[JayTay]

Dave Hyatt mentions Dashboard in his latest blog post.... http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/hyatt...06.html#005876

[nforcer]

Originally posted by Millennium:
OK, that's your loss. I tried Launchbar a while back and didn't care for it. Same goes with Quicksilver. I have to admit, I doubt I'll use the menubar interface to Spotlight either; I'll probably stick to the smart-folder stuff.

I don't consider it my loss; I don't consider it much to gain is what the problem is. This viewpoint is shared by of lot of people underwhelmed by Tiger, and a lot of people who already have applications that perform a lot of the existing functionality. My post was primarily to showcase similar existing applications and explain how *I* see the Tiger upgrade so far from *my* perspective: a user and customer of several of these applications already.

Good for you, but be warned: the various Mac tips&tricks sites will be flooded with new uses for this app within a month of Tiger's release.

Expose is a shiny new power drill: nice looking and good at doing what it does. Rendezvous is a table saw: not much to look at, but again great for what it does. Automator, on the other hand, is a roll of duct tape: even less to look at than Rendezvous, but you find new uses for it every day.

Much of the raw power of Unix comes from its philosophy of small tools which do one thing very well and integrate with other tools to do things far greater than each could do alone. Until now, this kind of power has been locked away beneath a command line, because no one could figure out how to do a decent GUI for the various means that existed for tying apps together.

Automator is yet another attempt at a way to knit GUI apps together. I admit that I am skeptical of this, but if anyone can do it then Apple can. And if it works, the results will be nothing short of glorious. I guarantee that if hardcore GUI users can finally get a taste of the kind of power CLI-jockeys have been able to wield for decades, in a format that the GUI users can easily understand, we're not just talking new features. We're talking revo-freaking-lution.

Interesting analogies. Yes, I agree with the philosphy of objects doing one thing very well. And I bet there will be lots of info and modules for this thing upon release.

But wasn't Applescript supposed to be the deal you would learn and use to get apps to play together and automate tasks? While I've seen some interesting automations done with Applescipt, there still exists a barrier to overcome. For a programmer like myself, I can make an application to do something better than I can figure out an Applescript solution, and in less time. In part because I don't know AS very well, but also in part because not everything supports AS really well. I realize a lot of people don't have the luxury of being able to make themselves applications, and I can see where a GUI instead of a script may be less intimidating. But learning Automater is still something else to learn before getting stuff done, and like yourself I am skeptical if it can really offer the power of an actual language while remaining easy to use and supported across many applications.

Good for you; if you're into the more advanced stuff then Safari/RSS is indeed not for you. Myself, I don't use an aggregator yet myself, and this isn't going to be the one to change my mind.

However, many users still don't even know what RSS (and Atom, its up and coming replacement, which Safari/RSS also supports) is. For these people, this is a huge feature, even if they don't know it yet.

It's good this will get more people into the RSS format and what not. Showing them a new way to view news and updates from websites. But Apple's implementation in Safari seems quite lacking if what they've shown is all there is to it.

Of course, this could be a good thing because a full RSS app from Apple would step over the feet of other developers, something many seem to be up in arms about. And this way there is still a decent market for existing RSS applications.

But this seems like a relatively small feature. While this could be a decent feature for many, if Apple considers it one of the big selling points of Tiger as what seems to be the indication from being featured on the Tiger page, I don't see what there is to be really excited about.

Again, just my opinion.

And something else not mentioned in the keynote: XMPP (nee Jabber) instant messaging. This may not seem like much, but if you look at what Jabber has done with their server product, you'll find something that people have been clamoring for since iChat's early days: multiple IM service support. Install the right gateways, and in one fell swoop iChat supports AIM, ICQ, MSN, Yahoo, IRC, and even more. Still sound like something that doesnt "affect a bigger portion of users"?

I did not know about that. That definitely does affect a bigger portion of users. But for a company that prides itself on interface and design, I still find the lack of something like tabbed messaging and the lack of a built-in log viewer tool for almost 2 years now (or however long it has been out) strange and limiting. Sure I could use Adium or Proteus if I really need want those features, but they don't support some features of my main instant messaging protocol (AIM) nearly as well as iChat does, and the official AIM client is nothing special.

Oh, really? These things may not be gee-whiz eyecandy, but when people start compiling their apps with this, believe me; you will feel the difference.

I'm not big on gee-whiz eyecandy (I'm not particularly interested in Konfabulator or Dashboard, remember?). While I believe XCode 2 will be a significant change based off of what I've read from Apple and I look forward to using it, it doesn't look as big of a change from Project Builder to XCode 1, and that's what I was commenting on. I hope I can feel faster apps when they are complied with XCode 2. The under the hood changes in Tiger interest me more than anything else right now.

OK, wise guy; any ideas? You have absolutely no right to complain about "no general OS features" if you can't even think of one they should add.

As a Mac user, purchaser, and programmer I have every right to complain. Giving people reasons to upgrade drives Mac sales and OS sales. A larger userbase and an OS with stuff people want leads to more software and interest in my platform of choice. If people don't see compelling reasons to upgrade, it concerns me. Apple likes to proclaim how "revolutionary" everything it does is, but I'm not seeing it with Tiger as much as I have in previous OS releases. I am noticing a lot more people who don't seem to be as impressed with Tiger as they were with previous OS announcements. My post expressed how *I* didn't see much value with what's been announced so far because a lot of functionality can already be duplicated with existing applications, and the functionality that can't just doesn't concern me much. Obviously this differs for some people.

Features I wanted I submitted to Apple a while ago.

OK, nforcer, now you've made me mad. How dare you get all high-minded about what "should have been" in earlier releases? What the hell do you know about the system software development process? What gives you such awesome cosmic wisdom?

I don't see how I am getting all high-minded about what "should have been" if I felt a feature should have been in a previous version. Were the people who claimed Apple should have included CD-RW drives with Macs when CD-RW was all over the PC side high-minded as well? IIRC, I believe Apple or Jobs said they "missed the boat" with that after time had passed. I have never developed an OS, but I never claimed to. I never claimed to have cosmic wisdom either, so I don't see how I made you mad or how that is really relevant.

[JLL]

Originally posted by macaddict0001:
yes but wouldn't it make more sense to have the off colored menus on the edge

besides they used fast user switching in the demo.

I don't recall FUS in the demo, but why wouldn't the Spotlight menu be on the right edge if the names were showing? The name could be placed en the left side of the Spotlight menu.

[nforcer]

Originally posted by JayTay:
Dave Hyatt mentions Dashboard in his latest blog post.... http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/hyatt...06.html#005876

"each widget is just a web page, and so you have the full power of WebKit behind each one... CSS2, DOM2, JS, HTML, XMLHttpRequest, Flash, Quicktime, Java, etc"

How does this compare to Konfabulator? I thought Konfabulator widgets were Javascript only, but can it currently use some of these other features as well?

[JKT]

Originally posted by nforcer:
<snip>I am noticing a lot more people who don't seem to be as impressed with Tiger as they were with previous OS announcements.<snip>

Er. Tiger has NOT been announced, it has merely been previewed (and to an audience whose primary concern is what new bolts have been included for their nuts, and not the addition of tabbed windows to iChat for f*ck's sake)... why can't some of you folks get this blindingly simple difference? Save your bitching and moaning for next year when Tiger has been announced in all its glory (or lack thereof, if that is the case) with all its features exposed. The full release of Tiger is somewhere from 6 to 11 months away and more than likely it'll be in the 9 to 11 month range.

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by Millennium:
The feature is tied to Expose. It seems that most people who haven't found Konfabulator useful haven't found Expose useful either, for similar reasons.

Add me to the list of people who find Expos� indespensible but have no use for Konfabulator. Expos� gives me a whole new range of freedom in working with multiple windows. Konfabulator gives me an unattractive and relatively expensive way to gain access to programs that I could write better myself.

(Mind, when I say Konfab's widgets are unattractive, I just mean they tend to lack elegance in my eyes. They have nothing on the wholesale ugliness of Apple's radioactive XP-ish widgets.)

[Simon]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
Add me to the list of people who find Expos� indespensible but have no use for Konfabulator. Expos� gives me a whole new range of freedom in working with multiple windows. Konfabulator gives me an unattractive and relatively expensive way to gain access to programs that I could write better myself.

(Mind, when I say Konfab's widgets are unattractive, I just mean they tend to lack elegance in my eyes. They have nothing on the wholesale ugliness of Apple's radioactive XP-ish widgets.)

I agree 100% with what he said.

[iluvmypowerbook]

< "After the keynote address introducing Dashboard, rumors swirled around WWDC that Apple had tried to purchase Konfabulator, but Rose and his partner refused the deal -- a point Rose emphatically denies.

"They never contacted us," said Rose. "Whether or not we would have taken them up on anything, the fact that they didn't even bother is appalling to me." >

* A rumour Rose himself began.

< "The use of the term "Widgets" in Dashboard led many people to the conclusion that Dashboard was somehow based on Konfabulator. While Rose readily admits that the term has been around for many years to describe a variety of things, he contends that in the Mac market "Widgets" have been closely associated with Konfabulator.

"What surprised me more than anything else is that they've called their things widgets -- talk about a total rip-off," said Rose. "Now when someone talks about widgets in the context of little floating applications they're not going to know if they're talking about Apple's thing or our thing. Given how studious Apple is about trying to make sure their copyrights and names are protected, I find it appalling that they would take that route rather than calling them something even slightly different." >

* Sounds a little contradictory to me? First Rose "...the term has been around for many years to describe a variety of things" Then he goes on to say; "......What surprised me more than anything else is that they've called their things widgets -- talk about a total rip-off,"

Give me a break

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by iluvmypowerbook:
A rumour Rose himself began.

Where did you hear this? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Also: We have proper quoting tags. It makes things much less confusing if you use them.

Sounds a little contradictory to me? First Rose "...the term has been around for many years to describe a variety of things" Then he goes on to say; "......What surprised me more than anything else is that they've called their things widgets -- talk about a total rip-off,"

Give me a break

You don't seem to have read his quote very carefully. He was saying, "Yes, I admit I didn't invent the word 'widgets,' but it's clear that Apple stole this usage from Konfabulator along with every other feature associated with it."

And it's true. The term "widget" is not new by any stretch of imagination, but when used to refer to floating JavaScript mini-apps like these, it's pretty solidly associated with Rose's product. Much like Apple didn't invent the word "Apple," but if you used it to begin a product name ("Apple PornViewer"), they would not be happy with it because the name as it applies to computer software is associated with them.

[nforcer]

Originally posted by JKT:
Er. Tiger has NOT been announced, it has merely been previewed (and to an audience whose primary concern is what new bolts have been included for their nuts, and not the addition of tabbed windows to iChat for f*ck's sake)... why can't some of you folks get this blindingly simple difference? Save your bitching and moaning for next year when Tiger has been announced in all its glory (or lack thereof, if that is the case) with all its features exposed. The full release of Tiger is somewhere from 6 to 11 months away and more than likely it'll be in the 9 to 11 month range.

I fully understand WWDC is a developer thing, Tiger is only in an early working state, and nothing is final. And while Apple may not have released an official press release saying "Tiger is coming on this date and it has this this and this", the fact that the keynote stream is up and that they have a site detailing the main big features that everyone can expect is enough of an "announcement" of what is coming for people to discuss.

You try to justify my critiques and lack of excitement as me not understanding that this is something only for developers who want "new bolts ... for their nuts" and not something for end users since it doesn't yet have "feature x" or whatever. Yet I stated previously the under the hood stuff is what interests me most right now. Furthermore, I don't see how some of these features can be justified as developer-only. Do all developers use iChat AV with multiuser conferencing? Was Dashboard one of the most heavily requested features from developers so they could get their work done? Is .Mac sync the new killer developer feature that will enable all developers to make killer apps? While the big concern at this stage is to get something for developers to test, it's clearly not the only concern, and Apple has tried to give non-developers some features as well. The problem for me is *I* don't see a killer feature from a user standpoint that really sells this OS since existing software is available that can duplicate some functionality, and everything else doesn't really concern *me*. So what, who cares about me? The bigger problem is that I'm not alone.

"But other new stuff will come later. They have 140 features left!" I know more stuff will come later. But I don't expect anything bigger than the selling points that have already been "previewed". Jaguar and Panther didn't have bigger selling points after they were previewed. Apple didn't say "Check out the new chrome apple logo and software update button in the about box; this saves more time than Expose!" even though that was added later in the dev cycle, IIRC. It's just when the cake isn't a flavor I like, you are going to have to put a lot of icing on it for me to swallow this thing. Maybe a bunch of small stuff that will really help me and the other unimpressed Tiger watchers will be implemented before release. I hope so, since right now I'm not excited like I was with Jaguar and Panther.

I can see the later arguments already, "No one is making you buy it". "Then go to Windows if you don't like it." But these points don't exactly help increase the userbase for a developer community with access to 3%(?), 4%(?), 5%(?) of the computing world.

[JLL]

Originally posted by nforcer:
You try to justify my critiques and lack of excitement as me not understanding that this is something only for developers who want "new bolts ... for their nuts" and not something for end users since it doesn't yet have "feature x" or whatever. Yet I stated previously the under the hood stuff is what interests me most right now. Furthermore, I don't see how some of these features can be justified as developer-only. Do all developers use iChat AV with multiuser conferencing? Was Dashboard one of the most heavily requested features from developers so they could get their work done? Is .Mac sync the new killer developer feature that will enable all developers to make killer apps? While the big concern at this stage is to get something for developers to test, it's clearly not the only concern, and Apple has tried to give non-developers some features as well. The problem for me is *I* don't see a killer feature from a user standpoint that really sells this OS since existing software is available that can duplicate some functionality, and everything else doesn't really concern *me*. So what, who cares about me? The bigger problem is that I'm not alone.

Do you play with Mac OS X all day or do you use various applications?

Apple released tons of SDKs this week, and perhaps Tiger itself won't excite you and others, but I think that a lot of apps using the new stuff will.

.Mac sync in itself doesn't help developers, but it shows what can be done with the Sync SDK. The same with iChat and H.264, Dashboard and WebKit.

[Arkham_c]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
You don't seem to have read his quote very carefully. He was saying, "Yes, I admit I didn't invent the word 'widgets,' but it's clear that Apple stole this usage from Konfabulator along with every other feature associated with it."

And it's true. The term "widget" is not new by any stretch of imagination, but when used to refer to floating JavaScript mini-apps like these, it's pretty solidly associated with Rose's product.

But Konfabulator is a tiny niche product. Nobody outside of geek circles has ever even heard of it. It's pretty obscure.

To me, "widget" does not conjure associations with any particular product, real or virtual. It's a generic term used in economics to represent a generic business product. It's no different from a thingamajig or a doodad to most people.

I suspect that when this thing actually comes out, people will be surprised that it's not really just like Konfabulator. Konfabulator uses XML files to define positioning of images, buttons, etc. In contrast, Dashboard is HTML+CSS for layout. Really the only thing they have in common is JavaScript. And JavaScript actually makes more sense in Apple's model than it does in Konfabulator, since Apple is leveraging the full bevy of web standards.

As far as Tiger in general, I'm pretty interested in what it will be like. I've got a vested interest in the true 64-bit nature of the OS (I own a G5), and I suspect that we'll get updates to lots of under-the-hood stuff like the latest Python, PHP, etc. As a developer, I like that, because I can release an app requiring python and not worry what version is installed. I'm not sure about SearchLight yet, but it looks interesting. I know I use the "Find" box built into Finder windows all the time.

[osxisfun]

I just read the hyatt interview...

it now looks like as hayat said above dashboard are web pages. its like accessing the safari engine without the browser window. this means that dashboard is almost identically to microsoft's active desktop concept. EEEEKK... if a person is going to say apple copied anyone its microsoft's active desktop!

since they are really web pages there are no way this is a konfab rip off now. its really a browser rippoff. i can't wait to build stuff.

[JKT]

To me, "widget" is associated with John Smith's beer and penguins... "Widget, its got a widget. Widget, its got a widget..."

[120db]

Since the Dashboard widgets can use any and all web technologies, including Flash, sounds like Dashboard will obviate the need for Macromedia's Flash Central technology...which was also along the lines of what Konfabulator was doing. And since the Flash Central interface was pretty horsey, the Dashboard approach seems like it will be pretty cool. You can do some neat and powerful things with Flash and having them available outside of the browser will be cool.

[osxisfun]

Daring Fireball has posted a must read on the subject of dashboard / konfab:

http://daringfireball.net/2004/06/da...s_konfabulator

If this and today's david hyatt's blog entry does not convince people that apple did not "ripoff" konfab then i don't know what will..

[Millennium]

Originally posted by osxisfun:
Daring Fireball has posted a must read on the subject of dashboard / konfab:

http://daringfireball.net/2004/06/da...s_konfabulator

If this and today's david hyatt's blog entry does not convince people that apple did not "ripoff" konfab then i don't know what will..

After reading that, I'm now fully convinced that Dashboard is not a Konfab ripoff.

However, it's something much worse: namely, one bug away from being a haven for e-mail worms. I discussed exactly the problem with this in the Lounge already;the post is at http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...=2#post2059420

[ratlater]

Originally posted by osxisfun:
I just read the hyatt interview...

it now looks like as hayat said above dashboard are web pages. its like accessing the safari engine without the browser window. this means that dashboard is almost identically to microsoft's active desktop concept. EEEEKK... if a person is going to say apple copied anyone its microsoft's active desktop!

since they are really web pages there are no way this is a konfab rip off now. its really a browser rippoff. i can't wait to build stuff.

Active desktop let you put html in the desktop and it was buggy and worthless. Dashboard lets you create browser views for anything on the system or the web. These are totally different ideas. According to your definition anything that access web data that isn't a browser is just like Active Desktop.

Dashboard looks like it should be amazing. I'm confused why Apple highlighted javascript though, it just added to the Konfab comparisons. Adding flash or QT content and all the power of webkit should allow people to create amazing widgets. (I'm also confused why they called them widgets, when you store them in a Gadgets folder, they should have called them gadgets.)

-matt

[osxisfun]

>However, it's something much worse: namely, one bug away from being a haven for e-mail worms. I discussed exactly the problem with this in the Lounge already;the post is at

I agree with you there. i hope apple is talking up a sort of sandbox for dashboard for this at WWDC...

[osxisfun]

>Active desktop let you put html in the desktop and it was buggy and worthless. Dashboard lets you create browser views for anything on the system or the web. These are totally different ideas. According to your definition anything that access web data that isn't a browser is just like Active Desktop.


I was only half serious. i agree with what you said and was trying to make a play on the whole apple ripped off XYZ argument

[ratlater]

Originally posted by osxisfun:
>Active desktop let you put html in the desktop and it was buggy and worthless. Dashboard lets you create browser views for anything on the system or the web. These are totally different ideas. According to your definition anything that access web data that isn't a browser is just like Active Desktop.


I was only half serious. i agree with what you said and was trying to make a play on the whole apple ripped off XYZ argument

Sorry for over reacting, I think I got the blood boiling after reading this thread. Especially after reading the DaringFireball article and Hyatt's blog post.

-matt

[leperkuhn]

Originally posted by Developer:
Oh come on. This is totally different than implementing some limited general feature like secure delete. Konfabulator when released was unique in look and implementation. Dashboard is a carbon copy of Konfabulator. Everybody who has ever seen Konfabulator can see it. Don't come with Desk Accessories, unless you can show they were front ends to other applications and implemented in JavaScript.
The new larger title bars with included search field are a carbon copy of the titlebars in Longhorn. Everybody can see it.

It's all right to seek inspiration and build something own and unique on such inspiration. But such blatant copies as Apple does in Tiger are very very low. And then complaining about Redmond's photocopiers...

It's not just Javascript, it's a web page. You could embed flash if you wanted. This is way more pimp than Konfabulator, which is a cool idea but it's implementation blows. Seriously, the idea works because of expose, the coolest idea ever.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by leperkuhn:
It's not just Javascript, it's a web page. You could embed flash if you wanted. This is way more pimp than Konfabulator, which is a cool idea but it's implementation blows. Seriously, the idea works because of expose, the coolest idea ever.

I asked this earlier but nobody answered. Maybe you know.

Will the existing Konfab widgets be able to run under Dashboard? After all, they're built on JS.

[osxisfun]

No problem.

Reading this morning and learning from david hyatt just what a gadget is and that it will let me program it in html,css,cocoa,flash,quicktime, OR javascript has got me excited about dashboard. at first i thought it was just some cool next gen desktop accessories but now i know it can be SO much more...

I program all day but this seems to me it something i can noodle around with for those times i want to program something "fun" yet something with all sorts of hooks to OSX.


can't wait!

[osxisfun]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
I asked this earlier but nobody answered. Maybe you know.

Will the existing Konfab widgets be able to run under Dashboard? After all, they're built on JS.

from reading the daring fireball post i would say probably not (at least not this version of konfab) this is due to the fact (and someone correct me if i am wrong) that apple is using webkit's javascript "engine" and konfab uses its own.

the good news is that if you have the source code it should be easy to convert the non specific konfab javscript code.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by osxisfun:
from reading the daring fireball post i would say probably not (at least not this version of konfab) this is due to the fact (and someone correct me if i am wrong) that apple is using webkit's javascript "engine" and konfab uses its own.

the good news is that if you have the source code it should be easy to convert the non specific konfab javscript code.

Ok, that makes sense. thanks.

[ratlater]

Originally posted by osxisfun:
from reading the daring fireball post i would say probably not (at least not this version of konfab) this is due to the fact (and someone correct me if i am wrong) that apple is using webkit's javascript "engine" and konfab uses its own.

the good news is that if you have the source code it should be easy to convert the non specific konfab javscript code.

I think you can basically keep the javascript logic, and then you'd need to redo the interface with html, css, or cocoa.

-matt

[ratlater]

Just to spout a bit more, I'd really like to see the winning Gadgets from the WWDC dev contest. Hopefully a few of the top ones will be included by default.

-matt

[crystalthunder]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Ok, that makes sense. thanks.

Konfabulator uses a proprietary XML structure and JS to create widgets, while Dashboard uses XHMTL/CSS/JS all from WebCore. I am willing to bet it will be easy as hell to port, but it definitely will not work in Dashboard.

[crystalthunder]

Originally posted by ratlater:
Just to spout a bit more, I'd really like to see the winning Gadgets from the WWDC dev contest. Hopefully a few of the top ones will be included by default.

-matt

I'd really like to see those as well. Just think of what people would do for a PowerBook!!!

[macaddict0001]

nforcer what were your ideas for an os I'm just curious.

[BoulderDash]

Originally posted by osxisfun:
Daring Fireball has posted a must read on the subject of dashboard / konfab:

http://daringfireball.net/2004/06/da...s_konfabulator

If this and today's david hyatt's blog entry does not convince people that apple did not "ripoff" konfab then i don't know what will..

Did John Gruber write one of the most informative, detailed, historical commentaries ever or what?!

BD

[hmurchison2001]

Originally posted by BoulderDash:
Did John Gruber write one of the most informative, detailed, historical commentaries ever or what?!

BD

Yes amazing article. A must read and it puts Dashboard Gadgets in a whole new light. I feel for Arlo but he got trumped here by a better idea.

[iluvmypowerbook]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
Where did you hear this? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Also: We have proper quoting tags. It makes things much less confusing if you use them.


You don't seem to have read his quote very carefully. He was saying, "Yes, I admit I didn't invent the word 'widgets,' but it's clear that Apple stole this usage from Konfabulator along with every other feature associated with it."

And it's true. The term "widget" is not new by any stretch of imagination, but when used to refer to floating JavaScript mini-apps like these, it's pretty solidly associated with Rose's product. Much like Apple didn't invent the word "Apple," but if you used it to begin a product name ("Apple PornViewer"), they would not be happy with it because the name as it applies to computer software is associated with them.

Gee Chuckit - thanks for pointing out the quotations

Take another look at the quotation (which I cut and pasted from MacCentral, hence the reference to them).

If we are to follow your point then we would be referring to them as "konfabulators" instead of widgets? Maybe then Rose's point would be more pertinant.

It really comes down to this - if a person is so offended by Apple's technology and would prefer to use an out dated 3rd party application, then don't upgrade to Tiger...or wait for Longhorn (but then we're talking about a REAL rip off there) LOL

[Person Man]

Originally posted by nforcer:
The problem for me is *I* don't see a killer feature from a user standpoint that really sells this OS since existing software is available that can duplicate some functionality, and everything else doesn't really concern *me*. So what, who cares about me? The bigger problem is that I'm not alone.

I can see the later arguments already, "No one is making you buy it". "Then go to Windows if you don't like it." But these points don't exactly help increase the userbase for a developer community with access to 3%(?), 4%(?), 5%(?) of the computing world.

Again, that's your opinion. For every person you know that doesn't find these features compelling, I can find one who does. Different strokes for different folks. As an example, I know many people who want to automate tasks but have no interest in learning AppleScript. The new automator thing will be VERY helpful to them. These people are looking forward to it.

Many of these new features are to bring the operating system to a perceived feature-parity with XP and Longhorn. Some of these features were only present in Longhorn before this. By adding these, Apple gets to beat Microsoft with some of the technologies and features, and at the same time addresses the general "Joe Walmart" perception that since Mac OS X does not have "X" feature that XP has (or that Longhorn will have), that it is somehow an inferior operating system (never mind that OS X has features that Win XP doesn't have or that Longhorn may never have... it's still "inferior"). Apple can leverage this by saying "why wait until Longhorn comes out to have these features? You can have them RIGHT NOW in Tiger!" It will also go a long way towards taking away the argument I just mentioned above.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. If you and your friends don't find the new end-user features compelling, fine. But don't try to insinuate that EVERYONE else does too.

[hmurchison2001]

Well it's the people who are looking at Tiger from a end user perspective rather than developmental that seem to have the most problems. Developers or those who are keen to their mindset can easily see how the new APIs will transform the way we use our computers. Look at the people talking about how fast Spotlight is. While I don't doubt that Quicksilver and Launchbar have nice indexing features I'm sure Apples indexer is probably superior in many ways. Just as John Gruben has so eloquently described why Dashboard Gadgets are superior to Konfabulator Widgets.

At face value applications look the same. We merely see the stretched GUI but we cannot see the code below to see the developers thought process. Therefore those who have so quickly written off Tiger as a "ho hum" update simply haven't "grokked" the significance that others have. No harm in that, we all have different POVs.

I personally remain more convinced than ever that Tiger is going to be the first OSX version that Apple seriously markets. Tiger coupled with a kickass midrange lineup will sell. Tiger apps "will" be ready upon launch and bugs will be few. 2004 might not enthuse many users but this here user will be programming with Xcode 2.0, Running Logic 7, Final Cut Pro 5, DVD Studio Pro and more come this time next year. Life is good.

[CharlesS]

This is amusing to me. People have been screaming for more metadata support in OS X for years. It's got to have been one of the most requested features ever. And now that we're ACTUALLY GETTING IT, they're underwhelmed?

I don't know about you guys, but Spotlight looks really kick-ass to me. Automator, as well, looks like it could be great.

[hmurchison2001]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
This is amusing to me. People have been screaming for more metadata support in OS X for years. It's got to have been one of the most requested features ever. And now that we're ACTUALLY GETTING IT, they're underwhelmed?

I don't know about you guys, but Spotlight looks really kick-ass to me. Automator, as well, looks like it could be great.

Charles I think many people were screamin' about Metadate and didn't really know what it was. They had a slight clue but they weren't quite sure. Metadata is "not" sexy. It's just convenient. I remember when people pined for a journaled filesystem and when it came there was a collective "oh..ok". It hasn't sunk in to some people that metadata means you don't have to be so damn organized. For instance I have a pdf folder that has folders of pdfs for every company. Well damn at 50 something folders I'm kind of getting sick of this. With Tiger I'm just going to toss all my pdfs into one folder and make sure I keep things indexed right.

Directories are nice but when they get big they degrade quickly. I never to to microsoft.com and start hitting the links. It's far easier to google for the product and then go straight there. In 5 years when we all have downloaded half the freakin' internet we're going to need something a bit better than the Finder to "find" things.

[ratlater]

Originally posted by BoulderDash:
Did John Gruber write one of the most informative, detailed, historical commentaries ever or what?!

BD

Totally, great article.

-matt

[osxisfun]

David hyatt part 2:

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/hyatt...06.html#005887

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally posted by hmurchison2001:
Charles I think many people were screamin' about Metadate and didn't really know what it was. They had a slight clue but they weren't quite sure. Metadata is "not" sexy. It's just convenient. I remember when people pined for a journaled filesystem and when it came there was a collective "oh..ok". It hasn't sunk in to some people that metadata means you don't have to be so damn organized. For instance I have a pdf folder that has folders of pdfs for every company. Well damn at 50 something folders I'm kind of getting sick of this. With Tiger I'm just going to toss all my pdfs into one folder and make sure I keep things indexed right.

Directories are nice but when they get big they degrade quickly. I never to to microsoft.com and start hitting the links. It's far easier to google for the product and then go straight there. In 5 years when we all have downloaded half the freakin' internet we're going to need something a bit better than the Finder to "find" things.

So true...and CharlesS brings up a good point. People wanted metadata and now they don't seem to understand what the hell is going now that it's here.

Spotlight will be the ultimate method of finding files. Finder will just be around to organize files (if one actually wishes to do so...though it's not going to be necessary at all.)

I see Automator as Apple's powerful and probably way more flexible counter-attack on MS's task-based XP and Longhorn.

[kman42]

Originally posted by Horsepoo!!!:
Finder will just be around to organize files (if one actually wishes to do so...though it's not going to be necessary at all.)

Please think about this a bit more carefully. It's simply not true. I routinely work on 40-50 pure text documents that relate to a particular project. There is nothing in them to indicate that they relate to that project except that they are in the same folder. I would have to prefix the name of each file with what is now the folder name for Spotlight to group these files together. Furthermore, I have multiple projects with similar names (different genes) which Spotlight would lump together.

It will always be necessary to be able to group files in a 'strict' way according to the user's preferences. There is no way a search engine can ever group all files that I consider related without also introducing files that aren't related by accident.

I need to work on many of these related files when I am working on a particular project. I want to be in a particular directory so that I can access all of those related files quickly and easily. It will always be necessary to have a 'physical' representation of place within the computer so that people can store related items together.

kman

[osxisfun]

agreed. Having said that, automator,smart folder,dashboard and spotlight has me thinking of all sorts of devlishly clever ways i can deal with the finder in 10.4

all those tech has got me thinking that we will be able to build a meta-finder finder customized for our needs. and if the screenshots of automator are acccurate. it will be darn easy to do so....

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by kman42:
Please think about this a bit more carefully. It's simply not true. I routinely work on 40-50 pure text documents that relate to a particular project. There is nothing in them to indicate that they relate to that project except that they are in the same folder. I would have to prefix the name of each file with what is now the folder name for Spotlight to group these files together. Furthermore, I have multiple projects with similar names (different genes) which Spotlight would lump together.

It will always be necessary to be able to group files in a 'strict' way according to the user's preferences. There is no way a search engine can ever group all files that I consider related without also introducing files that aren't related by accident.

I need to work on many of these related files when I am working on a particular project. I want to be in a particular directory so that I can access all of those related files quickly and easily. It will always be necessary to have a 'physical' representation of place within the computer so that people can store related items together.

kman

I'm wondering if you saw the keynote? I just watched it. The combination of Automator and Spotlight seem right up your alley.

You could search for your group files by any criteria (date, keyword or word in the content) and then move them to a folder much more quickly then searching by the Finder. You could then use Automator to add any Keyword to the Comment field for searching in the future. There's bunch of solutions that seem possible with these two features.

I'm thinking about how I can standardize all my mp3 files with Automator. This thing is going to be really useful for the compulsive organizer types like me. Reminds me of when there was a recordable Finder in Applescript, only much more sophisticated.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by hmurchison2001:
Charles I think many people were screamin' about Metadate and didn't really know what it was. They had a slight clue but they weren't quite sure. Metadata is "not" sexy. It's just convenient. I remember when people pined for a journaled filesystem and when it came there was a collective "oh..ok". It hasn't sunk in to some people that metadata means you don't have to be so damn organized. For instance I have a pdf folder that has folders of pdfs for every company. Well damn at 50 something folders I'm kind of getting sick of this. With Tiger I'm just going to toss all my pdfs into one folder and make sure I keep things indexed right.

Exactly. It's really annoying to me, and frankly mystifying, how people can clamor for something incessantly for years, and then go "that's it?" when they finally get it. I suppose that part of it is due to the fact that having something can be less satisfying than anticipating it, the same way that a long-awaited toy that a child gets for Christmas is never as fun as the excitement the child had while he was repeatedly begging his parents for the toy beforehand. Sadly, though, ignorance is probably indeed a major reason that metadata was the Holy Grail as long as Apple wasn't implementing it yet, and now that they are, it's suddenly ho-hum.

Myself, I can't wait for Spotlight. I am the world's messiest person (if I posted pictures of what my apartment looks like inside, any neat freaks in here would probably vomit), and Spotlight is likely to be a major influence on the way I work when it comes out. For me, it is going to be a very long 2004 and early 2005. But what do I know, that's just my opinion.

[ginoledesma]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
I'm wondering if you saw the keynote? I just watched it. The combination of Automator and Spotlight seem right up your alley.

You could search for your group files by any criteria (date, keyword or word in the content) and then move them to a folder much more quickly then searching by the Finder. You could then use Automator to add any Keyword to the Comment field for searching in the future. There's bunch of solutions that seem possible with these two features.

I can see kman42's point. What you'd need to do in Spotlight (multiple search criteria) for this particular situation is remedied by the current Finder implementation in one single step: create a folder that groups all the relevant data together. There will always be situations where one implementation excels over the other.

From a high-level view of it, the current implementation (Finder + search) is bottom-up: the root (bottom) groups together the files and folders on top of it. Getting to the "top" reveals your relevant (grouped) data. As for Spotlight, its more top-down: you have a particular "topic" and all other relevant groups of data are underneath it. Its just really another way of looking at/for data.

[clarkgoble]

I think the worry about Spotlight is still interface. Thus far I've not seen GUI pictures of how easy it is to create custom metadata for files, to manipulate it, and to save searches. If all searches are in the sidebar, then that's bad. If it is integrated in so we can have *true* smart folders that can be put anywhere, shared, and so forth, then there will be a lot more excitement.

I think it is also one of those things like the sidebar in 10.3. Until you use it you really don't realize how big an improvement it is. Those sorts of usability features you can't get from screen dumps and general comments.

It's really the issue of nested playlists and how to handle them in iTunes. Apple decided to keep it simple and easy, so we don't have nested playlists and complex queries (smart playlists) in iTunes are quite difficult and often impossible. Yet for many of us, that's what we want at a system level. If it is simple searching for words, then it is at best a refinement of what we have already and not that exciting. If it really is a free form metadata database with robust queries then it is amazingly exciting.

[ginoledesma]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
This is amusing to me. People have been screaming for more metadata support in OS X for years. It's got to have been one of the most requested features ever. And now that we're ACTUALLY GETTING IT, they're underwhelmed?

I'll admit that when I woke up to read the revealed features of Tiger, I barely stiffled a yawn (I live on GMT+8 ). That was an unfair judgment on my part, especially after I saw the keynote. More importantly, it made me realize that Tiger has more to offer the developers than it does the user (which was the point of WWDC). I think a big factor of why people feel "underwhelmed" is because they don't see anything (yet) that Tiger will be able to do for them. If it were Panther being previewed now, I think only Expose, Fast User Switching, and iChat AV would impress them (for the first few minutes). Filevault, XCode, super-fast Preview, and the rest of the new features would probably not be given too much of a second glance.

As for the "third party app" issue, if anything at all, I think Apple's release of several SDKs should allow developers to create even BETTER and COOLER applications that previously would have been too hard to do (if not impossible).

[kman42]

Originally posted by vmpaul:

You could search for your group files by any criteria (date, keyword or word in the content) and then move them to a folder much more quickly then searching by the Finder. You could then use Automator to add any Keyword to the Comment field for searching in the future. There's bunch of solutions that seem possible with these two features.

I certainly agree that Spotlight is much better for finding things than the Finder, but it is still true that there must always be a way to 'physically' group files together for convenience sake.

Let's say I have two projects in folders called Zonkers1 and Zonkers2 each with many files that don't have the name zonkers in them anywhere, but that do have names which are similar between the two projects. For instance, Zonkers1 and Zonkers2 each contain a file called FirstEdit. They also contain files called Rip1 and Roll14. Without tagging each file in the Zonkers1 project with the name Zonkers1, how would spotlight ever sort this out? It's easy for me to do it with the Finder; I just put all of the Zonkers1 files in a folder called Zonkers1 and all of the Zonkers2 files in a folder called Zonkers2. I can then navigate to either directory and work with all the files related to one of the two projects.

Instead of just throwing related files in a folder, I would have to somehow tag each file (either in the name or in the Comments field) to group them together. Nevertheless, I bet Spotlight would find both Zonkers1 and 2 even if I only searched for Zonkers1. Zonkers2 may be farther down on the list, but it will find them.

Searching is for searching, not for organizing. There must always be a way to organize. Even iTunes and iPhoto have this feature (Playlists and Photo Albums). So, people shouldn't be so quick to say that the Finder will be obsolete because it is simply impossible to get around some method of organizing the files in containers. Perhaps the Finder will morph into a unilevel structure where you only have one layer of containers (like iTunes playlists) rather than hierarchical, but I doubt it.

kman

[ginoledesma]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
I think the worry about Spotlight is still interface. Thus far I've not seen GUI pictures of how easy it is to create custom metadata for files, to manipulate it, and to save searches. If all searches are in the sidebar, then that's bad. If it is integrated in so we can have *true* smart folders that can be put anywhere, shared, and so forth, then there will be a lot more excitement.

I agree. More importantly, though, the learning curve shouldn't be too steep (nee, no "paradigm shift"). If a "Smart Folder" is just a folder that queries files together, dragging it to another volume, compressing it, and what not, should have the same (or at least similar) effect as with a regular folder. Nothing would be more infuriating than sending a "smart folder" to someone else (say over the network) and not having the actual files copied.