[CharlesS]

Originally posted by irfoton:
I have to disagree with you Charles. I never had to reinstall OS9 to fix a problem. if you did, then you probably didn't get to the bottom of the problem. In most cases, a corrupted preference file (MS Office prime culprit) was the issue. Extension conflics were rooted out very quickly and information. They didn't cause constant crashes because you stopped creating the conflict. The web was a good place to find conflicts and avoid them. I rarely if ever had my system crash. MS office was really the only thing that could consistently crash my system.

You're wrong. When I clean installed, I:

Put the preferences from the old system back

Put the extensions from the old system back

Put the control panels from the old system back

Put the fonts from the old system back

Put most everything extra that didn't come with the old system back

and it worked.

Trust me, I knew how to trash prefs files, and I would usually try that before going to this extreme. But sometimes, the system files just got screwed over.

As for the terminal or the GUI slowing down when something else was running, that has nothing to do with interface design. The GUI is the interface to the OS. If the OS can't handle the Finder and other processes, that is not the GUI's fault unless of course the GUI is the one consuming the CPU cycles. Ironically, that is more true of OSX than OS9.

You are correct that speed has nothing to do with UI, but people were complaining about OS X's speed. Now, not only is there not so great a difference between the two as long as you're using Panther, but the effective speed of the OS X UI is much greater if you're ever trying to do two things at once.

[irfoton]

Charles,
Interesting that you had to do this often. that was not my experience. If my system did a hard crash that the three finger solute couldn't fix, there was always an obvious file that i could identify as the culprit. Rarely did the system file get hosed.

[Detrius]

Originally posted by irfoton:
Charles,
Interesting that you had to do this often. that was not my experience. If my system did a hard crash that the three finger solute couldn't fix, there was always an obvious file that i could identify as the culprit. Rarely did the system file get hosed.

It happened to me too. It was usually some kind of funky extension, but sometimes it was the system suitcase.

[Richard Edgar]

Nope, because if the proper type code wasn't set, most applications wouldn't let you drag them over them (with a few exceptions of course

Tell me.... if a bridge falls down, do you blame the laws of physics for being wrong?

Could be, or it could be that the user didn't set this up properly

The point is that that little dialog box is a side effect of the rest of the world being prepared to tolerate filename extensions.

The majority of applications set their own creator code. And a lot of the time this was what you wanted. But not always. And when you sent the file to a friend, chances were his preference may not coincide with yours

See comment above. The fact that 'the majority of applications' decided to do things badly is wholly irrelevant to the actual merits of the system.

I'm not saying that the type/creator code system was perfect - I've heard rumblings that BeOS had something even better (read: easier to fix when things did go wrong - although I've never tried it either), but filename extensions are common because they are easier for programmers (less thinking), rather than easier for users.

[wataru]

Originally posted by Andrew Stephens:
Well, er no! I want to be able to forget about permissions and such rubbish. If I try to trash a vital OS file then the system should stop me. I'm not saying that OS9 was any better than X at many things, simply that in many many ways OSX is simply not the great leap forward in computer OS's that most people tout it as.

Permissions are an essential part of any secure, multi-user OS. Saying you don't want to have to understand permissions is like saying you want to drive without knowing traffic laws. When you decided to start using a computer, you knew that you'd have to learn some things, and this is one of them.

That said, it's really not that hard. OS X 10.3 makes it easy to manipulate permissions via the GUI. Wishing permissions away isn't going to help; they're necessary, and they're not going anywhere.

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by Richard Edgar:
Tell me.... if a bridge falls down, do you blame the laws of physics for being wrong?

Design decisions in an OS != a force of nature. There are a lot of things in nature that would be more beneficial to me if I could change them.

[leperkuhn]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
Design decisions in an OS != a force of nature. There are a lot of things in nature that would be more beneficial to me if I could change them.

Such as the ability to command tornados. Given one element to have complete mastery over, it would certainly be tornados.

And plagues of locusts are not an option. I knew you were thinking it.

[leperkuhn]

The real problem with this thread is that certain assumptions about both os x and os 9 that have made are incorrect.

#1. OS X requires mastery of Unix and shell scripting to fix problems.
#2. OS 9 was easy for new users
#3. Troubleshooting OS 9 was easy. Problematic extensions could be rooted out by everyone.
#4. A computer randomly crashing is not a problem. System stability is unimportant and does not affect the computing experience.
#5. an operating system does not need permissions. However, the user should not be allowed to muck up the system.
#6. People didn't complain much about OS 9 when it was out.

I know there were people complaints about 9 but what amazes me, is that no one really complained at the time.

#7. Nothing has changed since 10.0, and we think 10.0 ruled.
#8. OS 9 never required a clean install.

I've gone back, just to make sure i wasn't making things up. These are all points that have been made that are incorrect. A few of these are completely false statements that have been made regarding facts, and through these statements conclusions have been made that support a OS 9 is a better system (or at least the concepts from os 9).

I just thought I'd share that.

[mAxximo]

Originally posted by leperkuhn:
A few of these are completely false statements that have been made regarding facts, and through these statements conclusions have been made that support a OS 9 is a better system (or at least the concepts from os 9).

I don't care what lies beneath each system or what you believe is false or true but in too many aspects the Mac is still a better system than OS X whether you can see it or not.
If it wasn't we wouldn't be discussing this four years later, simple as that.

[cpac]

Originally posted by mAxximo:
I don't care what lies beneath each system or what you believe is false or true but in too many aspects the Mac is still a better system than OS X whether you can see it or not.
If it wasn't we wouldn't be discussing this four years later, simple as that.

That'd only be true if people were rational. The thing is - people don't like change, and when you've spent the past 15 odd years getting comfortable with and learning how to use an OS, *any switch* whether to a "better" system or not, is going to inspire resistance, nostalgia, and debate.

But all this is beside the point of course. We all know we'll never change your mind Maxximo, you just need to get over the fact that you aren't going to change ours.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Richard Edgar:
Tell me.... if a bridge falls down, do you blame the laws of physics for being wrong?

What?! Sheesh, what a nonsensical argument.

The "laws of physics" in this case, constitute the elements we can't change - i.e. file extensions being the standard way to denote file types. A better analogy would be a bridge falling down because the designer has this set-in-stone idea of how a bridge must work which completely ignores the laws of physics. In other words, it's you who are are blaming the laws of physics for being wrong.

The point is that that little dialog box is a side effect of the rest of the world being prepared to tolerate filename extensions.

No, the point is that that little dialog (along with its counterparts in File Exchange, StuffIt Expander, and browsers, FTP programs, etc. that don't use Internet Config) is a pain in the ass. I've never seen a newbie who knew what that was for and how to use it. They just asked me to fix it for them. The point is that OS X does not require that little dialog, and is thus easier to use in this regard. Period.

See comment above. The fact that 'the majority of applications' decided to do things badly is wholly irrelevant to the actual merits of the system.

Uh, the fact that applications which followed the standard procedure often ended up with a situation other than what you wanted is not at all irrelevant to the actual merits of the system.

Don't get me wrong - Type/Creator was great in its day, because it allowed me to have different files of the same type open with different applications. However, the OS X way is better, since it does the same thing while actually allowing me to choose what application a file will open with.

I'm not saying that the type/creator code system was perfect - I've heard rumblings that BeOS had something even better (read: easier to fix when things did go wrong - although I've never tried it either), but filename extensions are common because they are easier for programmers (less thinking), rather than easier for users.

We are stuck with filename extensions. Therefore, filename extensions are easier for the user, because supporting them causes things to actually work.

[analogika]

Originally posted by Richard Edgar:
The fact that 'the majority of applications' decided to do things badly is wholly irrelevant to the actual merits of the system.

It is absolutely relevant.

The actual merits of the system are, in fact, entirely irrelevant when they don't mix with reality.

Type code/creator codes are a great idea.

So is communism.

Unfortunately, the reality contains an ever-increasingly networked, constantly data-exchanging world of 90% Windows machines, and Stalinism.

Dvorak keyboards and Betamax are great, too, but only until you actually interact with people.

-s*

[analogika]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
The "laws of physics" in this case, constitute the elements we can't change - i.e. file extensions being the standard way to denote file types. A better analogy would be a bridge falling down because the designer has this set-in-stone idea of how a bridge must work which completely ignores the laws of physics. In other words, it's you who are are blaming the laws of physics for being wrong.

The relevant term being CRITICAL MASS.

[Detrius]

Originally posted by mAxximo:
I don't care what lies beneath each system or what you believe is false or true but in too many aspects the Mac is still a better system than OS X whether you can see it or not.
If it wasn't we wouldn't be discussing this four years later, simple as that.

The fact that homeopathic "remedies" are nothing but placebos doesn't stop people from supporting them. The fact that they argue it doesn't make it right.

The fact that creationists can't logically accept the scientifically supported theory of evolution--or even the scientifically proved theory of natural selection--doesn't even mean that they have a valid point.

I'm definitely not trying to change the topic here, but the point is that the original statement is false. The fact that you strongly believe that OS 9 is better than OS X doesn't make it true.

Logical statements aside, though, your belief in OS 9 is your opinion which inherently makes it not false. It may still be baseless, but you have the right to your own opinion, regardless of how you support it.

[nforcer]

To answer the original question, will Apple ever make an OS that functions like OS 9 but has the features of X? I hope not.

[leperkuhn]

Originally posted by mAxximo:
I don't care what lies beneath each system or what you believe is false or true but in too many aspects the Mac is still a better system than OS X whether you can see it or not.
If it wasn't we wouldn't be discussing this four years later, simple as that.

Just because it's being discussed doesn't mean anything. If i made statements such as "the earth is flat" or "the wheel is a poor invention" it really doesn't give any validity to the argument. You have made assertions, and they are just wrong.

[leperkuhn]

Originally posted by Detrius:
The fact that homeopathic "remedies" are nothing but placebos doesn't stop people from supporting them. The fact that they argue it doesn't make it right.

The fact that creationists can't logically accept the scientifically supported theory of evolution--or even the scientifically proved theory of natural selection--doesn't even mean that they have a valid point.

I'm definitely not trying to change the topic here, but the point is that the original statement is false. The fact that you strongly believe that OS 9 is better than OS X doesn't make it true.

Logical statements aside, though, your belief in OS 9 is your opinion which inherently makes it not false. It may still be baseless, but you have the right to your own opinion, regardless of how you support it.

Ah, there we are. Looks like I should read the rest of the thread before posting.

[Richard Edgar]

The "laws of physics" in this case, constitute the elements we can't change - i.e. file extensions being the standard way to denote file types. A better analogy would be a bridge falling down because the designer has this set-in-stone idea of how a bridge must work which completely ignores the laws of physics. In other words, it's you who are are blaming the laws of physics for being wrong

Rubbish. The 'laws of physics' in this case was/were the type/creator system - in place for a considerable period of time. The 'bridges' were the applications. Some (e.g. GraphicConvertor) demonstrated that it could work very well, even when information was lost. However, doing so represented more work for programmers.... so guess what didn't get done?

We are stuck with filename extensions. Therefore, filename extensions are easier for the user, because supporting them causes things to actually work

In other words, we are stuck once more with the triumph of the mediocre - my point all along. I trust you realise that that argument is remarkably similar to ones that have pushed Macs out in favour of Wintel PCs?

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Richard Edgar:
Rubbish. The 'laws of physics' in this case was/were the type/creator system - in place for a considerable period of time. The 'bridges' were the applications. Some (e.g. GraphicConvertor) demonstrated that it could work very well, even when information was lost. However, doing so represented more work for programmers.... so guess what didn't get done?

Terrible analogy. The laws of physics are something you can't change, so you just have to deal with them. The type/creator system was very much something that could be changed. Your analogy just plain doesn't work.

Plus, just because something was in place for a considerable period of time doesn't mean much. Computers used command-line interfaces only for a considerable period of time. Doesn't mean the GUI was a bad idea (or violating some "laws of physics"). Hell, the methods people used to do the tasks that are now done by computers had been in place for a really long time. So apparently we should go ditch all technology and join the Amish!

Times change. Deal with it.

In other words, we are stuck once more with the triumph of the mediocre - my point all along. I trust you realise that that argument is remarkably similar to ones that have pushed Macs out in favour of Wintel PCs?

Only if you think the type/creator system is the only advantage of the Mac over Windows. I feel that it isn't even an advantage anymore - it once was, but it became way too much of a pain in the later years and was something unwieldy that newbies could not have any chance in hell of being able to manage. What good is a computer that people can't figure out how to use? Seriously. Apple's priority needs to be to give the users the best experience possible, not to follow the dogma of some religious ideologues.

[Richard Edgar]

The laws of physics are something you can't change, so you just have to deal with them. The type/creator system was very much something that could be changed.

You seem to have failed to understand the analogy. For the application writers, the type/creator system was/were the laws of physics. They couldn't change them. And applications such as GraphicConvertor proved that things could work well within them.

Times change. Deal with it

You appear to be automatically associating the word 'change' with 'forward progress' - a disease common in the computer idustry. Filename extensions are going backwards.

Only if you think the type/creator system is the only advantage of the Mac over Windows.

Twaddle. I pointed out the simple fact that the 'must fit in with Wintel' patter has been used often to justify the removal of Macs. You trotted it out to justify the demise of the type/creator system.

Filename extensions are a bad idea. Since when was a file's type defined by its name? Or perhaps we should shove the created/modified dates, permissions etc. into the filenames too? That would make it nice and easy for people to fix them when they go wrong too.

[mAxximo]

Originally posted by Detrius:
The fact that you strongly believe that OS 9 is better than OS X doesn't make it true.

For the record what I really think is OS X is, as of Panther, a better operating system from a technical standpoint than OS 9. There's no discussion here and I've never said otherwise.
My point has always been that there are certain key areas in which the Mac is still noticeably better, read GUI, read general user experience.

[mAxximo]

Originally posted by Richard Edgar:
You seem to have failed to understand the analogy. For the application writers, the type/creator system was/were the laws of physics. They couldn't change them. And applications such as GraphicConvertor proved that things could work well within them.
You appear to be automatically associating the word 'change' with 'forward progress' - a disease common in the computer idustry. Filename extensions are going backwards.
Twaddle. I pointed out the simple fact that the 'must fit in with Wintel' patter has been used often to justify the removal of Macs. You trotted it out to justify the demise of the type/creator system.

Filename extensions are a bad idea. Since when was a file's type defined by its name? Or perhaps we should shove the created/modified dates, permissions etc. into the filenames too? That would make it nice and easy for people to fix them when they go wrong too.

[leperkuhn]

Originally posted by Richard Edgar:
Filename extensions are going backwards.
Twaddle. I pointed out the simple fact that the 'must fit in with Wintel' patter has been used often to justify the removal of Macs. You trotted it out to justify the demise of the type/creator system.

Filename extensions are a bad idea. Since when was a file's type defined by its name? Or perhaps we should shove the created/modified dates, permissions etc. into the filenames too? That would make it nice and easy for people to fix them when they go wrong too.

It's not forward progress if it can't be used. Hydrogen cars are forward progress but you can only refuel in a few places. Don't confused the ideal solution with the best solution for the situation. The advantages of the extension far outweigh the very trivial matter of having it in the name. Being able to easily pass documents back and forth between any computer is a major issue. Maybe not for you, since you might ONLY deal with macs, but for anyone else in the world, it's the best solution. Unless of course, you can convince microsoft to support type/creator. And unix/linux vendors.

and really.. how does it negatively effect you?

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Richard Edgar:
You seem to have failed to understand the analogy. For the application writers, the type/creator system was/were the laws of physics. They couldn't change them. And applications such as GraphicConvertor proved that things could work well within them.

They were the exception, not the rule. I'd be willing to bet that the UI guidelines probably favored the method predominantly used, since there were so few applications which deviated from this norm (and up until a certain time, there were none).

Twaddle. I pointed out the simple fact that the 'must fit in with Wintel' patter has been used often to justify the removal of Macs. You trotted it out to justify the demise of the type/creator system.

Know what? If Macs don't interoperate well with the Wintel machines which make up the majority of machines in an organization, and if they're generally a pain to work with whenever transferring files anywhere, then the IT department has an argument for removing them which is pretty hard to convincingly argue against. Hell, this is true for consumers too - I had an aunt who switched to Wintel because she insisted she had to "convert" Word documents from work in order to use them on her Mac. In actuality the problem was probably due to the type/creator codes not being set, and whatever app she was using to "convert" the files was probably really just slapping a type and creator on the files. But from her point of view, she had to "convert" the files, and it was a pain in the ass.

The fact of the matter is, it's a Wintel world, and we have to be able to communicate with them effectively. It's just a fact of life as things stand - a law of physics if you will. For this reason, Apple's been making great strides towards interoperability - SMB client built into the Finder, SMB server in the Sharing prefs, Active Directory support, MS Word support without having to spend $300 on Office, USB 2.0, and filename extensions. This may hopefully cause more companies not to remove Macs from their setups, and help ensure the future survival of Apple's Macintosh division. Remember, if the Mac dies, then it doesn't matter much anymore whether OS X used filename extensions or not.

[analogika]

Originally posted by Richard Edgar:
In other words, we are stuck once more with the triumph of the mediocre - my point all along. I trust you realise that that argument is remarkably similar to ones that have pushed Macs out in favour of Wintel PCs?

Yes, it is the triumph of the mediocre over the proprietary, closed-system, and hence patently useless.

[Richard Edgar]

They were the exception, not the rule

So, poor programming was more prevalent than good. What's new there? I'm just surprised to see someone defending it so vehemently

The fact of the matter is, it's a Wintel world

So stick to that argument, instead of claiming that filename extensions are superior. Wintel uses them... because earlier, that world was content to accept the CLI (to address one of your earlier 'points').

Maybe not for you, since you might ONLY deal with macs

Actually, I mainly deal with Linux and Solaris, and all the 'fun' that entails - discovering how many different ways things can be almost-but-not-quite the same.

and really.. how does it negatively effect you?

Because it's part of the malaise from which the whole computer industry suffers: It doesn't matter how good your method is. All that matters is that you were there first. Talk of rapid progress in the computer industry is simply hype.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally posted by Detrius:
The fact that homeopathic "remedies" are nothing but placebos doesn't stop people from supporting them. The fact that they argue it doesn't make it right.

The fact that creationists can't logically accept the scientifically supported theory of evolution--or even the scientifically proved theory of natural selection--doesn't even mean that they have a valid point.

I'm definitely not trying to change the topic here, but the point is that the original statement is false. The fact that you strongly believe that OS 9 is better than OS X doesn't make it true.

Post of the day

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by Richard Edgar:
So, poor programming was more prevalent than good. What's new there? I'm just sur It doesn't matter how good your method is. All that matters is that you were there first. Talk of rapid progress in the computer industry is simply hype.

The "superior" type/creator code system was in place for more than a decade, and it wasn't catching on AT ALL. So Apple decided to support the de facto standard that had been around for even longer than that. A standard that works is better than a technically superior solution that doesn't work. If it's not required to actually work in any given situation, I'm sure I can come up with (and implement using only pseudocode) an even better solution than type codes.

Do I like types and creators better than extensions? Yes. Do I think sticking with them to the exclusion of extensions is the best solution these days? Absolutely not.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Richard Edgar:
So, poor programming was more prevalent than good. What's new there? I'm just surprised to see someone defending it so vehemently

It wasn't "poor programming", it was the way the system was supposed to work. It was called the Creator code, not the Whatever App I Want To Open The File With Code. It opened a file with its creator, i.e. the app which created it.

You're never going to convince me that having files always open with the app that created (i.e. saved) them is better than letting the user choose what app a file will open with.

So stick to that argument, instead of claiming that filename extensions are superior. Wintel uses them... because earlier, that world was content to accept the CLI (to address one of your earlier 'points').

A computer running a GUI can interact with a computer running a CLI just fine. There are no inherent problems in that. However, a computer exclusively using type codes cannot interoperate effectively with a computer using filename extensions without requiring the user to be a power user who knows all about type codes and how to tweak them. And in case you hadn't noticed, Apple is in the business of making software that they advertise as being easier to use than the competition. Having to dick around with extension-to-type/creator mappings is not easy to use.

[Richard Edgar]

You're never going to convince me that having files always open with the app that created (i.e. saved) them is better than letting the user choose what app a file will open with

Do not put words into my mouth. I never said that. In fact, I pointed out that applications such as GraphicConvertor made the reassignment painless - if you wanted it to do so. Nor was ResEdit necessary to reset them - there were plenty of applications which could. I even have/had a nice little CMM to do it.

And actually.... if I have two files.... say "pic1.jpg" and "pic2.jpg" how does the machine know that I want the first opened with GraphicConvertor, and then second with Photoshop? How do filename extensions give the user that choice?

A computer running a GUI can interact with a computer running a CLI just fine. There are no inherent problems in that

Tell that to someone trying to get their shell script to work with filenames with spaces (very natural for GUI... less so for CLI).

[analogika]

Originally posted by Richard Edgar:
So, poor programming was more prevalent than good. What's new there? I'm just surprised to see someone defending it so vehemently
So stick to that argument, instead of claiming that filename extensions are superior.

What the hell is your point?

I seriously want to know. Can you please just make your point?

You hate OS X because it embraces something that might not be as elegant, but actually *works*, as opposed to the elegant Type/Creator codes which work ONLY within a completely closed, Mac-only ecosystem - i.e. only for the typical 1980s' household Mac user?

Is that it?

[Richard Edgar]

Can you please just make your point?

That filename extensions are a very bad idea, and that the type/creator system was quite a step forward. Not perfect certainly, but certainly a step forward. I have stated this previously, so perhaps you should brush up on your reading skills.

You hate OS X

I see we have someone else who likes to make up things for me to have said.

[leperkuhn]

Originally posted by Richard Edgar:

Because it's part of the malaise from which the whole computer industry suffers: It doesn't matter how good your method is. All that matters is that you were there first. Talk of rapid progress in the computer industry is simply hype.

I asked how it negatively affects you. Not "why is it stupid". What I want to hear from you is how, in the course of your day, do you find that you are hindered by the 3 character extension.

Let me make sure I understand this. Do you think that we'd be better off using creator codes because they are a more elegant solution, despite the fact that the documents we use would be incompatible 97% of the computers in the world? Please, so there's no confusion, your first line of your response should be "YES" or "NO".

[mAxximo]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
Do I like types and creators better than extensions? Yes. Do I think sticking with them to the exclusion of extensions is the best solution these days? Absolutely not.

Would you be supporting type/creator codes over file extensions had Apple implemented them as the preferred method in OS X �as it should have been if not for Tevanian�s hate of everything Mac?

Absolutely yes.

[irfoton]

If we buy into the argument that we should do what the rest of the computing world is doing, then the GUI would not have been invented. Extensions as part of the filename is a bad design. It causes overlap between two sets of metadata - filename and filetype - that should be independent. Does that mean we should hide the "extension" from the user. No! It means a more elegant solution should be found. Windows NTFS has the ability to store tons of metadata. Now is the time to introduce a cleaner solution that allows for filename and filetype to be independent yet compatible with the rest of the computing world.

irf

[mAxximo]

Originally posted by analogika:
You hate OS X because it embraces something that might not be as elegant, but actually *works*, as opposed to the elegant Type/Creator codes which work ONLY within a completely closed, Mac-only ecosystem - i.e. only for the typical 1980s' household Mac user?

BS.
I've been using Macs prefessionally from 1987 and I have never had a single problem dealing with files from or to the PC world. Receiving PC files on the Mac was never a problem and everytime I needed to send my files to a PC user all it usually took was checking the �add file extension� box in any of my applications or just adding it manually before sending them. All the while keeping true ownwership of my file names locally. Best of both worlds.
But no, they had to go for the lowest common denominator here too.

[analogika]

Originally posted by Richard Edgar:
That filename extensions are a very bad idea, and that the type/creator system was quite a step forward. Not perfect certainly, but certainly a step forward. I have stated this previously, so perhaps you should brush up on your reading skills.

Ah, I see.

Sorry, but my reading skills led me to believe that the "step forward" argument had been thoroughly destroyed, seeing as something that doesn't work in an increasingly networked, Windows-dominated world is not a solution. "Step forward" usually involves practical usability.

Maybe if you'd brush up on your reading skills, you'd come to the same conclusion.

Until then, enjoy your Betamax tapes.

-s*

[analogika]

Originally posted by mAxximo:
BS.
I've been using Macs prefessionally from 1987 and I have never had a single problem dealing with files from or to the PC world. Receiving PC files on the Mac was never a problem and everytime I needed to send my files to a PC user all it usually took was checking the �add file extension� box in any of my applications or just adding it manually before sending them. All the while keeping true ownwership of my file names locally. Best of both worlds.
But no, they had to go for the lowest common denominator here too.

"Lowest common denominator" is what Macintosh used to be all about, before arrogant self-proclaimed "power users" and "graphics pros" deluded themselves into believing that it was catered exclusively to their own idiosyncrasies and limitation-induced work habits.

Macintosh USED TO be the "computer for the rest of us".

Meaning those who have no clue why they should need to search out an "add file extension" click box that isn't checked by default, just so their best friend can actually read a file they've created.

And if you claim that you've never had a PC file that you weren't able to open simply by double-clicking, I simply don't believe you - though, of course, you cleverly avoid saying so: you merely claim it was "never a problem" - for YOU.

-s*

[leperkuhn]

I'm still waiting for a reason why it's more practical in the real world to not have file extensions. Maxximo for all the BS you throw around you have yet to make a single point.

[mAxximo]

Originally posted by analogika:
Ah, I see.

Sorry, but my reading skills led me to believe that the "step forward" argument had been thoroughly destroyed, seeing as something that doesn't work in an increasingly networked, Windows-dominated world is not a solution. "Step forward" usually involves practical usability.

Maybe if you'd brush up on your reading skills, you'd come to the same conclusion.

Until then, enjoy your Betamax tapes.

-s*

These are the same guys that made fun of Windows� file extensions when the Mac used to have the superior Type/Creator codes. Same with the CLI-based DOS.

Now CLIs are sacred and file extensions are great. Funny...

[mAxximo]

Originally posted by analogika:
"Lowest common denominator" is what Macintosh used to be all about

The lowest common denominator was and will always be Windows, which is where OS X is heading to. The Mac embraced superior usability and functionality from the get go and revolutionised the computer world forever. �The computer for the rest of us� is the �arrogant� slogan that Apple used to launch the Macintosh and that truly represented what being a Mac user actually meant. Anything but lowest common denominator.

[analogika]

[goMac]

Ummmm... What is this all about... Type/Creator code sucked. Windows docs on the Mac had trouble opening right. Mac docs on Windows had trouble opening right. And as a programmer it was a PITA to deal with. To change a file type you had to go grab ResEdit.

When OS X was first announced I hated it. I hated UNIX. I hated file extensions. I hated no backwards compatiblity. I hated how Apple wasn't even using their own core for the OS anymore. I wasn't really even a big fan of the interface. I was beta testing many of the developers previews, and hated each one (I was forced to test them at work). Somewhere around 10.0 it clicked. Apple has continuously improved Mac OS X. Mac OS X is now far beyond what 9 could ever be. When 10.0 came out I found myself using 9 less and less. X didn't crash. X gave me far more control. X let me multitask better. X was more compatible.

In 10.3 you don't even have to know UNIX to fix anything. OS X gives you all the control you need. And you don't need ResEdit just to change a file type (to get back to original point). Extensions are even hidden by default so the average user doesn't have to deal with them.

I think 10.4 will be the last straw for all the OS 9 people. 10.3 already runs far faster than 9 did. 10.4 is all around faster and more complete than 9. It boots much faster than 9 did. The interface draws faster. It multitasks as well as the other versions of X. And it comes with more features than 9 did, with much more stuff for the new Mac user. If you think of things in terms of OS 9 methodology, OS X will seem a bit backwards because its not OS 9. The new user will not care because they have never used OS 9, and won't be used to how OS 9 operated. They'll be more easily able to accept OS X. In order to get used to OS X you have to abandon the OS 9 way of thinking.

Mac OS X is still the OS for the rest of us. You don't have to use the CLI to fix anything. I have never had to use the CLI to fix anything, besides stuff I broke myself via the CLI. The average user doesn't even know about the extensions because they can't see them, making them really no different than type/creator codes. There is nothing that made type/creator so much better.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Richard Edgar:
Do not put words into my mouth. I never said that.

This is what you are saying by defending the type/creator system over the current OS X system. In the OS 9 system, files were supposed to be opened with the application that created them. Yes, there may have been three or four apps out there that deviated from the standard behavior, but that is completely irrelevant to the discussion. I'm saying that letting the user decide what app to open a file with is better than arbitrarily deciding to open the file with the app that created it, and no matter how much you scream that the type/creator system is superior without providing any reason other than it just is, you're not going to change my mind on this.

In fact, I pointed out that applications such as GraphicConvertor made the reassignment painless - if you wanted it to do so. Nor was ResEdit necessary to reset them - there were plenty of applications which could. I even have/had a nice little CMM to do it.

Ooh, so you don't need ResEdit! You can use another app that does the same damn thing as ResEdit! Wow, that makes it all different now!

With your CMM you still have to know what type/creator codes are to use it effectively. And the fact that you used one in the first place reinforces my point that futzing with type/creator codes was necessary in the old OS.

And going into GraphicConverter isn't as easy as just choosing from a standard menu of applications to open a file with. Especially for non-graphic files!

And actually.... if I have two files.... say "pic1.jpg" and "pic2.jpg" how does the machine know that I want the first opened with GraphicConvertor, and then second with Photoshop? How do filename extensions give the user that choice?

1. Get Info on a file, go to Open With, choose application.

2. Alternatively, you can right-click on the file, hold down the Option key, and get an "Always Open With" menu.

Try it, you'll like it.

Tell that to someone trying to get their shell script to work with filenames with spaces (very natural for GUI... less so for CLI).

Uh, if someone is savvy enough to know how to write a shell script, I should hope that person would be intelligent enough to grasp the concept of putting quote marks around file paths. There's nothing so hard about that...

Seriously, is that the best you could do?

Originally posted by irfoton:
If we buy into the argument that we should do what the rest of the computing world is doing, then the GUI would not have been invented.

Again, the GUI does not inherently introduce any problem interoperating with a CLI system. This analogy is completely null and void.

Extensions as part of the filename is a bad design. It causes overlap between two sets of metadata - filename and filetype - that should be independent. Does that mean we should hide the "extension" from the user. No! It means a more elegant solution should be found. Windows NTFS has the ability to store tons of metadata. Now is the time to introduce a cleaner solution that allows for filename and filetype to be independent yet compatible with the rest of the computing world.

Which will only be used with 3% of computers, which will cause numerous headaches in transferring files back and forth, and which will cause new users to think that the Mac is too hard to use and business users to think that the Mac won't work in their settings. Result: the Macintosh dies, and Apple becomes the iPod Company™.

Great idea!

Originally posted by mAxximo:
I've been using Macs prefessionally from 1987 and I have never had a single problem dealing with files from or to the PC world.

Good for you. I've had to help family, friends, friends of my parents, friends of friends... it seemed that during my high school years I was tech support for half the Mac-using population in the town I was from. Guess what? I had to fix type/creator-related settings all the F'in time. Usually it was the browser file mappings, but it could be anything else. I've also seen people I know switch to Wintel simply because they perceive PC files as being different and incompatible with Mac files simply because of the type/creator business. How difficult is it for you to understand this?!

At university, I've seen the same attitude persist by those who don't know the Mac too well - I've talked to people that think Mac files are inherently different than PC files and not compatible with each other, even if they're standard formats like .txt or .jpg or whatever. I've talked to PC users who are using the Macs in the university lab, and bringing files in from their PC to work on. One was bring in a .mov file and was asking me how to do it, and asked if it needed to be a "Mac .mov file" or a "PC .mov file". Of course I told him it's OS X, and he doesn't need to worry about it - it'll just work. People believe that all files are encoded differently or otherwise completely different on the Mac than on the PC - who in their right mind would use such a system?

Bottom line - the type/creator system doesn't work anymore. Hanging onto it any longer would hurt Apple's image and destroy the Mac.

Oh, and one more thing: Would it surprise you to know that OS 9 actually used file extensions? Try it sometime - take a .gif file and rename it so its extension is .jpg in OS 9. See what happens. Of course, it only worked for formats supported by QuickTime...

[leperkuhn]

Originally posted by goMac:
Ummmm... What is this all about... Type/Creator code sucked. Windows docs on the Mac had trouble opening right. Mac docs on Windows had trouble opening right. And as a programmer it was a PITA to deal with. To change a file type you had to go grab ResEdit.

When OS X was first announced I hated it. I hated UNIX. I hated file extensions. I hated no backwards compatiblity. I hated how Apple wasn't even using their own core for the OS anymore. I wasn't really even a big fan of the interface. I was beta testing many of the developers previews, and hated each one (I was forced to test them at work). Somewhere around 10.0 it clicked. Apple has continuously improved Mac OS X. Mac OS X is now far beyond what 9 could ever be. When 10.0 came out I found myself using 9 less and less. X didn't crash. X gave me far more control. X let me multitask better. X was more compatible.

In 10.3 you don't even have to know UNIX to fix anything. OS X gives you all the control you need. And you don't need ResEdit just to change a file type (to get back to original point). Extensions are even hidden by default so the average user doesn't have to deal with them.

I think 10.4 will be the last straw for all the OS 9 people. 10.3 already runs far faster than 9 did. 10.4 is all around faster and more complete than 9. It boots much faster than 9 did. The interface draws faster. It multitasks as well as the other versions of X. And it comes with more features than 9 did, with much more stuff for the new Mac user. If you think of things in terms of OS 9 methodology, OS X will seem a bit backwards because its not OS 9. The new user will not care because they have never used OS 9, and won't be used to how OS 9 operated. They'll be more easily able to accept OS X. In order to get used to OS X you have to abandon the OS 9 way of thinking.

Mac OS X is still the OS for the rest of us. You don't have to use the CLI to fix anything. I have never had to use the CLI to fix anything, besides stuff I broke myself via the CLI. The average user doesn't even know about the extensions because they can't see them, making them really no different than type/creator codes. There is nothing that made type/creator so much better.

I was actually looking for applause, but thumbs up will have to do.

[mAxximo]

Originally posted by goMac:
10.3 already runs far faster than 9 did.

W-w-w-what??
We must be living in different worlds then.

[mAxximo]

Originally posted by goMac:
I think 10.4 will be the last straw for all the OS 9 people.

I agree.
To me is either it works for real this time or I go PC for good. Those Alienware boxes look better every day...





(Please refrain from the usual fanboi remarks)

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by mAxximo:
These are the same guys that made fun of Windows� file extensions when the Mac used to have the superior Type/Creator codes. Same with the CLI-based DOS.

Now CLIs are sacred and file extensions are great. Funny...

File extensions are necessary if you want everything to work correctly. That's all I've said.

Originally posted by mAxximo:
To me is either it works for real this time or I go PC for good. Those Alienware boxes look better every day...

...because you won't even have the option of using type/creator codes there like you still do on the Mac?

[analogika]

Originally posted by mAxximo:
I agree.
To me is either it works for real this time or I go PC for good. Those Alienware boxes look better every day...

You've been saying that for five years.

God forbid you ever put your ass behind your gob.

[alphasubzero949]

Originally posted by mAxximo:
I agree.
To me is either it works for real this time or I go PC for good. Those Alienware boxes look better every day...

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.