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 > Software - Troubleshooting and Discussion > macOS > 3 things OS X needs to be good

3 things OS X needs to be good
Thread Tools
Apfhex
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Northern California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2001, 09:21 PM
 
1. Aqua needs to be faster. I hear that Apple is working on ways to do this. I hope they can.

2. Launch times need to be faster. Opening apps is just too slow at the moment.

3. More applications needed. This isn't anything Apple can do... it's up to the developers. I'm sure that by this summer there will be plenty, though. We especailly need a good web browser!

Other than that, there are various smaller things that would be nice to have but aren't required (one thing I'd especially like to see is the ability to have random desktop pictures like I do in OS 9).

Now if you'll excuse me, I think I'll go buy another 256MB RAM...

------------------
. : [ Apfhex ] : .
Mac OS X 10.5.0, Mac Pro 2.66GHz/2 GB RAM/X1900 XT, 23" ACD
esdesign
     
Severed Hand of Skywalker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The bottom of Cloud City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2001, 09:56 PM
 
Well duh.

"Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"
     
PurpleGiant
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2001, 07:34 AM
 
I really don't think the web browsers is a problem at the moment. I mean, sure, they're slowwww, but so is everything else!! we have more OS X native web browsers than any other software genre, why is great! If we had 5 or so native Word Processors, i reckon people would want better one's fo them too!! i think web browsing on OS X in a year will be better than all other platforms, with OmniWeb, great great potential!
     
davesimondotcom
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Landlockinated
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2001, 05:51 PM
 
I halfway expected the rest of this post to say:

Photoshop, Photoshop and Photoshop.



------------------
Dave Simon
----------
Windows are easily broken.
[ sig removed - image host changed it to a big ad picture ]
     
plaidpjs
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wethersfield, CT, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2001, 07:29 PM
 
Originally posted by Apfhex:
1. Aqua needs to be faster. I hear that Apple is working on ways to do this. I hope they can.
Just as a matter of clarification, Quartz needs to be optimized and set to run on the GPU instead of the CPU. There are no speed problems with AQUA, per se!

2. Launch times need to be faster. Opening apps is just too slow at the moment.
Given your third point, what apps are you using to make this assessment? I use several OS X ready Apps and have no problem with start-up speed. About the only things that give me any real problem are IE 5.1 and OmniWeb, but all of the system apps and other in-the-box apps are as smooth as silk on start-up. Also, what computer are you using?

3. More applications needed. This isn't anything Apple can do... it's up to the developers. I'm sure that by this summer there will be plenty, though. We especailly need a good web browser!
I agree in general, Apps are beginning to show up on X even now, I suspect many more by the end of summer. The browser thing is another matter. omniWeb has it's problems but is a great broswer. Likewise, IE has it's problems, but could get better awfully fast.

------------------
G4/500 DP, 768 MB RAM, 40GB HDD, 32MB ATI Radeon OEM, 30GB VST Firewire Drive, and an Apple Cinema Display
G4/533 DP, 768 MB RAM, 40GB HDD, 32MB GeForce2 MX, 30GB VST Firewire Drive, and an Apple Cinema Display.
     
Apfhex  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Northern California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2001, 08:27 PM
 
1. Opps. Yeah, I meant to say Quartz

2. Well, it's true that it's mainly IE5.1 and OmniWeb that are slow, but iTunes takes about... 7 to 10 bounces, depeding on what else I'm doing (which is usually nothing else). This is compared to how fast it opens in 9.1, which, if it had a dock, would probably be about 3 to 3.5 bounces. Other apps are comparitively the same (picture preview to picture viewer, quicktime player, etc.).

FYI, I'm on a 400MHz B&W G3 with 256MB RAM.

------------------
. : [ Apfhex ] : .
Mac OS X 10.5.0, Mac Pro 2.66GHz/2 GB RAM/X1900 XT, 23" ACD
esdesign
     
plaidpjs
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wethersfield, CT, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2001, 11:42 PM
 
Originally posted by Apfhex:
1. Opps. Yeah, I meant to say Quartz

2. Well, it's true that it's mainly IE5.1 and OmniWeb that are slow, but iTunes takes about... 7 to 10 bounces, depeding on what else I'm doing (which is usually nothing else). This is compared to how fast it opens in 9.1, which, if it had a dock, would probably be about 3 to 3.5 bounces. Other apps are comparitively the same (picture preview to picture viewer, quicktime player, etc.).

FYI, I'm on a 400MHz B&W G3 with 256MB RAM.
Well, that explains why your start times are slower then mine. Not that I'm trying to brag or anything, but OS X has been nothing but joy on my DP G4.

------------------
G4/500 DP, 768 MB RAM, 40GB HDD, 32MB ATI Radeon OEM, 30GB VST Firewire Drive, and an Apple Cinema Display
G4/533 DP, 768 MB RAM, 40GB HDD, 32MB GeForce2 MX, 30GB VST Firewire Drive, and an Apple Cinema Display.
     
adamtki
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2001, 07:08 AM
 
Yes, those launch times better be faster. I just got a 933mhz Dell machine at work and IE launches in about 1 - 1.5s -- from the time I click to launch IE to the time I see a completed web page. MS optimizes the hell out of IE on the PC platform. Meanwhile, you don't even see service packs for Mac IE.

If IE for OS X (or any other browser for OS X) can even get to double this time by the end of the year, I'd be completely happy with it (not to mention amazed).

[This message has been edited by adamtki (edited 04-25-2001).]
PowerBook G4 800, 512MB RAM, 60GB HD
OS 10.3/9.2.2
     
plaidpjs
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wethersfield, CT, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2001, 12:02 PM
 
Originally posted by adamtki:
Yes, those launch times better be faster. I just got a 933mhz Dell machine at work and IE launches in about 1 - 1.5s -- from the time I click to launch IE to the time I see a completed web page. MS optimizes the hell out of IE on the PC platform. Meanwhile, you don't even see service packs for Mac IE.

If IE for OS X (or any other browser for OS X) can even get to double this time by the end of the year, I'd be completely happy with it (not to mention amazed).

[This message has been edited by adamtki (edited 04-25-2001).]
This really has less to do with your machine and more to do with your OS. in the case of IE Micorsoft has built a good portion of their current GUIs around their browsing standard. IE launches faster on a native windows system because there is less to start-up, major components are always running in the OS.


------------------
G4/500 DP, 768 MB RAM, 40GB HDD, 32MB ATI Radeon OEM, 30GB VST Firewire Drive, and an Apple Cinema Display
G4/533 DP, 768 MB RAM, 40GB HDD, 32MB GeForce2 MX, 30GB VST Firewire Drive, and an Apple Cinema Display.
     
King Kong
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2001, 12:42 PM
 
My three are more general.

1. Overall speed

OS X will never convert the current Mac base if it feels sluggish compared to 9. Period. As long as you can run 9 faster on the same machine and have it feel so much more springy and responsive, Apple will have a problem. Same thing with windows. If you put a Windows box next to an X box and run IE vs IE or Appleworks vs Office, or the Finder vs Windows Explorer, or even Acrobat vs Acrobat, Windows looks like a speed demon.


2. Apps

Until the major apps are ported, X will not make a dent. While classic works remarkably well, it will always be awkward. I know from firsthand experience with X in schools that most garden variety Mac users find classic mildly confusing and newbies find it very complicated (why does this window look different? Why is the apple a different color? Why are all the menus different?). Anyway, Apple needs the heavy hitter apps if it expects to make traction outside the unix/mac diehard crowd.

3. More HI/UI customizability and flexibility.

Whether you were a unix user, a windows user, or a mac user, The OS X HI/UI represents a radical change. In it's current form the OS and it's major components (finder/dock and so on) are too rigid about HI/UI choices. Mac users expect control over finder fonts, font smoothing, and system sounds. Windows users (oddly enough) often want to set the background to a pattern and the default font set. *nix users accustomed to gnome often want themes. None of these things are rocket science to build in and the customizability would go a long way to making people feel comfortable with X. Third party enhancements do some of the work, but Apple should provide them by default. They have to remember that the average joe computer user doesn't even download shareware. They have an out of the box machine with a crappy modem connection and maybe a copy of MS Office. Average joe is apple's market.

Here are the options Apple should provide (at a minimum!):

1. Choice to have 'Window minimize' or 'Window Shade'.

2. Dock options enabled.

3. Global font smoothing control.

4. Finder font control (size, face, and an option to turn that awful white on black off).

5. Option to bring all windows up at once when a program is selected.

6. Multiple docks (switch with tabs), with many more grouping options.


7. Themes.

8. System sounds.

9. Control over default icon set.

10. Control over the default cursor (hatred of that spinning rainbow is almost as bad as hatred of round mice). And while we're at it, some win 2000 users want a shadow under the cursor.


11. Control over transparency of disabled window titles (many find the transparency makes windows look jumbled when there are too many)...

and so on....

Obviously all these options are not for everybody, but each of these options is a big deal for many people. I believe the more flexibility Apple gives people, the more people will feel X is theirs as opposed to some strange slow foreign thing.

     
weinc2001
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Detroit,MI. USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2001, 01:04 PM
 
OS X needs an operating system...then it will be good.
     
speed racer
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2001, 11:06 PM
 
The number one thing X could do to speed itself up would be to handle memory better. Most of the real major speed problems are because data keeps being swapped back and forth from the HD. I have almost a gig of memory in this thing. I should not see the spinning disk so much. Don't know how you poor bastards with 128M stand it. I saw a 128M iMac trying to run Classic and almost puked.
     
whirk
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Seattle
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2001, 06:10 PM
 
Originally posted by plaidpjs:
This really has less to do with your machine and more to do with your OS. in the case of IE Micorsoft has built a good portion of their current GUIs around their browsing standard. IE launches faster on a native windows system because there is less to start-up, major components are always running in the OS.
Yes, both IE and Office resources are loaded on startup...that's why it loads so fast. It'd be like having the finder in Mac OS X also your web browser...

     
whirk
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Seattle
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2001, 06:22 PM
 
Originally posted by King Kong:

2. Dock options enabled.

4. Finder font control (size, face, and an option to turn that awful white on black off).

I agree *completely*. The finder font control is something that is defintely needed, easily implemented, yet apple has choosen to either save it for summer so it can be one of the new features in the next release or ignore it because they want to maintain a completely uniform UI, which is just business politics coming into play and something that I think personally sucks.

I'm sure we'll see a *new and improved* dock in summer with added features and customizability...it's a friggin given that they'll be at least have added something to the dock.
     
   
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 10:32 PM.
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.,