 |
 |
Is this the end of the ease of use ?
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status:
Offline
|
|
Just a feeling...
I use OSX 10.2 a lot, and i think it a bit more difficult to learn, and to understand... The UNIX system underlying, appears to be an archeologic informatic thing compared to the OS 9 system files simplicity... Here we have a bunch of things to not do, to not rename, to not move... It's a bit tricky, i doesn't know anymore when i install a program , where the installer put the files, and i don't know if i trash some folders or some files if i don't make a mistake... It's for that i assume there is know Uninstalling apps, to remove all the invisible crap disseminated everywhere on the disk when i install an app... I don't think it's a revolution for me... it's looking more and more like windows on this point...
And for the stability thing... It's stable but at what cost? a bunch of apps doesen't works anymore with new and frequent updates apple release... (Maya on the 10.2.3), i have the feeling when i use OSX that i am using a gigantic Beta program(The OS and the apps too), all appears to be unstable, not in term of crash (cos X 2 is crash free, and that's great), but in term of "unknowing what is going to happen next", fore example : should i put the next update ? Is all the apps will be working? And in a case of reinstallation, what a hell, there is nothing simple in reinstalling OSX, due to the obvious file organization that i was talking about at start...
So is there a two step back in term of simplicity in this OS ? I think so.
BTW, i'm sure that for informaticians it's a great tool and it's very fun(Terminal anyone ?), but for the others...
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by spoonchris:
I use OSX 10.2 a lot, and i think it a bit more difficult to learn, and to understand... The UNIX system underlying, appears to be an archeologic informatic thing compared to the OS 9 system files simplicity... Here we have a bunch of things to not do, to not rename, to not move... It's a bit tricky, i doesn't know anymore when i install a program , where the installer put the files, and i don't know if i trash some folders or some files if i don't make a mistake... It's for that i assume there is know Uninstalling apps, to remove all the invisible crap disseminated everywhere on the disk when i install an app... I don't think it's a revolution for me... it's looking more and more like windows on this point...
I don't think that system files in Mac OS 9 are simpler - you just have a better knowledge at the time being.
Generally you can't move, rename or delete files that are not supposed to be moved, renamed or deleted in Mac OS X - unlike Mac OS 9.
As for installing apps, most apps have all their files in one bundle - the app icon.
To trash an application in Mac OS X just drag it to the trash, and it resembles the simplicity of old Mac apps that were contained in one file.
Mac OS X apps do contain more than one file, but they are (as I said) contained in one bundle/icon.
I don't know why you think: 'all the invisible crap disseminated everywhere on the disk when i install an app'
Have an example?
And in a case of reinstallation, what a hell, there is nothing simple in reinstalling OSX, due to the obvious file organization that i was talking about at start...
Actually there is. Do an Archive and Install, and your users and their settings will be preserved.
|
|
JLL
- My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: europe
Status:
Offline
|
|
Doesn't mean there isn't room for improvment of ease of use in Mac OS X any more.
|
|
Nasrudin sat on a river bank when someone shouted to him from the opposite side: "Hey! how do I get across?" "You are across!" Nasrudin shouted back.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Developer:
Doesn't mean there isn't room for improvment of ease of use in Mac OS X any more.
Certainly not, and I don't think that anyone thinks that there won't be improvements.
|
|
JLL
- My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by spoonchris:
Just a feeling...
I use OSX 10.2 a lot, and i think it a bit more difficult to learn, and to understand... The UNIX system underlying, appears to be an archeologic informatic thing compared to the OS 9 system files simplicity... Here we have a bunch of things to not do, to not rename, to not move... It's a bit tricky, i doesn't know anymore when i install a program , where the installer put the files, and i don't know if i trash some folders or some files if i don't make a mistake...
How did you know all of this before? Was it magically implanted into your head?
It isn't that X is more difficult to learn; it's just that you have to learn it. The basic system structure, at least as far as users are concerned, is about the same. Comparing OS 9 in Multiple Users mode to OS X, I'd say X is actually a little more organized.
It's for that i assume there is know Uninstalling apps, to remove all the invisible crap disseminated everywhere on the disk when i install an app... I don't think it's a revolution for me... it's looking more and more like windows on this point...
No app ought to be spewing invisible crap around your disk. An app's files should generally all be located in one of three places: its bundle, ~/Library, or, more rarely, /Library. Apps that choose to place their files in nonstandard places are not a consequence of the OS.
And for the stability thing... It's stable but at what cost? a bunch of apps doesen't works anymore with new and frequent updates apple release... (Maya on the 10.2.3)
Now, this is a valid complaint. Apple needs to get their act together on compatibility. I understand that occasionally things will break, but something seems to die every time they release a new version. That's a bad situation.
|
|
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
I use OSX 10.2 a lot, and i think it a bit more difficult to learn, and to understand... The UNIX system underlying, appears to be an archeologic informatic thing compared to the OS 9 system files simplicity... Here we have a bunch of things to not do, to not rename, to not move... It's a bit tricky, i doesn't know anymore when i install a program , where the installer put the files, and i don't know if i trash some folders or some files if i don't make a mistake... It's for that i assume there is know Uninstalling apps, to remove all the invisible crap disseminated everywhere on the disk when i install an app... I don't think it's a revolution for me... it's looking more and more like windows on this point...
I think this really comes down to a decision about whether you want a multi or single user operating system. With a multi-user system you have to consider things like permissions and what directories people have access to. However, really the only directory off limits is /System. /Library contains settings and information which is available to all users, but it can be modified. Just think of /System and /Library as your System Folder.. it just doesn't make sense to save things in here and muck around with deleting stuff in here.
As far as invisible files, OS 9 also created several invisible files as do many operating systems.
And for the stability thing... It's stable but at what cost? a bunch of apps doesen't works anymore with new and frequent updates apple release... (Maya on the 10.2.3), i have the feeling when i use OSX that i am using a gigantic Beta program(The OS and the apps too), all appears to be unstable, not in term of crash (cos X 2 is crash free, and that's great), but in term of "unknowing what is going to happen next", fore example : should i put the next update ? Is all the apps will be working? And in a case of reinstallation, what a hell, there is nothing simple in reinstalling OSX, due to the obvious file organization that i was talking about at start...
It's pretty rare that programs break with minor updates, and when they do it is no more frequent than any other OS (including OS 9). Besides, there is a reason why you can't get Maya for OS 9.. =)
I'm not sure what your other problems are, I don't understand what you are saying.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
The situation with files isn't as bad as some say, nor was it as rosy with OS9 as some say.
There are some files which should not be moved. These should, in general, be hidden from the user. I get yelled at every time I say this, but I still thing /System should be made invisible (not inaccessible, just invisible). Few people ever need to interact with it directly anyway; the most common changes are KEXT's and themes, and programs are available to deal with that. And there's no need to completely seal off access; "Go To Folder..." could work just as it always has (you can get into invisible folders using it). But that's where most of the problems with non-movable files lie. There's also the issue of non-movable files in /Library, but this is no different from the Extensions folder in OS9, except that it's a little more organized.
The Installer issue is a very important one, though, and really does need to be fixed. Apple's own Installer, unfortunately, is utter junk; the underlying technology is sound (as CharlesS' excellent Pacifist software has shown), but Apple's implementation of it is inexcusably poor. This wouldn't be quite as much of a problem, were it not for the fact that Software Update depends heavily on that implementation, and thus shows the same problems. MindVision's Installer VISE does it better, as do many of the smaller third-party installers which have popped up to satisfy the deficiencies in Apple's own work. Unsanity's own installation technology also looks intriguing; I hope they consider releasing an installer-making program which uses it.
|
|
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: NYC
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Millennium:
The situation with files isn't as bad as some say, nor was it as rosy with OS9 as some say.
That is so nicely put I just want to throw up my hands and cheer.
My understanding is OS X is two steps forward in ease-in-use and one step backward (with various rough spots of Apple not yet quite taming UNIX). Not the other way around, as spoonchris suggested. YMMV, of course... but keep in mind, sc, that it's seductively easy to mix up familiarity with intuitiveness. The UNIX-based OS X set-up actually keeps a fairly clean line between the user and the system, and that can make things much easier, if you think about it.
(And this is coming from a graphic designer, by the way, and not a programmer, or information architect.  )
There are some files which should not be moved. These should, in general, be hidden from the user. I get yelled at every time I say this, but I still thing /System should be made invisible (not inaccessible, just invisible).
I've wondered why they made /System visible myself. I suppose it's the tradition of making "System Folder" visible in OS 9, but unlike OS 9, I can't think of a reason why the casual user would ever need to look inside -- let alone mess around with -- /System.
(Last edited by lookmark; Dec 23, 2002 at 09:27 AM.
)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Elkton, MD
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by spoonchris:
Just a feeling...
I use OSX 10.2 a lot, and i think it a bit more difficult to learn, and to understand... The UNIX system underlying, appears to be an archeologic informatic thing compared to the OS 9 system files simplicity... Here we have a bunch of things to not do, to not rename, to not move... It's a bit tricky, i doesn't know anymore when i install a program , where the installer put the files, and i don't know if i trash some folders or some files if i don't make a mistake... It's for that i assume there is know Uninstalling apps, to remove all the invisible crap disseminated everywhere on the disk when i install an app... I don't think it's a revolution for me... it's looking more and more like windows on this point...
But how often do you *really* need to manually poke around the file system? 99% of the time I'm perfectly able to do what I want from the GUI. I think OS X does a *wonderful* job of hiding the underlying Unix system. I can give my iBook to my mother-in-law and she just knows how to use it (it has a mouse...it has pretty pictures) -- she'd never hit the CLI and would probably never need to do so.
As to your other comment (updates breaking apps) that is just a fact of life in the computer world. I tend to follow the "if it ain't broke then don't fix it" philosophy but in the case of OS X updates they have all applied with little or no problem. Maybe I'm just lucky in that regard.
Damo
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by lookmark:
I've wondered why they made /System visible myself. I suppose it's the tradition of making "System Folder" visible in OS 9, but unlike OS 9, I can't think of a reason why the casual user would ever need to look inside -- let alone mess around with -- /System.
That's just it, though; /System is not analogous to OS9's System Folder. If anything, it's analogous to the System file. If anything corresponds to OS9's System Folder, it's /Library (you manipulate most extensions and such using this folder, and indeed you do it in much the same way).
It would be a Good Thing if a /Library/Extensions folder were to be implemented in the future, to hold third-party KEXT's and such, removing the need for /System to be modified in that fashion. I very much doubt we'll ever see something like that for themes (which is why /System should still be accesible), but if that is the point where a user might need to modify /System, then it can be made invisible. That should help immensely with simplicity, since among other things, it cuts out a third of the whole Library folder mess (leaving one for all users and one for each user; far easier to grasp).
|
|
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by spoonchris:
Just a feeling...
I use OSX 10.2 a lot, and i think it a bit more difficult to learn, and to understand... The UNIX system underlying, appears to be an archeologic informatic thing compared to the OS 9 system files simplicity... Here we have a bunch of things to not do, to not rename, to not move...
So, did you run around moving your Extensions folder out of your System Folder? Did you often rename your Finder or System file?
It's a bit tricky, i doesn't know anymore when i install a program , where the installer put the files, and i don't know if i trash some folders or some files if i don't make a mistake... It's for that i assume there is know Uninstalling apps, to remove all the invisible crap disseminated everywhere on the disk when i install an app...
For 99% of apps, the install is cleaner than it was in OS 9. There's no shared libraries to install, no support files, etc. It's all self-contained in the application's bundle. At most, most applications install two files - the application and its preferences. Just like OS 9, the preferences are stored in the preference folder - it's just located in a different place.
I don't think it's a revolution for me... it's looking more and more like windows on this point...
It looks to me like you just want it to be OS 9.
And for the stability thing... It's stable but at what cost? a bunch of apps doesen't works anymore with new and frequent updates apple release... (Maya on the 10.2.3),
Ah, great example. You realize of course that Maya never existed on OS 9 and never would have?
i have the feeling when i use OSX that i am using a gigantic Beta program(The OS and the apps too), all appears to be unstable, not in term of crash (cos X 2 is crash free, and that's great), but in term of "unknowing what is going to happen next", fore example : should i put the next update ?
You seem to have forgotten all the "9.2.1 UPDATE RUINED MY SYSTEM" messages. (Yes, they did happen, with every system released)
And in a case of reinstallation, what a hell, there is nothing simple in reinstalling OSX, due to the obvious file organization that i was talking about at start...
Hmm...I'd like to hear about your reinstall procedure. Last I checked, you insert the CD and run the installer.
So is there a two step back in term of simplicity in this OS ? I think so.
I think you just want OS 9 back. If so, feel free to leave your machine there.
BTW, i'm sure that for informaticians it's a great tool and it's very fun(Terminal anyone ?), but for the others...
That's odd. I just run my apps and am productive. What are you spending your time doing?
Wade
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top
