[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by goMac 

To further illustrate my point, Mac OS 9 was the least secure OS on the market, and it only had 80 viruses.

Actually, OS 9 was incredibly secure because of its arcane and hacked together nature.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

Not to get into a link war with you, because I'm pretty sure you know more about this than I do, but I have found some rebuttals of the Heise article which say it's not as bad as it all seems. One here, and this one which is a good rundown of what's happening.

I'm not saying Apple couldn't have done better, but it seems there is some hysteria out there about this.

Actually, that first link of yours makes things worse in some ways - particularly that thing about the Kerberos TCP port staying open until reboot once you connect to a file server just once.

Here's the Reader's Digest version of that first link, written by the same author, if you're interested - it's a little easier to follow for the non-techie.

TidBITS Safe Computing: Leopard Firewall Takes One Step Forward, Three Steps Back

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Actually, that first link of yours makes things worse in some ways - particularly that thing about the Kerberos TCP port staying open until reboot once you connect to a file server just once.

Here's the Reader's Digest version of that first link, written by the same author, if you're interested - it's a little easier to follow for the non-techie.

TidBITS Safe Computing: Leopard Firewall Takes One Step Forward, Three Steps Back

Hmmmmm. . . . .

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

I think he's referring to haxie and malware "developers."

No. Not at all. And some of the people I was referring to with the complaints work at Cupertino themselves.

[Don Pickett]

Wanna see something fun? Open Console and look at the log for the Apple firewall (/var/log/appfirewall.log) then fire up something like Miro or Acquisition and watch the firewall go crazy blocking udp requests. And, while it's nice to know it's blocking something I'm not sure what to do if I want to use one of those services. Makes me think the best thing to do may be to just turn the thing off.

I'm waiting either for Apple to upgrade the thing, or for someone to write a good front end for it, something like Flying Buttress.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

I think he's referring to haxie and malware "developers."

I think you and Unsanity just need to **** and get it over with already.

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Leopard right now is wide open, even if you turn the firewall on. If mDNSResponder turns out to have any exploits in it at all, hello Blaster/OS X.

Wouldn't mDNSResponder be as useless as a ski set in the Sahara if the firewall blocked it?

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I think you and Unsanity just need to **** and get it over with already.

You're a real class act, you know that?

Wouldn't mDNSResponder be as useless as a ski set in the Sahara if the firewall blocked it?

Not as useless as a firewall that lets all kinds of stuff through even when you tell it to block all network traffic.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

You're a real class act, you know that?

Every bit as classy as referring to people who make haxies as "developers" in quotes, I'm sure. I mean, hey, repeatedly impugning the livelihood of somebody who has accomplished remarkable things that have made many people happy? No problemo. Making a mild joke about how somebody keeps bashing said creators? How rude!

BTW: I'm from Tennessee. I'm considered classy by virtue of wearing shoes.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Every bit as classy as referring to people who make haxies as "developers" in quotes, I'm sure. I mean, hey, repeatedly impugning the livelihood of somebody who has accomplished remarkable things that have made many people happy?

And makes many more people unhappy by causing all kinds of problems, including but not limited to causing the OS not to start up. It also causes other apps to crash and exhibit strange behavior and generally wastes everyone's time in trying to troubleshoot said problems. It does this by violating other processes' integrity. It's a great potential attack vector for malware. It allowed any virus to easily get around firewalls, access the Keychain, or do whatever else it wanted to, and for what? To change the color of a window? To re-enable some old feature that a total of 5 people used when it was in OS 9, but which suddenly became the bestest thing ever because of nostalgia due to Apple taking it out?

My point is that these guys aren't considered developers by Apple - they're considered hackers that Apple is trying to prevent from monkeying with the system any more. And therefore, something tells me not to expect Apple to be all that communicative with them anytime soon.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

And makes many more people unhappy by causing all kinds of problems, including but not limited to causing the OS not to start up.

No, it does not make more people unhappy. Sure, it's unfortunate that an old version interacted poorly with Leopard and some people were inconvenienced by that. But it happens. The current version of Aperture is partially incompatible too. I bet I could find some situation in which some old version of Pacifist will behave in an unintended way — can I call you a fraud if I do? (Not that I would, of course, because I do have some class as well as a modicum of perspective.)

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

It also causes other apps to crash and exhibit strange behavior and generally wastes everyone's time in trying to troubleshoot said problems.

That happens in any situation where users have any freedom whatsoever.

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

and for what? To change the color of a window? To re-enable some old feature that a total of 5 people used when it was in OS 9, but which suddenly became the bestest thing ever because of nostalgia due to Apple taking it out?

Oy vey. Get past your biases. When people pulled out this sort of condescending tripe about Classic getting axed, you rightly called them on it. Now here you are with exactly the same attitude — just because now you're on the other side of the fence.

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

And therefore, something tells me not to expect Apple to be all that communicative with them anytime soon.

Yes, but that doesn't mean to have to insult them. Apple could decide to remove the things Pacifist depends upon, but that wouldn't justify this kind of treatment of you.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

No, it does not make more people unhappy. Sure, it's unfortunate that an old version interacted poorly with Leopard and some people were inconvenienced by that. But it happens. The current version of Aperture is partially incompatible too. I bet I could find some situation in which some old version of Pacifist will behave in an unintended way — can I call you a fraud if I do? (Not that I would, of course, because I do have some class as well as a modicum of perspective.)

The problem is that APE hacks other apps when it is working in an intended way. This is something that is not allowed on pretty much any platform, for obvious reasons. It's not allowed on OS X, either. APE is not a normal application that might behave in an "unexpected way" - it is a hack that deliberately works around things that Apple has done to prevent weird behavior, and in the process inevitably causes weird behavior.

That happens in any situation where users have any freedom whatsoever.

Don't bring "freedom" into this. What does that mean, anyway? Apple is simply cracking down on stuff that has never been kosher on OS X. Would you also oppose the police cracking down on, I dunno, gang violence, on the grounds that things like innocent people getting shot in the crossfire happens in any situation where people have any freedom [to shoot each other] whatsoever? I mean, that might be a little extreme, but the point is that freedom doesn't mean you let anyone do whatever the hell they want. That's called anarchy.

Oy vey. Get past your biases. When people pulled out this sort of condescending tripe about Classic getting axed, you rightly called them on it. Now here you are with exactly the same attitude — just because now you're on the other side of the fence.

Unless a compatibility layer offered by Apple itself somehow has something to do with a completely unofficial hacking method designed to work around protections in the OS, this doesn't have any relevance to this discussion at all.

Yes, but that doesn't mean to have to insult them. Apple could decide to remove the things Pacifist depends upon, but that wouldn't justify this kind of treatment of you.

Pacifist plays by the rules. APE deliberately tries to find ways to violate the rules. If you can't understand the fundamental difference here, then you need to stop talking. If APE had previously been using some official mechanism that got removed in Leopard, then you would have a point. But that was never the case. While it's true that they did remove an official mechanism, it was between OS 9 and 10.0 that they did it. From the beginning of APE's existence, it has been abusing OS features to make them do things they were not intended to do, and all Apple is doing in Leopard is attempting to tighten things up to prevent people from doing things that they're not supposed to be doing anyway. And since Unsanity's entire business seems to be focused solely around breaking the rules, that is why they are not developers - they are hackers, and I wish you would stop comparing me to them.

[Don Pickett]

FYI: the log for the Apple firewall also shows entries from ipfw.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

And makes many more people unhappy by causing all kinds of problems, including but not limited to causing the OS not to start up. It also causes other apps to crash and exhibit strange behavior and generally wastes everyone's time in trying to troubleshoot said problems.

So does this new code signing bullcrap. If you touch certain things, they just break.

It's WORSE than APE to me. Over all 10.5 is just buggy in general.

I can see it now. Apple getting calls because they can no longer take screenshots or get on the web because they changed an icon.

(The average person knows diddly about code signing, but is often inclined to snoop around the OS, which can mess things up via this code signing business)

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

So does this new code signing bullcrap. If you touch certain things, they just break.

(sarcasm)
Then don't touch them! You're not supposed to.
(/sarcasm)

As I said, code signing has the potential to hurt other legitimate projects.

[Thinine]

Name one. How is it a legitmate product if it merely hacks another app?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Thinine 

Name one. How is it a legitmate product if it merely hacks another app?

Changing the dock's resources to make it look like you want it to? That can mess up code signing. I am not sure you know exactly what all this involves.

The funny part about this is, if say a application is seen to not be "signed" and say, can't hook up to the net or network etc. People like Adobe wont be able to detect if their applications are being hacked..

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Thinine 

Name one. How is it a legitmate product if it merely hacks another app?

I said projects, not products.

I'll give you a direct example. In this case, code signing does not directly cause problems, but it could if not done correctly:

SourceForge.net: hello Greek localization project for OSX

Now, you might ask, why translate OS X into Greek? Because the Apple representatives in Greece don't care enough to do a proper job of it. They translate the Finder, Address Book, 90% of the System Preference panes, the menulets, give you about 10 more fonts with Greek characters, provide a few character encoding conversion tools, and call it localized. No other app is translated, and the system help files are still in English. Microsoft Windows, on the other hand, gets fully localized over there. Office for Windows gets translated too. Not even iLife or iWork get that.

So, what they're doing is adding Greek support to all the other applications. Since the language packs that come with Leopard are optional, they're not counted in the application signatures. But the English.lproj files ARE signed and count towards the signature. If any language other than English is duplicated, or a new language that didn't exist gets added, there's no change in signature and its not invalidated. But, if the English folder is duplicated and used as the basis for the Greek version, it invalidates the app's signature because it's signed.

So, as long as they use a different language's folder to make the Greek, they're fine.

Until Apple gets off their collective butts and adds proper Greek language translations to OS X, this is what we have to deal with. And Leopard gives us hope that it may happen. There is a brand new Polish language option on the install DVD, along with Russian, which began to be introduced somewhere around 10.4.7 or so, and a European Portuguese option.

If Microsoft can give Greeks a fully localized operating system, WHY CAN'T APPLE???

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Wouldn't mDNSResponder be as useless as a ski set in the Sahara if the firewall blocked it?

Get with the times!



Dune skiing is, apparently, *great* fun.

[Kevin]

Person Man good point. And it's another reason I think this signed crap has to go.

Those that think tightening security is more important that an actual enjoyable working space, well I don't know what to say.

It's not like Apple is desperate and needs extra security measures. I know I know, I heard the arguments.

Most of the people I hear arguing for this either are. 1. Developers that don't want people touching the insides of their apps. 2. People that have chips on their shoulders about applications that no longer can run because of 10.5. They are for example happy that the APE system can no longer run, and since that makes them happy, no problems that might exist because of this new "Feature" really matters.

Maybe I'll send a email to besson about that Linux OS i've been hearing about. At least you can modify the GUI.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Person Man 

I'll give you a direct example. In this case, code signing does not directly cause problems, but it could if not done correctly:

But the reality is Apple understands that this is a litigate reason to mod an app, and they specifically didn't block this with code signing.

Apple has to codesign resources. A resource can be changed out to lead to a buffer overflow attack. I'd love it if I could log into my bank account online without a password, but I understand that this isn't possible because it leaves me exposed to security problems. Code signing is the same thing.

If you really want to mod your app, just resign the thing and rebuild your keychain, and quit whining.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Person Man good point. And it's another reason I think this signed crap has to go.

To be fair, it's only an issue if they directly modify the English resources. Otherwise, the end result is the same if they modify the Spanish or the Russian ones vs English, and it doesn't trigger the code signing malfunction.

And, though it is a pain in the butt, you can always resign an application that you modify yourself, so, as you said, there are always ways around things.

Code signing unfortunately isn't going away. As others have pointed out, even Linux has it. What Apple needs to do is provide a legitimate way of doing what people are currently accomplishing with haxies and customizing the GUI.

I'm afraid it will take the departure of Steve Jobs before that happens, though.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Person Man 

I'm afraid it will take the departure of Steve Jobs before that happens, though.

I don't think Apple will ever allow people to theme OS X, and for good reason: they work very hard on their GUI, and it's one of the primary selling points of the OS. Faults and all I still find it better than Windows, Gnome or KDE.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Person Man 

I'm afraid it will take the departure of Steve Jobs before that happens, though.

It certainly would, because Steve Jobs has been around long enough to remember what happened when OS 9 supported such a thing.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

It certainly would, because Steve Jobs has been around long enough to remember what happened when OS 9 supported such a thing.

I don't see what's wrong with allowing people to customize the look of the operating system. As long as it's done in an orderly fashion and supported by the operating system without resorting to hacks.

And remember, OS 9 may have "supported" such a thing, but Apple never made it public. So it was just as unsupported as it is now. But the difference is now it's not only unsupported, but it's a security issue. It doesn't have to be that way.

The same goes for InputManager "enhancements" for Safari. I've used PithHelmet in the past, and many people swear by SafariStand and/or Saft. If Apple made it possible to extend Safari's functionality by allowing plugins a la Firefox, people wouldn't have to resort to these types of hacks.

And again, it won't happen while Steve Jobs is still around.

You can do both of the above without compromising the integrity of the OS, but it requires proper support to be put into place.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

I don't think Apple will ever allow people to theme OS X, and for good reason: they work very hard on their GUI, and it's one of the primary selling points of the OS. Faults and all I still find it better than Windows, Gnome or KDE.

But seriously, what is so wrong with allowing people to make changes to their user interface if it's done in a sanctioned manner? Yes, OS X's GUI is much nicer, but some people would prefer to use something else. It's not a slap in the face of the interface designers for OS X, it's a matter of personal preference.

The majority of people stick with the default GUI anyway. I do. I don't have much interest in theming OS X, but I'm not going to stand in the way of people who do.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Person Man 

I don't see what's wrong with allowing people to customize the look of the operating system. As long as it's done in an orderly fashion and supported by the operating system without resorting to hacks.

Ah. Yeah, I have no feelings either way on that. What I thought you were referring to was a supported mechanism for doing what Unsanity is doing - i.e. patching - which is pretty much exactly what the old Extensions mechanism was in OS 9. As we know, it led to quite a whole host of problems.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

I don't think Apple will ever allow people to theme OS X, and for good reason: they work very hard on their GUI, and it's one of the primary selling points of the OS. Faults and all I still find it better than Windows, Gnome or KDE.

Comparing it to lesser quality GUIs doesn't suddenly make it's obvious flaws somehow ok Don. 10.5 is a mess. It's a in-between phase.

I wouldn't MIND not being able to change themes if Apple gave us a non-obnoxious consistent theme.

I didn't care I couldn't change Platinum. No need to.

a lot of people simply HATED Aqua. It was more of a "wow" than a usability thing. Apple needs to go back to usability and consistency.

I think my idea about the transparent black look is a good idea.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Ah. Yeah, I have no feelings either way on that. What I thought you were referring to was a supported mechanism for doing what Unsanity is doing - i.e. patching - which is pretty much exactly what the old Extensions mechanism was in OS 9. As we know, it led to quite a whole host of problems.

Actually we looked into it. It wasn't supported fully because they were still working on the themes by the time Jobs got there. He killed them off. Some weren't finished when 8 or 8.5 came out (whichever first supported themes)

Some people finished a few and they were given out on the black market. The problems anyone had with themes were they weren't totally finished. And they weren't finished because Jobs axed it. It wasn't because of security or bug reasons.

Jobs wanted control of how the OS looked. And he didn't want it to deviate. He made it clear that themeing was dead.

This is a OCD control issue.

But if you have proof otherwise feel free to show me.

The one thing I was REALLY looking forward to with OS X being a .nix was MAYBE being able to customize the GUI to the extent nixes did.I was disappointed when I saw Aqua. Then I heard they were offering a "classic" theme and was relieved.

Then in Dp4 it was gone. Steve wanted aqua all the way.

That is when "Graphite" entered the scene.

[TheSpaz]

And the Graphite theme is lame too. Still makes everything look cartoony and fisher pricy. I like the sleek look of Apple's Pro Apps. I love the small buttons and small dialogs... they're much better than the current Saturday morning cartoon interface we call Aqua. Kinda feels like I'm using a toy rather than an advanced OS.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Comparing it to lesser quality GUIs doesn't suddenly make it's obvious flaws somehow ok Don. 10.5 is a mess. It's a in-between phase.

I wouldn't MIND not being able to change themes if Apple gave us a non-obnoxious consistent theme.

I didn't care I couldn't change Platinum. No need to.

a lot of people simply HATED Aqua. It was more of a "wow" than a usability thing. Apple needs to go back to usability and consistency.

I think my idea about the transparent black look is a good idea.

Actually, I had no problem with Aqua, and I like the look of 10.5

For people who are wondering about the firewall, I'm keeping the log open on my desktop and doing nslookup's on what's blocked. Now, my machine is fairly buttoned down, with both a router and ipfw. From what I can tell so far, the new firewall is blocking subsidiary requests from web pages. In other words, if I go to a page which has feedburner or digg links, those requests get blocked.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by TheSpaz 

And the Graphite theme is lame too. Still makes everything look cartoony and fisher pricy. I like the sleek look of Apple's Pro Apps. I love the small buttons and small dialogs... they're much better than the current Saturday morning cartoon interface we call Aqua. Kinda feels like I'm using a toy rather than an advanced OS.

Exactly how i feel about it. If they wanted a "toy" OS look, they should have atleast given us that use it in the professional world an option to make it less toy like.

iTunes is slick, while still not having that toy like look. That Is why I guess I was hoping Apple was going to remove Aqua from Leopard. It only made sense. ....

But now it's obvious that 10.5 wasn't entirely finished. Esp when it came to the GUI.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Exactly how i feel about it. If they wanted a "toy" OS look, they should have atleast given us that use it in the professional world an option to make it less toy like.

Ya see, it's comments like this which make it hard for me to take threads like this seriously. "Us that use it in the professional world"? Dude, this board is filled with people, like me, who use OS X in the "professional" world every day with no problem. Some of us have been in the "professional" world far longer than you. So, by somehow assuming your opinion to be the final pronouncement on what the "professional" world requires, you come off looking like an idiot.

But now it's obvious that 10.5 wasn't entirely finished. Esp when it came to the GUI.

Unless you can show me some kind of inside information, see above.

[TheSpaz]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Exactly how i feel about it. If they wanted a "toy" OS look, they should have atleast given us that use it in the professional world an option to make it less toy like.

iTunes is slick, while still not having that toy like look. That Is why I guess I was hoping Apple was going to remove Aqua from Leopard. It only made sense. ....

But now it's obvious that 10.5 wasn't entirely finished. Esp when it came to the GUI.

I agree... I don't think 10.5 was ready with it's current GUI... I think Apple had something better planned and the deadline just came too soon. I think that there are more GUI changes heading our way in the next few "point updates".... at least that's what I'm hoping for.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

Ya see, it's comments like this which make it hard for me to take threads like this seriously. "Us that use it in the professional world"? Dude, this board is filled with people, like me, who use OS X in the "professional" world every day with no problem. Some of us have been in the "professional" world far longer than you. So, by somehow assuming your opinion to be the final pronouncement on what the "professional" world requires, you come off looking like an idiot.

Unless you can show me some kind of inside information, see above.

To be fair, the OS looks a lot less candy-coated than it used to. Kevin works in graphic design. You want the operating system interface to be less in your face (i.e. more neutral gray tones, and not much color). Yes, there is a graphite option that turns all the colors gray, but until now, we had lots of windows with bright white title bars, etc.

The GUI is evolving. What Keven is referring to as "transition" is the fact that there are still interface inconsistencies throughout the OS. Look at iTunes. Look at the scroll bars there. They're not aqua. They are a nice, professional-looking gray. I think that eventually the rest of the OS will adopt that look for the scroll bars.

Ever since Aqua was introduced, Apple has been toning it down more and more with each iteration of the operating system. And it seems to be trending towards a more professional looking interface.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by goMac 

If you really want to mod your app, just resign the thing and rebuild your keychain, and quit whining.

Telling people that their legitimate complaints are "whining" is really condescending.

There are a lot of things that wouldn't be fixed right now in OS X if it were for "whiners"

The squeaky wheel gets oiled. I know you like the fact that APEs don't work anymore because of your long standing competition and arguments with that crowd. I too felt some glee when it was killed because of what it did to the themeing community.

Having said that, I can understand why people are complaining about this. And their complaints ARE valid. And are not "whines"

You know I have no personal issues with you gomac. But it seems your personal issues you've had with the APE tech seems to be effecting your judgment and attitude.

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

Ya see, it's comments like this which make it hard for me to take threads like this seriously. "Us that use it in the professional world"? Dude, this board is filled with people, like me, who use OS X in the "professional" world every day with no problem. Some of us have been in the "professional" world far longer than you.

So basically this whole paragraph above was a lame character assassination Don. There is a reason Aqua has gotten less "bright" and more subdued. There is a reason that the stripes have went bye bye. It's because a good majority of those that actually WORK on their Macs have complained about the distractibility of the GUI. Just because it doesn't bother you, or you are fine with it doesn't suddenly make me wrong. And I am HAPPY that you can deal with such GUIs with no problem. I wish I could. As I am sure do the many many people that complained to Apple about Aqua's garrish look.

But this last point of you was the clincher

So, by somehow assuming your opinion to be the final pronouncement on what the "professional" world requires, you come off looking like an idiot.

I don't believe any such thing. I am just offering my opinion. It just so happens however, my opinion isn't an odd one. And it certainly didn't deserve such a response.

Unless you can show me some kind of inside information, see above.

I've been told by Apple employees themselves that 10.5 wasn't completely finished as far as GUI goes. That a lot of people were pulled off 10.5 and put on the iPhone.

For anyone that has ever done any GUI design, one only has to look at it to see things don't match up. Others have shown problems and screenshots in here proving as much. But you didn't seem to attack them.

Odd.

Originally Posted by TheSpaz 

I agree... I don't think 10.5 was ready with it's current GUI... I think Apple had something better planned and the deadline just came too soon. I think that there are more GUI changes heading our way in the next few "point updates".... at least that's what I'm hoping for.

A lot of people are hoping this. For good reason. It certainly doesn't make one an idiot.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Person Man 

To be fair, the OS looks a lot less candy-coated than it used to.

Yes indeed it does. This is because us "whiners" complained. And made a valid complaint.

Kevin works in graphic design. You want the operating system interface to be less in your face (i.e. more neutral gray tones, and not much color). Yes, there is a graphite option that turns all the colors gray, but until now, we had lots of windows with bright white title bars, etc.

Correct! This is also why I LOVED Platinum. GUIs are supposed to be wrappers for the content. They should never effect the look of the content, or distract from it.

Ever since Aqua was introduced, Apple has been toning it down more and more with each iteration of the operating system. And it seems to be trending towards a more professional looking interface.

And I applaud them for doing this. And I said 8 years ago this would happen and was told I was wrong.

Watch Aqua go bye bye all together soon.

[TheSpaz]

Should I change this thread title to read "Discuss code-signing and how it disables user-made customizations/mods"?

I thought I had a rather excellent discovery about the menu highlights... and I know they don't bother everyone but, I was surprised to find out how many people like to make fun of me and that I don't have a life if I'm zipping through menus all day... it's sad. So many people in the past have discussed window resizing choppiness, sluggish Dock minimization, choppy scrolling and numerous other responsiveness complaints about OS X but, nobody seems to notice the menu issue I discussed in post #1. Does ANYONE remember Panther at all? The MOMENT I upgraded to Tiger, I noticed right away that the menus were laggy... I thought, hmm... must be a bug... but, that bug never got fixed and it still wasn't fixed in Leopard... then I FIGURED it out and I wanted to share it with the world and once again, nobody cares about me and my menus. I should just give up on life. Window's menus are speedy while OS X's are nice and jerky feeling.... someone upgrading from Windows may notice this. It's too bad though. I wish at least ONE person was on my side.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by TheSpaz 

I should just give up on life.

Please tell me you're not considering suicide because of the way menus in an OS work.

[TheSpaz]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Please tell me you're not considering suicide because of the way menus in an OS work.

Hahahahahaha... No... suicide is stupid. I just wish someone would take my side and actually agree with me for once. The people who are saying that they don't have it, actually do have it but, they are not keen enough to notice what I'm talking about. The average user doesn't care and to them it's just a computer... but, unlike a lot of people, I don't use my computer to play games and check email every few days... I use it for work. There's hardly anything that I haven't done with my computer. I use a G5 at work all day and then I use a Mac Pro when I get home, so this "problem" follows me around everywhere I go. (I also have an iPod touch and that thing is perfect).

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by TheSpaz 

The people who are saying that they don't have it, actually do have it but, they are not keen enough to notice what I'm talking about.

I don't notice it until specifically told that it was an issue. In other words, until you pointed it out, I never noticed it. And now that I know about it, I don't notice it unless I'm specifically looking for it. And I'd rather use my computer for work than spend time watching how the menus behave in each application.

Originally Posted by TheSpaz

The average user doesn't care

That's the problem you have. You seem to be the only one who cares about the problem. Probably because you can't ignore it. You see it all the time.

Part of the problem also seems to be your insistence that it was a bug.

Originally Posted by TheSpaz

but, unlike a lot of people, I don't use my computer to play games and check email every few days... I use it for work. There's hardly anything that I haven't done with my computer. I use a G5 at work all day and then I use a Mac Pro when I get home, so this "problem" follows me around everywhere I go.

I use an Intel iMac all day at work, and then use a Power Mac G5 and a MacBook Pro at home. And I don't spend time looking to see if each menu item gets highlighted when I use it.

As I said above, it's not that I don't notice it. But... I don't notice it the way you do.

Originally Posted by TheSpaz

(I also have an iPod touch and that thing is perfect).

No iPod touch here, though. 16 MB is too small for me yet. I'll get one when the capacity is closer to 64 or 128 MB.

[MindFad]

This is the equivalent of having the tiniest nick of paint missing on your shiny new car, and maybe a couple people notice, but it has no affect on the car or driving of it. But it bothers you, so you carry around the idea that it's a problem "everywhere you go," even if it's really not.

I can't believe we're doing another four pages on this. How long was the last one?

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by MindFad 

I can't believe we're doing another four pages on this.

Now, now, let's be fair. There aren't four pages on this topic. Most of the discussion has been about code signing and it's advantages/disadvantages, and modifying apps and their advantages/disadvantages. There has been very little discussion of TheSpaz's issue with menu highlighting, actually.

[TheSpaz]

Originally Posted by Person Man 

I don't notice it until specifically told that it was an issue. In other words, until you pointed it out, I never noticed it. And now that I know about it, I don't notice it unless I'm specifically looking for it. And I'd rather use my computer for work than spend time watching how the menus behave in each application.



That's the problem you have. You seem to be the only one who cares about the problem. Probably because you can't ignore it. You see it all the time.

Part of the problem also seems to be your insistence that it was a bug.



I use an Intel iMac all day at work, and then use a Power Mac G5 and a MacBook Pro at home. And I don't spend time looking to see if each menu item gets highlighted when I use it.

As I said above, it's not that I don't notice it. But... I don't notice it the way you do.



No iPod touch here, though. 16 MB is too small for me yet. I'll get one when the capacity is closer to 64 or 128 MB.

I already explained to you that it wasn't about me watching for it and scrolling through my menus constantly... it's just something I notice on a daily basis whether I think about it or look for it... it just FEELS different. Do you understand that at all? No, it doesn't affect the way I work, it doesn't affect how fast I can work.... it's just not as smooth as I would like it... and the fact is... I LIKE iTunes menus and I wanted a way to get that style of smoothness into all menus because in my opinion, they shouldn't have 2 different menu refresh rates. Who knows, if Panther had menus like Tiger and Leopard, I may have never cared because I would be used to it already being slow but, since it was a downgrade from Panther, it makes it way more noticeable to me. When I'm used to something being smooth and skip-free, and then move to a platform which skips and no longer has a smooth feel to it... it's bothersome.

AnandTech: Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger Review
It's even mentioned in Anandtech's Tiger review in the link above. The exact quotes are:

"But it would appear that I may have missed the boat, as performance in Tiger is a mixed bag. I'd say that overall performance in Tiger is an improvement over Panther, but there are some definite exceptions to the rule.

The biggest exception, from my perspective, is the fact that menu highlights always seem to just barely trail my mouse pointer in Tiger, whereas Panther kept up very well. At first, I thought that I was just imagining things, but then I set up a G5 test bed with two identical hard drives; the only difference being one drive had Panther while the other had Tiger. After booting them back to back, it's clear that my worries were founded. Tiger's menu highlight does seem to be slightly more laggy than Panther's."

and:

"My only complaint with UI performance continues to be the menu highlighting issue from earlier. It's not a show stopper, but it's definitely something noticeable."

[Kevin]

I am pretty anal retentive about things and even this doesn't bother me.

[TheSpaz]

I'd be happily on my way if Apple didn't suck and enable code-signing by default... I'd have all my menus the way I want and I wouldn't complain but, once again, Apple makes it tough for us to use the OS the way WE want. I can't believe I paid money for this crap.

[TheSpaz]

You know what else is funny? I was pretty much over it and I accepted that it's just the way it was going to be and then when I upgraded to Leopard, I was hoping that they "fixed" it by now which wasn't the case and then BOOM! I FIGURED IT ALL OUT and I was happy for a minute until my dreams were smashed by Code-Signing... Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Person Man 

No iPod touch here, though. 16 MB is too small for me yet. I'll get one when the capacity is closer to 64 or 128 MB.

Ah, not too long a wait there - we should be there in 1998 or '99.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by TheSpaz 

You know what else is funny? I was pretty much over it and I accepted that it's just the way it was going to be and then when I upgraded to Leopard, I was hoping that they "fixed" it by now which wasn't the case and then BOOM! I FIGURED IT ALL OUT and I was happy for a minute until my dreams were smashed by Code-Signing... Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Just fix your apps, resign them, rebuild your keychain so it doesn't ask for permission all the time, and be on your way. You'll have to do this for each update that changes your apps, but that's the workaround that's currently available.

You can still do everything you did before code signing. You just have to resign the apps after you modify them, and explicitly tell the OS that you trust the app that you modified.

It's a pain in the butt to do, but it's not hard. It won't fix haxies or other code-injection techniques, but those aren't secure, so it's going to be harder to work around code signing for that.

I can post instructions on how to resign your apps so that Mail doesn't constantly ask for permission to use the keychain, etc. My offer is serious. Are you interested?

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Ah, not too long a wait there - we should be there in 1998 or '99.

I have an iPod Classic 160 GB with about 120 GB of music on it.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Person Man 

I can post instructions on how to resign your apps so that Mail doesn't constantly ask for permission to use the keychain, etc. My offer is serious. Are you interested?

Heck if he isn't, I am.