[Skywalkers new Hand]

Originally posted by plaidpjs:

Of course, the shining intellect that pointed out designers can't do anything in X was probably meaning to focus on the use of "artistic" utilities - PhotoShop, Illustrator, Flash, etc. And, if all they were to look for was the "brand" name apps, then they might actually have a point.

Ya that was it exactly. When I talk about Apple having the big GRAPHIC DESIGN market I wasn't talking about HTML, Perl and all that other coding stuff you mentioned.

Now in all the years that I have done graphic and web design in huge multimedia companies this is what I see. Mac's are used for the GRAPHIC DESIGN, PC's are used for the coding and the serving. Apple knows this the industry knows this the general public knows this. If I walk into work and tell them that I am now ditching PhotoShop and going with Tiffany for whatever reason that would be the end of me. The industry uses Photoshop, plain and simple.
Sure I can launch Photoshop in classic, but why? What am I gaining.
I can also use Tiffany for my own use, but I am losing more then I am gaining.

Graphic and Video work takes longer to do and render in OSX, it is less efficient and time is money. If you can show me otherwise I would love to see it.

Maybe you should think about it before getting so steamed up and flaming again.


------------------

[frawgz]

Originally posted by mumble:
Um, Obj-C is very much crossplatform, it's been in gcc since 1.99 (IIRC) ten years ago. I believe this is the basis for both gnustep and Apple's current dev software. There are also MPW compatible compilers (for IX).

No argument here. I was merely questioning the relevance of the contention that Obj-C isn't cross platform.

[GnOm]

Originally posted by Skywalkers new Hand:

"a.) it doesn´t crash "
It Kernel Panics.

b.) it does it´s job and it does it good
If you do nothing but surf the web.

d.) it´s (almost) fast enough
For what? Surfing the web? It is twice as slow at everything else.

e.) I can use my "old" Apps too
Yes, slower and more buggy. You can use your old apps in OS9 just fine.

I told you that I am just talking for myself, so you can doubt it as much as you like but:
a.) never had one of those kernel panics.
b.) i use StoneStudio, TIFFany3, Potoshop and a lot more, they work just as good as in MacOS 9
d.) it´s actually faster in getting the work done if you use more than one or two Apps at the same time, in MacOS 9 the App in the Background does almost nothing.
e.) they´re not one bit slower in Classic than they were in native 9.


cu

[AirSluf]

I use Win 2K and 95 daily because I am forced to by the availability of Lab equipment and hardcore statistical packages. I am also wondering if you ever listen to what you are saying or just wing it.

The M$ interface has very little innovation in it, and what is there was driven significantly by the lawsuit mess several years ago in trying to look just enough different to look good in court. It's really a kluge job on anything decent Apple, IBM, Next, Netscape and anyone else has done in the last 10 years.

Forcing only a single programming language choice on a platform is a BAD IDEA. It severely limits the platforms flexibility and adaptability. Potentially a factor in NEXTs demise. It was too closed, even more so than Macs are in that way. An excellent way to become a far superior programmer to what you are today is to become proficient at several widely different languages. Your problem solving abilities in any one of them will increase significantly. Give Smalltalk, Lisp and Prolog a shot for awhile. They are so different you will begin to see solutions in a completely different way.

Availibility of Cocoa any framework won't force an application programmer to use it. That is free choice. Applications that want to follow those types of things would come very close even in a frameworks absence. Forcing compliance would be bad too. Back to the first part of the above paragraph.

I haven't seen a shipping OS that comes close to X's design level. If you think Win2K is, well...

[GnOm]

Originally posted by AirSluf:
...Your problem solving abilities in any one of them will increase significantly....

yepp, that´s the way it is. The "problem" is here first and then you choose the language to solve it and not the other way round.


cu

[proceedNeXT]

Originally posted by AirSluf:

The M$ interface has very little innovation in it, and what is there was driven significantly by the lawsuit mess several years ago in trying to look just enough different to look good in court.

Yes and no. The look is obiously stolen from NeXT. The window resize element, the desktop metaphor, icons, recyclebin are stolen from Apple. The "Coolbars" are stolen from Netscape. The MDI is just plain idiotic. However, they 'invented' better open and save dialogs, the superefficient window sorting and managing, and the everything in one window thing. Which Apple tries to copy. The Coolbars are a very useful idea, they make a more clean screen. Same for the StartMenu. Its functionality is just simple superior than any Apple of docked-folder menu (they stole the drag mechanism of menu items from NeXT, too). They made the starting points a nearly system wide service (I love these thing). They have the explorer view which is just brilliant for copying and organizing files/folders. They have this selecting thing at the left of windows (I don't know how it's called. Mail+Drawer versus Outlook and this side selecting thing) While they may have done all this to avoid lawsuits, it resulted in an useful interface concept. They didn't do it perfect (they are MS you know), but that doesn't mean that Apple can ignore it, while creating the MacOS X interface. They should have taken that into consideration.

Can we agree that the animation of sheets is nearly as stupid as Window's zooming menus?

Originally posted by AirSluf:

Forcing only a single programming language choice on a platform is a BAD IDEA. It severely limits the platforms flexibility and adaptability. Potentially a factor in NEXTs demise. It was too closed, even more so than Macs are in that way. An excellent way to become a far superior programmer to what you are today is to become proficient at several widely different languages. Your problem solving abilities in any one of them will increase significantly. Give Smalltalk, Lisp and Prolog a shot for awhile. They are so different you will begin to see solutions in a completely different way.

I think that forcing only a single programming language choice on a platform is a BAD IDEA, too. BUT I think that *forcing* to use *diffrent* languages for components is also stupid. Let's see what we have: C for the Kernel, C++ for IOKit, C/C++ for Carbon, Obj-C/Java for Cocoa, Obj-C/Java for the dock, Java for WebObjects 5, Java for Java. Why not make Obj-C static and dynamic, allowing it to be used for very performance sensitiv tasks, too? It's just an idea, I am not a compiler programmer. (I'm looking here at NEXTSTEP [Obj-C, dynamic] and BeOS [C++, static]).

Originally posted by AirSluf:

Availibility of Cocoa any framework won't force an application programmer to use it. That is free choice. Applications that want to follow those types of things would come very close even in a frameworks absence. Forcing compliance would be bad too. Back to the first part of the above paragraph.

*sigh*
Have you ever, ever tried to implement a new ROOT CLASS like NSOBJECT? Have fun...
Obj-C does not provide any objects per se.

Originally posted by AirSluf:

I haven't seen a shipping OS that comes close to X's design level. If you think Win2K is, well...

Design Level? What design level? WHAT DOES OS X gives me, that I can't get with Win2k? (Please no answers like it prints to PDF, or that I'm stupid, if I can't see).
I don't want to start a flame war here. But you have to realize, that it isn't necessarily good only because it comes from Apple. Yes, Microsoft is evil. Yes, it has no soul. But does it stop us to utilize their concepts (based on the work of Apple and NeXT) for advancing our MacOS X? No. To hell with Microsoft, but before that, we should take some of their interface elements back to their origin. The MacOS.

[gacuna]

This guy is right, well yeah it has a cool interface, but, a lot of issues need to be resolved, I mean they should have kept the the new interface in terms of theme, but keep the old format, and well, it is complicated, he is right, I mean the mac has been such a success because of 9 and 9.1, these OSs just fly on machines, and well MacOSX on a "G4" which is supposedly fast well, I mean it doesn't show off its power. I think they should have made a better product and base it more on something else and not on NeXT Steve Jobs' old son that died and now he wants to bring it back, and for this mistake the only thing that will save him is hardware.

--Guillermo

[Millennium]

Windows has a key concept for the interface (altough they are dropping it right now for Whistler, hehe).

Windows has a "key concept for the interface"? What is it?

The Cocoa frameworks *have* definately *been* the best solution for programming. But they miss features and elements, that a modern OS has to implement to be consistent.

And these are...? I can't think of anything Cocoa doesn't implement that's truly a necessary thing, at least in terms of interface. Though I could wish for better NSToolbar support in ProjectBuilder.

Have you used freehand recently? Those toolbars are just bad. Thoose pallets, too.

Well, since Cocoa does support toolbars, the first one is no problem. As for the second, pallets are extremely easy to make, to the point where there's no need for a separate widget. And even if there were one, it couldn't possibly cover every last need every programmer has for one.

Have I mentioned my beloved starting points, yet?

You've mentioned them, but you still haven't even said what the heck they are. I don't know; maybe I've just never heard them called that before. But I honestly have no clue what this "starting point" thing you mention is.

However, they 'invented' better open and save dialogs...

What, that cluttered mess that's basically another filemanager? That's not an open/save dialog, that's just bloat. The best Open-Save dialogs I've ever seen were the ones in OS9's Navigation Services, with Default Folder added to them.

...the superefficient window sorting and managing...

Huh? If you're going to talk about the Taskbar being "superefficient" at anything, you're sadly mistaken. Tiny icons with badly-placed labels (so short they're basically worthless if you have more than three windows open) are not good tools for managing windows. And if you're talking about things like Tile and Cascade, those existed on the Mac and NeXT long before Windows, even though they weren't hard-coded.

...and the everything in one window thing.

That horribly limited paradigm which ignores the plain and simple fact that many apps need more than one window to do their work in a manner which is easy to understand? I'd hardly call that innovation.

The Coolbars are a very useful idea, they make a more clean screen.

How is this different from a standard toolbar? Coolbars get in the way more often than not, and tend to break interface conventions left and right while doing so.

Same for the StartMenu. Its functionality is just simple superior than any Apple of docked-folder menu (they stole the drag mechanism of menu items from NeXT, too).

Hmmm... so instead of putting a few items in one place, each with its own distinctive widget, you'd rather put everything into a single menu that doesn't even look like a proper menu, but rather a button? Yeah, real "superior."

They made the starting points a nearly system wide service (I love these thing).

I still have no idea what you are talking about. What is a "starting point"?

They have this selecting thing at the left of windows (I don't know how it's called. Mail+Drawer versus Outlook and this side selecting thing)

That, too, existed for years before Microsoft picked it up. Incidentally, I believe Microsoft calls them Sidebars.

Can we agree that the animation of sheets is nearly as stupid as Window's zooming menus?

Not really. Sheets' animation serves some very important purposes, namely direct feedback on exactly what window and/or document the dialog deals with. Zooming menus, on the other hand, is just fluff.

think that forcing only a single programming language choice on a platform is a BAD IDEA, too. BUT I think that *forcing* to use *diffrent* languages for components is also stupid. Let's see what we have: C for the Kernel, C++ for IOKit, C/C++ for Carbon, Obj-C/Java for Cocoa, Obj-C/Java for the dock, Java for WebObjects 5, Java for Java.

Unix kernels, including Mach, have always been done in C, so it makes sense to have kernel programming done that way. Likewise, the Mac OS Toolbox was always done in C and C++ (Pascal too, though that's gone away), so it only makes sense to continue Carbon in that manner. Obj-C was always used for Cocoa; Java's a new addition there. The Dock is new, but as Apple is favoring Cocoa over Carbon, it makes sense to have the programming language be the same. And as for Java... well, Java is Java. My point: the principal programming languages for these parts (except IOKit, which I'll admit to not understanding either) were all chosen very carefully. And note that I said principal programming language. Bindings for other languages can and will be created; we're already sttarting to see these for languages like Python and Tk. It's not Apple's job to do that.

Why not make Obj-C static and dynamic, allowing it to be used for very performance sensitiv tasks, too?

Um... last I checked, you could do static stuff in Objective-C. Quite easily too, I might add.

Have you ever, ever tried to implement a new ROOT CLASS like NSOBJECT? Have fun...
Obj-C does not provide any objects per se.

And neither does C++, or Eiffel, or any other languages. You have to have class libraries (which Cocoa calls Frameworks) to do these things. And at their hearts, the root objects of these class libraries are almost never written in the language the library is intended to be used with. It's the old chicken-and-egg problem.

I don't want to start a flame war here. But you have to realize, that it isn't necessarily good only because it comes from Apple.

Of course it's not good just because it comes from Apple. If it wants to be good, it has to earn that honor for itself. And it does.

Yes, Microsoft is evil. Yes, it has no soul. But does it stop us to utilize their concepts (based on the work of Apple and NeXT) for advancing our MacOS X? No.

It shouldn't stop us from using the few good things to come out of Win9x, but it also shouldn't stop us from blindly copying stuff over. Not everything new is good, just as not everything old is bad.

[Hash]

Since almost every my post is closed by moderators, because i do not blindly believe that Mac OSX is best OS EVER existed on this planet, I will be short and express my opinion frankly.

To Millemium, what you do not see or what you prefer not to see, is that compared to OS X, people now again rethinking their relation with Mac OS, and Windows. YOu may laugh at Windows-"bloated and etc"-however millions of people use it and nobody has died from using Windows Surely, you dont think these millions are so stupid while you alone are so brilliant that no one except you understands how Mac OS X is wonderful and Windows suck. By law of numbers, probably the opposite is true.

Open your eyes. Both Apple and Microsoft are corporations with similar products. Apple used to have user-friendlier one, no more.

[plaidpjs]

Originally posted by Skywalkers new Hand:
Ya that was it exactly. When I talk about Apple having the big GRAPHIC DESIGN market I wasn't talking about HTML, Perl and all that other coding stuff you mentioned.

Now in all the years that I have done graphic and web design in huge multimedia companies this is what I see. Mac's are used for the GRAPHIC DESIGN, PC's are used for the coding and the serving. Apple knows this the industry knows this the general public knows this. If I walk into work and tell them that I am now ditching PhotoShop and going with Tiffany for whatever reason that would be the end of me. The industry uses Photoshop, plain and simple.
Sure I can launch Photoshop in classic, but why? What am I gaining.
I can also use Tiffany for my own use, but I am losing more then I am gaining.

Graphic and Video work takes longer to do and render in OSX, it is less efficient and time is money. If you can show me otherwise I would love to see it.

Maybe you should think about it before getting so steamed up and flaming again.

Pardon me... REWIND! Flame? hmmm? Maybe you should think about it before speaking for an entire industry.

The industry is PhotoShop? Hmmm... the last time I checked the industry was whatever got the job done. PhotoShop may be the industry leader, but it isn't the industry, and by no means is it the perfect beast you seem to be holding it up as. And, what about the other, very notable, raster applications? And, vector apps?

As for proving that PhotoShop under classic is better than or equal to PhotoShop under OS 9, well... it unfortunately can't be done.

I mean, I could sit here and write about the numerous actions I've run in PS on Classic that finish seconds or minutes ahead of PS on 9, but, you could argue that batch processing with Actions isn't something most people do, or at least they don't do on a regular basis. I could write about how rendering a lens flare on a 300 dpi 8x10 image processes faster under Classic then under 9, but, unless you were sitting here to actually watch it on my machine, I doubt you'd believe me. Even more, I could write about how wonderful it is to do either of these things while switching to Explorer and browsing MacNN, while simultaneously having Fetch pull an old site off of an ftp (120 megs worth of files), while simultaneously having AIM and ICQ open and chatting with my father 3000 miles away and a few of my friends down in DC, oh, AND while ruunning iTunes and listening to Iris by the Goo Goo Dolls. But, hey, I can understand that some people out there just don't appreciate the ability to multitask.

Further, as YOU say, Macs are percieved as the graphics machine while code is done on a PC or *nix box. But, what good has this done Apple in the last 10 years? NONE. it's resulted in a dwindling market share as more and more "designers" decide to move to a system that can do both. Or is "cheaper" to do one or the other.

Here's the thing I know, above all else, Mac OS X may not be perfect, and it may not be what you are used to, but it is the future if Apple wants to continue in the computer business. AND, when native "commercial" apps start to appear (oh my GOD, they already have)
adn they are unusable by any standard under X, then and only then will it be justifiable to say that no one in the graphics industry can work in the new OS. As it stands, your assertion is already proven wrong as I, at least, am working just fine in OS X.

Ciao!


------------------
G4/533 DP, 768 MB RAM, 40GB HDD, 32MB GeForce2 MX, 30GB VST Firewire Drive, and an Apple Cinema Display.

[This message has been edited by plaidpjs (edited 05-13-2001).]

[This message has been edited by plaidpjs (edited 05-13-2001).]

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by AirSluf:
Now go learn to use a spell checker and finish school. Your assault on written English is so bad and inconsistent I haven’t been able to convince myself that another language is your primary one, I think you just didn’t pay enough attention in class.

You're just quite lucky that the internet's default language happens to be your own.

[Edit: Slight slagging of AirSluf removed, since (s)he has retracted above statement]

-chris. (native language: German)

------------------
...the original Genie Junkie™

[This message has been edited by Spheric Harlot (edited 05-13-2001).]

[plaidpjs]

Originally posted by Hash:
Since almost every my post is closed by moderators, because i do not blindly believe that Mac OSX is best OS EVER existed on this planet, I will be short and express my opinion frankly.

To Millemium, what you do not see or what you prefer not to see, is that compared to OS X, people now again rethinking their relation with Mac OS, and Windows. YOu may laugh at Windows-"bloated and etc"-however millions of people use it and nobody has died from using Windows Surely, you dont think these millions are so stupid while you alone are so brilliant that no one except you understands how Mac OS X is wonderful and Windows suck. By law of numbers, probably the opposite is true.

Open your eyes. Both Apple and Microsoft are corporations with similar products. Apple used to have user-friendlier one, no more.

What the hell are you talking about? because of the "law of numbers" the opposite is probably true? Well, I guess that means that by the law of numbers that Christ wasn't the son of god and christianity is a heathen religion. I mean, by numbers alone there are more believers in Islam then there are christians.

Hmmm... by that matter, I guess at one point the world was ACTUALLY flat seeing as more people believed it was then didn't before it was accepted as otherwise.

You could make the perceptual argument here, but that doesn't mean that what the majority perceives is true.

Ciao!



------------------
G4/533 DP, 768 MB RAM, 40GB HDD, 32MB GeForce2 MX, 30GB VST Firewire Drive, and an Apple Cinema Display.

[BuonRotto]

I still wonder why people prefer to complain (and I do think that's a valid term at this point considering how redundant these posts are over the past 3 months) about OS X and use it rather than simply switch platforms and be done with it. If you really think it's that bad, then exercise your free-market economy freedom of choice and mske a real statement.

I am really convinced that some people just prefer to complain than to either do anything about it or see change for the better. If it weren't that the new OS were too different (it isn't), it would be that they didn't make it different enough. If it weren't that it's too slow, it would be that they were mis-prioritizing by making speed an issue this early. Some people like to make their lives miserable. Save us the drama and save yourself the headache.

[Skywalkers new Hand]

Originally posted by plaidpjs:
\at least, am working just fine in OS X.

Ok I am not going to bother with you. Since YOU are working fine in TIFFany then all graphic users should be fine as well. Thanks for the reassurance

------------------

[Hash]

BuonRotto,

are you in your mind? These people are complaining BECAUSE they can not use it. Did you try it urself? Use it and save us from ur miserable teen angst.

[BuonRotto]

Originally posted by Hash:
BuonRotto,

are you in your mind? These people are complaining BECAUSE they can not use it. Did you try it urself? Use it and save us from ur miserable teen angst.

I don't understand you comment. I never said they didn't try to use it. I just mean why struggle if it's not what you like?

I use it every day on my home machine exclusively. I'm just frustrated by this place in general, so maybe I did come off as a little adolescent. I just don't understand why people post umpteen threads about the exact same thing every day and declare the superiority of another platform and then not follow through. Would they prefer to be frustrated?

[GnOm]

Originally posted by Skywalkers new Hand:
Since YOU are working fine in TIFFany then all graphic users should be fine as well.

oh please would you stop bitchin´
Since YOU are not working good enough with MacOS X all other are not able to work fine as well.
We could continue for ages in this style, it´s just stupid.
When do people accept that some are fine with it and some are not (and I don´t give a damn anymore why).


cu

[JFK2000]

Originally posted by proceedNeXT:
*Sigh*
I wanted to make you think. Seems like I have failed.
This thread went to a direction, I didn't want it to go. What I posted are just observations I made, because I was disappointed about OS X after having worked with Windows 98 and Windows 2000 Sever the last week. I have writen a long comment on Milleniums post, but after this other long post from AirSlurf, I give up.

So let me get this straight...You wanted to make us think and now you're giving up because you can't control the direction of the discussion.

So in other words, you're frustrated because you can't get people to think like you do and you can't control their discussion.

I don't know what you expect in a public discussion forum.

[Spheric Harlot]

This thread is rapidly degenerating into some kind of high-school cafeteria food fight.

Everybody, get a grip, please.

-c.

------------------
...the original Genie Junkie™

[itomato]

Originally posted by REVITUP:
Where could I get ahold of OPENSTEP(or NeXTStep)? Is it distributed anywhere at all? And, if so, what does it cost(if anything)?

The same place you can get everything.. eBay

OPENSTEP 4.2 with the Devleper tools should cost you no more than $125. If you pay more, you're getting ripped off. In fact, you might be getting ripped off at $125, unless you really, really want it.

------------------


[This message has been edited by itomato (edited 05-13-2001).]

[proceedNeXT]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Windows has a "key concept for the interface"? What is it?

Switching between windows (documents) rather than apps. Toolbars. Window-integrated inspectors and auxilary views on the left and/or right side. Look at Outlook, look at InternetExplorer, look at Visual Sh!t. You should get the picture.

The Cocoa frameworks *have* definately *been* the best solution for programming. But they miss features and elements, that a modern OS has to implement to be consistent.

And these are...? I can't think of anything Cocoa doesn't implement that's truly a necessary thing, at least in terms of interface. Though I could wish for better NSToolbar support in ProjectBuilder.

Oh, come on. Nothing is truely a necessary thing. But there are controls and interface elements, that just shouldn't be custom control, because they are used too often.

However, at first, NSToolbar can't compete with MSCoolbars. The option of having your own views in them is cool, but they are just to limited.
Than I want a better inspector control. I want sidebars for my programms. I want standarized pallets. I want the promised tab controls of Project Builder. I want standarized starting points. I want the view switcher of iMove/the Finder. I want just a little caledar control. This are features that are used by MANY programms. Every control that is used by many programms should be in the framework.

Well, since Cocoa does support toolbars, the first one is no problem. As for the second, pallets are extremely easy to make, to the point where there's no need for a separate widget. And even if there were one, it couldn't possibly cover every last need every programmer has for one.

You don't get it, do you? Those NSToolbars are bound to a window. They are limited to one row. There are no standard icons. You can't move them. Having them in every window is just too much. They don't look like a toolbar. They are too big. So what? Every programmer creates his own version with diffrent behavior. Very consistent. RTFM! Same for the pallets. Oh, have you ever heard of subclassing?

You've mentioned them, but you still haven't even said what the heck they are. I don't know; maybe I've just never heard them called that before. But I honestly have no clue what this "starting point" thing you mention is.

I am sorry. The written answer to your first contained their describtion. Since I didn't post it, you can't know what they are. Starting points are those things you get, when you start Interface Builder, AppleWorks, a MSOffice Programm. They are very useful. You can read more about them in the Hall of fame on the websites of iarchitect.

What, that cluttered mess that's basically another filemanager? That's not an open/save dialog, that's just bloat. The best Open-Save dialogs I've ever seen were the ones in OS9's Navigation Services, with Default Folder added to them.

That's exactly my point. Navigation Services are perfect. They are a replacement for the old, ugly and inefficent version. They were created after windows' things, they were created with windows ones in mind, and they were constructed to be better than MS things. What do we get? A really wonderful solution.

Huh? If you're going to talk about the Taskbar being "superefficient" at anything, you're sadly mistaken. Tiny icons with badly-placed labels (so short they're basically worthless if you have more than three windows open) are not good tools for managing windows. And if you're talking about things like Tile and Cascade, those existed on the Mac and NeXT long before Windows, even though they weren't hard-coded.

I am talking that the future is switching between documents (windows), not between the system that handles them (apps). (MacOS X tries to do this already with its new window behavior.) It takes me just to much time to order my windows of InternetExplorer:Mac. In windows, I just click on the taskbar Item, and I have my window in the front. However, windows has the same problem that more windows make the taskbar more useless. BUT you have the same problem with the dock and Apps. At least, windows has labels and not just Icons (the size of the icons is irelevant, as you may have noticed).

That horribly limited paradigm which ignores the plain and simple fact that many apps need more than one window to do their work in a manner which is easy to understand? I'd hardly call that innovation.

First Steve loves it. Second, it is recomanded to use this paradigm in OS X. So this is NOT my problem of arguing?
Name just one app, that need more windows than it's document windows. (And please no MDI, I am talking of auxilary windows here). Every document should have it's own window, thoug. (See Project Builder).

How is this different from a standard toolbar? Coolbars get in the way more often than not, and tend to break interface conventions left and right while doing so.

You can drag them wherever you want. You can drag them out of the window. They show that they do something when you click on them (hover effect). You can have more than one. How do you implement a NSToolbar for the Photoshop toolbar? What interface conventions do they break, that aren't broken by NSToolbar? I am listening.

Hmmm... so instead of putting a few items in one place, each with its own distinctive widget, you'd rather put everything into a single menu that doesn't even look like a proper menu, but rather a button? Yeah, real "superior."

FUNCTIONALITY IS NEITHER THE LOOK, NOR THE TIME YOU NEED TO GET USED TO. I holds my Apps. It holds folders for my Apps. I can sort my menu entries. I can run a command. I have access to my settings. I have access to my recent Items. I have access to Windows help. Sounds like a very superior Applemenu for me doesn't it? Have you actually used it, or are your arguments just side effects of the reality distortion field? You have the same prejudices about it, that PC Users have about the Mac. It is just like the Apple menu in OS X Server 1.2, but ten times better. (ok, ok, two times, but that's enough)

I still have no idea what you are talking about. What is a "starting point"?

I am sorry. The written answer to your first contained their describtion. Since I didn't post it, you can't know what they are. Starting points are those things you get, when you start Interface Builder, AppleWorks, a MSOffice Programm. They are very useful. You can read more about them in the Hall of fame on the websites of iarchitect.

They have this selecting thing at the left of windows (I don't know how it's called. Mail+Drawer versus Outlook and this side selecting thing)


That, too, existed for years before Microsoft picked it up. Incidentally, I believe Microsoft calls them Sidebars.

Yeah, your right, the idea is great. I love it, too.

Not really. Sheets' animation serves some very important purposes, namely direct feedback on exactly what window and/or document the dialog deals with. Zooming menus, on the other hand, is just fluff.

Isn't one of the key benefits of sheets, that they are attached to the titlebar? The current implementation of the animation is fluff, too.

Unix kernels, including Mach, have always been done in C, so it makes sense to have kernel programming done that way. Likewise, the Mac OS Toolbox was always done in C and C++ (Pascal too, though that's gone away), so it only makes sense to continue Carbon in that manner. Obj-C was always used for Cocoa; Java's a new addition there. The Dock is new, but as Apple is favoring Cocoa over Carbon, it makes sense to have the programming language be the same. And as for Java... well, Java is Java. My point: the principal programming languages for these parts (except IOKit, which I'll admit to not understanding either) were all chosen very carefully. And note that I said principal programming language. Bindings for other languages can and will be created; we're already sttarting to see these for languages like Python and Tk. It's not Apple's job to do that.

Yeah, its not Apple's job to provide access to their APIs.
No, seriously. Obj-C is a superset of C, so what? If you can Obj-C, you can C. I am talking about the language of implementation. Obj-C will fade away for the benefit of Java. See webobjects. See Java.bridge. Apple is not pushing Obj-C enough. Again, I am looking at Be or NEXTSTEP here. It's pretty obvious, that Carbon has to relie on C and C++ (Powerplant ...). It's rather obvious, that Java relies on Java. Uh, I am talking about things I did'nt wanted to talk about. > I just don't like IOkit beeing C++, only.

Um... last I checked, you could do static stuff in Objective-C. Quite easily too, I might add.

I made myself not clear enough. I am talking about static typing. This is not allowed in GNUs and Apples Compiler.

And neither does C++, or Eiffel, or any other languages. You have to have class libraries (which Cocoa calls Frameworks) to do these things. And at their hearts, the root objects of these class libraries are almost never written in the language the library is intended to be used with. It's the old chicken-and-egg problem.

There are many crossplatform C++ apps. There aren't many crossplatform Obj-C apps, that do not relie on Apple's frameworks. However this may become better: GNUstep.

Of course it's not good just because it comes from Apple. If it wants to be good, it has to earn that honor for itself. And it does.

Again, in which way? What does it to earn honor? Oh, yes, I am stupid If I can't see. Let me give you an example: Steve showed us a damn stupid screensaver, celebrating it, as if this is some kind of feature, that wouldn't exist on nearly any other plattform out there except for Mac.
See a pattern here? This is the same about many things in MacOS X. We get things that others have for years. Why can't Apple consider the evolution of other OS like Windows?

It shouldn't stop us from using the few good things to come out of Win9x, but it also shouldn't stop us from blindly copying stuff over. Not everything new is good, just as not everything old is bad.[/B]

I definately agree. And I don't say, that Apple should copy Windows drag and drop behaviour, or the whistler way of handling Apps.
I am just asking for: some standard controls, pallets, toolbars, assistants, starting points, and some control that is in the finder, but not in the frameworks. I want a save/open dialog that doesn't force me to browser view (I like it actually, NEXTSTEP you know). Cocoa has a extra template for a copyright panel, but not for a real toolbar. That is just redicules. It would be so very easy for apple to do so.

[proceedNeXT]

Originally posted by BuonRotto:
I still wonder why people prefer to complain (and I do think that's a valid term at this point considering how redundant these posts are over the past 3 months) about OS X and use it rather than simply switch platforms and be done with it. If you really think it's that bad, then exercise your free-market economy freedom of choice and mske a real statement.

I am really convinced that some people just prefer to complain than to either do anything about it or see change for the better. If it weren't that the new OS were too different (it isn't), it would be that they didn't make it different enough. If it weren't that it's too slow, it would be that they were mis-prioritizing by making speed an issue this early. Some people like to make their lives miserable. Save us the drama and save yourself the headache.

Oh yeah. If you don't like it, shut up. That will help. I made observations and I see some problems with OS X. I am a Mac user, not a MAC FANATIC.

[proceedNeXT]

Originally posted by BuonRotto:
I don't understand you comment. I never said they didn't try to use it. I just mean why struggle if it's not what you like?

I use it every day on my home machine exclusively. I'm just frustrated by this place in general, so maybe I did come off as a little adolescent. I just don't understand why people post umpteen threads about the exact same thing every day and declare the superiority of another platform and then not follow through. Would they prefer to be frustrated?

Maybe they like the new iBook

[proceedNeXT]

Originally posted by JFK2000:
So let me get this straight...You wanted to make us think and now you're giving up because you can't control the direction of the discussion.

So in other words, you're frustrated because you can't get people to think like you do and you can't control their discussion.

I don't know what you expect in a public discussion forum.

I am worried about the future of the macintosh plattform as a whole, MacOS playing a keyrole in this future. I failed to made you think about the things that may be missing, not to make you think like myself. Everybody lives in his own zone of reality. And I was not able to show you the zone of windows users.

I give up, because I don't see a chance that you give up your prejudices and your Reality Distortion field. MacOS is not that advanced system I dreamed of.
It is always hard to accept critic at something you really like, I know. At least you see now why some linux user say that MacOS X is crap. Because they want to defend their beloved OperatingSystem. The same way most people are acting now.

[Lord Kronos]

If Mac OS X is a failure, and Apple dies, we'll use PCs, no big deal.

------------------
"Resistance is futile"

[proceedNeXT]

Originally posted by itomato:
The same place you can get everything.. eBay

OPENSTEP 4.2 with the Devleper tools should cost you no more than $125. If you pay more, you're getting ripped off. In fact, you might be getting ripped off at $125, unless you really, really want it.

You can try it at Black Hole, too. http://blackholeinc.com/

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by proceedNeXT:
In windows, I just click on the taskbar Item, and I have my window in the front. However, windows has the same problem that more windows make the taskbar more useless. BUT you have the same problem with the dock and Apps. At least, windows has labels and not just Icons (the size of the icons is irelevant, as you may have noticed).

The Apple solution of App icons w/ individual windows in the submenu is probably the best.
The MS Windows approach is entirely useless at a certain point. Case in point: I'm on NT at work right now, and my taskbar icons read: "Ar...", "Ch...", "Se...", "dir...", "dir...", "Ne...", "Ne...", "N...", "AR...", "Ne...", "Fa...", "M..." (currently active), "Mi...", and "DAVID...".

Were it not for different icons, I wouldn't have a chance. And the two "dir..." items have nearly identical icons, so I need to squint at them to distinguish between them.
Pray tell me how Windows' labels make this piece of design more useful than the Dock w/ magnification?

Originally posted by proceedNeXT:
Steve showed us a damn stupid screensaver, celebrating it, as if this is some kind of feature, that wouldn't exist on nearly any other plattform out there except for Mac.

Technically just a tangent, but since you mention it: Actually, if you watch the MacWorld keynote (January, I think), you'll notice that, at one point, the tropical island screensaver (can't remember what it's called) kicked in w/o Steve having done anything. The audience started applauding.

Why?
Because the main point that Apple has been selling since the iMac is STYLE. Your points may all be valid, but OS X oozes style in every detail - which no other system I've seen to date comes even close to.

Of course, the German computer market has never given a flying fsck about style, so I can understand your perspective. Over here, it's unlikely anybody would have applauded. But then, nobody would've been there in the first place.

Personally, I was absolutely floored when I installed OS X and the machine started the setup playing Kruder & Dorfmeister at me. And, for the record, I adore the standard OS X screen savers.

-chris.

------------------
...the original Genie Junkie™

[GnOm]

Originally posted by proceedNeXT:
Oh yeah. If you don't like it, shut up. That will help. I made observations and I see some problems with OS X.

but after all, if you really want to change things complaining in a forum is kind of useless. Go mail Apple about it.
Posting it here just has this smell of ranting/whining.


cu

[proceedNeXT]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Technically just a tangent, but since you mention it: Actually, if you watch the MacWorld keynote (January, I think), you'll notice that, at one point, the tropical island screensaver (can't remember what it's called) kicked in w/o Steve having done anything. The audience started applauding.

Why?
Because the main point that Apple has been selling since the iMac is STYLE. Your points may all be valid, but OS X oozes style in every detail - which no other system I've seen to date comes even close to.

Of course, the German computer market has never given a flying fsck about style, so I can understand your perspective. Over here, it's unlikely anybody would have applauded. But then, nobody would've been there in the first place.

Personally, I was absolutely floored when I installed OS X and the machine started the setup playing Kruder & Dorfmeister at me. And, for the record, I adore the standard OS X screen savers.

-chris.

I applauded, too. And the first Mac I bought for myself was a black Powerbook, because I loved it's style. And then I worked with Windows 98. Suddenly, the screensaver started. It was an absolutely amazing firework in dark night, where the explosions of the fireworks made the dark clouds in the sky reflect their gloomy shine. THAT was impressive. I couldn't believe how great that was. It looked like it was a movie, but it was actually rendered in realtime.

[Skywalkers new Hand]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
This thread is rapidly degenerating into some kind of high-school cafeteria food fight.

That is what happens when 80% of the people here are know it all 16 year olds.


------------------

[proceedNeXT]

I thought about a solution for this taskbar issue. I can't come up with one. It thought about a better implementation of a tasbar but I had no idea. Finally I came to the conclusion that moving the taskbar to the right would solve this problem. Takes almost less space than the dock, and holds more items.

[proceedNeXT]

Just an idea. Icons are missing. the control on the right of the buttons is the same as the one in save dialogs, for tongling between windows shown and windows hidden.
http://www.forty-seven.de/Stuff/pastedGraphic.tiff

[Spheric Harlot]

Hmmm.

I have the Dock on the left side and rather like it that way, but your suggestion is not bad...send it to Apple!

-chris.

------------------
...the original Genie Junkie™

[AirSluf]

… everything in one window thing. Which Apple tries to copy. …Same for the StartMenu. Its functionality is just simple superior than any Apple of docked-folder menu …They have the explorer view which is just brilliant for copying and organizing files/folders. ….

M$’s implementation of everything in one window really blows though. Does OKAY mean for my sub-selection or for the window? Does it mean the same thing between windows or applications, no. The sheets go a long way to fixing exactly this problem.

2 months ago I might have agreed about the Dock, but I have found ways to really make it work well for me and is far superior to any combination of non-visible stuff brought up by the start button and the tab parade along the bottom, or even the old Apple Menu which I loved, but now find lacking as I type this in 9 (had to use VPC and S-Plus, oh well)

Explorer view is just a repackaging of list view compared to how X implements column view. Now If we could just get single window spring -loaded column view it would be a complete slam dunk.

Can we agree that the animation of sheets is nearly as stupid as Window's zooming menus

NO. From an interface standpoint they successfully correct a longstanding issue of which open app does this potentially ambiguous dialog box belong to.

I think that forcing only a single programming language choice on a platform is a BAD IDEA, too. BUT I think that *forcing* to use *diffrent* languages for components is also stupid. Let's see what we have: C for the Kernel, C++ for IOKit, C/C++ for Carbon, Obj-C/Java for Cocoa, Obj-C/Java for the dock, Java for WebObjects 5, Java for Java. Why not make Obj-C static and dynamic, allowing it to be used for very performance sensitiv tasks, too? It's just an idea, I am not a compiler programmer. (I'm looking here at NEXTSTEP [Obj-C, dynamic] and BeOS [C++, static]).

Each language and example you listed look quite reasonable to me. Although, I don’t care what the frameworks were programmed in as long as they support me the way they advertise. Unless you are looking to build new libraries for each of your listed examples it shouldn’t really matter to you either. It’s just the little man behind the green curtain. Ignore him.

Have you ever, ever tried to implement a new ROOT CLASS like NSOBJECT? Have fun...
Obj-C does not provide any objects per se.

I think I earlier said something along the lines of life’s not easy but you can do it if you want to. Also, I don’t remember anyone saying a language provides an object.

we should take some of their interface elements back to their origin. The MacOS.

It would have been nice if everything available in OS 9 had been implemented in this version of X in some form or another, but I do appreciate the need to create some form of progress through changes. The overall effect has been positive with a few notable exclusions that need to be brought in, but within the context of X, not as a straight port of 9’s functionality. Spring -loaded folders are a prime example here.

[plaidpjs]

Originally posted by Skywalkers new Hand:
Ok I am not going to bother with you. Since YOU are working fine in TIFFany then all graphic users should be fine as well. Thanks for the reassurance

DO YOU EVEN LISTEN?

I have used TIFFany from time to time, but I haven't stopped using PhotoShop, as I said, it work better for ME in Classic then it ever did in 9.

Whether every other designer out there works in TIFFany or not, and whether because i am makes the world right wasn't the issue either. SIMPLY put, the issue was, that you ARE WRONG! You made a broad generalizing statement, that is in fact not at all true.

PS - I'm not the only design professional happily working in X, BTW. So your comment is even further... WRONG!

------------------
G4/533 DP, 768 MB RAM, 40GB HDD, 32MB GeForce2 MX, 30GB VST Firewire Drive, and an Apple Cinema Display.

[Skywalkers new Hand]

Yawn, passing on replying to the troll.

[JFK2000]

Vc proceedNeXT:

Originally posted by JFK2000:
So let me get this straight...You wanted to make us think and now you're giving up because you can't control the direction of the discussion.

So in other words, you're frustrated because you can't get people to think like you do and you can't control their discussion.

I don't know what you expect in a public discussion forum.

I am worried about the future of the macintosh plattform as a whole, MacOS playing a keyrole in this future. I failed to made you think about the things that may be missing, not to make you think like myself. Everybody lives in his own zone of reality. And I was not able to show you the zone of windows users.

I give up, because I don't see a chance that you give up your prejudices and your Reality Distortion field. MacOS is not that advanced system I dreamed of.
It is always hard to accept critic at something you really like, I know. At least you see now why some linux user say that MacOS X is crap. Because they want to defend their beloved OperatingSystem. The same way most people are acting now.[/QUOTE]

I agree there will always be some mac people who will accept anything from apple and say it's great because it deals with their beloved Mac.

That being said, I will give you as honest an evaluation of OSX as I can:

I like OSX. I like doing many things at once and never having one thing take over the whole computer so I can't do anything until it's done. I like the protected memory that keeps the whole system from going down when one app crashes. I like being able to run an X11 system alongside osx and being able to switch back and forth between the two. There are other things but that's just a few.

As far as comparing it to linux, I don't think there is any gui available for linux that compares to X. Most of the linux desktops available are very basic or crude compared to X. That's just my opinion and I plead ignorance because I haven't seen them all.

Now as far as things I don't like. I guess speed would be at the top of the list. I also prefer the old apple menu and app menu of the old mac os. I have gotten used to using Aqua but to me it's not just different it is less functional.

Navigating the file system is a little bizarre and I liked the ability in the old OS to have many windows open at once. It made it easy to move things around or arrange them as I like. I dealt with the clutter of having many windows with window shades.

Sometimes with the transparent windows in X, I can't read the content of one window because something is showing thru from behind it.

My system is very stable and almost never crashes. I know others have had more problems.

X defenders will say it is just the initial release and I think....umm...they have been working on this for years and this is the best they could do. But then I realize that this was obviously a mamoth undertaking. Not just building a new OS, but building one with protected memory, true multi-tasking, etc. that will also run old mac software.

After so many delays and false starts, apple decided they needed to get the thing out the door. So yes X has some problems. I didn't even talk about the finder or the lack of some hardware support. But as others had pointed out, apple needed to get it out so the developers would get to work. After all the false starts, apple had to convince the software community that X was a reality not just another piece of vaporware.

So is it the most advanced OS on the planet? I am not familiar enough with every system available to answer that. And obviously it is very much a work in progress. But given some more time and more tweaking and 3rd party utilities and such coming out, X will be if not the most advanced, a pretty great OS and much better than what we had. I don't even use 9.1 any more. The advantages of X for me outweigh anything 9 has to offer.

[road2osx]

proceedNeXT:

Your initial suggestion on Window/Task Menu reminds me QNX RTOS, though
not exactly (they have the task/system service menu on the right side).
If you haven't see it, check it here: www.qnx.com (free download, very
smooth install and incredible stability, though in a lack of application support)

I indeed agree with you on some point, especially the point Apple should have
provided more standard elements. I face such a difficulty while I try to
write a finder/desktop application for my self. Implement an iconView
class behaving like desktop is somewhat painful you know.....

But I will suggest you:
1, clarify your points, which should be divided into two sub topics I think:
MacOS X provide too less standard elements for developers, which leads to difficulties
not only for developers, but also a consistent user environment.
MacOS ignore some important, power user feature to be a super sufficient one, which
should be achieved combining the strength from NeXT and Mac.
2, Don't say "I fail to make you think" since it implies "you are all unthinking idiots", and
of course lead to angers. No, of course you have some insight on this topic, but
it won't be a determined agreement anyway. If you want constructive responses (
which I assumed) you may have to be more tolerant to different opinions. Some people
find MacOS X working fine, and we have no right regarding them "unthinking" or
"not think in that way".

Now on your topics:

I would like a standard toolbar in IB so that I don't have to implement them
in my code, which more or less bring some problem on future compatibility issues. However
I don't like the way MS do it. It just makes me confused since like in Win98 or Win2K
you can't clearly tell the boundary of each toolbar button. I have no problem on "every programmer
create their toolbar items though (but not for the some standard behavior of course). Having only
one row of toolbar is too limited so that you can see OmniWeb have to implement their own "bookmark bar".
But I don't mind the ability to be moved around on screen.

I would like a "sidebar" also. Drawers are good only for simple purpose, but failed on
multi choices. If you have more than one drawers, you can only select it through toolbar
or menubar, which is counter-intuitive and wasteful. I would prefer Inspector implemented
as View class with controller though so that programmers can make their own choices where
to put them. I like a "View Switcher" badly so that I don't have to switch views manually
with my codes. Not to mention some view option on Open/Save panel, which should be consitent
with finder views.

But I have no idea about "standard starting point". Does windows implement this very well?
I don't know personally since I don't dig into Windows Development Environment that much.
And I don't get what you mean by "Having them(toolbar) in every window is just too much".
And I won't agree with you on some points: Animations are good, but only having no choices
turn them off are bad, since for novice users any visual feedback is important. So does genie
effects, fad-in/out menus and live window resizing. And no I don't think "get used to it" is not
another factor of Interface Design, since the purpose of OS is serve for applications, but not
users. Which should be transparent for users, allowing people use it without specific knowledge.
MacOS X, with its (over) simplified UI elements do this well, even better than MacOS 9. It's
bad for, however, power users having no more choices. (But MacOS X failed on a proper initial
setup for naive users, so that many people will just wondering why they can't move things from
here to there or something like that). And no, I don't think taskbar superior to dock. With
128*128 minimized window image it's often more useful than taskbar, especially while you have more
than 8 windows opened. But I hold the opinion that we need the option dividing dock into
Four parts: Applications/Documents/Windows/Docklets and being able to move them around, configuring
them independently with showTitle/Fonts/BackgroundColor. And I don't like the way Windows treat
Menu either since I always find it difficult using menus in windows. (Menu within a window.....Grrrrr)
Basically I think Apple has a better scheme on using screen spaces than windows, but they are
just too limited. Menubar is good, but why not make them tear-down? Dock is good, with good icons
and visual feedbacks, but why not more options? Fewer window clutter is good, but why not
more useful (with sidebar/view options in sheet). Visual feedback is good, but why can't we turn it off?
Toolbar is good, but why not making them more powerful? IB/PB/Cocoa is good, but why not integrated
better with more classes?

I, however, will not release my anger (which will definitely makes me into the dark side ), at least
until july. I post a lot of feedback to Apple, and hope they are still listening. If you would like MacOS X
getting better, post yours there too. It's just too early to determine.

Just my 2 cents

Jack, Taipei

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Skywalkers new Hand:
Yawn, passing on replying to the troll.

Just to clarify:

1) YOU made a blanket statement - simply an incorrect (and ignorant) assumption - that serious graphics work isn't possible in OS X as it is now.

2) Somebody else came out & sed, "Hey you can't be right, 'cuz I'm doing just fine!"

3) You repeated your statement, rephrased, with a slight insult.

4) The other person came back and said, "Graphics work is FINE; it runs BETTER for me THAN OS 9, and I'm not the only one."

5) You let us all know that it's beneath your dignity to reply to this "troll"!?

Am I missing something?

-chris. (bemused)

------------------
...the original Genie Junkie™

[edddeduck]

I would like to say I am not a pro but I use graphic apps alot and I find classic fast as 9.1 and more stable...

And in some apps classic I have seen using 118% of my processors this means that it uses both processors even when it isn't a MP app.

This means that classic is definitely faster than 9 in some instances.

And yes the new hand is just getting annoyed when no-one agrees with him. He was hoping to find other people backing up his claims he found less than he wanted. So he suddenly grew a holier than thou attitude.

I never said X is the best for everyone but its great for me and for some others I am not imagining this or being a blind follower it's just this os x is great and fast (except the gui is a little slow.)



------------------
450DP/448MB/80GB/Rage/Zip250/ZipCD/Epson740

I Took The Red Pill

[robotmarkVIII]

Originally posted by Skywalkers new Hand:

"a.) it doesn´t crash "
It Kernel Panics.

Probably because you have some sort of hardware or disk problem. My first install kernel panicked a lot because I used a 3rd party partition tool that wasn't very compatible with it.
The important difference between a kernel panic in OS X and other *nix systems and crashes or more primitive OSs such as Windows 9x or Mac OS 9 is that in X, the kernel panic is due to a reproduceable bug in the software, and not by a task gone awry...

[theolein]

ProceedNext:
I had a next for a while as well and found it better than OSX. On the other hand apple had to cater for many users coming from the normal mac os who aren't used to using Unix style os's. The thing that irritates me most about OSX is the slowness of the GUI. When I sometime get a G4 powerbook this will no longer be a problem I hope. And for a system that is closer to windows than the old one was I would actually hope apple sometime implements copying and pasteing of files like you do in windows with command c and command v.

[selkirk]

Wow, I was going to ignore all of this flamebait, but I was powerless to remain silent when I read "Same for the StartMenu. Its functionality is just simple superior than any Apple of docked-folder menu."

The start menu just plain sucks.

#1) The options are not in order by frequency. The most common menu choice (Program Files) is farthest away from point at which you click to bring up the menu. You can fix this by putting your taskbar on the top of the screen, but enough windows programs screw up and try to put their windows underneath the task bar to make this a poor choice. Windows is trying to tell you something by making shut down the easiest thing to do on the start menu.

#2) The most commonly selected options are in a cascading menu, which requires time and dexterity to navigate. Try teaching grandma to navigate cascading menus.

#3) Not only that, almost everything in windows installs in the second level of cascading menu. More time and dexterity required every time you use the start menu. Try teaching grandma to navigate multiple levels of cascading menus.

#4) As if that weren't enough, the convention is to install these programs in menus named after the vendor of the software. How was I to know that my new game was programmed by "DeSade Studios?" After installing anything under windows, I have to scroll up and down the program files menu for what seems like forever trying to figure out where my new program is.

#5) Since most users seem to be afraid or incapable of uninstalling anything under windows (Standard uninstall technique - Reinstall windows), the Program Files Menu will often grow to be larger than the screen. As if cascading menus weren't torturous, try scrolling cascading menus.

#6) I haven't seen this, but my buddy was complaining last night about windows re-arranging the order of items in his start for no discernible reason.

#7) Most windows users have no clue as to how to customize the start menu.

Think about the dock (and apple menu) in these terms.

I have been developing commercial applications on PCs for 12 years, and there is so much that I could tell you about Windows.

Like when we first got NT 4.0 in and I asked a guy to play with it to see how stable it was. He came back ten minutes later to tell me that he crashed his machine to the point where he could do nothing but re-boot.

I won't even go into my DLL Hell stories (The registry was programmed by Satan and given to Bill Gates for as a reward for coming up with Abort, Retry, Ignore), or tell you about what we had to do to get things to work correctly on all the various flavors of Windows. (Cut the carbon guys some slack)

Calling OS X the most advanced OS is a marketing statement. What does that mean? For comparison purposes, the first page of the windows 95 manual says something like "All things are faster and easier with windows 95." After installing, I went out to the bar to get laid. Stupid marketing people.

I have read everything that I know of that Apple has posted to their web site about OS X.

All I can say is that OS X solves many of the problems of windows, both internal and external. OS X may not be the most polished OS yet, but I am pretty damn impressed.

[Bernard Ducamp]

ProceedNext: There's really nothing good about OS X or Windows, is there?

You are a person who obviously should start up your own company, put Microsoft, Intel, Motorola, IBM and Apple to shame, deliver a truly "great" new OS and make 500 gazillion dollars.

[Kosmo]

I made a vow not to comment on negative and insuling remarks regarding OS X and I intend to stick to it. Since this board is now flooded with trolls who are simply here to attack OS X and the many happy users that enjoy this new OS, I find myself NOT being able to join in very many discussions (I know some of you have to be delighted with this )..but that's ok, because I find all this negative stuff way too boring and the rantings of some of these trolls isn't even interesting on any level...

But.... to show you that work can be done easily, quickly, and without any kernal panics or freezes, I invite you to look at a web site I am currently building...

The graphics in this site were created with PhotoShop 6.0.1 in Classic mode. Each graphic has many many layers and it took some real careful technqiues to get them where I want them...but I did it without a hitch, and I was more productive doing it since i could still listen to Stevie Nicks new album with iTunes, read email as it comes in, preview pages in IE an Omniweb, and run PhotoShop and GoLive ...

I invite you to go to http://www.manzione.com and see what I was able to do in 3 hours...

While I can appreciate the fact that many of you who dislike my opinions on OS X will be obligated to object to my graphics work I would certainly hope you'll be able to back up your critisism with some work of your own.


------------------
http://www.manzione.com/
MacNETv2 coming July 2001

[wingdo]

Originally posted by selkirk:
Calling OS X the most advanced OS is a marketing statement. What does that mean? For comparison purposes, the first page of the windows 95 manual says something like "All things are faster and easier with windows 95." After installing, I went out to the bar to get laid. Stupid marketing people.

Finally, something worth reading in this freaking thread.

I just can't get over how many people want the very first release to be perfect for every user on the planet. Just like System 1.0 was.

[Gerson]

Kosmo--
Nice looking graphics,m but none of the links seem to be hooked up. (?)

[Kosmo]

Thanks, you're right, no links work because I am only in the initial stages of designing the interface. I out up all my work on this site for the client to look at and then once the 'look' is decided upon I move it over to their site and begin to hook everything up...

There will be many more 'tweaks' before I move on to the next stage..



------------------
http://www.manzione.com/
MacNETv2 coming July 2001

[Chrisspoon]

This thread is a bit dumb, but if we talk about graphic design stuff, i can have my word on it.(for me too, the english language is not the easiest way to communicate... sorry)

Currently, i work almost everyday of my life to do graphics jobs, with different tools, and the mac is the principal one.

Important thing : it's not the computer that bring me to the design. It's the contrary.

When creating design, i use tools, i have a mac, i accoutumate with it, and works well(OS 9) for all my jobs. It crash some times, but it's not really an issue. The multitasking, is almost suffisant, and all the examples shows by os x users of multitasking are just ridiculous, we can do the same thing with os 9 right now.

Os x appears to be good, in a good number of point(Postscript at screen for exemple)and have real potential. But, for today(2 months after it's release), it is unusable in a profesionnal way:
-The apps are not here, and it's not the OS that make me change my tools, it's the contrary. If you are changing you're app, just because the os don't support them, you're not a esigner, you're a Mac Fanatic, who play the Week end to do graphic jobs for you're sister wedding.(like so much pc users by the way, sorry for that.)
-The speed is damn slow in all the finder operation. And it's unproductive.
-The interface needs to be customizable, if it is not neutral.

So the answer at this, and for all the deisgner, in my opinion, is WAIT,
keep stuck to OS 9, and do you're job. Just keep an eye on what is happening with os x, to stay tuned, and jump to os x at the right moment( not now...). And don't listen all the 16 years old guys who claim that os x is great and productive right now for the design, they understand nothing to our job.

Chris

[foobars]

Hey Chris that all may be true, but OSX does have one feature you would benefit greatly from: global SPELL CHECK!