Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Back to the Mac

Back to the Mac (Page 7)
Thread Tools
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2010, 08:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
Well it's better than Windows...
huh??? Who said anything about Windows? Critique of MacOS does not automatically equate to support for Windows.

I've introduced several people to MacOS in the last year, and one of the common problems they had was finding the applications. The easiest solution for them was having the Applications folder in the Dock.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2010, 09:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
So is beta functionality that might just be a little quirky.

We don't know which it was, but it seemed like the beta to me - the response was a little delayed, which frazzled him.

I agree that gestures on the Magic Mouse may be weird - I'll hold my opinion until we see exactly what Apple will implement, and how.
We agree on something This is a wonderful start to my weekend! I hope you have a nice one too (with some great local beer!)
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2010, 09:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Since you assume that (and I think you're right, except perhaps on Win7 having caught up), what do you make of the fact that the iMac single-handedly rescued the Mac from the brink of extinction, while the iPod undisputedly is responsible for the explosion in Apple's business (with the much-touted "halo" effect resulting in sales of the rather nice Mac hardware)?
I am thrilled really, that my favorite computer maker is so successful, finally! I didn't enjoy the mid 90s very much when everything was going to the crapper and the iPod halo effect is an amazing thing. And I think that this increase in Mac sales are because of it almost completely, but *despite* the lack of interest and software engineering effort Apple is giving the Mac platform. The hardware design is quite wonderful, still. Though again, the lack of BD option is bizarre. But we'll just have to disagree on that.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Jobs had high-quality hardware and design at NeXT (they were utterly beautiful machines, and extremely powerful for the time), had a totally brilliant OS - WAY ahead of its time -, and sold

A TOTAL OF 50,000 MACHINES.

That's a little more than Apple sells Macintoshes now IN A DAY.
Yes and they cost $9,995 ... in 1988!! That's like 18,000 dollars in today's money (according to an inflation calculator, but sounds close enough)

And people thought the Apple cube was too expensive! Well, at that price I'm not surprised they only sold 50,000 machines. But what that showes is that despite such an insane price (monitor not included) the kick ass hardware and brilliant OS sold that many machines. So it matters to have both good hardware and perhaps more importantly GREAT software. That's the lesson, so if NeXT OS was left on 'maintainance mode' the magic would have soon worn off - and the same will happen to Mac OS if this lethargy becomes strategy at Apple.

The combination of good hardware and great software is, was and has always been the key to Apple's success IMO. Now it's mostly the halo effect, but there is no future in that.

Now Apple can offer computers that are as brilliantly designed as the NeXT cube and Apple could even offer an OS that was by far the best in the world. It's their choice not to do so and set all their efforts on the iOS devices, to such an extent that the iOS innovation becomes Mac OS innovation.

That is the case today and a NeXT cube made and designed with that attitude wouldn't have sold TEN units. You're advocating quantity over quality, and I'm saying that only pays off short-time. It's a dead end as a strategy.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2010, 09:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
Now now, unless DRM means "you can't back up" then I don't think I'm the one who doesn't know the subject at hand.

All iTunes music sold contains DRM. That's digital rights management and yes it can include some restrictions, or just a watermark with your ID on it.
By what definition are watermarks DRM? I googled DRM, and the top hits are:

Wikipedia

Digital rights management (DRM) is a term for access control technologies that can be used by hardware manufacturers, publishers, copyright holders and individuals to limit the usage of digital content and devices.
Watermarks do not limit the usage, they aid the tracking of a file.

Defective by Design
Big Media describe DRM as Digital Rights Management. However, since its purpose is to restrict you the user, it is more accurate to describe DRM as Digital Restrictions Management. DRM Technology can restricts users’ access to movies, music, literature and software, indeed all forms of digital data.
Restrict users access - nope, that's not a watermark.

The next top hits are the EFF, Microsoft, and several organization campaigning against it. I stopped reading after the second page of Google hits. None of them define DRM like you do.

One crucial difference, IMO, is that it is not illegal to remove a watermark. It is, under the DMCA and the EUCD, illegal to circumvent DRM.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2010, 10:21 AM
 
I contest that a watermark doesn't restrict the usage of a file, in practical ways - and the fact that the DRM laws don't apply to watermarks doesn't mean automatically that it isn't a form of DRM.

But that's neither here nor there, I don't even know how to remove a watermark and I'm a geek. So it's there to stay, pretty much.

A CD on the other hand has no DRM in no sense and provides a non-lossy perfect copy and is by its very nature automatically backed up. With a nice leaflet as well.

The point was that Apple is pushing poor quality over good and that's sort of a metaphor for what they are doing with their software in general. That was the whole point, but if you don't want to consider watermark a form of DRM, then fine.

It was merely to point out the 'lowest common denominator' strategy at Apple these days that I find highly suspect. I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks "good enough" is an acceptable change from "insanely great". Or perhaps I am.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2010, 10:53 AM
 
Just one possible explaination for the seeming 'disintrest' for the Mac OS at Apple that I perceive is that it was in 2006 (pretty much exactly where I discern the beginning of Apple's disinterest in their flagship OS) was the year Avie Tevanian quit Apple.

Perhaps he was the major driving force and most important visionary of Mac OS X. With him gone, and a less capable and driving VP in his stead (and certainly one with less sway with Steve Jobs), development starts it's long-ish fade-out we've seen from 2006 to today.

I never realized how much I miss Avie.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2010, 12:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
A CD on the other hand...is by its very nature automatically backed up. With a nice leaflet as well.
How so? Fires, car tires, and sandpaper could say otherwise. The only way to have a 'back up' of a CD is to make, well, another CD.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2010, 12:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
How so? Fires, car tires, and sandpaper could say otherwise. The only way to have a 'back up' of a CD is to make, well, another CD.
Clearly I mean that once you've moved the contents of the CD to your Mac, then the CD acts as a backup.

Yeah everything can be destroyed. Thanks for the heads up. But it wasn't all that necessary.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2010, 12:56 PM
 
I was glad to see Steve looking upbeat and well. Better than he has looked since early last year imho.

Cheers
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2010, 01:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
Clearly I mean that once you've moved the contents of the CD to your Mac, then the CD acts as a backup.

Yeah everything can be destroyed. Thanks for the heads up. But it wasn't all that necessary.
Yeah, that wasn't so clear. Thanks for clarifying.

So, then, from a backup perspective, what's the difference between buying a CD and downloading to the Mac, or downloading music on the Mac and burning to a CD for backup? It's about the same effort either way.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2010, 01:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
Yeah, that wasn't so clear. Thanks for clarifying.

So, then, from a backup perspective, what's the difference between buying a CD and downloading to the Mac, or downloading music on the Mac and burning to a CD for backup? It's about the same effort either way.
Three things:

1. lossless digital audio without any watermarks or any kind of DRM.
2. a pressed CD that contains the audio and lasts 10x longer than a burned CD.
3. the physical unit with perks such as a leaflet and nice design.

That isn't all bad, but either way a pressed CD is far better to store data indefinitely than a burned CD. I hope that offers some explaination on my line of thinking.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2010, 01:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
Three things:

1. lossless digital audio without any watermarks or any kind of DRM.
2. a pressed CD that contains the audio and lasts 10x longer than a burned CD.
3. the physical unit with perks such as a leaflet and nice design.

That isn't all bad, but either way a pressed CD is far better to store data indefinitely than a burned CD. I hope that offers some explaination on my line of thinking.
Sure. That's fantastic, if you care about those things. A lot of people obviously don't.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2010, 01:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
Sure. That's fantastic, if you care about those things. A lot of people obviously don't.
You asked about the difference between buying from the iTMS and backing up on optical and buying a CD and importing it into iTunes, to which I replied. Whether 'a lot of people' don't 'care' about 'these things' or not is not my concern.

Equally I could say that a lot of people do care about these things. Whoopdeedoo.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2010, 01:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
You asked about the difference between buying from the iTMS and backing up on optical and buying a CD and importing it into iTunes, to which I replied. Whether 'a lot of people' don't 'care' about 'these things' or not is not my concern.

Equally I could say that a lot of people do care about these things. Whoopdeedoo.
Great, so now, if Apple were only to offer machines with optical drives to serve people who do care about these things. Or offer expansion ports to allow those who do care to connect whatever media they want to their machines... Oh, wait....

All I hear is a lot of whining about nothing.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2010, 03:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
All I hear is a lot of whining about nothing.
I bet you do, since out you're the only one of us who can actually hear yourself.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
scaught
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: detroit,mi,usa
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2010, 05:04 PM
 
Get a room already, sheesh.

Hopefully it has an optical drive of some fashion so you'll continue to develop this love affair.
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington + Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2010, 06:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
There seems to be an army of engineers figuring out something elegant and usable like the Magsafe connector, while there's one part-time coffeboy maintaining the Finder.
Oh, I see. Well, FWIW, the Finder was completely rewritten for 10.6.
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington + Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2010, 06:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
huh??? Who said anything about Windows? Critique of MacOS does not automatically equate to support for Windows.

I've introduced several people to MacOS in the last year, and one of the common problems they had was finding the applications. The easiest solution for them was having the Applications folder in the Dock.
Which takes all of two seconds. There doesn't seem to be an easy way to have access to all of your applications in Windows at all.
Sorry to bring the other OS into the picture..
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2010, 11:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
Which takes all of two seconds. There doesn't seem to be an easy way to have access to all of your applications in Windows at all.
Sorry to bring the other OS into the picture..
you can bring it into the picture all you want. Windows having usability probrems doesn't negate MacOS's usability problems.
     
Maflynn
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2010, 08:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
Oh, I see. Well, FWIW, the Finder was completely rewritten for 10.6.
Correct, apple rewrote it with the cocoa frameworks. Little changes to finder were done in the sense of new features, as the goal was to it over to cocoa. I was hoping (still am) that we'd see further refinements to the Finder.

I use pathfinder as it provides a superior interface, tabs, tree structure, etc. While Jobs hasn't touched on that for the preview, it would be nice to see some updates
~Mike
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2010, 10:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by Maflynn View Post
I use pathfinder as it provides a superior interface, tabs, tree structure, etc. While Jobs hasn't touched on that for the preview, it would be nice to see some updates
How stable is the latest release of Pathfinder ?

I liked the functionality of earlier releases, but it was always too unstable / slow for get everyday work done.

-t
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2010, 01:01 PM
 
I remember when Steve Jobs talked about Microsoft back in the day and said that above all in his opinion Microsoft lacked taste.

Bolting iOS features on Mac OS, adding further UI garbage into the OS makes that claim sound a little more hollow than it should. While Mac hardware and Apple hardware in general is actually very tasteful, the Mac OS seems designed with considerable Microsoft mentality in this case.

Which is probably the reason that the Mac OS can more and more be compared to Windows than at any time before.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2010, 01:17 PM
 
Since what you consider "garbage" is actually "accessibility" to lesser humans (i.e. those with less time or interest to waste on computers in general), the world can be thankful that taste, as long as it's actually present, is a subjective thing.

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to be using your dream OS.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2010, 01:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Since what you consider "garbage" is actually "accessibility" to lesser humans (i.e. those with less time or interest to waste on computers in general), the world can be thankful that taste, as long as it's actually present, is a subjective thing.

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to be using your dream OS.
I'm sure I wouldn't want to use your's. Any more adolescent jabs?
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2010, 01:55 PM
 
accessibility? what were the accessibility features announced?
     
Lateralus
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2010, 02:09 PM
 
What I find most worrying about the 'distractions' Apple announced for 10.7 is the fact that none of them could have possibly required any real effort to conceive, develop or deploy into the OS. They're all afterthoughts. It's as if Apple suddenly realized last month that they hadn't actually put forth a real plan internally for the next OS, and set it to a UI team to put together something to show off at the event.

In other words; Why on Earth are they trumpeting UI changes a year from the OS's supposed release? That's the last thing you let out of the bag. At this point, the only things being discussed publicly should be planned changes under the hood because those actually do require real effort and time to conceive, develop and deploy.
I like chicken
I like liver
Meow Mix, Meow Mix
Please de-liv-er
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2010, 02:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
accessibility? what were the accessibility features announced?
I'm not talking about disabled users.

I'm talking about making stuff accessible to people with no time or interest in computer stuff.

Like the Springboard. Or the App Store.

These are godsend, as they take care of some fundamental issues with the Mac OS.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2010, 02:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
I'm not talking about disabled users.

I'm talking about making stuff accessible to people with no time or interest in computer stuff.

Like the Springboard. Or the App Store.

These are godsend, as they take care of some fundamental issues with the Mac OS.
That's a bit convoluted way of apologizing the fact that Apple just didn't Fix the F-ing Finder. Feature x doesn't work... hm we'll just add feature y on top of it instead of fixing the problem in feature x.

A godsend is the last word I'd use.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Maflynn
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2010, 03:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
How stable is the latest release of Pathfinder ?

I liked the functionality of earlier releases, but it was always too unstable / slow for get everyday work done.

-t
It has not crashed on me once, and the speed is much better then prior versions. I too tried and gave up on pathfinder a few versions ago, it was much too slow, but it appears the folks at cocoatech have tighten the code up and its performance acceptable now.
~Mike
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2010, 03:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
I'm not talking about disabled users.

I'm talking about making stuff accessible to people with no time or interest in computer stuff.

Like the Springboard. Or the App Store.

These are godsend, as they take care of some fundamental issues with the Mac OS.
Ah, then you're not talking about accessibility. You're talking about usability and features.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2010, 03:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
That's a bit convoluted way of apologizing the fact that Apple just didn't Fix the F-ing Finder. Feature x doesn't work... hm we'll just add feature y on top of it instead of fixing the problem in feature x.

A godsend is the last word I'd use.
You haven't understood that the only way to truly "fix" the Finder is to eliminate it entirely.

Whatever you do, you'll always be dealing with four or five layers of abstraction - that's what metaphors are.

Fine for people who have the time or the need to deal with document archival, but completely irrelevant for the "normal" user, whose documents encompass media and email (handled by dedicated applications) and a handful of letters and invitations, which are generally discarded immediately upon having been printed/sent.

Having to explain the Finder to these people - and they are MANY - is an arduous exercise in needless complexity.

The iPad's approach is perfect for normal humans (though iOS itself is too far in the direction of simplicity to scale well, as yet). The Springboard is perfect: "There's all your applications, if you need one that's not on the Dock. You need something you don't have? There's the App Store."

For the rest, the Finder is fine - it's a compromise, yes, but one that was born out of two sides screaming: the hopelessly outdated "spatial" Finder freaks, who just never left the 80s and refused to acknowledge that the model had become increasingly useless over two decades, and the pragmatists, who wouldn't see that conventions are a hard thing to break, even if they've become pointless.

If you don't like it, use PathFinder or any other tool. You're savvy enough to deal. End of story, as far as Apple's concerned.
( Last edited by Spheric Harlot; Oct 23, 2010 at 03:54 PM. )
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2010, 03:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Ah, then you're not talking about accessibility. You're talking about usability and features.
Yes. Discoverability, familiarity, ease of operation. I'd overlooked that "accessibility" is almost exclusively used in reference to disabilities.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2010, 09:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Yes. Discoverability, familiarity, ease of operation. I'd overlooked that "accessibility" is almost exclusively used in reference to disabilities.
so, I've observed many users on both Windows and Mac platforms, and I'm forced to the conclusion that neither is decisively more usable than the other for all people. Each is better than the other in different areas and each is easier to use for some people than for others.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2010, 03:38 AM
 
Quite possibly, Apple agree to some degree.

Now do the same comparison with iOS vs. Windows, and you understand why this "Back to the Mac" is important.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2010, 11:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Quite possibly, Apple agree to some degree.

Now do the same comparison with iOS vs. Windows, and you understand why this "Back to the Mac" is important.
Setting aside your rant above, too much angst and loaded statements in what amounts basically to this post of your's anyway - which I'll address.

iOS vs Windows is truly an apples to oranges comparison. Not that you aren't partially right, a simplistic and limited OS like the iOS is by the virtue of being small, simplistic (as opposed to simple) and limited is more intuative than Windows or Mac OS X.

However, putting some random iOS elements into a complex system such as the Mac OS doesn't simplify it or make anything better. The only way to 'fix' this, is as you say to remove everything and make the entire Mac OS just iOS on an Apple computer.

That would be a 'fix' but more akin to fixing a cat than fixing as in repairing or improving. That's clearly not on Apple's long time strategy, since that would just mean the end of the Mac and the Mac being 1/3 of Apple's revenue one doesn't have to be a mindreader to know this - such a simplistic and limited OS wouldn't work for desktop machines and Windows and Linux would happily take ex-Mac users aboard - for indeed the iOS wasn't designed to run on desktop machines and making that work would just make it as complex as a desktop system has to be to work. Thus ending the 'magic' simplicity about the iOS.

Much in the same way, you could just 'fix' the Finder by making it exactly like it was in 1984. It's so small, limited and simple that it's honestly not a problem for anyone.

Furthermore, you don't know any more than I do what Apple is 'thinking'. Your claims to the contrary are boring so I won't address them - but I will say this: you're confusing lethargy for strategy.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2010, 11:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Now do the same comparison with iOS vs. Windows, and you understand why this "Back to the Mac" is important.
I certainly see the benefit of LaunchPad. Currently, the best ways to launch apps are to replicate the Windows Start menu by putting the Applications folder into the Dock (problematic for obvious reasons) or to use Spotlight (great for advanced users, but hardly usable for most others). LaunchPad is among the first evidence that Apple is thinking beyond their myopic view of Finder.

I also see the benefit of Full Screen Apps ... one of my complaints about MacOS for years has been that users couldn't easily expand apps to fill the screen. Ironically, I was always told by long-term Mac users that full screen was a Windows way of thinking about things.

Mission Control is nice, but it's a bandaid.

And the Mac App Store? Potentially beneficial, but also potentially worrisome. Already, it's restrictions are looking troubling if becomes the only way to get applications into the MacOS.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2010, 12:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
However, putting some random iOS elements into a complex system such as the Mac OS doesn't simplify it or make anything better. The only way to 'fix' this, is as you say to remove everything and make the entire Mac OS just iOS on an Apple computer.
… except that the elements Apple has chosen to take from iOS or are inspired by iOS are not at all random. Things like better full screen support, launch pad and the app store make sense to me and appear to be carefully chosen. Launch pad, for instance, could replace QuickSilver which I currently use to launch apps. Full screen app support could be used to improve the UI of, say, Aperture.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2010, 02:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
Setting aside your rant above, too much angst and loaded statements in what amounts basically to this post of your's anyway - which I'll address.

iOS vs Windows is truly an apples to oranges comparison. Not that you aren't partially right, a simplistic and limited OS like the iOS is by the virtue of being small, simplistic (as opposed to simple) and limited is more intuative than Windows or Mac OS X.

However, putting some random iOS elements into a complex system such as the Mac OS doesn't simplify it or make anything better. The only way to 'fix' this, is as you say to remove everything and make the entire Mac OS just iOS on an Apple computer.

That would be a 'fix' but more akin to fixing a cat than fixing as in repairing or improving. That's clearly not on Apple's long time strategy, since that would just mean the end of the Mac and the Mac being 1/3 of Apple's revenue one doesn't have to be a mindreader to know this - such a simplistic and limited OS wouldn't work for desktop machines and Windows and Linux would happily take ex-Mac users aboard - for indeed the iOS wasn't designed to run on desktop machines and making that work would just make it as complex as a desktop system has to be to work. Thus ending the 'magic' simplicity about the iOS.

Much in the same way, you could just 'fix' the Finder by making it exactly like it was in 1984. It's so small, limited and simple that it's honestly not a problem for anyone.

Furthermore, you don't know any more than I do what Apple is 'thinking'. Your claims to the contrary are boring so I won't address them - but I will say this: you're confusing lethargy for strategy.
Now, who's "angsty"?

I make a good part of my living dealing with - and supporting - actual, real life users on a day-to-day basis.

I imagine I have a fairly good grasp of what the actual issues are that non-techy user face, and I see Apple explicitly fixing issues that people actually have.

In fact, finding applications is a question that has come up TWICE just this past week, and it's nice to see LaunchPad showing up to fix the issue.

Application installation via DMG (or rather, users' failure to actually *install* them) is the single most common issue I see. Downloading via the App Store handily solves it, as well as allowing people to actually find apps and not shove 20$ up Xilisoft's spamware ass to download shitty software that doesn't even do what it's supposed to.

Hardly random.
     
Face Ache
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2010, 05:00 PM
 
Power user here. You're all amateurs.

Anyone who's gone desk-to-desk doing Mac support knows that 85% of users don't know squat. There are dozens (hundreds?) of ways of working on a Mac and the only correct way is MINE.

Apple are selling more Macs to unsavvy customers these days - eg: little old ladies who are only interested because they can work an iPhone. So don't be surprised if Apple try to make the OS granny-proof. It makes sense.

I'm investing heavily in knitting websites.
     
AKcrab
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2010, 05:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Application installation via DMG (or rather, users' failure to actually *install* them) is the single most common issue I see. Downloading via the App Store handily solves it, as well as allowing people to actually find apps and not shove 20$ up Xilisoft's spamware ass to download shitty software that doesn't even do what it's supposed to.

Hardly random.
I've ranted about DMG's before. I swear that 8 machines out of 10 show up with a skype volume mounted on the desktop, and a firefox volume mounted on the desktop. Customer says "Yeah, I don't know why those keep showing up."
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2010, 05:53 PM
 
Just last week I had a customer with EXACTLY those two mounted DMGs. She was wondering why her computer just wouldn't shut down (the Finder kept throwing up the "disk could not be unmounted because an application is still actively running from it" error and she couldn't figure out how to stop it).

Not stupid people - just people who have WAY better stuff to do than spend their time on computerese bullshit.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2010, 08:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by AKcrab View Post
I've ranted about DMG's before. I swear that 8 machines out of 10 show up with a skype volume mounted on the desktop, and a firefox volume mounted on the desktop. Customer says "Yeah, I don't know why those keep showing up."
Disk images are such cake compared to installation on the Windows side of the fence, but for those who are too dumb to deal with them Apple's App Store is the remedy.

voodoo, you never answered my question from the previous page.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2010, 09:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Face Ache View Post
Power user here. You're all amateurs.

Anyone who's gone desk-to-desk doing Mac support knows that 85% of users don't know squat. There are dozens (hundreds?) of ways of working on a Mac and the only correct way is MINE.

Apple are selling more Macs to unsavvy customers these days - eg: little old ladies who are only interested because they can work an iPhone. So don't be surprised if Apple try to make the OS granny-proof. It makes sense.

I'm investing heavily in knitting websites.
This.

Every Mac user wants to see Apples marketshare climb, but none seem to consider where that marketshare will come from.
     
Twilly Spree
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2010, 09:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
This.

Every Mac user wants to see Apples marketshare climb, but none seem to consider where that marketshare will come from.
Looking at all the latest Apple products they're moving fast from prosumer to consumer. Naturally that's the market share for growth.

Apple does what is best for Apple and the shareholders. That's the American way and as a shareholder I need to see 400 dollar a share.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2010, 10:03 PM
 
Personally I think Apple will need to get into enterprise to ensure continued growth.

Fortunately for Apple, they're already doing this. For example, corporate types love the iPhone, which isn't surprising, because basically every other phone sucks.
     
Brien
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southern California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2010, 12:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
This.

Every Mac user wants to see Apples marketshare climb, but none seem to consider where that marketshare will come from.
As long as they leave the pro-user stuff in and don't strip it out in the name of granny-proofing, I'm okay with that.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2010, 01:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Disk images are such cake compared to installation on the Windows side of the fence, but for those who are too dumb to deal with them Apple's App Store is the remedy.
That something else is worse doesn't mean that DMGs aren't broken.

And I take umbrage at the implication that someone unwilling to deal with broken interface is "dumb".
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2010, 02:12 AM
 
There's nothing broken about it. Broken implies it's difficult or impossible to successfully use. DMGs just aren't as brain-dead simple as some apparently need them to be.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2010, 02:45 AM
 
They ARE broken, because there is no way to figure them out without having them explained to you. It's not discoverable to the average user (that "8 out of 10" figure above is NOT exaggerated).

Also, the DMG distribution process does not work as originally intended. Apple had to explicitly break it due to security concerns.

Let's not stoop to Windows standards here - "Well, it works, don't it?" is a measure of code integrity, not interface quality.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2010, 06:28 AM
 
That's exactly the point right there - discoverable. It isn't. If, for instance, the OS detected whenever you ran an app from a disk image and offered to move it to the Applications folder, add it to the Dock, and delete the disk image, then that would be discoverable.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:11 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,