[bergy]

And I don't want third party solutions. I want everything to work right out of the box using Apple apps. The average user doesn't have the time or inclination to go looking around support forums for help with their systems shortcomings ...

After waiting what I think is more than enough time for the maturation of OSX, I wonder why we still have to put up with this ..

1. Safari doesn't work on a lot of sites ... especially when filling out forms .. lots of times I just give up and go to my pc and thank God I've got one lying around for just those occasions.. Why aren't the bookmarks sorted alphabetically automatically .. remember no third party solutions

2. Faxing is downright primitive. Global Fax in OS9 was lightyears ahead of what Apple is offering as a fax application in X. Why can't we have modems that are capable of recognizing distinctive ring? Is there anybody at Apple working on this ??? I don't hear any mention of better faxing features in Tiger ...
Yeah I used PageSender but now even that freezes on me and I had to give it up so what do I do now ...

3. Everybody and his brother uses MSN ... why don't I have an Apple app that will interface with it and allow video communication ....

4. Why does iPhoto have to make a 2 copies of every photo and eat up tons of disk space. And its sssllloooowwww.

5. Why do I have to buy default folder to save my stuff in a logical manner

6. Why in mail when I "add sender to address book" doesn't a menu come up that allows me to correctly enter the senders name so I don't have to go back and do it later, that's if i remember.

7. How come when I'm printing, Print Centre doesn't pop up immediately so I can monitor my print job. This should at least be the default option.

8. How about a "Burn Centre" for cds .... drag to the trash to burn? How counterintuitive can you get?

Don't get me wrong .. I still love my Macs and will support Apple, but I'm wondering why these type of annoyances don't seem to be on their radar. Maybe it's only me ... I've been to the feedback site many times so I've done my part ...
Anybody else have any suggestions for a happier OSX experience ...

By some amazing stroke of luck someone at Apple just might read it and do something about it ....

[Maflynn]

Originally posted by bergy:
1. Safari doesn't work on a lot of sites ... especially when filling out forms .. lots of times I just give up and go to my pc and thank God I've got one lying around for just those occasions.

Blame the Website designe where they produce sites coded specificaly for IE, that is non W3C complient websites.

2. Faxing is downright primitive. Global Fax in OS9 was lightyears ahead of what Apple is offering as a fax application in X. Why can't we have modems that are capable of recognizing distinctive ring? Is there anybody at Apple working on this ??? I don't hear any mention of better faxing features in Tiger ...
Yeah I used PageSender but now even that freezes on me and I had to give it up so what do I do now ...

I don't fax and I'm on broadband so its a non issue, I also think modems are on the way out as more and more people gon on broadband. I don't Apple (or anyone else) is going to expend any more funds on it.

3. Everybody and his brother uses MSN ... why don't I have an Apple app that will interface with it and allow video communication ....

I don't so I could care less and I know a lot of people who don't so a generlized statement here doesn't fit.

4. Why does iPhoto have to make a 2 copies of every photo and eat up tons of disk space

Agreed it would be nice, plus the ability to produce a hierarchical album structure, i.e., sub albums

5. Why do I have to buy default folder to save my stuff in a logical manner

I'm not getting what you mean here, please explain I'm not sure what you need to buy?

6. Why in mail when I "add sender to address book" doesn't a menu come up that allows me to correctly enter the senders name so I don't have to go back and do it later, that's if i remember.

No argument herem your right

All in all there plenty of room for Apple to improve the existing OS without adding new features.

Mike

[Love Calm Quiet]

I'm with you on most of these, Bergy! (esp. since I'm the Apple advocate and ~techy support~ around here). Some one may have some comfort for you on a couple, but I agree: Apple needs to have such "little" (i.e., not very flashy) get-the-system-up-to-speed updates taken care of - esp. for the novice Mac users who don't live with any tech support.

Meanwhile, you might want to submit them all to:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/feedback/
That will provide the "stroke of luck" by which Apple will read them.

BTW: Does anyone know if it's better to submit each complaint ("feedback") separately at that feedback page?

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by bergy:
1. Safari doesn't work on a lot of sites ... especially when filling out forms .. lots of times I just give up and go to my pc and thank God I've got one lying around for just those occasions.. Why aren't the bookmarks sorted alphabetically automatically .. remember no third party solutions

Again: it's the web site's fault a lot of the time. Contact them and tell them to support the Macintosh customers out there.

Originally posted by bergy:
2. Faxing is downright primitive. Global Fax in OS9 was lightyears ahead of what Apple is offering as a fax application in X. Why can't we have modems that are capable of recognizing distinctive ring? Is there anybody at Apple working on this ??? I don't hear any mention of better faxing features in Tiger ...
Yeah I used PageSender but now even that freezes on me and I had to give it up so what do I do now ...

Apple's built-in PDF functionality is great; in the future people will probably email PDFs, not send faxes.

Originally posted by bergy:
3. Everybody and his brother uses MSN ... why don't I have an Apple app that will interface with it and allow video communication ....

Take it up with Microsoft; I'm sure Apple would include MSN functionality in iChat if Microsoft let them.

Originally posted by bergy:
4. Why does iPhoto have to make a 2 copies of every photo and eat up tons of disk space. And its sssllloooowwww.

Nice suggestions; send Apple feedback.

Originally posted by bergy:
5. Why do I have to buy default folder to save my stuff in a logical manner

Buy what now?

Originally posted by bergy:
6. Why in mail when I "add sender to address book" doesn't a menu come up that allows me to correctly enter the senders name so I don't have to go back and do it later, that's if i remember.

Send feedback

Originally posted by bergy:
7. How come when I'm printing, Print Centre doesn't pop up immediately so I can monitor my print job. This should at least be the default option.

...It doesn't?

Originally posted by bergy:
8. How about a "Burn Centre" for cds .... drag to the trash to burn? How counterintuitive can you get?

Fair enough; CDs should always eject when dragged there. (The trash isn't the most logical place in the first place, but at least the icon changes now.)

[drive-thru]

http://www.apple.com/feedback/

Please explain 5)...default folder...logic manner...

As for 8)...burning CDs... - you can customise your finder toolbar and add the burn CD symbol to it.

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by bergy:
4. Why does iPhoto have to make a 2 copies of every photo and eat up tons of disk space. And its sssllloooowwww.

So you can 'revert to original'.
Speed is fine here, 2200+ photos, 1.4+ GB.

[PurpleGiant]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
So you can 'revert to original'.
Speed is fine here, 2200+ photos, 1.4+ GB.

Exactly. 7000 photos here on about 7gb, no big deal. I would like a bit of a speed boost, but disk space is hardly an issue these days.

[Drakino]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
Apple's built-in PDF functionality is great; in the future people will probably email PDFs, not send faxes.

You can send legal paperwork via fax, but not by e-mail. There will still need to be faxing for a while to come.

[Maflynn]

For the iPhoto, I finally decided to toss it and use iView Its pricey but it does things that iPhoto doesn't and its fast.

One large issue was the viewing of the Exif information stored in the images. Also the ability to categorize the photos the way I needed them andnot the way iPhoto says. I like to use a hierarchtial structure and iView allows this. I'm not tryng to get flamed or bash iPhoto, I just found that it didn't fit my needs any longer. If iTools 05 has significant improvements to iPhoto perhaps I'll reconsider.

Mike

[Big Mac]

1. Safari: I would assume that anyone who posts here often enough realizes that there are varying degrees to which web code conforms to standards, and poor coding will cause problems. Proprietary coding to ActiveX crap will cause problems, too. For 90% of what I do, Safari has me covered. Firefox is sufficient to fill in 9% of the gap, and for the few sites that all Mac browsers choke on I decide to find alternatives.

2. Panther's built-in faxing is primitive. It was obviously half-baked, and I expect Tiger to do better. But if you do any faxing, I highly recommend SimleOnYourMac's PageSender. Apple should buy PageSender.

3. No one I know uses MSN. Most use AIM. The rumor (fact?) is that the next version of iChat will have support for multiple protocols. But if it's a concern, the Mac IM market was strong last time I checked, with a number of competing titles from which to choose.

4. I have too few photos and too much disk space to care about this issue. Certainly there are professional alternatives for those who desire them.

[Angus_D]

An awful lot of people use MSN outside of the US. Here in the UK, all my non-Mac friends use it. The mac MSN client is abysmal, and this *does* suck. However, it's not Apple's fault: they don't write MSN, and there are legal issues with connecting to a network from an unlicensed client.

I currently use Adium for chatting to my iChat and MSN buddies - it does display pictures on both, for example.

[Spheric Harlot]

People no longer know Default Folder?

:shock:

It used to be indispensable under OS 9.

I've found it completely unnecessary in OS X since we got full access to column view and favorites, as well as recent places, in Open/Save dialogs.

I have no idea what the original poster means by "logical manner" that isn't covered by the standard functionality.

-s*

[Millennium]

3. No one I know uses MSN. Most use AIM. The rumor (fact?) is that the next version of iChat will have support for multiple protocols.

Sort of, sort of not.

The fact is that the next version of iChat will support Jabber in addition to the AIM protocol (the "Rendezvous" protocol is apparently actually a modified version of Jabber). The Jabber support is for Apple's own chat server, which will be included in Tiger Server so that companies can run their own internal IM services.

However, one of the things Jabber is known for is its set of "gateways". Jabber servers can run these, such that any client attached to them can also communicate with people on other services, including those which use other protocols. In particular, gateways exist for AIM, Yahoo, MSN, IRC, and ICQ, as well as some less-known protocols.

Returning to the original poster's complaint, these gateways are not perfect. I don't believe any of them support audio and video chat yet, largely because the Jabber protocol itself does not yet have support for these things. However, this is a start.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
People no longer know Default Folder?

:shock:

It used to be indispensable under OS 9.

I've found it completely unnecessary in OS X since we got full access to column view and favorites, as well as recent places, in Open/Save dialogs.

I have no idea what the original poster means by "logical manner" that isn't covered by the standard functionality.

The problem is that the original poster seems to be a zealot about only using things which come with the OS. This is probably a hold-over from his Windows days; he's used to having add-ons break the system or install spyware. We can only hope that in time, he'll realize that on the Mac, third-party does not equal instability or evil.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Millennium:
The problem is that the original poster seems to be a zealot about only using things which come with the OS. This is probably a hold-over from his Windows days; he's used to having add-ons break the system or install spyware. We can only hope that in time, he'll realize that on the Mac, third-party does not equal instability or evil.

That wasn't my question. I prefer first-party solutions as well - not the least of reasons being that they don't cost extra.

My problem is that I can't see *what* functionality he's looking for that requires Default Folder.

-s*

[nooon]

Originally posted by bergy:
4. Why does iPhoto have to make a 2 copies of every photo and eat up tons of disk space. And its sssllloooowwww.

iPhoto Diet

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally posted by bergy:
8. How about a "Burn Centre" for cds .... drag to the trash to burn? How counterintuitive can you get?

I've never dragged a CD to trash to either eject or burn it. I always use the sidebar-icon. There's also a menu option in the File-menu and even a burn-button you can put in your toolbar if you wish. Oh and in Tiger you'll even have burnable folders. Short of Apple providing their own version of Toast, I really don't see what you're getting at here.

[Strix]

iPhoto may be slow because the version shipped with the box version of Panther is version 2. If you buy a new piece of Mac hardware, then you get version 4 included which is infinitely faster.

I assume that as Bergy as a 500 Mhz iMac, he is probably running version 2.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Strix:
iPhoto may be slow because the version shipped with the box version of Panther is version 2. If you buy a new piece of Mac hardware, then you get version 4 included which is infinitely faster.

eh

hardly

[PurpleGiant]

Originally posted by voodoo:
eh

hardly

I guess YMMV, but I found iPhoto 4 to be a huge speed increase over two. And that was when I had 5000 pics. Went from sometimes waiting 2 minutes to do something, to 2 seconds. iPhoto 5 I would like to make that 2 milliseconds though.

[lavar78]

I concur. The speed increase from iPhoto 2 to 4 was so dramatic it justified skipping version 3.

[cla]

I'd like to comment this as well.

Originally posted by bergy:
And I don't want third party solutions. I want everything to work right out of the box using Apple apps. The average user doesn't have the time or inclination to go looking around support forums for help with their systems shortcomings ...

Agreed. If it wasn't for the apps, I'd go Linux/Windows. I'm of the opinion that there generally is a "best way if getting things done". The minimalist' approach. HCI research often reveals if and which that way is, and the fruit of this is what Apple is all about to me(!).

1. Safari doesn't work on a lot of sites ... especially when filling out forms ..

Agreed. I can't believe so many of the posts suggested this is Microsofts "fault". Many web masters (including myself) don't have time nor money to make their web site render right in explorer 4, 5, 6, mozilla, netscape, safari and opera.

Like it or not. It's reality. (Personally, I don't like it at all, so don't bug me for saying this. =) )

Microsofts leads the way, and if Apple wants a bite at that 95% piece of pie withouh splitting it with mozilla/camino, they'd better adjust to the market.

2. Faxing is downright primitive. Global Fax in OS9 was lightyears ahead of what Apple is offering as a fax application in X. Why can't we have modems that are capable of recognizing distinctive ring? Is there anybody at Apple working on this ??? I don't hear any mention of better faxing features in Tiger ...

Agreed. Funny thing, people actually suggested you start e-mailing instead of faxing...

THE MAN WANTS TO FAX!!
=)

3. Everybody and his brother uses MSN ... why don't I have an Apple app that will interface with it and allow video communication ....

Actually, both of my brothers uses MSN. And by the way, I don't know one single person in the world (except for Steve Jobs, for I have seen it) that uses iChat. I'm about to switch (back) and it really bugs me that I have to install an MSN client in order to keep up with people.

4. Why does iPhoto have to make a 2 copies of every photo and eat up tons of disk space.

It does?! lol!

5. Why do I have to buy default folder to save my stuff in a logical manner

I'm curious. What is logical to you in this case?

(Maybe there's a "better way of doing things" that you haven't figured out? =))

8. How about a "Burn Centre" for cds .... drag to the trash to burn? How counterintuitive can you get?

I've been using XP for the past two years, and I could hardly believe what I just read.

"drag to the trash to burn".

loooooooool!!
Is that how it's made?!?
I can't believe it!! And I who in my stupidity thought Apple had learned something from the biggest usability flaw of the century (apart from uncheckable radio buttons and that you have to click "Start" in order to "Shut down" in Windows): dragging a disc to the trash to eject it.

Miles of columns have been written on this subject.

[Superchicken]

Originally posted by cla:
blah blah blah blah blah

Dude... you're... really... not to bright sounding.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally posted by cla:
(in regards to iPhotos "double-saving")
It does?! lol!

It saves a copy of the original when you crop it or modify it, just in case you wants to undo it. Not that stupid now, is it? You can remove the originals using iPhoto diet, but yes, there should be an option in iPhoto to remove the originals if you don't want them. (Like an option to "Remove originals at quit" or something.

I've been using XP for the past two years, and I could hardly believe what I just read.

"drag to the trash to burn".

loooooooool!!
Is that how it's made?!?
I can't believe itblah blah...

Re-read my post above. The option is there to support a legacy way of doing it since 1984. No, it haven't made much sense since we ditched floppies. But it was essential when you needed to copy files from one floppy to the next. This is however but ONE of the many ways to burn a CD, as explained above.

[kupan787]

Originally posted by bergy:
And I don't want third party solutions.

......

2. Faxing is downright primitive. Global Fax in OS9 was lightyears ahead of what Apple is offering as a fax application in X. Why can't we have modems that are capable of recognizing distinctive ring? Is there anybody at Apple working on this ??? I don't hear any mention of better faxing features in Tiger ...
Yeah I used PageSender but now even that freezes on me and I had to give it up so what do I do now ...

You know Global Fax was a third party app, right? FaxSTF took over in the later OS 8/9 days, and is what was shipped with Apple's machines up until 10.3 (and maybe still, I don't know). Granted it was a shipping solution, meaning out of the box it worked, but it was still a third party solution none the less.

As far as modems and distinctive ring support, that is up to the hardware, not software. It's not as if Apple can magically put out a software update that will fix this issue. I think all newer models come with this support, but I don't know exactly. I wish I had a list, or Apple would list them on their website...

Shameless plug for my fax app, FaxCenter. I have added in a GUI for supporting distinctive ring, and would be more than willing to help you troubleshoot any issues you have with my software should you come across them (my email is on that site, and in the docs you get).

[lavar78]

Originally posted by cla:
Agreed. I can't believe so many of the posts suggested this is Microsofts "fault". Many web masters (including myself) don't have time nor money to make their web site render right in explorer 4, 5, 6, mozilla, netscape, safari and opera.

That's exactly why we have standards. Code to the standards and all modern browsers should work. If a developer is coding to IE, he's basically thumbing his nose at those of us who want a more-secure, better browser. That's a good way to stop getting my business.

[cpac]

Originally posted by lavar78:
That's exactly why we have standards. Code to the standards and all modern browsers should work. If a developer is coding to IE, he's basically thumbing his nose at those of us who want a more-secure, better browser. That's a good way to stop getting my business.

Exactly.

standards support is one of those areas where literally, if you aren't part of the solution, you *are* part of the problem.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by cla:
Agreed. I can't believe so many of the posts suggested this is Microsofts "fault". Many web masters (including myself) don't have time nor money to make their web site render right in explorer 4, 5, 6, mozilla, netscape, safari and opera.

Yes, cla, you do have the time and money. All you lack is know-how, or perhaps talent. There are plenty of books and sites which can show you how to do it.

[cla]

Yes, cla, you do have the time and money. All you lack is know-how, or perhaps talent. There are plenty of books and sites which can show you how to do it.

Blame the Website designe where they produce sites coded specificaly for IE, that is non W3C complient websites.

Again: it's the web site's fault a lot of the time. Contact them and tell them to support the Macintosh customers out there.

That's exactly why we have standards. Code to the standards and all modern browsers should work. If a developer is coding to IE, he's basically thumbing his nose at those of us who want a more-secure, better browser. That's a good way to stop getting my business.

standards support is one of those areas where literally, if you aren't part of the solution, you *are* part of the problem.

Many web site designers settle for Internet Explorer.
Many banking services don't even support Macintosh.

"Blame the website designer", concluding that "standards is the problem", "tell them to support the Macintosh customers" or telling people on forums that they are "part of the problem" is NOT part of the solution.

Standards really is the problem. Though not that people don't follow W3C standards. It's just that others have an opinion about what is standard, namely anything that works in Explorer for Windows.

[cla]

Originally posted by Millennium:
All you lack is know-how, or perhaps talent.

EDIT and DOUBLE-POST... =/

[cla]

Originally posted by cla:
Really mature there. And it was probably absolutely necessary to add the talent part as well.

EDIT: It occured to me just now that maybe you're serious.
I'm sorry, I took it as an insult.. No hard feelings =)

[cpac]

Originally posted by cla:
Many web site designers settle for Internet Explorer.
Many banking services don't even support Macintosh.

"settle" being the operative word.
I personally haven't run into any banking problems - with Key, Citibank, Amex, MBNA, Providian, Discover, A.G. Edwards, Bank One, or anybody else I've tried. If all those institutions are able to write standards-compliant code (or at least standard-enough to work with all the different mac browsers I've tried), it really can't be that hard to do.

"Blame the website designer", concluding that "standards is the problem", "tell them to support the Macintosh customers" or telling people on forums that they are "part of the problem" is NOT part of the solution.

Nobody (except you later in your post) said that "stardards is [sic] the problem" - just the lack of people coding to a standard. If you, as a web developer, are coding specifically to IE, rather than to standards, then yes, you are part of the problem, and while telling you so may not fix anything, it doesn't hurt the cause either.

Standards really is the problem. Though not that people don't follow W3C standards. It's just that others have an opinion about what is standard, namely anything that works in Explorer for Windows.

Exactly - that attitude is the problem. Microsofts strategy has always been to "embrace, extend, extinguish." Adopting your attitude of coding for IE rather than to open objective standards only helps microsoft in its quest to be the only computer company for anything. If everyone acted as you do, we'd all be forced to use Windows, and we'd all be forced to use IE since everything would depend on closed M$ protocols rather than the open W3C standards.

[JKT]

Originally posted by cla:
Many web site designers settle for Internet Explorer.
Many banking services don't even support Macintosh.

"Blame the website designer", concluding that "standards is the problem", "tell them to support the Macintosh customers" or telling people on forums that they are "part of the problem" is NOT part of the solution.

Standards really is the problem. Though not that people don't follow W3C standards. It's just that others have an opinion about what is standard, namely anything that works in Explorer for Windows.

I've always wondered how the companies that have this philosophy would react if you showed them its impact in the real world by visiting all of their brick and mortar stores and randomly barring 1 out of every 10 people who walk through the door from coming in and doing business. I just don't understand how they can justify such a blinkered action in economic terms - it's truly bizarre.

[JLL]

Originally posted by cla:
Actually, both of my brothers uses MSN. And by the way, I don't know one single person in the world (except for Steve Jobs, for I have seen it) that uses iChat. I'm about to switch (back) and it really bugs me that I have to install an MSN client in order to keep up with people.

And that was a problem? Why should Apple make an MSN client? Isn't that MS' job?

Should Apple make an image editor, if you don't want to install Photoshop?

[JLL]

Originally posted by cla:
Many banking services don't even support Macintosh.

But not because of HTML - usually it's because their security systems require Windows only software on the client computer.

[cla]

Originally posted by JKT:
I've always wondered how the companies that have this philosophy would react if you showed them its impact in the real world by visiting all of their brick and mortar stores and randomly barring 1 out of every 10 people who walk through the door from coming in and doing business. I just don't understand how they can justify such a blinkered action in economic terms - it's truly bizarre.

Agreed. And all that shop owner has to do to reject that 1 person is to not build a handicap ramp. Handicap ramps cost money.

HCI people are among the first to leave a project when budget tightens, and I guess the same goes for providing Macintosh support.
I can't blame that decision - it's just part of being a minority, and it's usually temporary.

However, the fact that iCapture is so popular is a light in the tunnel.

[JKT]

Originally posted by cla:
Agreed. And all that shop owner has to do to reject that 1 person is to not build a handicap ramp. Handicap ramps cost money.

However, it costs no money at all to support the Mac or alternative browsers when it comes to web site design, just intelligent, informed and good design practice. Ignorance of the options is simply no excuse in this instance.

I'll put it another way - the current situation isn't comparable to the lack of a wheelchair ramp, it is the singling out everyone who wears e.g. a red T-shirt that comes through the door, be they in a wheelchair or not. There simply isn't any economic justification for such an exclusionary practice.

[Arty50]

Originally posted by cla:
Agreed. And all that shop owner has to do to reject that 1 person is to not build a handicap ramp. Handicap ramps cost money.

And they are also required by law.

[Graymalkin]

Coding to web standards while keeping sites functional is not a difficult task in the slightest. An HTML-CSS web page is going to be cleaner, smaller, and more compatible than some Frontpage designed monstrosity. Dynamic back-ends work just fine with standards compliant web pages.

[macintologist]

Burning CDs on the Mac is embarrassing

Apple really needs to add a new "Burning CD done easy" feature in Tiger. Whenever I have to explain to a n00b on how to burn a data CD, it's a huge pain in the ass to tell them "oh you go to utilities, then to the disk utitliy,

and then you have to explain how disk images work and all that bullcrap.

Comon Apple, wtf is wrong with you

[PurpleGiant]

Disk utility to burn a cd? I've never shown a newb how to do it that way. I tell them:

1) Put blank CD in computer.
2) Give it a name
3) Drag files to CD in Finder
4) click the 'burn' icon next to the CD in Finder.

Which bit can be simplified??

[voodoo]

Originally posted by PurpleGiant:
Disk utility to burn a cd? I've never shown a newb how to do it that way. I tell them:

1) Put blank CD in computer.
2) Give it a name
3) Drag files to CD in Finder
4) click the 'burn' icon next to the CD in Finder.

Which bit can be simplified??

I was thinking the same thing

Maybe he means when you are copying data CDs or burning CD images?

[chris v]

Originally posted by macintologist:
Burning CDs on the Mac is embarrassing

Apple really needs to add a new "Burning CD done easy" feature in Tiger. Whenever I have to explain to a n00b on how to burn a data CD, it's a huge pain in the ass to tell them "oh you go to utilities, then to the disk utitliy,

and then you have to explain how disk images work and all that bullcrap.

Comon Apple, wtf is wrong with you

What?

[cla]

Even IF the trash can's name and appearance would reflect the metaphor "remove from computer", there is no way in the world anyone can defend the usability in redefining the metaphor to "remove from computer OR BURN A CD!!".

Disk utility to burn a cd? I've never shown a newb how to do it that way. I tell them:

1) Put blank CD in computer.
2) Give it a name
3) Drag files to CD in Finder
4) click the 'burn' icon next to the CD in Finder.

Which bit can be simplified??

This should in my opinion be the only way of burning a CD in Finder!

[cpac]

Originally posted by cla:
This should in my opinion be the only way of burning a CD in Finder!

As long as it's one of the ways, why should you care?

[macintologist]

Originally posted by voodoo:
I was thinking the same thing

Maybe he means when you are copying data CDs or burning CD images?

Yea exactly copying CDs and doing all that general stuff.

"[insert my name here], how do I copy this presentation CD my dad gave me?"

"uhh, well, first you have to go to disk utility to make a duplicate disk image.."

bla bla bla.

It's a real pain in the ass explaining it..and the onus is on me because I convinced them to switch to Mac and I want them to have the best possible experience so that they tell people how great it was to switch and thus more people switch, thus increasing Apple's base, thus making life better for all Mac users.

I always see things as the big picture

[PurpleGiant]

Originally posted by macintologist:
"[insert my name here], how do I copy this presentation CD my dad gave me?"

"uhh, well, first you have to go to disk utility to make a duplicate disk image.."

bla bla bla.

To be completely honest, I have never even used Disk Utility to burn CDs. Someone asks me "how do I copy this presentation CD my dad gave me?"

I tell them:

1) Insert CD, drag the files you want onto the desktop.
2) Eject CD and follow normal instructions for burning them to a new CD.

Can't think of any newbs that need bit-for-bit CD copies. But if you want something to complain about, I wish 500% the 'Burn' button in iPhoto could be customised to simply burn a CD with the selected images. (as opposed to an iPhoto directory structure burned on a CD)

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by PurpleGiant:
But if you want something to complain about, I wish 500% the 'Burn' button in iPhoto could be customised to simply burn a CD with the selected images. (as opposed to an iPhoto directory structure burned on a CD)

Agreed. We wanted to burn a data cd (cross platform) from iPhoto for freinds and family, and I was suprised to learn that I had to utilize 'export' and the finder.

At least iPhoto help makes it perfectly clear what to do...

Seems it should be a burn option within iPhoto.

edit: iPhoto, not iTunes...

[Arbernaut]

Originally posted by cla:
I can't believe it!! And I who in my stupidity thought Apple had learned something from the biggest usability flaw of the century (apart from uncheckable radio buttons and that you have to click "Start" in order to "Shut down" in Windows): dragging a disc to the trash to eject it.

Miles of columns have been written on this subject.

Apple *have* learned. If you select a CD or some other ejectable media, the trash can CHANGES to an EJECT icon, so you're actually dragging your CD to an eject icon, not the trash.

I think this is the best solution that doesn't alienate Mac users like myself who've been using the buggers for over 15 years!

And others have said, there are alternatives, such as using the sidebar or option/right clicking.

[JKT]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
Agreed. We wanted to burn a data cd (cross platform) from iTunes for freinds and family, and I was suprised to learn that I had to utilize 'export' and the finder.

You did? Why didn't you just change the preferences to burn a data CD in iTunes? Admittedly, having this setting in the preferences is a bit daft - you should be asked the format you want when you click the burn button, but hopefully iTunes will see improvement wrt this in newer versions

As for the complaint by Macintologist about using Disk Utility to create and burn images, well what do you expect? You can't put two CDs in one machine (unless you have two drives) so you simply have to make a duplicate image first to be able to burn it. However, if you want a noddy way of doing it without using Disk Utility, simply get them to option-drag the source CD to e.g. the desktop to copy it. Eject the source, insert CD-R, copy info from the duplicate of the source CD to the CD-R and burn. No Disk Utility involved.

FWIW, Tiger should be making this easier if the burnable folders thing works the way I envisage. Once you have duplicated the source CD, you can make it a burnable folder and that way, just insert a CD and select burn folder without having to duplicate the contents back to the CD-R first (anyone care to comment on whether that is correct or not, or have I misunderstood the burnable folder concept?).