Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

cla · Aug 12, 2001, 02:30 PM

Noone can argue the main reason why Mac users faithfully have stuck to their OS all these years. Despite non-existent multitasking, the lack of memory protection, dynamic memory allocation and a suicidal kernel - we love it.

Reason: The Mac OS look and feel. There's nothing like it! There's that feeling in the mouse and the menus, windows, icons and widgets that you just can't put your finger on. In comparison, Windows (for instance) makes me feel like a two-year old playing with gigantic toys made out of plastic. That it not because I'm not used to working in Windows, I am.

Undoubtedly, the gui of Mac OS is what makes us stick to it no matter what lies underneath. That's right, face it, the inner santicum of Mac OS sucks.

Apple used to be the pioneer among computer companies - software such as well as hardware. The company that "though different", providing the users with what we've concluded above: The means to get the job done as fast, efficient and good as possible. This goal hasn't been achieved exactly by listening to users. Jef Raskin himself, among other Apple engineers, had to defend the ideas of a graphical user interface in the early eighties.

The result of the past twenty years of gui refinements is Mac OS 9, and its functionality in single-user environments doesn't leave much to ask for. Windows, widgets, controls, menus and buttons design for functionality.
Not for lickability.

However, Mac OS 9 is dead. Twenty years of gui craftsmanship is dead. The user interface among user interfaces, the model for how humans interact with computers today.

I don't have a problem with that, really I don't. As long as its predecessor outruns its forerunner, that is, helps me get the job done faster and better without annoyance - because that's what it's all about.

Aqua doesn't qualify for that.

The guis of today were originally designed for browsing at most a few hundred files in a few windows, and running at most a couple of applications simultaneously. Much have changed since those days.

With Aqua, Apple had the chance to lead the way and change the way we interact with computers. They didn't.

Aqua is still on the starting blocks, one might say. Sure, but the foundation is laid out, clearly stating the main principles of how we're going to work with files, windows and folders: The same way we've been doing for the last twenty years. Nothing new under the sun.

Someone claimed the Aqua developer team consists of 90% graphics designers and 10% interface designers, which clearly is a good balance if you're designing lollypops or decorating a cake. In designing a gui, though nice graphics makes it marketable at first, I'd rather have it the other way around if I was to choose.

The Macintosh platform is not about performance, never has been. It's not about stability or any of the features in modern os'es. It's about user interface, the way I interact with my computer, making it an extension of myself.

Frankly, I think Aqua is a disaster. The different representations of the file system (Finder/Open dialogs), the terrible use of real-estate, the solemn ignorance of Fitt's law, the disastrous keyboard shortcuts (cmd-alt-h for home, which should be one of the most commonly accessed object - reminds me of alt-F4), the list is long, but I end this short version with the item in the top: the dock. No further comments.

Xaholic · Aug 12, 2001, 02:42 PM

Aqua doesn't qualify for that.

Oh bosh!! Here we go again!

Whatever else might be said about the "Mac faithful," it is certain that there are fewer of them using Macs today than five years ago.

Why the exit to Windows when the gui was the same--or better?

Price. A more stable OS. More software. I was about to join them if OS X hadn't come along. The classic Mac OS gui is nice and all, but it's far from perfect, and there are only so many crashes and stalls one can take before jumping ship.

Besides . . . I for one like Aqua better than the Classic gui. I can even get by without a fully-functional Apple Menu!! The Dock is more versatile and configurable than ASM, Control Strip, and Launcher combined. If you don't like stripes, just get rid of them.

The good news for you is that you can keep using OS 9 for a long time and enjoy that ui that you're so fond of. Maybe one day OS X will have all the bells and whistles you need, then you can come join the fun.

No further comments.

And that's the good news!

[ 08-12-2001: Message edited by: Xaholic ]

PhreakOut X · Aug 12, 2001, 02:47 PM

AMEN Brother! I like aqua as well, needs so touch ups, but for a 1st release i love it! and 10.1 is gonna make me love it even more! If u don't like aqua, install a platnum theme and quit bitchin'

starfleetX · Aug 12, 2001, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by PhreakOut X:
If u don't like aqua, install a platnum theme and quit bitchin'

That doesn't resolve the problem. The "lickable Aqua" look isn't the problem; it can be easily changed as you said. This guy's gripes lay mainly with the operating system as a whole, more specifically: the growing screen real-estate used my Aqua, the changes (or lack thereof) in Finder.app, and Dock.app. There is indeed very little we can do to change these aspects.

[ 08-12-2001: Message edited by: starfleetX ]

Scrod · Aug 12, 2001, 03:31 PM

Oh boo hoo. As if we haven't heard this a million times before. You should have been here a few months ago; there were far more people saying the exact same things you are. But guess what--many of them have changed their minds since then and now like Aqua! How about that! See, this is what happens when you come late to the party.

Sine · Aug 12, 2001, 03:39 PM

If you want more screen real estate.. raise your monitor resolution

SkullMacPN · Aug 12, 2001, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by Sine:
If you want more screen real estate.. raise your monitor resolution

And for god's sake, don't switch to XP. Holy $#!t does that thing ever eat screen space.

Boodlums · Aug 12, 2001, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by Sine:
If you want more screen real estate.. raise your monitor resolution

That will make everything shrink, and you'll have to sit closer to the monitor (which is unhealthy).

Just get a bigger monitor. Me, I'm gonna get the Mitsubishi 22" NF. Saw it at Macworld, and almost drooled onto the carpet. Sharper than a Ginsu knife, even at the corners!

http://www.necmitsubishi.com/product...?productid=156

-Walter

[ 08-12-2001: Message edited by: Boodlums ]

cla · Aug 12, 2001, 07:15 PM

It really must be tiring feeling that urge to embrace anything with an Apple logotype on it. I'm not accusing anyone here, I'm just stating the fact - I used to that way myself a couple of years ago, it is a disease. For instance, Apple licenses their OS, everybody cheers and says it wasn't a minute too early. Apple withdraws their licensing, everybody cheers and says it wasn't a minute too early. The hard thing here is to see when what used to be good products, become bad products.

Among those who designed the original Mac OS is where we find some of Aquas toughest critics. Names that many of us have heard of only because they are the "inventors of usability". How do you meet their arguments?

If u don't like aqua, install a platnum theme and quit bitchin'

That'll teach'em, or

/...people saying the exact same things/.../many of them have changed their minds since then and now like Aqua! How about that!

, or maybe

If you want more screen real estate.. raise your monitor resolution

Yeah, eat that!

[ 08-12-2001: Message edited by: cla ]

rickyirvine · Aug 12, 2001, 07:17 PM

good grief.. i hate osx busting, i can only dream of having mac os x right now. i must put up with win98!

ricky

BuonRotto · Aug 12, 2001, 07:23 PM

cla, I think a lot of us are tired of arguing in circles and would just as soon have this thread disappear with all the others that went nowhere.

cla · Aug 12, 2001, 07:29 PM

That will make everything shrink, and you'll have to sit closer to the monitor (which is unhealthy). Just get a bigger monitor.

It's a solution alright, though I find it strange that noone finds it strange that millions of Mac users have to buy new monitors just to run OS X. It shouldn't have to be that way.

There are a lot of ideas and research going on in the line of human-computer interaction. Jazz (Pad++), Microsofts TaskGallery, The Brain a s o, however Apple seem to have missed all of them. Guess it will become evident in a couple of years that Apple, starting with Aqua, has lost its leading position of innovative interface design.

Nyuni · Aug 12, 2001, 07:34 PM

Haven't we heard this argument before, oh.. at least 100 times??

Some people like Aqua, some people don't. Great, good for your respective selves. Let's put this same tired argument to rest, and save the bandwidth and processor cycles on the forums.macnn.com server.

Boodlums · Aug 12, 2001, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by cla:


It's a solution alright, though I find it strange that noone finds it strange that millions of Mac users have to buy new monitors just to run OS X. It shouldn't have to be that way.

Oh, I agree! I didn't mean to sound like getting a new monitor is the "answer" -- I only said that in response to the "switch resolutions" thing. Before Aqua, I was hoping for an OS that would fit in 512x342 for a subminibook (one that would fit in your inside jacket pocket), as I did not want a Palm, I wanted a Mac that I could carry in my pocket. After seeing Aqua, I had no choice but to give up on Apple and get a Palm handheld. ::sigh:: To quote Star Trek's Kor in "Errand of Mercy": It would have been glorious.

-Walter

Spirit_VW · Aug 12, 2001, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by cla:
It really must be tiring feeling that urge to embrace anything with an Apple logotype on it. I'm not accusing anyone here, I'm just stating the fact - I used to that way myself a couple of years ago, it is a disease.

You know what a real disease is? Not accepting the fact that a lot of people genuinely prefer Aqua to Platinum, and aren't blind zealots.

Good grief. This must mark the 642,028,246,193,024,684,729,129,020,100,269,137,26 8,168,611,765th time we've gone through this same song and dance...

cla · Aug 12, 2001, 08:43 PM

After seeing Aqua, I had no choice but to give up on Apple and get a Palm handheld.

Noooo, Walteeer you quitter!! =)
I prefer Aqua in 640x480 since I can use my whole tongue when licking the scrollbars. Try scrolling up and down very fast at the same time, knocks me out... =D

Speaking of Aqua, does anyone know if Aqua/Quartz has the similar architecture as X-Windows, I mean the server/client distribution thinking, for example making it possible for users to work on the same text document simultaneously a s o?

By the way again, to whom it concerns (not you Walter =)). If you don't feel like having "the Aqua discussion" again - Don't post! It's sooooo tiring, I for myself can't for the world figure out what's wrong with someone who clicks on a discussion, reads the posts and then tells people to stop discussing. E O M D!
(yepp, as in "end of meta discussion")

Xaholic · Aug 12, 2001, 08:45 PM

Originally posted by Spirit_VW:
[QB]

You know what a real disease is? Not accepting the fact that a lot of people genuinely prefer Aqua to Platinum, and aren't blind zealots.

But, Spirit, you haven't understood the crux of cla's argument, which is that the REAL Mac OS has been abandoned! All those years of development: gone!

And, my favorite: "The Macintosh is not about performance, never has been. . . . It's about user interface."

What do you say to people who prefer a gui to performance--especially when performance comes with a damned good gui? It almost seems to boil down to nostalgia.

Ron Goodman · Aug 12, 2001, 08:53 PM

I prefer GUI to performance, which is why the fact that 10.0.4 is slower that 9.1 doesn't bother me at all.

BuonRotto · Aug 12, 2001, 09:13 PM

My original post was inferring that, to avoid yet another argument about this, you should do a search and read previous thread about this stuff.

cla · Aug 12, 2001, 09:18 PM

Originally posted by Xaholic:
The Macintosh is not about performance, never has been. . . . It's about user interface."

...refering to clock cycles, not what the user can perform via the ui.

Clive · Aug 12, 2001, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by Xaholic:


Whatever else might be said about the "Mac faithful," it is certain that there are fewer of them using Macs today than five years ago.

That's absolutely false, just check Apple's sales figures, they've sold many more Macs in the last five years than they did in the five years prior to that.

Cipher13 · Aug 12, 2001, 11:38 PM

Cla - you're completely right.
I agree wholeheartedly.

BUT... what can we do?
Nothing. It can't be helped.

So I'm gonna shut up, kill Aqua, use a Platinum theme, and learn unix.

I'm not saying you should do the same - just that people like you and I are outnumbered by those who would like to lick their screen rather than use it to get their work done.

One day, they'll learn.
Or not.

[ 08-12-2001: Message edited by: Cipher13 ]

Evan Animosity · Aug 12, 2001, 11:44 PM

Hmmm, how come the same posters who love aqua, and say nearly everyone else loves aqua, in the next breath bemoan the fact that they keep having to read all these discussions that aren't 100% flattering to aqua? If aqua is so good and SO beloved, you shouldnt be so worn out by criticism of it. A fat man won't lose weight if you tell him he looks sexy like he is.

Aug 12, 2001, 11:51 PM

I don't know, Cipher... Personally I feel that, other than the sluggishness of the system, aqua itself speeds a lot of things up for me and I do prefer it to the drab ui of Platinum. Don't get me wrong, Platinum is a great ui, but I just prefer aqua and find that it meets a few of my needs.

Cipher13 · Aug 13, 2001, 03:18 AM

Originally posted by <Jim Paradise -away>:
I don't know, Cipher... Personally I feel that, other than the sluggishness of the system, aqua itself speeds a lot of things up for me and I do prefer it to the drab ui of Platinum. Don't get me wrong, Platinum is a great ui, but I just prefer aqua and find that it meets a few of my needs.

I just think if they'd give all the features of Platinum back to Aqua ("Platinum" referring the OS9 Finder's GUI, not merely the theme), as OPTIONS, then everybody would be happy.
Give an option to kill alpha channels, etc...

I think its Quartz that can be blamed very largely on the sluggishness, if not completely. QuickDraw 3D slaughters it. Maybe Quartz is better, but I don't care, QuickDraw is faster.

I mean, PDF, wtf?! I don't know much about this area, but WHY PDF?
I don't give a sh!t about vector graphics, they're not necessary...

Ahhh well. Its forced devolution (they're forcing me to go back to CLI... heh).

[ 08-13-2001: Message edited by: Cipher13 ]

Jim Paradise · Aug 13, 2001, 03:48 AM

Cipher- I don't feel forced to use the cli in X so for me it's no problem. It's great for those who want to use it and I personally am looking forward to learning more about unix and using the cli.
I do think X could stand a few more features but at the same time, there's not much I'm missing from OS 9. Contextual menus are one thing I think that need a lot of work. And even though yes, quickdraw right now is faster, that doesn't mean that quartz and it's vector graphics won't catch up. Other than speed, aqua hasn't hampered my abilities using the finder, reading things through pinstripes, etc. I think browsing under X is really intuitive (though list really needs to be fixed!!!!) and fast for the most part. The Apple menu could stand a bit of work, but if I need a list for accessing documents, I can slap my hardrive in the dock or a folder. Pretty convenient. My biggest gripe is just speed. I went back to 9 for browsing but my younger sister and brother both use X a fair amount and don't seem to mind it too much. Multiple users in X is certainly welcome by me (as I hate changing settings when they rearrange stuff, ha ha). I just want speed and tweaks to the system. The pull down menus that'll be in 10.1, for instance, I think are a really great idea. But hey, you said it yourself, you can always use a platinum theme if you dislike Aqua. And I think that's also good that people are working on stuff like that.

Group51 · Aug 13, 2001, 04:03 AM

Originally posted by Cipher13:


Ahhh well. Its forced devolution (they're forcing me to go back to CLI... heh).

[ 08-13-2001: Message edited by: Cipher13 ]

You mean de-evolution. Devolution is handing decision-making power to lower levels.

Cipher13 · Aug 13, 2001, 05:20 AM

Originally posted by Group51:


You mean de-evolution. Devolution is handing decision-making power to lower levels.

My apologies

I have a tendency of spelling words phonetically when I pronounce them differently from their correct pronunciation (ie. de-evolution = devolution; me either = meither, etc).

Though the use of the word devolution isn't incorrect in that context

Jim - the problem isn't the look of Aqua though. I don't care for the look myself, and it doesn't bother me. I wouldn't care to use a Platinum theme over an Aqua theme because no matter what theme is being used, its still "Aqua", the same limited GUI.
Popup windows, spring loaded folders, application menu, a REAL Apple menu, control strip... etc.
Thats what I want. Also, the ability to turn off shadows and transparency, and so forth. I want borders on my windows.
Quartz will never catch up. It may SEEM to as faster hardware becomes available, but it never will relative to the real speed of QuickDraw 3D. When used in the Finder, it has pretty much reached its speed ceiling...

cla · Aug 13, 2001, 06:37 AM

Originally posted by Group51:


You mean de-evolution. Devolution is handing decision-making power to lower levels.

Isn't there an expression "to delegate" to do just that? Those of you speaking the Queen's English (Da Prezidents'?) as first language might shed some light here.

About Platinum, I don't think it is the nicest theme I've ever seen. I'm using a theme called "dimple" under os 9 and I simply love it. Anyway, the looks and lickabilities of Aqua is of no concern to me, I'm addressing mainly functionality.

Anyway, here's something I'd like comments about:
The Aqua finder (to which I address most of my concerns) is an application made to handle files, in nine cases out of ten accessing/opening them. Thus all the engineering put into the development of the finder.app likely concerns key questions like "how do I access a file the quickest way possible"?

Originally posted by Jim Paradise:
if I need a list for accessing documents, I can slap my hardrive in the dock or a folder.

Problem solved!
Or? I must agree with Jim this beeing the quickest way of accessing documents in Aqua, but all we do is quick access documents (mainly). I'm convinced there is a way to build an ui in which the user browses files the "popup folder way" - only with icons instead. If the whole finder was built up this way, originating from this very principle, and you guys don't flame me for this =) I think this discussion finally is getting constructive =)

[ 08-13-2001: Message edited by: cla ]

Cipher13 · Aug 13, 2001, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by cla:


Problem solved!
Or? I must agree with Jim this beeing the quickest way of accessing documents in Aqua, but all we do is quick access documents (mainly). I'm convinced there is a way to build an ui in which the user browses files the "popup folder way" - only with icons instead. If the whole finder was built up this way, originating from this very principle, and you guys don't flame me for this =) I think this discussion finally is getting constructive =)

[ 08-13-2001: Message edited by: cla ]

Okay, here we go:

The Finder is simply a middleman; its purpose, largely, is to allow for file management.
Moving, copying, removing, altering (icons et al), tagging (labels); and also, it MUST be able to interact with other applications via drag and drop and other methods so as to allow certain tasks (opening, encryption, compression, decompression, etc) to be carried out in a single manouvre where they actually require the interaction of two components (app & file).

OS9 does this brilliantly. Popup windows, spring loaded folders, complete Apple menu, intelligent filing system (not so much a Finder issue), and so forth.

Okay, next, process management.
OSX has the Dock, with minimal visual feedback available. "My way or the highway".
OS9 has the Application Menu, AppSwitcher, plus popup windows and the Apple menu can provide minimalist functionality in this arena. I find the AppSwitcher and Application Menu infinitely superior to the Dock in any way, and when used simultaneously, make an awesome team.

OS9 also has the added bonus with items such as the Control Strip, which allows one to interface directly with system preferences, for one thing, but also activate things like FileSharing, etc with the click of a button.
It also, due to its amazing versatility, allows for process management, etc. One click access to any command you want, be it changing your Energy Save settings, quitting all apps, or changing your screen resolution.

Now, OSX tries to do this with docklets (which merely take up more space in the already gluttenous Dock, and also with those new things in the menubar... which are quite messy. I hated that 3rd party addon in OS9 which put those kinda things in the menubar...

The basic thing is, OS9 allows one to do anything in so many different ways, that it has few problems catering to most people. It laks a file browser; okay. Fair enough.
I find popup windows faster anyway, navigating with Apple-Up, Apple-Down, Apple-W, etc.
Very very fast - typing the first few chars of a file/folder to select it, Apple-Down to open, Apple-Up, Apple-W, next file/folder.It sounds slow, but once you're used to it, its not.
Though, that system is at home with a file structure like OS9's (best there is IMO), and gets evicted when it comes to a Unix kinda structure...

I know the same can be said for OSX - "once you're used to it". But it just doesn't give one enough choice, IMO, and tries to do everything in one go (the Dock, as an example).
Now, I want to learn Unix. Thats pretty much the only reason I'm considering OSX.
The interface sucks; its the slowest I've ever used.
There are no apps available.
It eats RAM like theres no tomorrow.
The file structure, while typical Unix, I know, is a pain. Its too messy for my tastes... but thats a problem like the looks of Aqua itself - I don't mind it and I can work around it.

But... ahh well. Give me an OS9 Finder for X with maybe a few things like an optional Dock, optional Alpha's, optional single window mode, etc, and it'll be okay...

Or, give Aqua the features it sorely lacks and make the features it forces upon us OPTIONS and we'll ALL be happy.

ALL these problems with OSX stem from forcing things upon people - the speed will be fixed.
But the options must be available! I don't see the problem with letting people CHOOSE what they want. Steve must realise that this OS is not FOR HIM, its for US...

Milio · Aug 13, 2001, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by BuonRotto:
cla, I think a lot of us are tired of arguing in circles and would just as soon have this thread disappear with all the others that went nowhere.

Like all the threads before OS X that talked about how superior the Mac OS UI was? That never got talked out. Now that dedicated Mac users are pointing out that the OS X UI has problems, they should all shut up? Please.

UI is the Macintosh. Without superior UI, then it's just another graphical shell on a command-line based OS. OS X has sunk to the lowest common denominatator. Sure it works. And some things are actually improvements, but on the whole the inconsistency and lack of attention to metaphor, concept, and detail makes it just another ho-hum OS.

If you want unix, there are better options out there. If you want the best UI on a modern architecture, Windows has it right now. OS X is the odd-man out. It's not the best unix, and it's not the best UI. It's a weird combination of an acceptable unix with an acceptable UI.

Perhaps OS X is just an ugly-duckling at the moment. But the point is that there is no need for that to be the case. Apple has tossed aside 16 years of UI development, to start "fresh" with something that isn't as good as what was left behind.

Xaholic · Aug 13, 2001, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by Cipher13:
just that people like you and I are outnumbered by those who would like to lick their screen rather than use it to get their work done.

One day, they'll learn.
Or not.

[ 08-12-2001: Message edited by: Cipher13 ]

LOL! Look what happens when one disagrees with Cipher! You're a screen-licker!

Is that the best rational argument you can come up with to reply to those of us who say we find the Aqua/Dock gui more aesthetic and useful? Ridicule?

I read your post above on the supposed shortcomings of Aqua and agree with some of it. Nevertheless, at this stage of the game, the improvements in stability and overall performance greatly outweigh for me the shortcomings of the ui.

But when will it end on this topic? If folks can't abide Aqua and don't need the stability/performance improvements of X, then when not use 9.x until all the themes and what not are there for you? That's reality. What Apple SHOULD have done is besides the point. They did what they did, and here we are.

[ 08-13-2001: Message edited by: Xaholic ]

happyOSXDude · Aug 13, 2001, 12:22 PM

Ah the GUI flamewar...

I believe most of our user experience is using applications versus using the finder. These are changing somewhat under OSX (sheets, new control widgets, new font in control panels). Obviously noticable -- but not what I'd call REAL change. So it seems the majority of time will be spent in the same old, same old.

One of the best posts I've read was from a user in his seventies. He compared it to buying a new TV that comes with a new remote. The first week is hell, your fingers jump to all the wrong places, can't operate without good lighting... But you adapt. I feel a great deal of the change falls into this category (gel caps UI controls, window controls grouped, drop shadows on windows, translucent menus, change in the system font).

The finder IS different. The current implementation is lacking (needs more threading... ::fingers crossed for 10.1:

. I personally love the column view (want resizing BAD).

The classic frustration about a GUI thread are:
a) its MIGHTY subjective. And many posters tend to argue from the "One True Way" camp of discourse.
b) ease of learning, ease of customization, ease of use... are all different things... we'd all learn a great deal watching five new users learning a Mac without help or manuals. Its painful.

In a year, most of this will be moot. We'll have adapted by then.

After five months I've made the jump... OSX works great for me... and I hit BUGS galore (I've only crashed the kernel three times... but I've also experienced the "Sleep Of Death" about once a week).

Sorry to hear some of you are so unhappy. I want everyone to LOVE this new OS. Probably impossible.

Aug 13, 2001, 12:42 PM

There are differences between lamenting, bashing and criticiszing. Only criticism is worthwhile to discuss. Labelling those of us who generally like OS X as being zealots who beleive that everything is perfect is ignorant, stupid, gullible, naive, narrow-minded, short-sighted and wrong. Let's critisize Aqua's shortcomings. Let's not wax nostalgic or toss the baby with the bathwater or other such nonsense. Somehow even the legit threads regarding criticism tend to generate because people don't understand the differences between these things.

Lerkfish · Aug 13, 2001, 01:28 PM

this inspired me to write this poem off-the-cuff:

Oh blither, blather, bitch and moan
Why argue til your ears turn stone?
all these things are just subjective
Consider 'fore you hurl invectives

matters of taste are never settled
by pesky word-thistles so nettled

lenz · Aug 13, 2001, 01:49 PM

you know what? I've actually come to like the dock. Alot of people seem to hate it but it turns out that once you convince yourself you try it you come to like it's functionality. I like hanging it on the left side of the screen. It's less optrusive there.

gorgonzola · Aug 13, 2001, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by Cipher13:
[QB]The Finder is simply a middleman; its purpose, largely, is to allow for file management. Moving, copying, removing, altering (icons et al), tagging (labels); and also, it MUST be able to interact with other applications via drag and drop and other methods so as to allow certain tasks (opening, encryption, compression, decompression, etc) to be carried out in a single manouvre where they actually require the interaction of two components (app & file).

OS9 does this brilliantly. Popup windows, spring loaded folders, complete Apple menu, intelligent filing system (not so much a Finder issue), and so forth.

At least in my experience, I've found the Dock folder menus and column view to be a fine replacement. I find the filing system no less logical.

Okay, next, process management.
OSX has the Dock, with minimal visual feedback available. "My way or the highway". OS9 has the Application Menu, AppSwitcher, plus popup windows and the Apple menu can provide minimalist functionality in this arena. I find the AppSwitcher and Application Menu infinitely superior to the Dock in any way, and when used simultaneously, make an awesome team.

I still fail to see how OS 9's Application Menu gives so much more "visual feedback" just because you can rip it off the menubar and it's a menu, not a Dock. Frankly, while you may find the AppSwitcher "infinitely superior," it's not really all that more configurable or flexible than the Dock is. Yes, in the Apple Menu, you can have hierarchical folders and whatnot, but you can always put those in the Dock. Internal development news only points to more and more flexibility being added to Dock menus.

OS9 also has the added bonus with items such as the Control Strip, which allows one to interface directly with system preferences, for one thing, but also activate things like FileSharing, etc with the click of a button.

And Docklings and/or System Menus don't provide this purpose in an even more flexible architecture? Explain.

It also, due to its amazing versatility, allows for process management, etc. One click access to any command you want, be it changing your Energy Save settings, quitting all apps, or changing your screen resolution.

I dunno, I find that I can access more system preferences faster than I could in OS 9. The Control Strip allows very limited system configuration (all the options it have mostly involve toggling things on or off), and while it was certainly good, all I do is just open whichever preference panel I need directly. Then System Prefs launches and I change whatever I want. This is really not that much slower, but it lets you access *all* the system settings, not just a few.

And btw, this is hardly called "process management"...

Now, OSX tries to do this with docklets (which merely take up more space in the already gluttenous Dock, and also with those new things in the menubar... which are quite messy. I hated that 3rd party addon in OS9 which put those kinda things in the menubar...

OK, so you like them in a strip in the middle of the screen instead of inside a Dock or on the menubar. Can OS 9 put monitor resolution settings in the menubar if I want them there? I think not (at least not without third party modification). How is this any more flexible? *You* may like having all this stuff in the Strip better, but the widget is not inherently any more flexible.

I usually found, in my use of OS 9, that when I had put a bunch of settings that I wanted into CS, it was so long and unwieldy that I never bothered clicking through an endless army of tiny little buttons. You like them? Great. But it's still not inherently better than the Dock.

The basic thing is, OS9 allows one to do anything in so many different ways, that it has few problems catering to most people.

OK, I can have shortcuts to apps in the Apple Menu or in pop up windows. Dock menus. Fine. I can see all running apps in a menu. I can see all the running apps in the Dock. You have the Control Strip. I have System Menus, direct access to Preference Panels, and Docklings.

You might like OS 9's system better than X's, but how is it inherently better? Just because the Dock does everything doesn't mean it does it all badly. I'm not saying that the Dock wouldn't benefit from a little more flexibility, but it serves my purposes fine -- better than 9, in fact, at least for the way I work.

Very very fast - typing the first few chars of a file/folder to select it, Apple-Down to open, Apple-Up, Apple-W, next file/folder. It sounds slow, but once you're used to it, its not.

Read that bold bit. :sarcasm:

The interface sucks; its the slowest I've ever used.

Does it just suck, or does it suck only because it's the slowest you've ever used?

There are no apps available.

How irrelevant. This is temporary, and depending on the market you're looking at, there are a *lot* of apps available. Maybe not the bigtime Mac ones, but they're being Carbonized. This is transitionary.

It eats RAM like theres no tomorrow.

It's the nature of *nix. It uses it more effectively also. There's always some give or take.

The file structure, while typical Unix, I know, is a pain. Its too messy for my tastes... but thats a problem like the looks of Aqua itself - I don't mind it and I can work around it.

I find the OS X file structure a LOT more organized. Wow, isn't *this* subjective?

But... ahh well. Give me an OS9 Finder for X with maybe a few things like an optional Dock, optional Alpha's, optional single window mode, etc, and it'll be okay...

Do you not like the alphas themselves or just not like them because you think they slow down the system?

Don't get me wrong, I think that OS X seriously needs to get more options in there. I don't think that OS 9 is really all that much more configurable than OS X is -- not functionality-wise, anyway -- but that's a personal opinion, and they do need to have more options, especially since OS X is supposed to be way better than OS 9 (from a marketing viewpoint).

Or, give Aqua the features it sorely lacks and make the features it forces upon us OPTIONS and we'll ALL be happy.

Options are fine, but I would think carefully and divorce actual UI widgets from actual functionality. They need to do more, and I find it likely that they will, but I find it very unlikely that they will ever bring back the old widgets themselves.

ALL these problems with OSX stem from forcing things upon people - the speed will be fixed.

Yes, although not everyone views them as problems. Some people like OS X better, and some work faster in it, period. Although I agree that there's no reason to not want more options, I find that a few simple improvements would suffice for me. I'd like spring loaded folders (especially in Column View -- *drool*); infinite-level Dock menus (not just 5, Steve, not just 5!!); the ability to drag something onto a Dock folder and have it pop open the menu, and then launch something from one of the apps inside; and Labels would be nice, although they're surprisingly difficult to implement in a multi-user system.

I think it's important to realize that some view *Aqua* in its entirety as bad just because it's slow. Cipher has many valid complaints, but others simply don't like it because it's slow. Frankly, the improvements that would be nice are fairly minor things to put in -- I'm sure that in a matter of a year, if not sooner, they'll have implemented stuff like this.

After all, once they have OS X in a good state (fast and with fewer and fewer of these obvious bugs), then what will they have to implement? Clearly a few things that will add some more sophistication and maturity to the interface, which IMHO is basically what Aqua lacks.

God, once I start, I just keep babbling... *smacks head*

Aug 13, 2001, 06:53 PM

summary of this discussion:
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Brad Nelson · Aug 15, 2001, 01:09 AM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
this inspired me to write this poem off-the-cuff:

Oh blither, blather, bitch and moan
Why argue til your ears turn stone?
all these things are just subjective
Consider 'fore you hurl invectives

matters of taste are never settled
by pesky word-thistles so nettled

Hey fish it's great to read your verse
You're right, there is no need to curse
What's up is down for some but still
There is no need to cause ill will

Gurgle, gurgle, and again I say gurgle.

Brad Nelson · Aug 15, 2001, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by Milio:


UI is the Macintosh. Without superior UI, then it's just another graphical shell on a command-line based OS. OS X has sunk to the lowest common denominatator. Sure it works. And some things are actually improvements, but on the whole the inconsistency and lack of attention to metaphor, concept, and detail makes it just another ho-hum OS.

If you want unix, there are better options out there. If you want the best UI on a modern architecture, Windows has it right now. OS X is the odd-man out. It's not the best unix, and it's not the best UI. It's a weird combination of an acceptable unix with an acceptable UI.

Milio, great post. Whether some agree with this or not you can't just shove us all in a corner and call us irrelevant. Well, you can, but that's no answer. Apple should give much thought to posts like these and act on them.