unless you want to keep IE working then you
> keep some things. So being a Mac expert gives you certain flexibility
> to know what needs to be kept and what needs to be tossed.
"unless you want to keep IE working then you keep some things"
Well explained. These examples are contrived to make a point. Understandable
as I'd do the same *8^)
> Try to apply the same expertise to installing and removing Tenon's
> iTools from the beta. You won't be able to do it.
Big difference. Try uninstalling AppleWorks 6 as a comparison.
Hmm....in both OSes you drag the application to the trash and delete.
> To restore the old functionality of the system, your only recourse
> would be to reinstall OS X from scratch. If you simply delete itools'
> folder and applications, then Apache won't run, and good luck trying
> to figure out what should be changed to restore that functionality.
The comparison here would be to make OS9 an Appleshare IP server and then
try to remove it by just deleting the main apps folder. Uh-uh...not gonna
work.
> I pride my self on being a Mac Expert. My system 9 has not crashed in
> months because I know all the inner working enough to know what would
> crash it and what does not, and I run at least 10 applications at the
> same time.
>
> I've never, ever had to reinstall the Mac OS before.
I reinstall every six months. Helps clean out cobwebs, ensures I do full
backups and defrags the disk.
> In trying the beta I find myself having to learn Unix - a totally new
> system. And let me tell you it's not that easy.
No-one said it would be easy but you don't HAVE to learn it.
> However, if you look at it from the simpleton Mac user, you know, the
> one that uses it without bothering to learn the inner workings of it.
> The one that you mentioned that they keep launching applications
> without knowing that they should quit others to make room for new
> ones in the memory. The ones that would be totally stumped when they
> install a new extension that conflicts with another and their system
> keeps crashing and they can't fix it, then for those, moving to Mac
> OS X will not be as hard because their Mac experience is not that
> relevant to begin with.
I understand that for certain power users and support people it will be hard
transition filled with fear and trepidation. I get the same feelings when
even thinking about rollercoasters - which I never get on.
But that doesn't make the experience bad.
M.
Kevin Michael Vail
> Steven said:
> >Files that are on other drives than the startup drive?
>
> Haven't tried---if they've done away with files from other drives
> appearing on the Desktop, it's all to the good to my mind---entirely
> too painful to watch a naive user drag a file from a removable drive
> to the desktop and then erase the disk and wonder where their file
> went.
The only files that appear on the desktop are the ones your
Library/Desktop folder. So no files on drives other than the startup.
Like you, I don't think that's so great a loss...I had to help someone
figure out which of several files with the same name on the desktop was
the one he really wanted to keep (one on each of two hard disks, one on
floppy, and one on a Zip) and that the desktop wasn't really a place so
much as a concept. Now it's a place.
--
Kevin Michael Vail | a billion stars go spinning through the night,
ke...@vailstar.com | blazing high above your head.
. . . . . . . . . | But _in_ you is the presence that
. . . . . . . . . | will be, when all the stars are dead. (Rainer Maria Rilke)
Johnathan Brady
(in message <8sd9ct$s4b$1...@bcrkh13.ca.nortel.com>):
[snip meaningless discussion]
> I understand that for certain power users and support people it will be hard
> transition filled with fear and trepidation. I get the same feelings when
> even thinking about rollercoasters - which I never get on.
>
> But that doesn't make the experience bad.
All that you said does not conflict much with what I said, and it
seems that we basically agree on most things.
But may I remind you of what you said in your previous post:
>> The move from 7 to 9 was like going from a tricycle to a bicycle, same
>> basis method of movement and customizing but refined, faster and
>> sleeker.
>I disagree for the 21 reasons above... and possibly more...
>> Going from 9 to X is more like going from that bicycle to a
>> Challenger tank.
> Going from any version of MacOS to X is easier than 7 - 9 in my
> opinion - or at least the difference in difficulty is trivial.
What I'm saying is that moving from 7 to 9 as an experienced user in
in no way even comparable to going from any version of Mac OS to X.
I'm not discussing the merits of each interface and who have the
advantage.
--
J Brady
Steven
>
> ----------
> In article <39EA0AA8...@sifre.demon.nl>, Steven
> <ste...@sifre.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> > Matt Johnston wrote:
> >
> >> > Now that it is becomming clear what Mac OS X entails I don't see anything
> >> > that will change my position on this:-(
> >>
> >> The question is - will you buy it?
> >
> > No, that's not the question. That's just your way to change the subject.
>
> I'm asking you will you buy it? I'm not looking to change your point of
> view. That would be pointless.
Yes, I read your question. I'm saying that is not the topic. You say you are
looking forward to further discussion... Well, start with reading the discussion
I referred to and post something that is on topic with that discussion. Otherwise
start your own thread about how everybody who doesn't like OS X is stupid and
primitive. OK?
> >> Second question being - in three years time, will you buy it?
> >
> > Will Apple still exist in three years? These are all hypotheticals.
>
> That's avoiding the question.
The question is beside the point. The discussion is about the OS and the
tactics used to force it on people who bought into the Mac way of computing.
> Even if the OS looked the same there would still be differences.
Because it is _not_ the Mac OS?
> Some people are nervous about the "troubleshooting" aspect and others are
> worried about the "interface" change. Some are concernd about both.
>
> But in getting a system with protected memory - which the Macintosh sorely
> needed - did we expect that nothing else would change?
We were led to believe the Mac OS look and feel would be preserved. UNIX does
_not_ have the Mac OS look and feel.
Steven
Steven
>
> Steven said:
> >Files that are on other drives than the startup drive?
>
> Haven't tried---if they've done away with files from other drives appearing on
> the Desktop, it's all to the good to my mind---entirely too painful to watch a
> naive user drag a file from a removable drive to the desktop and then erase the
> disk and wonder where their file went.
That's because you are really a NeXT user, not a Mac user, am I right?
Steven
William F. Adams
>That's because you are really a NeXT user, not a Mac user, am I right?
Depends on what you're trying to imply by the assertion.
If it's that I value a system where state is mirrored accurately in on-screen
appearance, where consistency and elegance are paramount, and where the UI is
so malleable, I can utilise 100% of the screen as I desire, your right. If you
think the Mac OS provides that sort of elegance, well, not in my experience.
I've provided a concrete example of why the Mac OS desktop system can be bad,
that file storage location is not presented accurately---care to try to present
an argument which rationalizes this away?
William F. Adams
>We were led to believe the Mac OS look and feel would be preserved.
You got the monolithic Mac menu bar and a Finder re-written in Carbon, not
Cocoa---what more do you want?
menu bar clock? Available as a third party hack
Apple menu -ditto
Control Stip? - in process as an opensource thing now.
William F. Adams
>Yeah, I got all of it right, and it would be nice and more efficient
>for you to read the post that I was replying to.
I did.
Did you read what you snipped?
Or do you agree?
Johnathan Brady
(in message <20001015201148...@ng-cj1.aol.com>):
>> Yeah, I got all of it right, and it would be nice and more efficient
>> for you to read the post that I was replying to.
>
> I did.
Maybe you did, but certainly you did not understand.
> Did you read what you snipped?
>
> Or do you agree?
I did read what you posted but I snipped it because it's irrelevant
to the discussion.
We're not discussing which interface is better, and which interface
is easier to learn and the idiosyncrasies of each interface.
The whole thread started because he said that moving from 7 to 9 is
harder than moving from 9 to X.
I was saying that they 7, 8 and 9 work mostly the same as X works
totally DIFFERENT, and the instances that I mentioned were meant to
illustrate some of the differences between interfaces and not which
one is better.
Which would lead to the conclusionn that Mac users especially
experienced ones have to learn to use it just like a newbie to the
Mac OS.
So the discussion is about 'Do Mac OS 9 and X have fundamental
difference, that are different enough to warrant an almost total
relearning' yes or no.
The discussion was not about how stupid the way emptying the trash
is.
If you like to discuss the subject at hand, then fine, otherwise
start a new thread and don't drag this one in another direction and
misinterpret the words.
--
J Brady
William F. Adams
>We're not discussing which interface is better, and which interface
>is easier to learn and the idiosyncrasies of each interface.
<snip>
>I was saying that they 7, 8 and 9 work mostly the same as X works
>totally DIFFERENT, and the instances that I mentioned were meant to
>illustrate some of the differences between interfaces and not which
>one is better.
>So the discussion is about 'Do Mac OS 9 and X have fundamental
>difference, that are different enough to warrant an almost total
>relearning' yes or no.
>If you like to discuss the subject at hand, then fine, otherwise
>start a new thread and don't drag this one in another direction and
>misinterpret the words.
I see the UI being part and parcel of any such troubleshooting techniques, and
did not feel that my discussion was off-topic as you suggest. I understand what
you're saying here though, but find the point such as it is, so self-evident
that it scarcely merits discussion.
One would merely need to d/l Darwin and compare it to Mac OS 9- for that.
I see experienced Mac users as having a lot of points of leverage:
- A lot of things are still named as they were in Mac OS Classic
- A lot of the technology/concepts are still the same----it's still AppleTalk,
QuickTime, etc.
So yes, if you want me to yield on, ``Is there more to learn in the transition
from Mac OS 9 to X than there was from 7--9 and inbetween'', sure---as I said
above, it's self-evident.
BUT, I don't think it's all that much more---with the final product one is not
going to have to muck with the command line to get basic things done (rumor is
it won't even be there by default at the least), so Unix knowledge won't be
necessary for any normal situation.
Johnathan Brady
(in message <20001015223737...@ng-fq1.aol.com>):
> I see the UI being part and parcel of any such troubleshooting
> techniques, and did not feel that my discussion was off-topic as
> you suggest. I understand what you're saying here though, but find
> the point such as it is, so self-evident that it scarcely merits
> discussion.
You and me agree completely here. But when somebody says that the
opposite is true, I think they deserve to be corrected.
--
J Brady
Matt Johnston
----------
In article <39EA3ADE...@sifre.demon.nl>, Steven
<ste...@sifre.demon.nl> wrote:
> Yes, I read your question. I'm saying that is not the topic. You say you are
> looking forward to further discussion... Well, start with reading the
> discussion I referred to and post something that is on topic with that
> discussion. Otherwise start your own thread about how everybody who doesn't
> like OS X is stupid and primitive. OK?
Be fair - I never said or insinuated that - I even defend those who aren't
jumping at the new OS when others called them "stone age".
My point being - I think there is enough in it to be still a Mac. You
obviously don't. When push comes to shove - will you buy it?
I don't understand your resistance in answering that.
>> That's avoiding the question.
>
> The question is beside the point. The discussion is about the OS and the
> tactics used to force it on people who bought into the Mac way of computing.
You don't have to upgrade.
>> Even if the OS looked the same there would still be differences.
>
> Because it is _not_ the Mac OS?
If they had rebuilt it from the ground up as a protected memory MacOS there
would have been substantial under-the-hood differences.
If they had bought Be there would be substantial differences.
I'm beginning to think that some people might have a holy grail approch to
the Mac. It isn't and never was the be-all and end-all.
But it might be tomorrow.
>> Some people are nervous about the "troubleshooting" aspect and others are
>> worried about the "interface" change. Some are concernd about both.
>>
>> But in getting a system with protected memory - which the Macintosh sorely
>> needed - did we expect that nothing else would change?
>
> We were led to believe the Mac OS look and feel would be preserved. UNIX does
> _not_ have the Mac OS look and feel.
Even from the start - in the Rhapsody documents they talked about an
advanced look and feel - they never specified what that was.
M.
Matt Johnston
----------
In article <01HW.B60FB9640...@news1.on.sympatico.ca>, Johnathan
Brady <jbrady....@storiesonline.net> wrote:
> All that you said does not conflict much with what I said, and it
> seems that we basically agree on most things.
Well that's something. I'm not looking to be agreed with in some
self-vindicating crusade. I'm also not looking to get insulted (thanks
Steven).
> But may I remind you of what you said in your previous post:
Sure.
>>> The move from 7 to 9 was like going from a tricycle to a bicycle, same
>>> basis method of movement and customizing but refined, faster and
>>> sleeker.
>
>>I disagree for the 21 reasons above... and possibly more...
>
>>> Going from 9 to X is more like going from that bicycle to a
>>> Challenger tank.
>
>> Going from any version of MacOS to X is easier than 7 - 9 in my
>> opinion - or at least the difference in difficulty is trivial.
>
> What I'm saying is that moving from 7 to 9 as an experienced user in
> in no way even comparable to going from any version of Mac OS to X.
> I'm not discussing the merits of each interface and who have the
> advantage.
There are two arguments here.
Going from 7-9 from a working on/troubleshooting/optimising/enhancing your
Macintosh is a very similar experience for an advanced user. It isn't
without caveats (don't remove apperaance manager..) but we learn them.
Going from any version to X from a working on/troubleshooting/optimising
your Macintosh is a very different experience that offers some opportunity
to learn. I see it as a challenge. I've done UNIX before but not this
flavour...and despote what everyone says - just because it is UNIX, doesn't
mean its the same as Solaris/HP-UX...
Going from 7-9 from a working with/doing work on your Macintosh is - to my
mind - as easy or difficult as going from any version of MacOS to X.
Can you see the difference?
I'm pretty sure that Apple are catering for the "working with/doing work on"
people because they are the majority.
We can't expect that a protected memory Macintosh with an advanced look and
feel would have the same plumbing. We've been told the reasons why and if it
had been possible we'd have had protected memory in 1996 and there would be
no fruit-flavoured computers.
M.
chris chow
<Cal...@Sympatico.CA> wrote:
> I think that Apple just for the life of them couldn't find any way to
> bring the "classic" system up to date any further. Now they've got
> all that open sources/free software that anyone who wants to can
> compile under OS X. I assume that OS X has gcc or something?
well i got cc on mine, teefed from the Darwin install file
> The worst thing I can think of? Gnome on the Mac. Geeeeeeeez.
amen bro
--
chris chow lok hin
chris chow
Brady <jbrady....@storiesonline.net> wrote:
> For example: Deleting an application, in system 7 you drag the
> application or its folder to the trash and select empty trash, and
> surprise surprise in system 9 you drag the application or its folder
> to the trash and select empty trash.
>
> Now lets try to apply the same thing in moving from 9 to X and see
> what happens.
>
> In X you drag the application or its folder to the trash and select
> empty trash. What happens?
>
> You get the message that the application cannot be deleted. Does it
> tell you why? NO.
well i've had that error with X... and 9 and 8... and also i have
deleted apps in X no problem
> I've never, ever had to reinstall the Mac OS before.
wow you are God after all
chris chow
<ste...@sifre.demon.nl> wrote:
this aspect of MacOS is annoying to me as well - for the record i am a
very experienced Mac user... i own about 8 Macs - i used NextStep for
about 2 minutes once
Andrew Parkhouse
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2000 11:41:33 +0200, Matt Johnston wrote
> (in message <8sbumk$3mn$1...@bcrkh13.ca.nortel.com>):
> > I'm not sure what the definition of a learning curve is...with knowhow on
> > the Y and time on the X axis it would seem that steep is good. Maybe m graph
> > labels are wrong - I know what you mean...
{snip}
> > Looking forward to a little more discussion on this.
>
> > M.
>
> I really like your approach! :-) Keep up the good fight! Just keep in mind,
> these folks HATE change! Nine has become a christmas tree of extensions, just
> to keep it up to date. Going from X to 9 to play games, is like going back to
> the stone age. But they won't admit it. They've become USED to the stone age.
You are wrong for the wrong reasons! <g>. OS X isn't bad. It's not
the manifestation of the dark side, or one of the horsemen of the
apocalypse or whatever, but neither is it i) finished, or ii) as good as
OS 9. Those two points go together. If everyone runs around singing the
praises of OS X before anything like about release 2.5, then Apple are
not going to be under anything like as much pressure to get everything
sorted and make X the best desktop operating system in the world (which
9 is far from being overall).
So, I'd say listen to the complaints, even from stone-agers, check out
what they are saying, see if it makes sense, see if it doesn't, accept
that the Mac OS allows for a great deal of diversity in ways of using it
in it it's current form. And look for faults, and problems, and
inconsistencies, and bugs, and ugly bits of eye-candy, and things that
seem just plain stupid to you, no matter how small, then complain
complain complain to Apple - not winging, or in block caps, but
carefully and politely, and firmly, with well worked out arguments why
things should be different. They are, allegedly, listening.
Don't accept X now on the basis of jam tomorrow. Participate!
Cheers,
The North
(why can't I be persuaded to vote?)
Andrew Parkhouse
>
>
> ----------
Maybe. I'd say it was mostly because of the debugging code etc. that
makes it noticeably Golden-Syrup style slower than 9.0.4. on a
400/384Mb/ATA66 iMac. The difference is similar to going downstairs to
use 9.0.4 on a 266/224Mb/EIDE G3. Hopefully, that will get fixed.
Partly it holds up the way you said cos you only drive tanks in a few
levels of Goldeneye, so you don't get used to it's slightly bizzare
handling. I only use X for the internet. Everything I else I boot back
to 9, so I'm not getting the time in front of it. Still a good analogy.
Cheers,
The north
Steven
>
> Steven said:
> >We were led to believe the Mac OS look and feel would be preserved.
>
> You got the monolithic Mac menu bar and a Finder re-written in Carbon, not
> Cocoa---what more do you want?
>
> menu bar clock? Available as a third party hack
>
> Apple menu -ditto
>
> Control Stip? - in process as an opensource thing now.
Why don't you go trade in beads and mirrors! You have no idea about the Mac.
Steven
Steven
>
> steven said:
> >That's because you are really a NeXT user, not a Mac user, am I right?
>
> Depends on what you're trying to imply by the assertion.
>
> If it's that I value a system where state is mirrored accurately in on-screen
> appearance, where consistency and elegance are paramount, and where the UI is
> so malleable, I can utilise 100% of the screen as I desire, your right. If you
> think the Mac OS provides that sort of elegance, well, not in my experience.
>
> I've provided a concrete example of why the Mac OS desktop system can be bad,
> that file storage location is not presented accurately---care to try to present
> an argument which rationalizes this away?
We've done this discussion a year ago. I provided several arguments and even ways
to make it easier for UNIX geeks who get confused by the concept.
My point was that you are not a Mac user but a NeXT user.
That's why you don't get it. You think that adding a control strip makes it a Mac.
Steven
Steven
>
> In article <39EA404...@sifre.demon.nl>, Steven
> <ste...@sifre.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> very experienced Mac user... i own about 8 Macs - i used NextStep for
> about 2 minutes once
So what is so confusing?
Steven
Steven
>
> ----------
> In article <01HW.B60FB9640...@news1.on.sympatico.ca>, Johnathan
> Brady <jbrady....@storiesonline.net> wrote:
>
> > All that you said does not conflict much with what I said, and it
> > seems that we basically agree on most things.
>
> Well that's something. I'm not looking to be agreed with in some
> self-vindicating crusade. I'm also not looking to get insulted (thanks
> Steven).
Me neither. Your suggestion was an insult, plain and simple.
Steven
Steven
>
> ----------
> In article <39EA3ADE...@sifre.demon.nl>, Steven
> <ste...@sifre.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> > Yes, I read your question. I'm saying that is not the topic. You say you are
> > looking forward to further discussion... Well, start with reading the
> > discussion I referred to and post something that is on topic with that
> > discussion. Otherwise start your own thread about how everybody who doesn't
> > like OS X is stupid and primitive. OK?
>
> Be fair - I never said or insinuated that - I even defend those who aren't
> jumping at the new OS when others called them "stone age".
>
> My point being - I think there is enough in it to be still a Mac. You
> obviously don't. When push comes to shove - will you buy it?
>
> I don't understand your resistance in answering that.
I don't understand your resistance in discussing the topic that started this thead.
> >> That's avoiding the question.
> >
> > The question is beside the point. The discussion is about the OS and the
> > tactics used to force it on people who bought into the Mac way of computing.
>
> You don't have to upgrade.
I can write off my investment. And feel screwed.
> >> Even if the OS looked the same there would still be differences.
> >
> > Because it is _not_ the Mac OS?
>
> If they had rebuilt it from the ground up as a protected memory MacOS there
> would have been substantial under-the-hood differences.
Sure. "Under the hood" being the essential words here. That's something else
than what NeXT geeks like William F Adams think constitutes a Mac OS: Take
UNIX slap a grey menubar on top and 'voilā!'.
> If they had bought Be there would be substantial differences.
So?
> I'm beginning to think that some people might have a holy grail approch to
> the Mac. It isn't and never was the be-all and end-all.
The Mac OS does some things very right. It is a truly humanistic OS. Compared to
that UNIX could be called 'fascistoīd'. I don't think the Mac OS is perfect
there is much room for improvement. That's why I want development to continue.
> Even from the start - in the Rhapsody documents they talked about an
> advanced look and feel - they never specified what that was.
Another cunning lie from Jobs c.s.
Steven
Brett Larson
>
> Me neither. Your suggestion was an insult, plain and simple.
I've read this thread, and you'll have to excuse me for not seeing any
insults in it, other than those from you. You asked for any thoughts, and
you've gotten them.
Cheers,
Brett
chris chow
> > very experienced Mac user... i own about 8 Macs - i used NextStep for
> > about 2 minutes once
>
> So what is so confusing?
you drag a file off a removeable disk to the desktop, so it then looks
and acts like one of the other files on there - no visual clues to tell
u its _different_
then later on you decide/need to eject the disk - and your file
dissappears
doesn't seem very intuitive to a newbie to me
Matt Johnston
----------
In article <39EAEB4B...@sifre.demon.nl>, Steven
<ste...@sifre.demon.nl> wrote:
>> I don't understand your resistance in answering that.
>
> I don't understand your resistance in discussing the topic that started this
> thead.
Actually...in another message in this thread I duscussed that I think it
isn't a misnomer because I think there is enough "Mac" in OS X to merit the
name.
>> You don't have to upgrade.
>
> I can write off my investment. And feel screwed.
Or you can continue with OS9 for the next two to three years and use Carbon
apps aplenty.
Also..IT kit is written off for tax purposes very quickly (sometimes within
a year)...
> Sure. "Under the hood" being the essential words here. That's something else
> than what NeXT geeks like William F Adams think constitutes a Mac OS: Take
> UNIX slap a grey menubar on top and 'voilà!'.
You have a point.
>> If they had bought Be there would be substantial differences.
>
> So?
so what exactly were you expecting?
> The Mac OS does some things very right. It is a truly humanistic OS. Compared
> to that UNIX could be called 'fascistoïd'. I don't think the Mac OS is perfect
> there is much room for improvement. That's why I want development to continue.
And when the people who create it squandered MILLIONS and almost killed the
company and still admitted defeat in giving MacOS what it needed most..
You want them to continue with OS9?
>> Even from the start - in the Rhapsody documents they talked about an
>> advanced look and feel - they never specified what that was.
>
> Another cunning lie from Jobs c.s.
For gods sake. What lie? Where?
M.
Matt Johnston
----------
In article <39EAEB5C...@sifre.demon.nl>, Steven
<ste...@sifre.demon.nl> wrote:
> Matt Johnston wrote:
>>
>> ----------
>> In article <01HW.B60FB9640...@news1.on.sympatico.ca>, Johnathan
>> Brady <jbrady....@storiesonline.net> wrote:
>>
>> > All that you said does not conflict much with what I said, and it
>> > seems that we basically agree on most things.
>>
>> Well that's something. I'm not looking to be agreed with in some
>> self-vindicating crusade. I'm also not looking to get insulted (thanks
>> Steven).
>
> Me neither. Your suggestion was an insult, plain and simple.
Nonsense.
Are you going to abandon the platform? If so then get on with it.
There are, to my knowledge, two times in the last five years when Apple has
needed help. The first was when Microsoft redeveloped Office - less for the
actual package and more for the developer confidence it bought.
The second is now.
OS9 is a dodo. A coelocanth. A relic that will undoubtedly dredge itself up
every few years because of some people who want to remind us what we are
missing.
If you want to make a difference then do it. Don't just talk about it. And
be vehement because you can pretty much count that for every feedback form
you send that says "down with OSX, bring back extensions!" I'll be there
cheering UNIX underpinnings and Quartz.
M.
William F. Adams
>Why don't you go trade in beads and mirrors! You have no idea about the Mac.
Why don't you explain in what way Apple Mac OS X fails to meet your
expectations as regards classic Mac ``look and feel''
To my mind, it's entirely too Mac-like, to the detriment of things like NeXT's
wonderful print panel, now crippled down to the lowest-common-denominator of
Mac OS functionality---where's ``Save'' and ``Fax''? How about a scrolling list
of printers so that one knows at a glance whether or no more than one is
available?
William F. Adams
>My point was that you are not a Mac user but a NeXT user.
I bought a Mac in 1984. It failed to grow up, and I moved on to better UIs.
This ``advanced look and feel'' of Mac OS X is entirely too backwards
compatible to my mind.
>That's why you don't get it. You think that adding a control strip makes it a
>Mac.
Seems to be one of the major arguments advanced (along with desktop and Apple
menu). I'd be glad to address anything you'd care to advance.
The Control Strip is dead because its functionality has been subsumed by the
new keyboards (volume control & c.) or hidden away in a System Preferences app
where it will be supported by a system which should make accessing alternative
options fluid enough that it won't be an issue. An example of this is the
unified print center.
Steven
>
> In article <39EAEB64...@sifre.demon.nl>, Steven
> <ste...@sifre.demon.nl> wrote:
> > >
> > > very experienced Mac user... i own about 8 Macs - i used NextStep for
> > > about 2 minutes once
> >
> > So what is so confusing?
>
> you drag a file off a removeable disk to the desktop, so it then looks
> and acts like one of the other files on there - no visual clues to tell
> u its _different_
>
> then later on you decide/need to eject the disk - and your file
> dissappears
>
> doesn't seem very intuitive to a newbie to me
My grandmother got after the first explanation. I have never heard a Mac
user complain about this. Until it came up in discussions about this NeXT
thing...
Steven
Steven
>
> ----------
> In article <39EAEB5C...@sifre.demon.nl>, Steven
> <ste...@sifre.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> > Matt Johnston wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <01HW.B60FB9640...@news1.on.sympatico.ca>, Johnathan
> >> Brady <jbrady....@storiesonline.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > All that you said does not conflict much with what I said, and it
> >> > seems that we basically agree on most things.
> >>
> >> Well that's something. I'm not looking to be agreed with in some
> >> self-vindicating crusade. I'm also not looking to get insulted (thanks
> >> Steven).
> >
>
> Nonsense.
Trying to dismiss me by saying that if I don't buy it I'm not really 'with the
mac' is an insult to me. You have been using this discussion tactic from the
beginning. I apologise for my impulsive reaction. But I do resent you insinuation.
> Are you going to abandon the platform? If so then get on with it.
See? there you go again. You say you want further discussion. Apparently only
with people who buy the new OS and who agree with you.
Steven
Steven
[...]
> >> If they had bought Be there would be substantial differences.
> >
> > So?
>
> so what exactly were you expecting?
That Apple would do it's utmost to preserve the OS with new underpinnings.
Instead Jobs is taking advantage of the situation to push his NeXT project, that
failed in an earlier incarnation, down our throat.
> > The Mac OS does some things very right. It is a truly humanistic OS. Compared
> > to that UNIX could be called 'fascistoïd'. I don't think the Mac OS is perfect
> > there is much room for improvement. That's why I want development to continue.
>
> And when the people who create it squandered MILLIONS and almost killed the
> company and still admitted defeat in giving MacOS what it needed most..
>
> You want them to continue with OS9?
Of course! You may think I'm a whiner. But you never heard me whine about PM&PM.
When I chose the Mac I was fully aware of the lack of these features.
> >> Even from the start - in the Rhapsody documents they talked about an
> >> advanced look and feel - they never specified what that was.
> >
> > Another cunning lie from Jobs c.s.
>
> For gods sake. What lie? Where?
If you talk about the 'Mac OS look and feel' people expect something that
looks and feels like a Mac. And that's not just superficially. Add the word
"advanced" and Jobs has a license to come up with "something you can lick".
This is not the Mac OS look and feel. Not superficially and certainly not in its
workings.
What would be wrong about being honest about it instead of glossing things
over by giving totally different things the same name?
Steven
Steven
>
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 13:49:36 +0200, Steven wrote
> (in message <39EAEB4B...@sifre.demon.nl>):
>
> >schnap>
> >
> > The Mac OS does some things very right. It is a truly humanistic OS.
> > Compared to
> > that UNIX could be called 'fascistoïd'.
> > Steven
> >
> >
> What's the matter with you, Steven?
You want to make this about personalities?
Steven
William F. Adams
(re: files from multiple drives on the desktop)
>I have never heard a Mac
>user complain about this. Until it came up in discussions about this NeXT
>thing...
How many naive Mac users do you know who've lost files to this?
How often do you think it comes up as a topic on Apple tech support?
It's a nominal feature with some real drawbacks.
To turn it around---the only people I'm aware of who want such a thing are
holdouts from ``the one true way of the Classic Mac OS''
Daniel J. McKay
or dislike.
The only aspect of OSX that I find confusing is the file directories.
This is an aspect that OSX shares with LinuxPPC. I would think that Apple
will simplify up the file directory and allow greater freedom for users to
place files anywhere without the fear of doing harm to their computer.
Most of the fears will be cleared up by either Apple's manual, their
online tech service or by third party books.
I like to look at OSX from a curiosity point of view, an adventure of
learning a new technology. If there are things that I do not like with OSX
I will post my concerns to Apple's feedback site and hope they will hear
them.
-Dan
Matt Johnston
----------
In article <39EB1F87...@sifre.demon.nl>, Steven
<ste...@sifre.demon.nl> wrote:
> Trying to dismiss me by saying that if I don't buy it I'm not really 'with the
> mac' is an insult to me.
I didn't say that. I did say that if Mac OS X is so bad that you abandon the
platform then you really weren't "with the Mac". "you" being the generic
"you" and not you specifically.
> You have been using this discussion tactic from the
> beginning. I apologise for my impulsive reaction. But I do resent you
> insinuation.
Whatever...
>> Are you going to abandon the platform? If so then get on with it.
>
> See? there you go again. You say you want further discussion. Apparently only
> with people who buy the new OS and who agree with you.
Hang on - I replied to your p.o.v. request and was called an asshole for my
efforts. Can you accept that others might have their own opinion and that it
might be Pro-Mac OS X.
I'd prefer to talk to people who profess their point of view and don't get
shirty about it. I also spoke against anyone who would call OS9-lovers
"stone age" or "primitive" because that's against my opinions and beliefs.
I love Mac OS 9. I happen to think that Mac OS X is a better Mac.
M.
Matt Johnston
----------
In article <39EB1FE8...@sifre.demon.nl>, Steven
<ste...@sifre.demon.nl> wrote:
> That Apple would do it's utmost to preserve the OS with new underpinnings.
The Mac OS X look and feel is not that far removed from Classic MacOS in my
opinion. Daniele. however, expressed eloquently (and perhaps inadvertently)
that what I think a Mac is - is not what he thinks a Mac is.
Bloody good point.
> Instead Jobs is taking advantage of the situation to push his NeXT project,
> that failed in an earlier incarnation, down our throat.
NeXTies would disagree with you. A lot of them see Mac OS X as being
excellent underpinnings but with a god-awful interface.
Are we discussing the interface, the underpinnings or the gestalt?
>> You want them to continue with OS9?
>
> Of course! You may think I'm a whiner. But you never heard me whine about
> PM&PM. When I chose the Mac I was fully aware of the lack of these features.
The lack of these basic features could seriously hamper any adoption in
larger circles. I use the current MacOS despite the lack of PM/PM. However
the UI experience without the niggling fear (and in some OS versions the
expectation) of a crash is very refreshing.
> If you talk about the 'Mac OS look and feel' people expect something that
> looks and feels like a Mac. And that's not just superficially. Add the word
> "advanced" and Jobs has a license to come up with "something you can lick".
Some things in OSX are advanced. The browser view is a welcome addition and
I'm a great fan of the Dock.
> This is not the Mac OS look and feel. Not superficially and certainly not in
> its workings.
What *is* the MacOS look and feel? Surely this is a very personal and highly
subjective experience. We've already established that what I think makes a
Mac ain't what others think makes a Mac.
I don't believe either of us are wrong - rather - we are both right.
> What would be wrong about being honest about it instead of glossing things
> over by giving totally different things the same name?
I agree that it ain't your Pappy's MacOS but it is still the OS that runs on
the Mac.
M.
Matt Johnston
----------
In article <39EB1FF2...@sifre.demon.nl>, Steven
<ste...@sifre.demon.nl> wrote:
> David Blangstrup wrote:
>
>> What's the matter with you, Steven?
>
> You want to make this about personalities?
Whoa there.
There's no need for (more) hostilities.
Next there'll be seconds and meeting at dawn and the whole choose your
weapon thing.
Let's not be angry - rather - let us be earnest.
I'd like to hear what makes MacOS humanistic and NeXT OS X facist-istic.
That is the topic at hand and the debate - is Mac OS X a correct name for
this product?
I say yes.
William F. Adams
>The only aspect of OSX that I find confusing is the file directories.
>This is an aspect that OSX shares with LinuxPPC.
Not really. Mac OS X is _greatly_ organized/streamlined compared to Linux or
any other Unix.
>I would think that Apple
>will simplify up the file directory
They did.
>and allow greater freedom for users to
>place files anywhere without the fear of doing harm to their computer.
Not really doable. System files have to have a place, and that place needs to
be inviolable to preclude their being over-written, or users being irritated by
not being allowed to name files in a fashion which might conflict.
Each user gets a home directory into which they can put anything they
want---what more would one want?
You can even litter the desktop with nearly any sort of clutter one might
desire.
Steven
>
> ----------
> In article <39EB1FF2...@sifre.demon.nl>, Steven
> <ste...@sifre.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> > David Blangstrup wrote:
> >
> >> What's the matter with you, Steven?
> >
> > You want to make this about personalities?
>
> Whoa there.
>
> There's no need for (more) hostilities.
>
> Next there'll be seconds and meeting at dawn and the whole choose your
> weapon thing.
>
> Let's not be angry - rather - let us be earnest.
I'm earnestly angry. Mainly with mister Jobs.
> I'd like to hear what makes MacOS humanistic and NeXT OS X facist-istic.
I didn't say that. I said _compared to the humanistic nature of the Mac OS_
_UNIX_ _could be called_ "fascistoid".
The mac OS has a great name for being the most user friendly OS. The OS
puts the user in the center, it talks the 'language' of the user. UNIX puts
the computer in the center and forces the user to learn to speak it's 'language'.
Control is more likely to be shifted away from the user to some sort of administrator.
> That is the topic at hand and the debate - is Mac OS X a correct name for
> this product?
>
> I say yes.
I say no. If mister Jobs comes to my door trying to sell me this OS under the
Mac OS name I'll punch him in the face. If he comes with the same OS under
a distinctive name I will at least hear him out and let him try to convince me.
Steven
Steven
>
> ----------
> In article <39EB1FE8...@sifre.demon.nl>, Steven
> <ste...@sifre.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> > That Apple would do it's utmost to preserve the OS with new underpinnings.
>
> The Mac OS X look and feel is not that far removed from Classic MacOS in my
> opinion. Daniele. however, expressed eloquently (and perhaps inadvertently)
> that what I think a Mac is - is not what he thinks a Mac is.
>
> Bloody good point.
It depends on your definition of the word "interface". If you take that to
mean the appearance, the skin, the graphics then the point is moot maybe. The
criticism I have here is that the appearance is overly sugar coated. Somehow
to work as a palliative for the unfriendly underpinnings?
I have a broader view of what interface means. In my view it is the above plus
how things are structured and organized and how they work. The system folder
and it's contents are part of the interface not only by how they look but also
by how they are organized and how they work. In this respect the Mac interface
is wiped entirely from OS X.
> > Instead Jobs is taking advantage of the situation to push his NeXT project,
> > that failed in an earlier incarnation, down our throat.
>
> NeXTies would disagree with you. A lot of them see Mac OS X as being
> excellent underpinnings but with a god-awful interface.
That's their problem. They don't get their favorite OS stolen from them. They
have nothing to complain about!
> Are we discussing the interface, the underpinnings or the gestalt?
We're all over the place. Could you define these terms for further discussion?
> >> You want them to continue with OS9?
> >
> > Of course! You may think I'm a whiner. But you never heard me whine about
> > PM&PM. When I chose the Mac I was fully aware of the lack of these features.
>
> The lack of these basic features could seriously hamper any adoption in
> larger circles. I use the current MacOS despite the lack of PM/PM. However
> the UI experience without the niggling fear (and in some OS versions the
> expectation) of a crash is very refreshing.
The Mac OS has been a real workhorse in the publishing industry.
> > If you talk about the 'Mac OS look and feel' people expect something that
> > looks and feels like a Mac. And that's not just superficially. Add the word
> > "advanced" and Jobs has a license to come up with "something you can lick".
>
> Some things in OSX are advanced. The browser view is a welcome addition and
> I'm a great fan of the Dock.
You think that little puff of dust when you drop something on the desktop is
sooo cute too, eh?
> > This is not the Mac OS look and feel. Not superficially and certainly not in
> > its workings.
>
> What *is* the MacOS look and feel? Surely this is a very personal and highly
> subjective experience.
No. It is defined by Apple. Human Interface Guidelines. I think Steve threw it
out the window.
> We've already established that what I think makes a
> Mac ain't what others think makes a Mac.
Hey, I can say my cat is a Mac.
> I don't believe either of us are wrong - rather - we are both right.
Of course. But that would make for a rather dull discussion wouldn't it?
> > What would be wrong about being honest about it instead of glossing things
> > over by giving totally different things the same name?
>
> I agree that it ain't your Pappy's MacOS but it is still the OS that runs on
> the Mac.
There are other things that you can run on a Mac. That don't meke them Mac OS.
In my view it is the Mac OS that makes the computer a Mac. Not the other way around.
Steven
Steven
>
> ----------
> In article <39EB1F87...@sifre.demon.nl>, Steven
> <ste...@sifre.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> > Trying to dismiss me by saying that if I don't buy it I'm not really 'with the
> > mac' is an insult to me.
>
> I didn't say that. I did say that if Mac OS X is so bad that you abandon the
> platform then you really weren't "with the Mac". "you" being the generic
> "you" and not you specifically.
Same thing. If I decide not to stay with the new Mac OS that means you say I was
not "with the Mac" when I spent vast amounts of money on the platform even
when just about everybody was saying it was dead.
> > You have been using this discussion tactic from the
> > beginning. I apologise for my impulsive reaction. But I do resent you
> > insinuation.
>
> Whatever...
>
> >> Are you going to abandon the platform? If so then get on with it.
> >
> > See? there you go again. You say you want further discussion. Apparently only
> > with people who buy the new OS and who agree with you.
>
> Hang on - I replied to your p.o.v. request and was called an asshole for my
> efforts.
No now you are twisting things together. I think the suggestion that people
who decide not to buy into this NeXT thing are really not "with the Mac" even
if they supported and trusted Apple in it's darkest hour is a remark made by
an asshole.
I did not call you an asshole to thank you for giving your point of view on
the subject of the discussion.
> Can you accept that others might have their own opinion and that it
> might be Pro-Mac OS X.
Of course I can! Otherwise there would be no discussion.
> I'd prefer to talk to people who profess their point of view and don't get
> shirty about it. I also spoke against anyone who would call OS9-lovers
> "stone age" or "primitive" because that's against my opinions and beliefs.
>
> I love Mac OS 9. I happen to think that Mac OS X is a better Mac.
It's not a Mac in my view. In some respects it may be a better OS. In others
it is not. And it certainly is _daft_. Photorealistic icons? That's a
contradiction in terms!
Steven
Steven
>
> Basically any leap into new territories is greeted by fear, apprehension
> or dislike.
>
> will simplify up the file directory and allow greater freedom for users to
> place files anywhere without the fear of doing harm to their computer.
This is also an example of the less than humanistic approach. People don't think
in directories. Computers do.
Steven
Daniel J. McKay
unknown objects and abstract concepts by relating them to known objects and
concepts. This is our way of simplifying the world by creating a more
compact database of sorts for faster recall.
Dan
Daniel J. McKay
> From: will...@aol.com (William F. Adams)
> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system
> Date: 17 Oct 2000 01:42:11 GMT
> Subject: Re: Mac OS X: a misnomer
I was thinking more in terms of having a System Folder for the system
critical files while leaving the rest of the directory open for what the
users want. Do you think that OSX is more difficult or easier than OS 9 in
regards to this?
I don't mean to imply that the OSX system is wrong, but that it seems more
difficult to navigate or customize.
Dan
Matt Johnston
----------
In article <39EBB79E...@sifre.demon.nl>, Steven
<ste...@sifre.demon.nl> wrote:
>> I'd like to hear what makes MacOS humanistic and NeXT OS X facist-istic.
>
> I didn't say that. I said _compared to the humanistic nature of the Mac OS_
> _UNIX_ _could be called_ "fascistoid".
And the difference is?
> The mac OS has a great name for being the most user friendly OS. The OS
> puts the user in the center, it talks the 'language' of the user.
I can't agree with this as written. Pop-up menus, spring loaded folders,
dialogue boxes, one-finger manipulation, folders that turn into windows,
control strip, apple manu...
I know what you mean - but I think the desktop metaphor was lost...wayback
when...
> UNIX puts the computer in the center and forces the user to learn to speak
> it's 'language'.
> Control is more likely to be shifted away from the user to some sort of
> administrator.
Which isn't a bad thing per se.
The main objections seem to be from self-professed power users who seem to
be more scared of replacing ResEdit with TextEdit despite the obvious
advantages of using the latter.
>> That is the topic at hand and the debate - is Mac OS X a correct name for
>> this product?
>>
>> I say yes.
>
> I say no. If mister Jobs comes to my door trying to sell me this OS under the
> Mac OS name I'll punch him in the face. If he comes with the same OS under
> a distinctive name I will at least hear him out and let him try to convince
> me.
You'd punch him. I'll assume you are just saying that. I'd make him
flavoured sugar water. Ahem...
Matt Johnston
----------
In article <B6111314.3840%mc...@uwplatt.edu>, "Daniel J. McKay"
<mc...@uwplatt.edu> wrote:
> The only aspect of OSX that I find confusing is the file directories.
> This is an aspect that OSX shares with LinuxPPC. I would think that Apple
> will simplify up the file directory and allow greater freedom for users to
> place files anywhere without the fear of doing harm to their computer.
I'm not sure they can simplify it more. They can HIDE the directories and as
soon as they modify Classic to not notice them...all well and good.
Matt Johnston
----------
In article <39EBB7F7...@sifre.demon.nl>, Steven
<ste...@sifre.demon.nl> wrote:
>> NeXTies would disagree with you. A lot of them see Mac OS X as being
>> excellent underpinnings but with a god-awful interface.
>
> That's their problem. They don't get their favorite OS stolen from them. They
> have nothing to complain about!
They disagree.
>> Are we discussing the interface, the underpinnings or the gestalt?
>
> We're all over the place. Could you define these terms for further discussion?
I was sorta hoping you could.
I have a feeling that what you define as interface includes some of the
higher level system. I separate the interface and the system because in the
"system" part I include the need for tools like ResEdit.
I have trouble differentiating the difference between hacking resources with
ResEdit and tweaking plists with TextEdit - both activities for the ardent
MacHack.
> The Mac OS has been a real workhorse in the publishing industry.
The Mac is losing ground in publishing and is kept on because of affection
and history. Education is where it's at. I want to stop people saying "Macs
are shit" - and the prime reason for that reaction is the stability - or
lack thereof.
> You think that little puff of dust when you drop something on the desktop is
> sooo cute too, eh?
I'm a Newton user. It's not the worst result in the world.
>> What *is* the MacOS look and feel? Surely this is a very personal and highly
>> subjective experience.
>
> No. It is defined by Apple. Human Interface Guidelines. I think Steve threw it
> out the window.
You *think* he did.
>> We've already established that what I think makes a
>> Mac ain't what others think makes a Mac.
>
> Hey, I can say my cat is a Mac.
But would it be true.
>> I don't believe either of us are wrong - rather - we are both right.
>
> Of course. But that would make for a rather dull discussion wouldn't it?
*8^)
> There are other things that you can run on a Mac. That don't meke them Mac OS.
> In my view it is the Mac OS that makes the computer a Mac. Not the other
> way around.
I see it as being a great partnership.
William F. Adams
``Data'' partition.
I don't much like having stuff litter the desktop, nor do I like to have the
root of my system HD stuffed with stuff either---Mac OS X is nice to my mind
since it provides a ready-made filing system for the stuff which I need to put
away.
William F. Adams
(re: NeXT users)
>They don't get their favorite OS stolen from them. They
>> have nothing to complain about!
Uh, which OS is driving Mac OS X? It's BSD, just a .1 rev up from NeXTstep's.
Take a look at the windowing model---gee, inter-leaved application windows from
multiple apps, I've only seen that in NeXTstep.
Mac users can still go to the store and purchase OS 9, or even get a system
pre-configured to run it---try purchasing an additional license of OpenStep 4.2
from Apple. Even Chrysler gave up on it (and Apple turned down a cool half a
million when they refused to allow Chrysler to purchase at their previously
discounted price)
Or, try putting togeth a new Intel system, or a laptop which will run OpenStep
4.2.
>> You think that little puff of dust when you drop something on the desktop
>is
>> sooo cute too, eh?
It's contained in ``poof.pdf'', I've replaced it with a warp effect and am
working on a water droplet splash.
Certainly a lot easier than hacking resources with ResEdit.
Matt Johnston
----------
In article <39EBB9C0...@sifre.demon.nl>, Steven
<ste...@sifre.demon.nl> wrote:
Daffy duck would have a field day here...
Of course...you're so right because humans think of folders...within
folders....within folders. Frankly, the metaphor stinks.
Did you realise that folders = directories. But don't worry because if you
pop ver to Apple.com - you know what....
In Mac OS X literature - they are called folders.
From http://www.apple.com/macosx/usingosx/desktop.html
Large buttons instantly take you to the most frequently accessed areas on
your Mac: your home folder (which can be located on your hard disk or on a
network drive), your applications, your documents ‹ and even the email
addresses of the regulars with whom you most often exchange messages.
This was a bad straw to grasp at...
Matt Johnston
----------
In article <39EBB88D...@sifre.demon.nl>, Steven
<ste...@sifre.demon.nl> wrote:
> Same thing. If I decide not to stay with the new Mac OS that means you say I
> was not "with the Mac" when I spent vast amounts of money on the platform even
> when just about everybody was saying it was dead.
Did you spend the money or was it the company you own/work for/are enslaved
by?
> No now you are twisting things together. I think the suggestion that people
> who decide not to buy into this NeXT thing are really not "with the Mac" even
> if they supported and trusted Apple in it's darkest hour is a remark made by
> an asshole.
I don't think you are in a defensible position with that remark. REcourse to
plain insults is the mark of a vulgarian.
> I did not call you an asshole to thank you for giving your point of view on
> the subject of the discussion.
You can't say that I'm an asshole for giving my opinion and then say that I
wasn't called an asshole because of my point of view.
Well you can...but you'd be contradicting yourself.
> Of course I can! Otherwise there would be no discussion.
So it's just people who earnestly disagree with you who are assholes?
I earnestly disagree with you on the point: Mac OS X - a misnomer?
I firmly believe that if Mac OS X is enough to dissuade you from the Mac
then your heart wasn't in it anyway.
> It's not a Mac in my view. In some respects it may be a better OS. In others
> it is not.
As the presence/absence of Mac-ness is purely subjective, I'm surprised you
weathered the changes from System 6.
> And it certainly is _daft_. Photorealistic icons? That's a
> contradiction in terms!
As can be seen by some of the icons at http://xicons.com/ - there is a lot
to be said for icons that use a full palette of colours at a decent
resolution. I'm not a user of MacSter but the icon is great. The IE5 icon is
lovely and the replacement AppleWorks icon should be licensed.
From dictionary.com:
i·con also i·kon (kn). n.
1. a. An image; a representation.
b. A simile or symbol
4. Computer Science. A picture on a screen that represents a specific
command.
I don't see anything here that says it should be a crude blocky
representation with a limited colour palette. Actually it says nothing of
the sort.
M.
Rev. Andy
<mjoh...@nortelnetworks.com> wrote:
> [snippo de snip]
>
> I firmly believe that if Mac OS X is enough to dissuade you from the Mac
> then your heart wasn't in it anyway.
>
> [captain snippy rides again]
Er, guys, we are talking about a tool to get work done. If you're using
a Mac because 'your heart is in it' then maybe you need to reexamine
your lifestyle.
Rev. Andy
(Mac user since 1989)
Steven
>
> Steven said:
> (re: NeXT users)
> >> have nothing to complain about!
>
> Take a look at the windowing model---gee, inter-leaved application windows from
> multiple apps, I've only seen that in NeXTstep.
So?
> Mac users can still go to the store and purchase OS 9, or even get a system
> pre-configured to run it---try purchasing an additional license of OpenStep 4.2
> from Apple. Even Chrysler gave up on it (and Apple turned down a cool half a
> million when they refused to allow Chrysler to purchase at their previously
> discounted price)
Hey, OpenStep failed on it's own. Not because somebody was trying to turn it
into a Mac.
Steven
Steven
Nonsense. If you lost your glasses you don't start searching your office in
alphabetical order, or go to the 'glasses department' upstairs.
Steven
Steven
>
> ----------
> In article <39EBB79E...@sifre.demon.nl>, Steven
> <ste...@sifre.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> >> I'd like to hear what makes MacOS humanistic and NeXT OS X facist-istic.
> >
> > I didn't say that. I said _compared to the humanistic nature of the Mac OS_
> > _UNIX_ _could be called_ "fascistoid".
>
> And the difference is?
Trouble comparing two sentences?
> > The mac OS has a great name for being the most user friendly OS. The OS
> > puts the user in the center, it talks the 'language' of the user.
>
> I can't agree with this as written. Pop-up menus, spring loaded folders,
> dialogue boxes, one-finger manipulation, folders that turn into windows,
> control strip, apple manu...
>
> I know what you mean - but I think the desktop metaphor was lost...wayback
> when...
No it's not.
> > UNIX puts the computer in the center and forces the user to learn to speak
> > it's 'language'.
> > Control is more likely to be shifted away from the user to some sort of
> > administrator.
>
> Which isn't a bad thing per se.
Of course it's a bad thing. It goes against the very definitiojn of the Mac.
Take a look at the 1984 commercial. A defining moment for what the Mac stands
for, wouldn't you say? The key word for the concept of that commercial is
"emancipation". OS X is moving in a sligtly different direction. Another
reason to not call it a Mac OS. When will the "Think Same" campaign will kick off?
> The main objections seem to be from self-professed power users who seem to
> be more scared of replacing ResEdit with TextEdit despite the obvious
> advantages of using the latter.
It's a matter of principle. Not of ResEdit vs TextEdit.
> >> That is the topic at hand and the debate - is Mac OS X a correct name for
> >> this product?
> >>
> >> I say yes.
> >
> > I say no. If mister Jobs comes to my door trying to sell me this OS under the
> > Mac OS name I'll punch him in the face. If he comes with the same OS under
> > a distinctive name I will at least hear him out and let him try to convince
> > me.
>
> You'd punch him. I'll assume you are just saying that.
No. I mean it. I think it is a bloody shame what he's doing.
Steven
Steven
>
> ----------
> In article <39EBB7F7...@sifre.demon.nl>, Steven
> <ste...@sifre.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> >> NeXTies would disagree with you. A lot of them see Mac OS X as being
> >> excellent underpinnings but with a god-awful interface.
> >
> > That's their problem. They don't get their favorite OS stolen from them. They
> > have nothing to complain about!
>
> They disagree.
>
> >> Are we discussing the interface, the underpinnings or the gestalt?
> >
> > We're all over the place. Could you define these terms for further discussion?
>
> I was sorta hoping you could.
You bring up the word 'gestalt' and I have to define it?
> I have a feeling that what you define as interface includes some of the
> higher level system. I separate the interface and the system because in the
> "system" part I include the need for tools like ResEdit.
No. ResEdit is not part of the interface. It is a tool to edit resources. What's
part of the interface is everything that's there for the user to interact with
the system. Not just how it looks.
> I have trouble differentiating the difference between hacking resources with
> ResEdit and tweaking plists with TextEdit - both activities for the ardent
> MacHack.
> > The Mac OS has been a real workhorse in the publishing industry.
>
> The Mac is losing ground in publishing and is kept on because of affection
> and history.
No, not for affection and history.
> Education is where it's at. I want to stop people saying "Macs
> are shit" - and the prime reason for that reaction is the stability - or
> lack thereof.
Why do you think the Mac was big in education. Right, because it is a human
centered system. My Mac has no lack of stability. I know Windows users with a
lot more stability problems.
> > You think that little puff of dust when you drop something on the desktop is
> > sooo cute too, eh?
>
> I'm a Newton user. It's not the worst result in the world.
It is an insult of our intelligence! Trying to win us over with candy and cartoons!
> >> What *is* the MacOS look and feel? Surely this is a very personal and highly
> >> subjective experience.
> >
> > No. It is defined by Apple. Human Interface Guidelines. I think Steve threw it
> > out the window.
>
> You *think* he did.
Maybe he still has it somewhere hidden in a drawer. But he sure as hell isn't
reading it. The special group within Apple working on this was disbanded by Jobs.
> >> We've already established that what I think makes a
> >> Mac ain't what others think makes a Mac.
> >
> > Hey, I can say my cat is a Mac.
>
> But would it be true.
Right. What a Mac is is defined my the thing itself. Not by opinions.
> >> I don't believe either of us are wrong - rather - we are both right.
> >
> > Of course. But that would make for a rather dull discussion wouldn't it?
>
> *8^)
>
> > There are other things that you can run on a Mac. That don't meke them Mac OS.
> > In my view it is the Mac OS that makes the computer a Mac. Not the other
> > way around.
>
> I see it as being a great partnership.
Yes. But it is the OS that defines the personality and the identity.
Steven
Steven
>
> ----------
> > was not "with the Mac" when I spent vast amounts of money on the platform even
> > when just about everybody was saying it was dead.
>
> by?
My own pocket change.
> > No now you are twisting things together. I think the suggestion that people
> > who decide not to buy into this NeXT thing are really not "with the Mac" even
> > if they supported and trusted Apple in it's darkest hour is a remark made by
> > an asshole.
>
> I don't think you are in a defensible position with that remark. REcourse to
> plain insults is the mark of a vulgarian.
Oh I was not talking to _you_, I was talking to somebody who made the above
statement... How's that?
> > I did not call you an asshole to thank you for giving your point of view on
> > the subject of the discussion.
>
> You can't say that I'm an asshole for giving my opinion and then say that I
> wasn't called an asshole because of my point of view.
If you say to me that I am "not really with the Mac" just to dismiss me and avoid
discussing the topic I raise you are acting like an asshole.
> Well you can...but you'd be contradicting yourself.
>
> > Of course I can! Otherwise there would be no discussion.
You were not giving your opinion on the topic at hand. Instead you made a
personal sneer towards people who don't agree with you.
> So it's just people who earnestly disagree with you who are assholes?
No. Just people who start dismissing _people_ instead of discussing _ideas_.
> I earnestly disagree with you on the point: Mac OS X - a misnomer?
Fine. Have any convincing arguments why that idea is wrong?
> I firmly believe that if Mac OS X is enough to dissuade you from the Mac
> then your heart wasn't in it anyway.
You know very little about my heart. So much is clear. And this discussion is
not about my heart. It's about Apple and Mac OS X.
> > It's not a Mac in my view. In some respects it may be a better OS. In others
> > it is not.
>
> As the presence/absence of Mac-ness is purely subjective, I'm surprised you
> weathered the changes from System 6.
No, it is not subjective. UNIX is not some flavor of Mac or vice versa.
> > And it certainly is _daft_. Photorealistic icons? That's a
> > contradiction in terms!
>
> As can be seen by some of the icons at http://xicons.com/ - there is a lot
> to be said for icons that use a full palette of colours at a decent
> resolution. I'm not a user of MacSter but the icon is great. The IE5 icon is
> lovely and the replacement AppleWorks icon should be licensed.
>
> From dictionary.com:
> i搾on also i搔on (kn). n.
>
> 1. a. An image; a representation.
> b. A simile or symbol
> 4. Computer Science. A picture on a screen that represents a specific
> command.
It is a symbol and an abstraction.
> I don't see anything here that says it should be a crude blocky
> representation with a limited colour palette. Actually it says nothing of
> the sort.
A symbol is an abstraction and a simplification of a concept or
idea. Not a picture of an object.
Steven
Steven
>
> ----------
>
> Of course...you're so right because humans think of folders...within
> folders....within folders. Frankly, the metaphor stinks.
>
> Did you realise that folders = directories. But don't worry because if you
> pop ver to Apple.com - you know what....
>
> In Mac OS X literature - they are called folders.
>
> From http://www.apple.com/macosx/usingosx/desktop.html
>
> Large buttons instantly take you to the most frequently accessed areas on
> your Mac: your home folder (which can be located on your hard disk or on a
> addresses of the regulars with whom you most often exchange messages.
>
> This was a bad straw to grasp at...
So in your opinion we still have a metaphor that stinks?
Why does it stink? Any arguments? Or just opinions?
William F. Adams
(re: my describing the technical foundation/derivation of the OS in Mac OS X)
>So?
If you don't have an intelligent rejoinder which is germane to the topic at
hand, why say anything?
By the classical definition of an operating system, there is very nearly
nothing of the classic old Mac OS in Mac OS X---some filesystem code, maybe a
bit of cut and paste from some of the GUI stuff, no kernel, & c. which is the
norm for a definition of an OS.
>Hey, OpenStep failed on it's own.
Interesting definition of failure. It was described as, ``Probably the most
respected software on the planet.'' in _Byte_. Do you know of any other
companies which turn down a $500,000 sale which are ``failures''?
>Not because somebody was trying to turn it
>into a Mac.
The original goal for NeXTstep was to make something better than a
Macintosh---unfortunately, that's a marketing liability with persons like
yourself it would seem, so it has to be candy-coated and dumbed down to the
lowest common denominator of UI---the print panel is an especially egregious
example of this.
Peter Ceresole
"Rev. Andy" <an...@dance.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Er, guys, we are talking about a tool to get work done. If you're using
>a Mac because 'your heart is in it' then maybe you need to reexamine
>your lifestyle.
Ah no; best is if you use it to do work *and* it's a positive pleasure to
use. And even after all these years of using the Mac, I do find precisely
that.
--
Peter
Matt Johnston
----------
In article <171020001913262820%an...@dance.demon.co.uk>, "Rev. Andy"
<an...@dance.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Er, guys, we are talking about a tool to get work done. If you're using
> a Mac because 'your heart is in it' then maybe you need to reexamine
> your lifestyle.
Point taken.
Out! Out! Foul demons of style and elegance!
For some (me), the Mac is as much love affair as it is crusade.
M.
Matt Johnston
----------
In article <39ECACF9...@sifre.demon.nl>, Steven
<ste...@sifre.demon.nl> wrote:
>> And the difference is?
>
> Trouble comparing two sentences?
Just wondering what the difference between "fascistoid" and "fascististic"
Apart from both being made up words.
>> I can't agree with this as written. Pop-up menus, spring loaded folders,
>> dialogue boxes, one-finger manipulation, folders that turn into windows,
>> control strip, apple manu...
>>
>> I know what you mean - but I think the desktop metaphor was lost...wayback
>> when...
>
> No it's not.
Good argument.
> Of course it's a bad thing. It goes against the very definitiojn of the Mac.
> Take a look at the 1984 commercial. A defining moment for what the Mac stands
> for, wouldn't you say? The key word for the concept of that commercial is
> "emancipation". OS X is moving in a sligtly different direction. Another
> reason to not call it a Mac OS. When will the "Think Same" campaign will kick
> off?
Actually it was just a pun on the whole Big Brother thing with IBM being Big
Brother. Apple didn't really want to emancipate anyone - they wanted to sell
Macs and the Mac shows the genius of the engineers (Raskin et al) as well as
the visionaries (we have to include Mr Jobs).
I think you are mixing up advertising with real life. Apple is not your
friend - never has been.
>> The main objections seem to be from self-professed power users who seem to
>> be more scared of replacing ResEdit with TextEdit despite the obvious
>> advantages of using the latter.
>
> It's a matter of principle. Not of ResEdit vs TextEdit.
It's a matter of feeling powerless, not of principles or tools used.
>> You'd punch him. I'll assume you are just saying that.
>
> No. I mean it. I think it is a bloody shame what he's doing.
And I think it is a bold admirable step to make. I wish they'd ditched
Classic.
M.
Matt Johnston
----------
In article <39ECAD01...@sifre.demon.nl>, Steven <ste...@sifre.demon.nl>
wrote:
>> I was sorta hoping you could.
>
> You bring up the word 'gestalt' and I have to define it?
Right. I thought you meant -or I intended to start to define what is meant
by the "interface", what exactly is the "system" or are we talking about the
amalgam of both - being a third different entity that may be more than the
sum of its parts.
>> I have a feeling that what you define as interface includes some of the
>> higher level system. I separate the interface and the system because in the
>> "system" part I include the need for tools like ResEdit.
>
> No. ResEdit is not part of the interface. It is a tool to edit resources.
> What's part of the interface is everything that's there for the user to
> interact with the system. Not just how it looks.
You agree with me then you berk.
>> The Mac is losing ground in publishing and is kept on because of affection
>> and history.
>
> No, not for affection and history.
The Mac is losing ground in the publishing industry. The Mac is losing
ground in education.
The only place where the Mac is gaining is in the home market.
And in the UK...maybe not even.
> Why do you think the Mac was big in education. Right, because it is a human
> centered system.
Or the education deals Apple pushed though.
> My Mac has no lack of stability. I know Windows users with a
> lot more stability problems.
Your Mac has no lack of stability. That, sadly, is not the same for
everyone. My Mac is pretty stable but it ain't a patch on my Windows 2000
laptop or my old UNIX workstation. I mean - uptimes of over 200 days...
> It is an insult of our intelligence! Trying to win us over with candy and
> cartoons!
Funny. On the Newton - which was possibly the best interface in the WORLD -
it was a feature not a bug. The Mac could learn from the Newton on what
makes a *personal* computer.
> Maybe he still has it somewhere hidden in a drawer. But he sure as hell isn't
> reading it. The special group within Apple working on this was disbanded by
> Jobs.
What UI guidelines are being broken by Aqua? Please enlighten me.
Otherwise I'd have to presume that you are taking your personal objections,
labeling them as fact and scribbling "Apple UI Guidelines" on the front.
> Right. What a Mac is is defined my the thing itself. Not by opinions.
As the definition of a Mac cannot be agreed upon by two ardent MacAdvocates,
how is anyone meant to capture the essence of the Mac in a book, a series of
white papers or any media?
> Yes. But it is the OS that defines the personality and the identity.
See....I experience OS9 as being flat, grey, sometimes impatient and
strangely - at other times - mindnumbingly stubborn. I still use it though.
I experience OSX as being ready to work when I am. Always ready to adapt to
my workflow. If I want to sit and wait while apps launch then I can. If I
want to launch Photoshop and then check my email while it is launching then
I can. It's busting out for me to use it.
We don't agree. I think we're pretty typical.
M.
Matt Johnston
----------
In article <39ECAD07...@sifre.demon.nl>, Steven
<ste...@sifre.demon.nl> wrote:
> Oh I was not talking to _you_, I was talking to somebody who made the above
> statement... How's that?
Very clever.
> If you say to me that I am "not really with the Mac" just to dismiss me and
> avoid discussing the topic I raise you are acting like an asshole.
I didn't say you were. I said that anyone who ditches the Mac because of X
wasn't. Are you ditching the Mac?
> You were not giving your opinion on the topic at hand. Instead you made a
> personal sneer towards people who don't agree with you.
You can try to put emotion on it but it wasn't a personal sneer.
> No. Just people who start dismissing _people_ instead of discussing _ideas_.
I've been debating ideas rather than name calling.
>> I earnestly disagree with you on the point: Mac OS X - a misnomer?
>
> Fine. Have any convincing arguments why that idea is wrong?
I have an issue with the word "convincing". I'm not trying to convince you -
I'm debating my point of view.
Some people agree with you, some people agree with me. Others haven't made
up their mind. It's this third group who might want convincing either way.
> You know very little about my heart. So much is clear. And this discussion is
> not about my heart. It's about Apple and Mac OS X.
No. It's about your statement that Mac OS X is a misnomer. Your opinion.
Your belief.
>> As the presence/absence of Mac-ness is purely subjective, I'm surprised you
>> weathered the changes from System 6.
>
> No, it is not subjective. UNIX is not some flavor of Mac or vice versa.
How soon we forget A/UX.
Do you have any idea what goes on inside the Mac other than pretty icons?
Yes it was patronising but the Mac is just a computer and at some point you
can change the hardware (68K to PowerPC), change the code (68K to PowerPC),
change the interface (every system upgrade).
At some point you say "This is no longer 1s and 0s - this is a Mac". I'm
interested in defining what point that is.
A typical user transfixed by little icons won't know the difference except
that the machine doesn't crash any more.
<re: icons>
> It is a symbol and an abstraction.
Hmm...ignore most of the dictionary definition...
A symbol doesn't have to be an abstraction.
A Mac icon is an abstraction because they had so little to work with. One of
the reasons why Susan Kare was such a boon to the original Mac team.
> A symbol is an abstraction and a simplification of a concept or
> idea. Not a picture of an object.
A symbol can be a picture of an object (ask Frazer) because it is anything
that can represent another thing.
Stating it is an abstraction AND simplification is just you saying it -
doesn't make it true.
M.
Matt Johnston
----------
In article <39ECAD0F...@sifre.demon.nl>, Steven
<ste...@sifre.demon.nl> wrote:
>> This was a bad straw to grasp at...
>
> So in your opinion we still have a metaphor that stinks?
In my opinion, the metaphor is outdated and exists solely because of legacy.
Worse still - with such luminaries* as the people on the Eazel project it
looks like we're going to be bound by 1970s UI design for the next ten
years.
(*I say this because Andy Herzfeld is on the team. Cool...til you realise
that he was a low level code guy and not an interface expert)
> Why does it stink?
Yes. I think the metaphor is seriously damaged. We're still bound by 1970s
thinking in terms of interface design.
Aqua does some neat things with drop shadows - foremost apps having deeper
drop shadows giving a greater sense of depth in the interface - but why not
go the whole hog? Apple did some work on this with the HotSauce project.
I say scrap the desktop metaphor as it stands - and while we're at it - why
only one mouse pointer. Dual mouse support would be an advantage.
And find a better way of ejecting disks....
Because the Desktop metaphor works for the desktop alone. As soon as you
open folders or use any more MacOS clutter (which I do use) then you lose
the simplicity and damage the metaphor.
> Any arguments? Or just opinions?
Arguments are opinions. Otherwise they can't be argued. They'd be facts.
Arguing facts is more pointless than arguing opinions.
M.
Gordon Mulcaster
will...@aol.com (William F. Adams) wrote:
> Sorry, wrong conjunction, should've been ``or'' I see you as a person
> demanding familiarity over superior UI.
You are doig the exact same thing, you want the familiar, for you, NeXT
UI rather than the superior Mac OS UI...
Steven
>
> ----------
> In article <39ECAD07...@sifre.demon.nl>, Steven
> <ste...@sifre.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> > Oh I was not talking to _you_, I was talking to somebody who made the above
> > statement... How's that?
>
> Very clever.
>
> > If you say to me that I am "not really with the Mac" just to dismiss me and
> > avoid discussing the topic I raise you are acting like an asshole.
>
> I didn't say you were. I said that anyone who ditches the Mac because of X
> wasn't. Are you ditching the Mac?
That's not the topic of this discussion. Try something else.
> > You were not giving your opinion on the topic at hand. Instead you made a
> > personal sneer towards people who don't agree with you.
>
> You can try to put emotion on it but it wasn't a personal sneer.
Yes it was. You just didn't realize you were addressing real people.
> > No. Just people who start dismissing _people_ instead of discussing _ideas_.
>
> I've been debating ideas rather than name calling.
No, you have been trying to make this discussion about whether I buy it or
not.
> >> I earnestly disagree with you on the point: Mac OS X - a misnomer?
> >
> > Fine. Have any convincing arguments why that idea is wrong?
>
> I have an issue with the word "convincing". I'm not trying to convince you -
> I'm debating my point of view.
How does your point of view about the topic of this discussion depend on
whether I buy OS X or not?
> Some people agree with you, some people agree with me. Others haven't made
> up their mind. It's this third group who might want convincing either way.
>
> > You know very little about my heart. So much is clear. And this discussion is
> > not about my heart. It's about Apple and Mac OS X.
>
> No. It's about your statement that Mac OS X is a misnomer. Your opinion.
> Your belief.
It's my opinion. Yes. And I asked for other opinions about OS X and the tactics
used to force it on us. Not about my beliefs or my heart or my commitment and
loyalty to the Mac.
> >> As the presence/absence of Mac-ness is purely subjective, I'm surprised you
> >> weathered the changes from System 6.
> >
> > No, it is not subjective. UNIX is not some flavor of Mac or vice versa.
>
> How soon we forget A/UX.
> Do you have any idea what goes on inside the Mac other than pretty icons?
I know enough to know that Mac OS en OS X are completely different beasts.
> Yes it was patronising but the Mac is just a computer and at some point you
> can change the hardware (68K to PowerPC), change the code (68K to PowerPC),
> change the interface (every system upgrade).
Yes. All these things don't fundamentally change the way the OS works. That's
exactly what OS X does do. Users have to completely relearn how to work with
their computer.
> At some point you say "This is no longer 1s and 0s - this is a Mac". I'm
> interested in defining what point that is.
The point when I open the system and see a bunch of folders and files I have
never seen before and of which I have no idea what they are for and how to
use them?
> A typical user transfixed by little icons won't know the difference except
> that the machine doesn't crash any more.
Until he/she has to troubleshoot something or wants to make some changes...
> <re: icons>
> > It is a symbol and an abstraction.
>
> Hmm...ignore most of the dictionary definition...
>
> A symbol doesn't have to be an abstraction.
>
> A Mac icon is an abstraction because they had so little to work with. One of
> the reasons why Susan Kare was such a boon to the original Mac team.
>
> > A symbol is an abstraction and a simplification of a concept or
> > idea. Not a picture of an object.
>
> A symbol can be a picture of an object (ask Frazer) because it is anything
> that can represent another thing.
>
> Stating it is an abstraction AND simplification is just you saying it -
> doesn't make it true.
The world is full of signs and symbols. In places that can easily use photorealistic
imaging. Yet they are, for very good reason, reduced to simple abstracts.
Steven
Steven
>
> ----------
> In article <39ECACF9...@sifre.demon.nl>, Steven
> <ste...@sifre.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> >> And the difference is?
> >
> > Trouble comparing two sentences?
>
> Just wondering what the difference between "fascistoid" and "fascististic"
> Apart from both being made up words.
Mmm, In my native language fascistoid is an existing word. It means something
like 'having fascist traits and/or inclination'.
> >> I can't agree with this as written. Pop-up menus, spring loaded folders,
> >> dialogue boxes, one-finger manipulation, folders that turn into windows,
> >> control strip, apple manu...
> >>
> >> I know what you mean - but I think the desktop metaphor was lost...wayback
> >> when...
> >
> > No it's not.
>
> Good argument.
Well, it is adequate for your non argument about why the desktop is lost.
> > Of course it's a bad thing. It goes against the very definitiojn of the Mac.
> > Take a look at the 1984 commercial. A defining moment for what the Mac stands
> > for, wouldn't you say? The key word for the concept of that commercial is
> > "emancipation". OS X is moving in a sligtly different direction. Another
> > reason to not call it a Mac OS. When will the "Think Same" campaign will kick
> > off?
>
> Actually it was just a pun on the whole Big Brother thing with IBM being Big
> Brother. Apple didn't really want to emancipate anyone - they wanted to sell
> Macs and the Mac shows the genius of the engineers (Raskin et al) as well as
> the visionaries (we have to include Mr Jobs).
Ah, the whole personal computer thing is just a pun, I see...
> I think you are mixing up advertising with real life. Apple is not your
> friend - never has been.
Where did I say Apple was my friend?
> >> The main objections seem to be from self-professed power users who seem to
> >> be more scared of replacing ResEdit with TextEdit despite the obvious
> >> advantages of using the latter.
> >
> > It's a matter of principle. Not of ResEdit vs TextEdit.
>
> It's a matter of feeling powerless, not of principles or tools used.
Then why did you bring up the ResEdit vs TextEdit argument?
Steven
Steven
>
> ----------
> >
>
> Right. I thought you meant -or I intended to start to define what is meant
> by the "interface", what exactly is the "system" or are we talking about the
> amalgam of both - being a third different entity that may be more than the
> sum of its parts.
Where do you want to go with this? Everybody know OS X is a new OS with
a new core a new interface and a new whatever is in between. Everybody
knows it forces users to relearn every fundamental. How do you want to
prove that is is in fact the same as the Mac OS? It is not. Why name it Mac OS?
> >> I have a feeling that what you define as interface includes some of the
> >> higher level system. I separate the interface and the system because in the
> >> "system" part I include the need for tools like ResEdit.
> >
> > No. ResEdit is not part of the interface. It is a tool to edit resources.
> > What's part of the interface is everything that's there for the user to
> > interact with the system. Not just how it looks.
>
> You agree with me then you berk.
>
> >> The Mac is losing ground in publishing and is kept on because of affection
> >> and history.
> >
> > No, not for affection and history.
>
> The Mac is losing ground in the publishing industry. The Mac is losing
> ground in education.
>
> The only place where the Mac is gaining is in the home market.
>
> And in the UK...maybe not even.
And you think UNIX is going to change that?
> > Why do you think the Mac was big in education. Right, because it is a human
> > centered system.
>
> Or the education deals Apple pushed though.
>
> > My Mac has no lack of stability. I know Windows users with a
> > lot more stability problems.
>
> Your Mac has no lack of stability. That, sadly, is not the same for
> everyone. My Mac is pretty stable but it ain't a patch on my Windows 2000
> laptop or my old UNIX workstation. I mean - uptimes of over 200 days...
>
> > It is an insult of our intelligence! Trying to win us over with candy and
> > cartoons!
>
> Funny. On the Newton - which was possibly the best interface in the WORLD -
> it was a feature not a bug. The Mac could learn from the Newton on what
> makes a *personal* computer.
Where are you going with this argument?
> > Maybe he still has it somewhere hidden in a drawer. But he sure as hell isn't
> > reading it. The special group within Apple working on this was disbanded by
> > Jobs.
>
> What UI guidelines are being broken by Aqua? Please enlighten me.
If Mac OS 9 is abiding by those guidlines then obviously Mac OS X is breaking with
them. It is discussed all over the place. You don't need me to sum it all up
for you.
> Otherwise I'd have to presume that you are taking your personal objections,
> labeling them as fact and scribbling "Apple UI Guidelines" on the front.
I'm not talking about specifics. I just look at the actions of Steve Jobs
since he took
over. One of them being sacking the HIG department or whatever it's called.
A quick look at Mac OS X and you see why.
> > Right. What a Mac is is defined my the thing itself. Not by opinions.
>
> As the definition of a Mac cannot be agreed upon by two ardent MacAdvocates,
You want to go point by point element by element? This is going to take a while...
Do you agree the mac does not use filename extensions?
> how is anyone meant to capture the essence of the Mac in a book, a series of
> white papers or any media?
The essence of a Mac is a Mac. And what makes it a Mac is the Mac OS.
Steven
Steven
>
> ----------
> In article <39ECAD0F...@sifre.demon.nl>, Steven
> <ste...@sifre.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> >> This was a bad straw to grasp at...
> >
> > So in your opinion we still have a metaphor that stinks?
>
> In my opinion, the metaphor is outdated and exists solely because of legacy.
> Worse still - with such luminaries* as the people on the Eazel project it
> looks like we're going to be bound by 1970s UI design for the next ten
> years.
>
> (*I say this because Andy Herzfeld is on the team. Cool...til you realise
> that he was a low level code guy and not an interface expert)
>
> > Why does it stink?
>
> Yes. I think the metaphor is seriously damaged. We're still bound by 1970s
> thinking in terms of interface design.
You said that. The question was "Why?".
> Aqua does some neat things with drop shadows - foremost apps having deeper
> drop shadows giving a greater sense of depth in the interface - but why not
> go the whole hog? Apple did some work on this with the HotSauce project.
If you want to drool, go to a movie or something.
> I say scrap the desktop metaphor as it stands - and while we're at it - why
> only one mouse pointer. Dual mouse support would be an advantage.
>
> And find a better way of ejecting disks....
>
> Because the Desktop metaphor works for the desktop alone. As soon as you
> open folders or use any more MacOS clutter (which I do use) then you lose
> the simplicity and damage the metaphor.
How? If I open twenty books on my desk my desk looks cluttered. I think the
metaphor holds.
> > Any arguments? Or just opinions?
>
> Arguments are opinions. Otherwise they can't be argued. They'd be facts.
> Arguing facts is more pointless than arguing opinions.
So, any _arguments_ why the desktop metaphor is outdated?
Or why completely different things must be named the same?
Steven
Steven
>
> Steven said:
> (re: my describing the technical foundation/derivation of the OS in Mac OS X)
> >So?
>
> If you don't have an intelligent rejoinder which is germane to the topic at
> hand, why say anything?
Just asking what you want to say with that foundation/derivation equation.
> By the classical definition of an operating system, there is very nearly
> nothing of the classic old Mac OS in Mac OS X---some filesystem code, maybe a
> bit of cut and paste from some of the GUI stuff, no kernel, & c. which is the
> norm for a definition of an OS.
So why call it Mac OS?
> >Hey, OpenStep failed on it's own.
>
> Interesting definition of failure. It was described as, ``Probably the most
> respected software on the planet.'' in _Byte_. Do you know of any other
> companies which turn down a $500,000 sale which are ``failures''?
No, it was real threat to Windows... If it was such a huge success why is it
discontinued?
> >Not because somebody was trying to turn it
> >into a Mac.
>
> The original goal for NeXTstep was to make something better than a
> Macintosh---unfortunately, that's a marketing liability
The NeXT OS was such a success, wasn't it? How can it be a liability?
> with persons like
> yourself it would seem, so it has to be candy-coated and dumbed down to the
> lowest common denominator of UI---the print panel is an especially egregious
> example of this.
Are you saying I demand candy coating? Where did you read that?
Steven
William F. Adams
>So, any _arguments_ why the desktop metaphor is outdated?
The desktop is broken 'cause it's at the bottom of the window stack, and so is
of minimal use for drag and drop and awkward to get to the stuff on it to boot.
It's awkward 'cause there's no obvious, easy, sensible way to order the
arrangement of stuff in it (not even as much as the Dock's).
It's awkward 'cause it imposes a finite space for no good reason at all. No
scrolling, no tabs, nothing but a fixed space which alters when the resolution
of the screen changes---bloody nuisance that.
>Or why completely different things must be named the same?
As I already pointed out, that grants those familiar with the classic Mac OS
some points of familiarity/reference/leverage.
Also in the case of ``Mac OS'' is good from a marketing standpoint.
To my mind, the Mac hasn't been what it orignally set out to be (insanely
great) since 1985 or so. Steve Jobs agrees too, having been quoted as saying,
``In terms of its uiser interface, the Mac has been dead in the water since
1985'''
Mac OS X returns it to that goal, insofar as Apple believes Mac user
expectations will allow.
William F. Adams
>Just asking what you want to say with that foundation/derivation equation.
fair enough.
>So why call it Mac OS?
Marketing. To indicate who the target audience is.
(then, re: Openstep)
>No, it was real threat to Windows...
's why Bill Gates would've ``rather p*** on it than develop for it''
>If it was such a huge success why is it
>discontinued?
'cause Apple didn't want to sell into/be identified with that market. It also
raised huge liabilities in terms of licensing (Display PostScript, Pantone, BSD
Unix 4.3), and of cross-platform compatibility which was perceived as a threat
to hardware sales. It was called, ``OPENSTEP'' after all.
I then said:
>> with persons like
>> yourself it would seem, so it has to be candy-coated and dumbed down to the
>> lowest common denominator of UI---the print panel is an especially
>egregious
>> example of this.
and Steven asked:
>Are you saying I demand candy coating? Where did you read that?
Sorry, wrong conjunction, should've been ``or'' I see you as a person demanding
familiarity over superior UI.
William
Daniele Procida
> Er, guys, we are talking about a tool to get work done. If you're using
> a Mac because 'your heart is in it' then maybe you need to reexamine
> your lifestyle.
If you're doing work with good tools it's much easier for your heart to
be in it.
Daniele
--
Apple Juice Macintosh service, support & sales Cardiff 029 2041 0050
drink.d...@apple-juice.co.uk www.apple-juice.co.uk
Alex Johnson
only minor flaming on uk.comp.sys.mac. Oh that's right, it's copied to
comp.sys.mac.system. Oh well, hope springs eternal.
Matt, I am with you 90%, and you make your points so well I felt almost
embarrassed at my Luddite feelings towards Mac OS X. Many of the things
people are missing are post System 7.5 at best, and we who dealt with the
fact there was at one point more than one version of System 7.5.2 are I am
sure considerably less nostalgic. The control strip in particular is very
klunky because unless you are working on the Cinema Display (I use a
PowerBook) it covers status bars in just about every application I use. Sure
I can manually resize the window, but that is not neat, elegant, or "Mac".
So you have to reveal it, and once you have clicked that much any advantage
over the Apple Menu is lost. That some functionality is better accessed
through the Control Strip (Location Manager, external monitor settings,
battery level) is a failure of design, not a success. It doesn't even look
Mac-like except inasmuch as it has been around for a while. The Apple Menu
similarly has few advantages over the Dock except hierarchical menus, which
again was not there on my first Mac (a Duo 230).
I think the Dock is interesting, although I am not yet sold on the
application menu being of variable size until you make it an icon (so
shunting the other menus, as people have discussed), or more annoyingly,
that Quit has jumped from the File menu, which seems to be completely
arbitrary. I use keyboard shortcuts to delete files, but I can see that the
moveable trash would be annoying. It would be nice to have titled Finder
windows. But let's take a step back here. Other than some fairly specific
issues, this is about the extent of the complaints. To reiterate, I agree
with some of them, but cannot help feel that this is also like people who
see Michelangelo's David and point out the hands are too big, or (my
personal hate) people who go to Venice and complain that the water does not
smell like a summer meadow. True, but let's look at the big picture.
Personally, I think one of the biggest "problems" is Classic, as it shows up
the interface inconsistencies so starkly. It is also the case that until
more applications are Carbonised, using Mac OS X is an exercise in masochism
as it doesn't actually do anything very useful! It is then inevitable that
people will obsess on the Desktop interface, because other than playing
Chess what else is really new?
(Aside: how do you castle in chess? That's switching the king and rook, if
there is a different American term for it. It's really annoying,
particularly as the Mac does it all the time. I have tried every mouse and
key combination I can think of. Email to keep this on topic would be much
appreciated!)
That is not to say I think Mac OS X is a triumph of design. Pop-up windows
are great, and will not be replaced by the Applications button in the Finder
because I for one have a lot more applications than are sensibly displayed
in one window, and I do use drag and drop. Where I most seriously disagree
with Matt is in thinking that the desktop metaphor is dated, and I will and
do miss having the anchor of the hard disk on my desktop. As I sit at my
desk typing this post, with a filing cabinet to one side, and a pile of
papers to be worked through on the other, I think that metaphor is still
incredibly appropriate. I do use physical folders as well as notional ones,
and yes, I often have more than one open at a time. Sometimes I decide I
have misfiled something and I move it, and when creating a new document I do
open the relevant folder if I need to refer to snail mail to see the
context. When I do not need to refer to physical items, I still find that
the process works as well on my Mac. I love the new Browser window, but to
me that should be an addition, not a replacement.
I understand the points which have been raised about the inherent fiction of
having the hard disk on the desktop, but when the desktop folder is hidden
so that most users are blissfully unaware of the true relationship, I think
it works. More generally than that, what I feel with Mac OS X is a real
dissociation from the computer. This goes for the Dock too - where do its
items actually "live"? Having lost some of the original items like the URL
to the feedback page to see the puff of smoke, I then found I could not get
them back even searching the entire drive. I am beating myself up about this
because one of the key attractions of the Mac over other systems is
precisely that shielding. On the other hand, the proliferation of libraries
notwithstanding, I like being able to open up the System Folder and have
some idea what virtually all the constituents do. The reply is of course
that this tinkering both by users and applications is a major cause of the
instabilities which have plagued the Mac, and I recognise the validity of
that. However, one of the things I hate about my work Windows NT box is that
if I open up the C:\ drive, there are hundreds of little files, the purpose
of which is a complete mystery to me. I still have very little idea what
.INI and .DLL files are other than I should not touch them, and no, I don't
care! If this key difference is taken away with Mac OS X, what is the real
difference between running, say, Word 2001 (as if and when Carbonised) and
Word 2000 on the PC? Mac OS X even has dot-three file names!
What I would have liked to see is perhaps slightly more retention of the
original metaphors the Mac was based upon, including that sense of
connection with the machine itself. I do not see that as being inconsistent
either with modernisation of the OS, or of providing a slightly more
evolutionary path from Mac OS 9.
Alex
P.S. Yes I have left the following unclipped as I want to keep my post in
context. If you're worried about bandwidth get a better modem or ISP.
--
> From: "Matt Johnston" <mjoh...@nortelnetworks.com>
> Organization: NITEC - Nortel
> Newsgroups: uk.comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.mac.system
> Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 22:48:22 +0100
> Subject: Re: Mac OS X: a misnomer
>
>
>
> ----------
> In article <39ECAD0F...@sifre.demon.nl>, Steven
> <ste...@sifre.demon.nl> wrote:
>
>
>>> This was a bad straw to grasp at...
>>
>> So in your opinion we still have a metaphor that stinks?
>
> In my opinion, the metaphor is outdated and exists solely because of legacy.
> Worse still - with such luminaries* as the people on the Eazel project it
> looks like we're going to be bound by 1970s UI design for the next ten
> years.
>
> (*I say this because Andy Herzfeld is on the team. Cool...til you realise
> that he was a low level code guy and not an interface expert)
>
>> Why does it stink?
>
> Yes. I think the metaphor is seriously damaged. We're still bound by 1970s
> thinking in terms of interface design.
>
> Aqua does some neat things with drop shadows - foremost apps having deeper
> drop shadows giving a greater sense of depth in the interface - but why not
> go the whole hog? Apple did some work on this with the HotSauce project.
>
> I say scrap the desktop metaphor as it stands - and while we're at it - why
> only one mouse pointer. Dual mouse support would be an advantage.
>
> And find a better way of ejecting disks....
>
> Because the Desktop metaphor works for the desktop alone. As soon as you
> open folders or use any more MacOS clutter (which I do use) then you lose
> the simplicity and damage the metaphor.
>
>> Any arguments? Or just opinions?
>
> Arguments are opinions. Otherwise they can't be argued. They'd be facts.
> Arguing facts is more pointless than arguing opinions.
>
>
> M.
Matt Johnston
----------
In article <39ECE4F8...@sifre.demon.nl>, Steven <ste...@sifre.demon.nl>
wrote:
>> You can try to put emotion on it but it wasn't a personal sneer.
>
> Yes it was. You just didn't realize you were addressing real people.
So you are ditching the Mac because of Mac OS X.
May happy returns.
> No, you have been trying to make this discussion about whether I buy it or
> not.
You've said that Mac OS X is a misnomer in that it ain't a Mac any more.
There are bound to be differences with any transition - I'm not trying to
make your purchases the sole subject of the discussion. But it is
interesting that you refuse to answer it.
Either you will buy it but won't admit it because you fear it will undermine
your objections to it..or you won't because you plan to ditch the Mac
anyway.
I don't see the problem.
>> I have an issue with the word "convincing". I'm not trying to convince you -
>> I'm debating my point of view.
>
> How does your point of view about the topic of this discussion depend on
> whether I buy OS X or not?
It doesn't. I never said it does. I'd like to know whether or not you, who
so vehemently despise OSX to the point that you have threatened another
adult with violence, are just stirring or will you back up your objections
with your green.
> It's my opinion. Yes. And I asked for other opinions about OS X and the
> tactics used to force it on us. Not about my beliefs or my heart or my
> commitment and loyalty to the Mac.
No-one is forcing anything. You don't have to buy the upgrade. Your computer
and OS combination will continue to work for its normal lifetime. Barring
hardware failures it'll probably last longer than any of us.
I believe that OS X will test the commitment and loyalty to the platform of
everyone. Some will take to it quickly because they see either a Mac that
doesn't crash or an opportunity to learn more about a different system. Some
won't. For various reasons.
>> How soon we forget A/UX.
>> Do you have any idea what goes on inside the Mac other than pretty icons?
>
> I know enough to know that Mac OS en OS X are completely different beasts.
System 7 and Mac OS 8.6 were completely different beasts. New microkernel
and all that - implementation of guard pages.
Are you sure you know what you are objecting to or is it just the thought of
it. I'm not being funny - it just seems that the objections are wooly and
vague - more to do with rumour and hearsay than fact.
> Yes. All these things don't fundamentally change the way the OS works. That's
> exactly what OS X does do. Users have to completely relearn how to work with
> their computer.
Whether you see a feature addition as a relearning or as adaptation - this
is a consequence of all OS upgrades.
"completely" relearn is a little strong however. I'll bet that every Mac
user out there will be able to sit down and use Mac OS X if presented with a
machine with OSX loaded. It's not as if it suddenly changes everything. File
Edit...all still there. Still icon based. Still a wastebasket and that's
still how we eject disks.
> The point when I open the system and see a bunch of folders and files I have
> never seen before and of which I have no idea what they are for and how to
> use them?
What...you aren't serious.
> Until he/she has to troubleshoot something or wants to make some changes...
1. Users who are transfixed by icons don't often troubleshoot.
2. 90% of problems I've discovered with the Beta were fixed "The Mac Way".
3. The remaining 10% were caused by me poking around with NetInfo, Terminal,
etc.
> The world is full of signs and symbols. In places that can easily use
> photorealistic imaging. Yet they are, for very good reason, reduced to simple
> abstracts.
Signs in the real world are simple so they can be seen at 30 mph or higher.
That's why they are big and use simple colours. We already use thousands of
colours for icons....which breaks your simile.
I don't think we should stick to the rules for real world signs when we can
do much better.
Matt Johnston
----------
In article <39ECE59F...@sifre.demon.nl>, Steven
<ste...@sifre.demon.nl> wrote:
> Well, it is adequate for your non argument about why the desktop is lost.
Calling what I say a "non-argument" because you didn't have a witty, smart
or accurate retort is no defense.
>> Actually it was just a pun on the whole Big Brother thing with IBM being Big
>> Brother. Apple didn't really want to emancipate anyone - they wanted to sell
>> Macs and the Mac shows the genius of the engineers (Raskin et al) as well as
>> the visionaries (we have to include Mr Jobs).
>
> Ah, the whole personal computer thing is just a pun, I see...
The first personal computer wasn't the Mac. It was the Apple II (or that was
the first real modern one) and that was YEARS before the 1984 advert.
>> > It's a matter of principle. Not of ResEdit vs TextEdit.
>>
>> It's a matter of feeling powerless, not of principles or tools used.
>
> Then why did you bring up the ResEdit vs TextEdit argument?
Because you said that the current MacOS was better because it wasn't about
modifying text files. I responded by pointing out that much the same effect
is gained by playing with ResEdit.
This is really about feeling powerless with a new OS. Not about the actual
virtue of the OS itself.
Have you used Mac OS X?
Matt Johnston
----------
In article <39ECE8A2...@sifre.demon.nl>, Steven
<ste...@sifre.demon.nl> wrote:
>> Yes. I think the metaphor is seriously damaged. We're still bound by 1970s
>> thinking in terms of interface design.
>
> You said that. The question was "Why?".
The question was:
>> > So in your opinion we still have a metaphor that stinks?
>> > Why does it stink?
I then elaborate.
>> Aqua does some neat things with drop shadows - foremost apps having deeper
>> drop shadows giving a greater sense of depth in the interface - but why not
>> go the whole hog? Apple did some work on this with the HotSauce project.
>
> If you want to drool, go to a movie or something.
What is that supposed to mean?
Seems like the subtle effects in the existing Mac OS are probably lost on
you.
>> Because the Desktop metaphor works for the desktop alone. As soon as you
>> open folders or use any more MacOS clutter (which I do use) then you lose
>> the simplicity and damage the metaphor.
>
> How? If I open twenty books on my desk my desk looks cluttered. I think the
> metaphor holds.
Books are not folders. The metaphor is a kludge.
>> > Any arguments? Or just opinions?
>>
>> Arguments are opinions. Otherwise they can't be argued. They'd be facts.
>> Arguing facts is more pointless than arguing opinions.
>
> So, any _arguments_ why the desktop metaphor is outdated?
> Or why completely different things must be named the same?
Those were arguments. The desktop metaphor fails with the folders because we
don't have filing cabinets on the Mac desktop, pop-up folders on the REAL
desktop..and I personally don't keep my Wastebasket on my desk.
I'd like to see the element by element discussion you promised in another
message.
M.
Matt Johnston
----------
In article <39ECE5CB...@sifre.demon.nl>, Steven
<ste...@sifre.demon.nl> wrote:
> Where do you want to go with this? Everybody know OS X is a new OS with
> a new core a new interface and a new whatever is in between.
The interface has been modified - it is hardly new...
> Everybody knows it forces users to relearn every fundamental.
Every fundamental. That's not a fact. It's even less than hearsay.
> How do you want to prove that is is in fact the same as the Mac OS? It is not.
> Why name it Mac OS?
I didn't say it was the same. I imply that it is at least as good as the
current MacOS and in some areas many times better.
> And you think UNIX is going to change that?
I didn't say it would. I think that the change in stability will change
perceptions of the OS. I know graphics professionals who truly want OS X
solely for the interface. I'm in touch with people in IT and Design who want
an OSX machine because it is a Mac that is also UNIX. Also I hear UNIX
people wanting to buy Macs now because OS X makes an excellent UNIX client.
>> Funny. On the Newton - which was possibly the best interface in the WORLD -
>> it was a feature not a bug. The Mac could learn from the Newton on what
>> makes a *personal* computer.
>
> Where are you going with this argument?
It is amusing that something that you deride as candy coating was a neat
feature on a better OS interface.
>> What UI guidelines are being broken by Aqua? Please enlighten me.
>
> If Mac OS 9 is abiding by those guidlines then obviously Mac OS X is breaking
> with them. It is discussed all over the place. You don't need me to sum it all
> up for you.
You have no idea do you? You don't even know what the guidelines are.
You just assume because Mac OS X is different then it must be bad.
>> Otherwise I'd have to presume that you are taking your personal objections,
>> labeling them as fact and scribbling "Apple UI Guidelines" on the front.
>
> I'm not talking about specifics. I just look at the actions of Steve Jobs
> since he took over. One of them being sacking the HIG department or whatever
> it's called. A quick look at Mac OS X and you see why.
That was hearsay. An urban myth started by someone who had a personal
objection and started a thread on the internet.
> You want to go point by point element by element? This is going to take a
> while...
If need be.
> Do you agree the mac does not use filename extensions?
No. Judging by what happens when I take a "generic" file and add the ".mpg"
extension then it must use them. Double-clicking on the generic file brings
up a dialogue that asks me which application I want to open it with.
>> how is anyone meant to capture the essence of the Mac in a book, a series of
>> white papers or any media?
>
> The essence of a Mac is a Mac. And what makes it a Mac is the Mac OS.
Try defining it without referring to it. You know...
Steven
>
> Steven asked:
> >So, any _arguments_ why the desktop metaphor is outdated?
>
> The desktop is broken 'cause it's at the bottom of the window stack, and so is
> of minimal use for drag and drop and awkward to get to the stuff on it to boot.
I've discussed this last year with you. Same arguments. No change I'm afraid.
> It's awkward 'cause there's no obvious, easy, sensible way to order the
> arrangement of stuff in it (not even as much as the Dock's).
What exactly do you mean by "order the arrangement of stuff in it"?
> It's awkward 'cause it imposes a finite space for no good reason at all. No
> scrolling, no tabs, nothing but a fixed space which alters when the resolution
> of the screen changes---bloody nuisance that.
You want scrollbars on the desktop!?
> >Or why completely different things must be named the same?
>
> As I already pointed out, that grants those familiar with the classic Mac OS
> some points of familiarity/reference/leverage.
Only the name is familiar. To think that will help users feel familiar with
UNIX is an illusion. Even eye candy won't do that.
> Also in the case of ``Mac OS'' is good from a marketing standpoint.
>
> To my mind, the Mac hasn't been what it orignally set out to be (insanely
> great) since 1985 or so. Steve Jobs agrees too, having been quoted as saying,
> ``In terms of its uiser interface, the Mac has been dead in the water since
> 1985'''
Oh, please. That's just because he was kicked out at that point.
> Mac OS X returns it to that goal, insofar as Apple believes Mac user
> expectations will allow.
Not in my view.
Steven