[Targon]

Why is it that Mac OS X UI elements are so damned BIG? This OS is a hack job as far as im concerned.

Buttons are too big, check box's are too big, pop up menu bars are too big and the text throughout the system is WAY TOO BIG !!!

Im on a Pismo, 1024x768 Max resolution. This feels and looks like 800x600 if i were in Mac OS 9x. Im sure the UI would be different on a large LCD with resolutions up to 1280x1024

The reason i say its a 'Hack Job' is because some elements in the UI are larger than others. Take for example the 'Audio Midi Setup' utility. Check out the size of the tabs, the text in them and the pop up menu widget. Click on the pop up menu widget in the Midi devices, the font is the size of the system font (MASSIVE) size 13-14?

Now launch 'Disk Copy', open the preferences and click the 'Creating' Tab. Now look how much smaller (elegant) the widgets are. The pop up menu buttons and the text in the menus, the tabs, the check box's etc are much smaller. The text throughout is also much smaller (size 10-11?). It looks lovely on my display.

Why is there this inconsistency? Why is there not a GLOBAL UI re-scaling preference? We have the ability to resize icons in the Finder in realtime from 16x16 - 128x128. Why is there not a similar resize for the ENTIRE UI in OS X? Im sure Quartz is capable of being resized-yet no system pref an no haxie. I mean, i want the ENTIRE UI on my machine to have smaller widgets and text like in the Disk Copy utility . The sytem font size 11, font size in contextual menu's size 11 etc size 10 in applications.

This must be possible right? Linux is so much nicer in the way we can resize practically anything we want. Apple boasts that OS X is the most advanced OS, but its agonizingly obvious how wonderful they are at being BS artists. This OS just seems to be an OS for dummies..that is in a fixed 'Ultra Simple Mode'.

Will this every change?
I am totally and frustrated, i feel like im

[gorickey]

No really, how do you feel about it?

[msuper69]

Everyone's entitled to their opinion.

[Drizzt]

Originally posted by Targon:
Why is it that Mac OS X UI elements are so damned BIG? This OS is a hack job as far as im concerned.

Buttons are too big, check box's are too big, pop up menu bars are too big and the text throughout the system is WAY TOO BIG !!!

Im on a Pismo, 1024x768 Max resolution. This feels and looks like 800x600 if i were in Mac OS 9x. Im sure the UI would be different on a large LCD with resolutions up to 1280x1024

The reason i say its a 'Hack Job' is because some elements in the UI are larger than others. Take for example the 'Audio Midi Setup' utility. Check out the size of the tabs, the text in them and the pop up menu widget. Click on the pop up menu widget in the Midi devices, the font is the size of the system font (MASSIVE) size 13-14?

Now launch 'Disk Copy', open the preferences and click the 'Creating' Tab. Now look how much smaller (elegant) the widgets are. The pop up menu buttons and the text in the menus, the tabs, the check box's etc are much smaller. The text throughout is also much smaller (size 10-11?). It looks lovely on my display.

Why is there this inconsistency? Why is there not a GLOBAL UI re-scaling preference? We have the ability to resize icons in the Finder in realtime from 16x16 - 128x128. Why is there not a similar resize for the ENTIRE UI in OS X? Im sure Quartz is capable of being resized-yet no system pref an no haxie. I mean, i want the ENTIRE UI on my machine to have smaller widgets and text like in the Disk Copy utility . The sytem font size 11, font size in contextual menu's size 11 etc size 10 in applications.

This must be possible right? Linux is so much nicer in the way we can resize practically anything we want. Apple boasts that OS X is the most advanced OS, but its agonizingly obvious how wonderful they are at being BS artists. This OS just seems to be an OS for dummies..that is in a fixed 'Ultra Simple Mode'.

Will this every change?
I am totally and frustrated, i feel like im

I don't see were your problem is. THe widgets are exactly the same size here, as is text. Yes, everything is bigger in OS X and it is made to be that way, so you can see the widgets at really high resolutions. Your complain should have been done with MacOS X PB, not with Panther near completion..

You are the first and only time I saw someone say that MacOS X's UI is pooly done, Usualy I read the exact opposite feedback!

[ndptal85]

If this is the first and only time you've heard people slam the OS X UI then you've obviously never been to the MacFixitForums. The "Tech Issues" forum is notorious for it. A group of posters there are furious that Next won out over Be and hate the Unix parts of OS X.

[Mediaman_12]

This is a bit late (the OSX gui has been around for what 4 years) but you have to realise that the OS9 Gui had got badly out of scale over the years. Remember the OS9 gui was an updated (coloured in) version of something originally designed for a 9inch screen (at less than 800dpi). The UI has just been updated for modern higher resolution displays.
99% of all the 'widgets' are pulled form the same file, so the inconsistency you 'rant' about is impossible.
A scaleable UI would be fantastic (you could alter the resolution of the screen but the UI elements would stay the same size), but as the current one is still bitmap, not vector based, I think that it's a long way off. Icons can only scale cleanly because each one has multiple bitmap sizes within the file.

[Drizzt]

Originally posted by ndptal85:
If this is the first and only time you've heard people slam the OS X UI then you've obviously never been to the MacFixitForums. The "Tech Issues" forum is notorious for it. A group of posters there are furious that Next won out over Be and hate the Unix parts of OS X.

That's true, I've never been to MacFixIt.. when I read the reviews on VersioTracker, I know that I don't want to read the rants of a 13yo that just happen to get to know that Be could have been bought by Apple instead of NeXT but doesn't know damned about Be or NeXT..

[Targon]

Originally posted by Drizzt:
I don't see were your problem is. THe widgets are exactly the same size here, as is text.

Are you sure about that? Here is something else to try, right (control) click a file like say a stuffit file in the Finder, now in the contextual menu select 'Open With' look at the size of the text in that sub menu. Now get info on that same file, in the dialog click the triangle to view the 'Open With' option, now click the pop up menu button. Look at the size of the text in that menu...on my screen its much smaller than the text in the contextual menu in the first step.

Yes, everything is bigger in OS X and it is made to be that way, so you can see the widgets at really high resolutions.Your complain should have been done with MacOS X PB, not with Panther near completion.

So what about ppl with low resolutions........we have nothing from Apple that helps us. As I remember, my Pismo was very much brand new when PB shipped. And i also remember the iBook clam shell had a 800x600 resolution, OS X is totally unusable at that resolution. Maybe they should provide some method os reducing the UI for those of us with these resolutions?

[Targon]

Originally posted by gorickey:
No really, how do you feel about it?

the animation above is a head beating against a brickwall

[Drizzt]

Originally posted by Targon:
Are you sure about that? Here is something else to try, right (control) click a file like say a stuffit file in the Finder, now in the contextual menu select 'Open With' look at the size of the text in that sub menu. Now get info on that same file, in the dialog click the triangle to view the 'Open With' option, now click the pop up menu button. Look at the size of the text in that menu...on my screen its much smaller than the text in the contextual menu in the first step.



So what about ppl with low resolutions........we have nothing from Apple that helps us. As I remember, my Pismo was very much brand new when PB shipped. And i also remember the iBook clam shell had a 800x600 resolution, OS X is totally unusable at that resolution. Maybe they should provide some method os reducing the UI for those of us with these resolutions?

Font size in the info panel used in the menu is the same as the font used elsewhere in the panel, that is consistency!

OS X has been meant for use at or above 1024*768, but yes 800*600 is too small. Anyways.. OS X is real slow on the clamshell iBooks.

[Targon]

Originally posted by ndptal85:
If this is the first and only time you've heard people slam the OS X UI then you've obviously never been to the MacFixitForums. The "Tech Issues" forum is notorious for it. A group of posters there are furious that Next won out over Be and hate the Unix parts of OS X.

It's very rare i visit Macfixit. If i do its for something specific and then i leave. So no, i have not been exposed the sentient over there.

[cpac]

Originally posted by Targon:

So what about ppl with low resolutions........we have nothing from Apple that helps us. As I remember, my Pismo was very much brand new when PB shipped. And i also remember the iBook clam shell had a 800x600 resolution, OS X is totally unusable at that resolution. Maybe they should provide some method os reducing the UI for those of us with these resolutions?

Or they could just expect that you'll buy a new computer every 4 or 5 years.

You pismo may have been brand new when the PB shipped, but we've gotten 10.0, 10.1, 10.2 since then, and soon 10.3. It's been several *years.*

Remember they were replacing a 15+ year old operating system. They're building a new one that's designed to last another 15+ years. Should they really bother spending that much time/resources supporting legacy screen resolutions, especially when they make their money by selling *hardware*? (and it's not like it's completely unusable at 800x600 - there are plenty of people I know who use OS X at that, it's just not *ideal*)

[sandsl]

If 800x600 is unacceptable don't use Mac OS X - OS9 is an good operating system for your low end hardware only capable of 800x600.

I hate to say it, but maybe you should upgrade your machine. Nobody I know uses a resolution of 800x600 either in the Mac or PC world.

People can't expect to be able to use the latest and greatest technology on old hardware.

Yes, Apple could make a scalable UI for you poor guys with max 800x600 displays but I'm sure they'd rather have you upgrade your machine.

Why spend money just to support the people who refuse to continually support the company financially?

[Adam Betts]

Originally posted by sandsl:
Why spend money just to support the people who refuse to continually support the company financially?

Exactly.

[Targon]

Originally posted by Drizzt:
Font size in the info panel used in the menu is the same as the font used elsewhere in the panel, that is consistency!

OS X has been meant for use at or above 1024*768, but yes 800*600 is too small. Anyways.. OS X is real slow on the clamshell iBooks.

This really is peculiar...so i wonder why i have massive size 13-14 size system font with same font size in context menu's and big tabs and other widgets yet in places elsewhere the text is smaller an the widgets are smaller?

Here is another example in Mail open preferences, accounts is the first thing in the box.Look at size of pop up menu buttons, buttons etc click the 'menu pop up next to 'New mail sound' look at size of text.

Now click 'edit' button, new dialog box is displayed now all these widgets an the text is much smaller than in the main window.

WHY?

Is this different for u?

[sushiism]

"Why is it that Mac OS X UI elements are so damned BIG?"
because its designed to last, resolutions get higher and higher, this way our elements will still be decent sized when that day comes.

"This must be possible right? Linux is so much nicer"
AHHAAH oh please linux is the turd of the gui world, if you have not noticed all linux gui designs are totally stolen ideas from mostly the windows world but made 10 times more stupid and awkward, thats what happens when you have an OS designed by programmers not proper gui designers with an actual knowledge of usability and that good olde thing of common sense.

Anyway if linux really is so much better designed then why dont you go and "use" that instead of complaining, because that will get you nowhere seen as everyone else seems to realise that osx elements are big in some areas because they're made to last, also notice that osx's title bars are actually smaller than the XP's default ones which are a GREAT example of ui elements being needlessly big.

Anyway osx is a work of art in gui design in my oppinion, if it wasnt i wouldnt have paid a ton for my powerbook (they're much more pricey over here in england)

[Targon]

Originally posted by sandsl:
If 800x600 is unacceptable don't use Mac OS X - OS9 is an good operating system for your low end hardware only capable of 800x600.

I hate to say it, but maybe you should upgrade your machine. Nobody I know uses a resolution of 800x600 either in the Mac or PC world.

People can't expect to be able to use the latest and greatest technology on old hardware.

Yes, Apple could make a scalable UI for you poor guys with max 800x600 displays but I'm sure they'd rather have you upgrade your machine.

Why spend money just to support the people who refuse to continually support the company financially?

Dude my resolution is 1024x768 on a Pismo i only mentioned 800x600 cos i was making the point because that was current hardware at the time OS X debuted and Apple should have had that machine in mind. Regardless i still have many friends with 17" monitors running 1024x768...the UI is still too big and inconsistent.

[Drizzt]

Originally posted by Targon:
This really is peculiar...so i wonder why i have massive size 13-14 size system font with same font size in context menu's and big tabs and other widgets yet in places elsewhere the text is smaller an the widgets are smaller?

Here is another example in Mail open preferences, accounts is the first thing in the box.Look at size of pop up menu buttons, buttons etc click the 'menu pop up next to 'New mail sound' look at size of text.

Now click 'edit' button, new dialog box is displayed now all these widgets an the text is much smaller than in the main window.

WHY?

Is this different for u?

Everything is a but smaller so everything can fit on a smaller screen.

You have to understand that consistency is context-specific. Is this case, if the font is 11px wide everywhere in this dialog, it's OK! It would be inconsistent (and quite ugly) if there was 11px text and 14px pop-up menus in this dialog, don't you think?

[msuper69]

Originally posted by Targon:
the animation above is a head beating against a brickwall

Obviously you are not familiar with the term sarcasm.

[Targon]

Originally posted by sushiism:
"Why is it that Mac OS X UI elements are so damned BIG?"
because its designed to last, resolutions get higher and higher, this way our elements will still be decent sized when that day comes.

"This must be possible right? Linux is so much nicer"

I was referring to configurability and depth of customizable options like the most simple one of changing the size of the System Font rather than the dumb@ss winhoez rippoff designs ;-)

[Drizzt]

Originally posted by Targon:
I was referring to configurability and depth of customizable options like the most simple one of changing the size of the System Font rather than the dumb@ss winhoez rippoff designs ;-)

Apple refuses to give us this option so the interface looks consistent everywhere. Have you ever seen someone using 22px font in the title bar in Windows? I do..

[cpac]

Originally posted by Targon:
the UI is still too big and inconsistent.

yes, you've said that.

others apparently disagree.

regardless, it's a moot point - Apple isn't going to make things better for 800 x 600 *now*--four years later (yes I know you've got a bigger screen - great! quit your b*tching).

[bewebste]

I don't see what the big frikkin' deal is about having widgets with different sizes. There are two standard sizes of just about every standard widget that are offered to developers to use. I don't think this is explicitly stated anywhere, but the rule of thumb is to use the larger (more easily readable) sizes unless you need to fit more stuff into a particular space (e.g. the Finder info window), in which case you can use the smaller controls instead. In fact, I believe Panther introduces a third size of control which is smaller than the smallest size is now.

If you really want to see some damn big controls, go use Windows XP. That'll make you appreciate OS X's controls more.

[Targon]

Originally posted by Drizzt:
Apple refuses to give us this option so the interface looks consistent everywhere.

Bahaha, brushed metal sure is consistent everywhere init lol good 1 dude

Have you ever seen someone using 22px font in the title bar in Windows? I do.. [/B]

To be honest, no, i don't use winblowz and don't know anyone personally that uses that piece of poO.

[Drizzt]

Originally posted by Targon:
Bahaha, brushed metal sure is consistent everywhere init lol good 1 dude



To be honest, no, i don't use winblowz and don't know anyone personally that uses that piece of poO.

Brushed metal in consistent context wise. Consistency is 2 things :

• Consistency in size/shape/color inside a context
• Consistency in look inside the whole product

You can argue than Brushed Metal doesn't look the same as traditionnal Aqua, but it does look the same accross all brushed metal apps.

You can also argue that there are different sizes. Yes there is, and they are used for different purposes too! The sizes are consitent!

If you want to pin-point inconsistency across Apple's products, go have a look @ iPhoto's Close/Min/Max buttons!

[Sven G]

Originally posted by Drizzt:
If you want to pin-point inconsistency across Apple's products, go have a look @ iPhoto's Close/Min/Max buttons!

Yeah, what the hell is the point with so excessively close-to-one-another buttons? They look completely out of place, IMHO...

[cpac]

Originally posted by Targon:
To be honest, no, i don't use winblowz and don't know anyone personally that uses that piece of poO.

Wow - that's a near statistical impossibility! Windows is horrible, but it's everywhere. Even a large proportion of Mac users have to deal with it at some point: whether at work or school labs or something.

[Eriamjh]

Hmmm... I agree that OSX should be well useable on a 1024x768 monitor. Why? For all the 15" iMac FPs out there. For all the iMacs CRTs out there.

I think it would be NICE if OSX had a scalable interface, more like windows does. Sometimes, you need to drop down to lower resolutions to see things. It would have been interesting is OSX had an OS9 interface mode like XP has.

Don't forget, some older people can't even SEE text or icons at higher res's, even on 17, 19, or 21" monitors. We're all not young with perfect vision.

However, as with all upgrade questions/issues, no one is forcing you to upgrade. You can always stick with OS9, or 10.1, or 10.2, etc. You don't have to buy new hardware every 3-5 years (or sooner).

[msuper69]

Originally posted by cpac:
Wow - that's a near statistical impossibility! Windows is horrible, but it's everywhere. Even a large proportion of Mac users have to deal with it at some point: whether at work or school labs or something.

If we assume 95% of people who use computers use Windows, and that most people use computers, then the poster would know less than 1.05 persons to not know of a single person who uses Windows.

If x = the number of Windows users the poster knows, then

.95x=1 (knows at least one Windows user)


x=1/.95

x=1.052632

Conclusion: Poster must be a virtual hermit.

[Targon]

Originally posted by msuper69:
If we assume 95% of people who use computers use Windows, and that most people use computers, then the poster would know less than 1.05 persons to not know of a single person who uses Windows.

If x = the number of Windows users the poster knows, then

.95x=1 (knows at least one Windows user)


x=1/.95

x=1.052632

Conclusion: Poster must be a virtual hermit.

Assumption is the KEY word

Perhaps it could be that my geographical and social environment is heavily populated with mac users

[msuper69]

Originally posted by Targon:
Assumption is the KEY word

Perhaps it could be that my geographical and social environment is heavily populated with mac users

Just funning with ya man.

[ASIMO]

Targon, please refrain from starting topics during PMS.

[Millennium]

Except for the menubar, window titlebars, and the window widgets, the OSX UI controls are the same size as they were in OS9.

They were going to be bigger -as seen in DR3- but Carbon developers complained to Apple about the size discrepancy. Apple resized the controls for DR4.

[gorgonzola]

Originally posted by Eriamjh:
Hmmm... I agree that OSX should be well useable on a 1024x768 monitor. Why? For all the 15" iMac FPs out there. For all the iMacs CRTs out there.

I think it would be NICE if OSX had a scalable interface, more like windows does. Sometimes, you need to drop down to lower resolutions to see things. It would have been interesting is OSX had an OS9 interface mode like XP has.

Don't forget, some older people can't even SEE text or icons at higher res's, even on 17, 19, or 21" monitors. We're all not young with perfect vision.

However, as with all upgrade questions/issues, no one is forcing you to upgrade. You can always stick with OS9, or 10.1, or 10.2, etc. You don't have to buy new hardware every 3-5 years (or sooner).

OS X is perfectly usable in 1024x768. I've been using it since Public Beta at 1024.

When it's unusable is when you're using it at 800x600. But quite frankly, so few people use 800x600 nowadays that this is really not a big deal.

[gorgonzola]

Originally posted by Targon:
This really is peculiar...so i wonder why i have massive size 13-14 size system font with same font size in context menu's and big tabs and other widgets yet in places elsewhere the text is smaller an the widgets are smaller?

Here is another example in Mail open preferences, accounts is the first thing in the box.Look at size of pop up menu buttons, buttons etc click the 'menu pop up next to 'New mail sound' look at size of text.

Now click 'edit' button, new dialog box is displayed now all these widgets an the text is much smaller than in the main window.

WHY?

Is this different for u?

The general system font is Lucida Grande 13 (menubars, contextual menus, etc) but they use Lucida Grande 11 in certain places when compactness is desired. For example, the Get Info window you cite would be unusably large if they were to use 13 point font or even 12 point font on the window. Everything within the window is at 11, so it's consistent.

As for the Mail thing, why? Because think about how large the panel would be if everything was at the larger font. That's also why toolbar icons' labels are in 11 point; they would be ridiculously huge if they used any larger font there.

So generally, the system only uses two font sizes: 11 and 13. They use 11 when compactness is necessary (need to fit a lot of stuff into one window, e.g. Get Info), and 13 everywhere else. Given that 1024x768 is the basically the minimum resolution at which one can use OS X, it's reasonable to use 13 point font for menubars and stuff instead of 12 because it would get far too small at resolutions at or beyond 1600x1200 (which is becoming increasingly common).

I have no doubt that eventually Apple will move to an all-vector GUI, in which case everything should be fully scalable, but in the interim, I agree that you should be able to change the system font if you really want. This is a different gripe though; I think you're wrong that OS X is a UI hack job (not by a long shot), but it is true that it would be nice to have a few more preferences to control the way things look.

There's some Unsanity haxie that should let you change the system font, if you really want. I assume it will let you change the size as well. I really don't know what the big deal is though. The majority of people using OS X are doing so at resolutions at or very close to 1024x768 (most iBook, iMac, eMac, and PowerBook users have that resolution...that's 4 out of 5 product lines), and no one else seems to find the widgets huge. As Millennium said, they're mostly identical in size to the OS 9 ones.

You're entitled to your opinion, but as someone said before, Linux is one of the worst examples you could cite of consistent or good UI design. Linux is good at several things, but UI is not one of them; the only real benefit it has is that you can customize a lot of stuff. That's a different and unrelated issue.

[ambush]

Originally posted by gorickey:
No really, how do you feel about it?

What's wrong with a user giving his opinion?

And plus, he's not flamebaiting.

You're the only one flamebaiting...

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by sandsl:

Why spend money just to support the people who refuse to continually support the company financially?

Well hmm, the spent the money on the product in the first place. To get better customer relations support for every customer would be best.

You aren't obligated to buy a new computer every so many years. I supported them by buying the OS.. that should support my computer.

I wont go into how not 2 years after I got my computer, new OS functions wouldn't be supported.

That just isn't acceptable.

What you are saying is Once you buy a product, you are no longer important till you buy another newer one.

That isn't a way to run a business.

You shouldn't be limiting things JUST to get more hardware sales.

I have seen this turn more Mac users away recently than anything.

[CharlesS]

<yawn>

Apple made things bigger for a very good reason. If you don't understand why, then you've apparently never tried to help a middle-aged or older person use OS 9. When I was in high school, I was basically the Mac tech support person for half the (relatively small) town. Whenever you had older users, they would always do the same thing; they would turn the resolution down to something ridiculously low. I'm talking 800x600 on a 19 inch monitor low. And sometimes, you have people with LCD monitors that turn the resolution lower than it's supposed to be, causing the pixels to be all blurry and screwed up. It's not limited to the town where I came from either - in college I've seen some profs and staff with OS 9 and with the resolution set way too low on their monitors as well.

Why do they do this, you wonder?

Because at the default resolution, they can't read the text, because it's too small. They'd rather have a totally blurry and ugly LCD than try to make out OS 9 - sized text and widgets at the default resolution for their monitor.

This is why Apple made things bigger in OS X. If they did any user testing at all it should have been obvious, and it apparently was.

[Superchicken]

You want a scalable interface... are you stupid. Your power book is what 500 or 400Mhz with a G3? Do you have any idea how much that would hog your processor?

Open a new window, Oh OS X takes 5 seconds to resize the GUI wiggets. And then you'll be complaining about how slow OS X is to us.

Give me a break. If Apple goes to a vector based UI this would be a reasonable request. But that's not gona happen for a while if ever... even though a vector based UI would be freaking sweet!

[beb]

I'm kinda of the opinion that Panther will eek out a couple of seconds of the UI slowdown that has plagued OS X.

Then again I'm on Dual G4s and soon G5s -so who knows?

[cpac]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Well hmm, the spent the money on the product in the first place. To get better customer relations support for every customer would be best.

You aren't obligated to buy a new computer every so many years. I supported them by buying the OS.. that should support my computer.

I wont go into how not 2 years after I got my computer, new OS functions wouldn't be supported.

That just isn't acceptable.

What you are saying is Once you buy a product, you are no longer important till you buy another newer one.

That isn't a way to run a business.

You shouldn't be limiting things JUST to get more hardware sales.

I have seen this turn more Mac users away recently than anything.

Don't be ridiculous.

You bought a computer. When you bought it, it did everything you expected it to (or you were an uninformed buyer). To expect that future versions of the operating system will have all features available to your hardware isn't just unreasonable, it's silly.

I'm guessing you're referring to Quartz Extreme when you say "just two years later." - Guess what? two years is a long time in computer land. (Didn't seem that way while Motorola was stuck at 500Mhz for a year and a half, but it *should* have worked that way). If you don't necessarily need top of the line hardware, you probably don't need to upgrade your system software either. (Hell, 90% of people could be happily browsing and emailing and word processing in System 8).

Is it the best thing for customer relations? Probably not. But a company is supposed to make money, not just loyal customers (otherwise they'd give away everything for free).

[booboo]

When I was a 9 user I was hoping OS X would be an upgrade like OS 8 was from System 7. I was comfortable in OS 9, I knew where everything was. Possibly due to the fact that almost everything was where it had been for the previous 14 years... in fact some dialogue boxes were actually being called through a time-warp (clever programming) and were in fact being called from 1986.

I was a happy camper, arranging my pop-up windows at the bottom of the screen, my Apple Menu Items, explaining the Finder Menu as if it actually was logical. Ooops. Force Restart. Happy Mac. Come on, come on... where was I? Oh yes, Platinum was cool. Somehow it was a better shade of gray than Windows could muster (and btw what is it with the Windows colour selector - why is the right shade of grey simply not selectable?)

Etc.

Then along came OS X. They didn't re-paint my walls this time, they knocked my whole house down (although they did let me revisit some of the old rooms in a convoluted-but-clever way)

I hated everything about it. It was WAY too big. It was way too slow, Features were missing. Important ones, for a Niner.. I missed my old house. The new place, for a while it felt like I couldn't even find the toilet.

It wasn't OS 9 + 1. It wasn't System 10.

Well something had to give. And after a few false starts, and a few app updates, I did.

Now I'm an OS X-er.

I got out of that relationship I'd been in for so many years. It was good for a while. and it probably could have gone on longer. But not much. It never could have been 'the one'. It had flaws. Serious flaws that had become more apparent as demands had increased. And ones that no end of counselling could fix.

And Apple had tried.

With squillions.

Now I'm happy again. Mac OS 9 is no longer the bar against which others are judged. In fact, OS 9 is a chapter in history, a somewhat quirky one, but one for which I feel no deep sense of nostalgia. Everything has to be taken on its own terms, free from expectations that are as much habit - and often illogical ones at that - as anything else.

Take Mac OS X on its own terms. It is fine at 1024*768. It is useable - in a general sense - at 800*600. But those 800*600 machines shipped with OS 9 and maybe they're happier staying there for all sorts of reasons. Screen resolution just one.

There are a few inconsistencies in our Brave New World.. Nothing too serious at this stage. And on the whole probably more consistent than OS 9 managed, after all those years.

Live in X a while. Full time. Force yourself.

There's a weaning period, true. But you won't look back.

[sushiism]

i think osx is set up for a vector ui eventually, but in a few years when we have computers fast enough to copy, i mean isnt all the osx graphics saved in pdf format which can also hold vectors

[Brass]

Yes, I think the option for developers to use text of different sizes in their applications should be removed. In fact, I really think Apple should go one step further and remove the ability for users to chagne font sizes in their documents. AFter all, consistency is the key here. If we have all these different font sizes everywhere, our universe might collapse into a black whole. Consistency is the only thing that can save us!

[moki]

Originally posted by Targon:
Linux is so much nicer in the way we can resize practically anything we want. Apple boasts that OS X is the most advanced OS, but its agonizingly obvious how wonderful they are at being BS artists. This OS just seems to be an OS for dummies..that is in a fixed 'Ultra Simple Mode'.

As someone who has used many variants of Linux, if you feel that the UI experience offered there is more consistent and easier to use, you're clearly a traveller from an alternate dimension.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by cpac:
Don't be ridiculous.

I wasn't

You bought a computer. When you bought it, it did everything you expected it to (or you were an uninformed buyer).

Actually It didn't. My RevA G3 didn't support 2 IDE drives. And it never said it wouldn't. But ok. I also expected a OS that I was told when I bought my machine would be fully supported. It wasn't.

To expect that future versions of the operating system will have all features available to your hardware isn't just unreasonable, it's silly.

Depends, future as in a year or so from when you bought it? No. That isn't silly.

Esp when the company said the OS would be fully supported. And it wasn't.

I'm guessing you're referring to Quartz Extreme when you say "just two years later." - Guess what? two years is a long time in computer land.

LOL!! No what you mean is in Apple land. Don't get me wrong, I like Macs. But in the PC world, Windows supports machines a lot older than just 2 years. Same with Linux, Same with any other OS but the MacOS lately.

Apple USED to be like this as well. I ran OS9 on my 6205 FULLY supported. This has been a recent trend with Apple. I believe it is to boost hardware sales. Now if Apple is going to use it's software/hardware monopoly it has over the Mac to make you upgrade, I might start looking elsewhere.

This has made a lot of people upset lately. And it has made quite a few switch to the PC. This certainly wont get switchers from the other side. They don't want a obsolete machine a year or so down the line.

(Didn't seem that way while Motorola was stuck at 500Mhz for a year and a half, but it *should* have worked that way). If you don't necessarily need top of the line hardware, you probably don't need to upgrade your system software either. (Hell, 90% of people could be happily browsing and emailing and word processing in System 8).

Sound like a apologetic excuse. Reads like one too.

Is it the best thing for customer relations? Probably not. But a company is supposed to make money, not just loyal customers (otherwise they'd give away everything for free).

Ah, but by getting rid of one, you are getting rid of the other. This has been proven time and time again.

If Apple keeps with it's small support circle, it will lose more people.

[jasong]

I would have been totally swayed by his argument IF HE USED ALL CAPS and lots of punctuation!!!!!!!

-- Jason

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by booboo:
Now I'm happy again. Mac OS 9 is no longer the bar against which others are judged. In fact, OS 9 is a chapter in history, a somewhat quirky one, but one for which I feel no deep sense of nostalgia. Everything has to be taken on its own terms, free from expectations that are as much habit - and often illogical ones at that - as anything else.

I have tons of nostalgia for System 6. It still gives me a certain wistful feeling when I see an old screenshot, those black and white icons, the size 12 Chicago font, and the quaint charm that the OS had so much of back then...

But God, I do not miss OS 9 at all. That thing was a piece of crap. The Classic Mac OS was a great operating system in its day. Its decline started with System 7, eventually getting worse until it led to the ugly, bloated, buggy, unstable mess that was OS 9. Yuck. OS X reminds me more of the good old System 6 than OS 9 could ever hope to, and that is why it's a much more fun system to use for me.

[ApeInTheShell]

People with bad vision should use the Universal Access Zoom Option. It works for photgraphs too.
I have the iMac DV with 1024 X 768 and it is the perfect resolution.
If you need to determine if the interface is consistent, line up windows with each other.
Of course, I would think people in this forum would understand since there are complaints reported every day about the Mac OS X Interface.

Oh the lovely linux. People can change system fonts like in Mac OS 9 but there are so many variants of linux that there isn't much consistency there either.

[gorgonzola]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I wasn't

LOL!! No what you mean is in Apple land. Don't get me wrong, I like Macs. But in the PC world, Windows supports machines a lot older than just 2 years. Same with Linux, Same with any other OS but the MacOS lately.

Apple USED to be like this as well. I ran OS9 on my 6205 FULLY supported. This has been a recent trend with Apple. I believe it is to boost hardware sales. Now if Apple is going to use it's software/hardware monopoly it has over the Mac to make you upgrade, I might start looking elsewhere.

You *are* being ridiculous. OS X isn't dropping support for the original set of machines that it supported. *That* would be unreasonable. Panther will run on all the same machines that Jaguar did, and so on. When you completely re-engineer an OS, it makes some sense to introduce a certain cutoff point (in OS X's case, the G3 chip) before which machines are not supported. This allows you to support reasonably old machines while still leaving you free to add more powerful features in the OS. It doesn't make much sense to support OS X on a 6205, since it would SEVERELY limit what you could do. OS 9 is not a great gauge of this, since it was a wildly outdated OS architecturally. Not at all surprising it ran fine on a 6205.

The only "feature" that works on newer machines and doesn't work on older ones is Quartz Extreme, and that's directly tied to your graphics card. Older machines with graphics card upgrades (third-party products) can take advantage of this feature fine. If you can't (I can't), it hardly makes the system unusable. Anyway, it's not some arbitrary restriction on "old" machines. You just need a graphics card of sufficient power.

If developer opinion is anything to go by, Panther runs better on those older non-QE machines than Jaguar does. That sounds like the *opposite* of what you're describing.

You have a valid complaint if OS X no longer boots on a machine as old as the 6205 was when you ran OS 9 on it. If they dropped THAT support, then you can accuse them of trying to force people to upgrade. Right now, it's not really possible to gauge.

I also remember Apple adding additional support for some older graphics cards in a later version of OS X (perhaps 10.1 or 10.2). That too sounds like the opposite of what you're describing.

I don't think Apple is artificially creating upgrade incentives any more than it used to. If you feel like threatening to leave the platform, go ahead. That's the most dull threat people give on forums like these...