[Simon]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Which like I said, hardly any users do,

Why should I care what other poeple do? Plenty people around here use clones to roll back to an older system version. Especially those that have a clue and don't like to waste time.

so anything that relies on it doesn't work as a general-purpose solution.

It's about as general purpose as can be. It's supplied by Apple. It's maintained by Apple. And it works. Faster than anything else I might add.

It's also not that great a backup strategy.

Who said anything about a backup strategy? It's a strategy to roll back if you don't like what a system update has done. It's the fastest and easiest way I know to roll back. And rolling back is what you claimed A&I is required for. Funny thing is, I've never bothered with it. Too slow. And handpicking stuff in /Previous System and copying it back to the new system? No way. Far too tedious IMHO.

I don't think this discussion is going anywhere. How about we simply agree that you don't like the change while I'm ok with it. There's really nothing more to it. Apple is rolling this one in with or without our consent.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Why should I care what other poeple do?

Because the OS is intended to be used by millions of people, not just you?!

[Jasoco]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Me too. Oh well. Maybe next time.

All I want is matted blues, scrollbars across the system that look like iTunes and iPhoto, just less shine like it's glass and more like it's plastic-y.

Even if they don't, the modder community will be right on it ASAP. In fact, I'm sure someone out there has the GM and is making a new Extras2.rsrc right now.

Originally Posted by Simon 

Glad to hear. I look forward to using it.

I installed it one day the first time and didn't even notice that I had missed a few options. I thought I skipped over them. But turned out they don't exist. There's one option to install, and you can customize it to remove printers and fonts and localizations, which I recommend if you only speak one language... English. It will make it even smaller. Of course that's a tip for any OS X, still.

There's really no need for Archive these days. For one thing, if you are storing files inside System or Library, you are doing it wrong. Since most people won't, who cares if the OS is replaced. It replaces System and updates Library. So any plug-ins you have installed for "all users" are preserved. So don't worry about that.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Why should I care what other poeple do? Plenty people around here use clones to roll back to an older system version. Especially those that have a clue and don't like to waste time.

You don't have to care what other people do — but Apple should, because you're a solitary expert-level user who is outnumbered several million to one by relative novices.

[Simon]

It's those novices this change will help most.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Simon 

It's those novices this change will help most.

Novices will be helped by removing the option of an A&I and having an unspoken expectation that people will keep several redundant backups and bootable clones? WTF?

[Simon]

Sure. Removing A&I and replacing it with a smart updater will make it easier for novices.

Options to "Erase and Install" and "Archive and Install" are no longer present in the Mac OS X 10.6 installer. According to those familiar with the software, this was done for convenience, so that users do not accidentally erase and install their Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard partitions. However, "Erase and Install" remains available through Disk Utility, which is also included on the installation DVD.

Definitely sounds to me like Apple was thinking about the novices there.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Sure. Removing A&I and replacing it with a smart updater will make it easier for novices.

You're going to explain exactly how that's easier for novices. Novices will do the same thing they always did. The only difference is that there won't be an "Advanced Options" button for them to ignore anymore.

[0157988944]

Because the new updater apparently won't just blindly go in and replace stuff, it will also move "bad apps" and try to avoid the pale BSOD. Remember Leopard and its flood of said novices trying to figure out how to get their Macs to work again?

[CharlesS]

Yeah, but that was because they did a regular Update and Install instead of an Archive and Install. Users who did an A&I did not have that issue.

Unless this new installer is always doing an A&I, I don't see how it is better than doing an A&I with the old installer. Unfortunately, from reading the AI article, it does not appear that what the new installer is doing is an A&I.

[0157988944]

Because the old novice wouldn't know about the A&I, thus getting into deep poo. Now, they have only one option, which, I should point out, only we are calling a U&I. It's really now just an install. It's not the same thing as the old U&I, nor the old A&I.

The new option supposedly will clear out any haxies or "bad apps" so they don't get hit with issues. We'll see how well it works.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by adamfishercox 

Because the old novice wouldn't know about the A&I, thus getting into deep poo. Now, they have only one option, which, I should point out, only we are calling a U&I. It's really now just an install. It's not the same thing as the old U&I, nor the old A&I.

So that may be an improvement over the old U&I for sure. However, it's not a true A&I, and there's no ease-of-use gain in deleting the option for A&I.

I can understand, and even support, the rationale for removing the E&I option from the main installer and requiring Disk Utility for that. E&I is dangerous, and you don't want users selecting it by mistake. But A&I is harmless, and useful in many cases, and it sounds like there's simply no replacement for it.

The new option supposedly will clear out any haxies or "bad apps" so they don't get hit with issues. We'll see how well it works.

We'll see indeed. With A&I, you knew it would work.

[0157988944]

A&I is no different than the [old] U&I other than that it put the old system files in a folder.
EDIT: Poor wording, it's no different to the end user. In terms of tech, the new install is very much like an A&I in that it wipes out the system folder and library, leaving the User folder intact. If anything its closer to A%I than U&I.

I don't see what loss you're bemoaning, anyone who would have actually used that Previous Systems folder will likely have a backup anyway, and anyone who wouldnt have even known it existed is no worse off. And A&I is still there:

Fresh install of SL: E&I or a regular install.

Reinstalling SL over existing SL install: E&I or A&I.

[- - e r i k - -]

Some notes

"However, if Mac OS X 10.6 is being installed on a Mac that contains a registration a key for Quicktime 7 Pro, the installer will install Quicktime 7 automatically."

"To prevent the Blue Screen error that plagued some users when upgrading to Mac OS X 10.5, a software compatibility check is included that has a list of known "bad" apps, and disables them. Those programs are moved to an "Incompatible Software" folder."

"Installation initially triggers a large chunk of data to be copied from the installation DVD to the user's primary hard drive. "

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by adamfishercox 

A&I is no different than the [old] U&I other than that it put the old system files in a folder.
EDIT: Poor wording, it's no different to the end user. In terms of tech, the new install is very much like an A&I in that it wipes out the system folder and library, leaving the User folder intact. If anything its closer to A%I than U&I.

A&I did this. The new install does not, if the AI article is to be believed. It states that if a software update (like 10.6.1) is installed, the new install leaves the updated files alone so that you still have 10.6.1. This means that a bunch of old system files are not wiped out, and also suggests that the install is done in place.

[Art Vandelay]

You guys should really see what the new Installer is doing firsthand instead of debating endlessly about a rumor that doesn't have all the details. The Installer is actually doing a lot more than what's in that article on AI.

[Chuckit]

If the new installer actually is messing with your system and there's no way to stop it, that sounds even worse. Like, am I going to have to reinstall everything after I update?

[0157988944]

How should an installer install the system without "messing with it"?

[Jasoco]

No, Chuckit. It is ONLY INSTALLING THE SYSTEM IN PLACE OF THE OLD ONE! It is NOT TOUCHING YOUR PERSONAL FILES.

It is basically an Archive and Install without the Archive part because the Archive part is useless. Just don't keep any personal files outside your User folder and you are fine. If you hacked your system, like changed your Dock or installed a new Extras.rsrc, of course you'll have to reinstall that stuff, but it will NOT touch your user folder.

Stop complaining! There's nothing to worry about AT ALL.

CAPITALIZED FOR EMPHASIS NOT YELLING just to be clear.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Jasoco 

It is basically an Archive and Install without the Archive part because the Archive part is useless.

No, it's not, for reasons I already laid out several times.

Gotta love Apple fans. Yesterday, Archive and Install was one of OS X's great advantages over Windows. Today, it's useless.

[0157988944]

You can't have it both ways, either you use the novices argument, and they wouldn't know what an archive and install was if it smacked them in the face, or you go the useful archive and install route, in which case the people who actually know what to do with it can probably help themselves anyway.

(And I've always said that Archive and Install only helps out the people who know what to do with the Previous Systems folder, and probably back their stuff up.)

Regardless, I'm not scared about this new installer unplugging my grandma or anything like that.

[- - e r i k - -]

Errrr... so is Apple yet again disallowing Safari plugins? What gives?

Edit: Ah, I see. They need to be recompiled for 64-bit.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by adamfishercox 

You can't have it both ways, either you use the novices argument, and they wouldn't know what an archive and install was if it smacked them in the face, or you go the useful archive and install route, in which case the people who actually know what to do with it can probably help themselves anyway.

Sure you can have it both ways. The old way, the novices who are just trying to install the OS will just go through the installer, ignoring the "Advanced Options..." button, whereas someone who's having trouble is going to be running the installer looking for the Advanced Options button, because someone, whether it be tech support, a knowledgeable friend, MacNN, whoever, told them to. People who need A&I win, people who don't need it don't notice it's there. There's no problem with it.

(And I've always said that Archive and Install only helps out the people who know what to do with the Previous Systems folder, and probably back their stuff up.)

Ever heard of calling tech support, or starting a thread on MacNN? Or just Googling for the problem you're having? There are plenty of ways for novices to find out that an Archive and Install will solve a particular issue that you have.

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Errrr... so is Apple yet again disallowing Safari plugins? What gives?

Argh, not this again. Apple never disallowed plugins, because they never allowed plugins in the first place. Those things you're using aren't plugins, they're hacks. They rely on the program code being a certain way, and then they patch it. When the program code changes, you should expect the hacks to break.

[0157988944]

I'm not saying removing A&I is at all helpful, I'm just saying, it's really not a huge deal.

And where did the Safari comment come from? Every new version breaks Input Manager hacks.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by adamfishercox 

And where did the Safari comment come from? Every new version breaks Input Manager hacks.

Only because they need to be recompiled in 64 bit. Running Safari / WebKit in 32-bit restores functionality.

Same with PreferencePanes by the way. Which are of course not hacks.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Argh, not this again. Apple never disallowed plugins, because they never allowed plugins in the first place. Those things you're using aren't plugins, they're hacks. They rely on the program code being a certain way, and then they patch it. When the program code changes, you should expect the hacks to break.

Those hacks are sadly invaluable add ons for the software and being without them is not an option.

Try using Safari without 1password and Glims. I didn't last five minutes. Yikes.

[0157988944]

What does Glims do for you? I don't get it.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Those hacks are sadly invaluable add ons for the software and being without them is not an option.

If you want to use plug-ins, you really should be using Firefox as your browser instead. Safari isn't built to handle plug-ins - never has been.

Try using Safari without 1password and Glims. I didn't last five minutes. Yikes.

I don't even know what those are (except that 1password is something that used to cause Pacifist to crash a lot a few years back), so I guess I'll do pretty well at that.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by adamfishercox 

What does Glims do for you? I don't get it.

Automatic session restoring being #1.

Always open new windows in tabs (!)

Fast keyword search in the location bar, enabling you to type "wiki Term" or "yt video" etc. etc.

Or better still assign shortcuts to search engines. Enter to search google. Shift-enter to Google image search.

Spotlight-style search results.

Add in custom engines. (YouTube, Amazon, Wolfram Alpha, Flickr, your own website etc.)

Tab favicons (I didn't understand what people meant about "invisible closeboxes" until now)

Google search thumbnails (also something I thought was a default Google feature until I removed it).

Type-ahead search.

Force form auto-completion to be on (important to me).

Bookmark separators and menu items (Add bookmark here) saves a lot of bookmark organisation.

Just a cocktail of features that add up to a MUCH nicer browser experience. Without it it's a death by a thousand cuts.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

If you want to use plug-ins, you really should be using Firefox as your browser instead. Safari isn't built to handle plug-ins - never has been.

Thanks, but death by a thousand cuts sums up the Firefox-browsing "experience" quite nicely thanks.

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

I don't even know what those are (except that 1password is something that used to cause Pacifist to crash a lot a few years back), so I guess I'll do pretty well at that.

You don't know what 1Password is? I'm really sad for you, I remember what life was before I had 1Password. It wasn't pretty.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

You don't know what 1Password is? I'm really sad for you, I remember what life was before I had 1Password. It wasn't pretty.

I know that it's a POS that used to make my app crash all the time, and caused people to e-mail me about it. I know that it eventually stopped doing that when either I changed something or the author did, so that the two no longer had juuuust the right set of coincidental conditions for the crash to occur. However, I also know that there's no reason it couldn't just randomly happen again.

I can't wait until Apple removes that stupid InputManager mechanism like they've been promising to for years (it's been deprecated since Leopard came out).

[- - e r i k - -]

They won't until there is an official plugin structure for Safari.

[CharlesS]

I wouldn't be so sure about that. For one thing, it's never going to be ported to 64-bit, and sooner or later you're going to lose the ability to run Safari in 32-bit.

Also, they actually did remove the InputManager mechanism from prerelease versions of Leopard, but put it back when some of the rare developers of actual input managers complained, so Apple gave them a little more time. By now, though, they should have had plenty of time to move to InputMethods instead, so there's really no reason to keep the thing around anymore.

[- - e r i k - -]

Well as proven by Snow Leopard, arguable the version where they went all in to clean up old cruft it is still around.

1Password developers apparently have a 64-bit solution coming up, but in the mean time I'm happy to run Safari in 32-bit mode and enjoy hacky plugin goodness.

Oh, and best new feature of Snow Leopard?

Resizing CoverFlow windows in the Finder now resizes the list portion, not the CF-portion!

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Thanks, but death by a thousand cuts sums up the Firefox-browsing "experience" quite nicely thanks.
You don't know what 1Password is? I'm really sad for you, I remember what life was before I had 1Password. It wasn't pretty.

Why is 1Password even necessary? Keychain has always worked just fine for me … 

[kylef]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Why is 1Password even necessary? Keychain has always worked just fine for me … 

There's 1Password for iPhone too. Very handy little application when used in conjunction with the desktop version.

[P]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

1Password developers apparently have a 64-bit solution coming up, but in the mean time I'm happy to run Safari in 32-bit mode and enjoy hacky plugin goodness.

Do you know how they did that? If they did it without injecting their code into Safari's memory space, then great - I won't complain. If they just figured out a new way to have their code run inside Safari, then it's just another hole to block.

(Well, unless they mess around inside the kernel, but I don't think anyone's quiet ready to do that yet.)

If you want to run your own code in a browser, then write your own webbrowser. You can use Webkit for the rendering - there's even an example on how to make a trivial browser without writing a single line of code, using a Webkit-view. Hopefully that is the path the 1Passwd et al will move to.

Besides, your terminology is off. Plug-ins implies that there is an architecture built to support it. That is stuff like Flash, which Safari supports just fine. What you're talking about is hacks, and attempting to validate their existence by using a proper-sounding name only makes you sound ignorant.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by kylef 

There's 1Password for iPhone too. Very handy little application when used in conjunction with the desktop version.

Perhaps, but to me it seems like a solution to something that wasn't a problem … Forgive me for playing the devil's advocate, why do I need to pay $40 for an app if Keychain does password management for free?

[Spheric Harlot]

Well, syncing across to the iPhone is very handy, of course.

I got 1Password for free with some bundle, but trashed it after a few days as I, too, failed to see the point - and didn't have an iPhone yet, at the time.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by P 

If you want to run your own code in a browser, then write your own webbrowser. You can use Webkit for the rendering - there's even an example on how to make a trivial browser without writing a single line of code, using a Webkit-view. Hopefully that is the path the 1Passwd et al will move to.

So you reckon the problem is that there just aren't enough Web browsers in the world?

All the people who don't like hacks, that's fine, I understand. They cause problems. But that's the downside. The upside is that they can make people's lives easier and happier. And if you're ignoring that and just making unreasonable demands, it makes your position look more unreasonable than it actually is. Creating yet another friggin' Web browser just to implement one additional bit of functionality is really overkill. Even if all of Safari were open-source so you could just plop the functionality right in there (which isn't the case), forking for every feature you want to add is ridiculous. As for using a WebView — nobody wants to use a "trivial browser." In fact, 1Password users want a browser that's more powerful than Safari.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Perhaps, but to me it seems like a solution to something that wasn't a problem … Forgive me for playing the devil's advocate, why do I need to pay $40 for an app if Keychain does password management for free?

If you have any more than basic password needs then you need 1password.

Examples of this is multiple accounts, storing of financial information (got to love autofill of credit card info), unique password generation, enhanced security and syncing between multiple computers and your phone without the need for MobileMe.

[0157988944]

yep, i love having my credit card info spilled out onto a page with little to no input from me at all!

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Examples of this is multiple accounts, storing of financial information (got to love autofill of credit card info), unique password generation, enhanced security and syncing between multiple computers and your phone without the need for MobileMe.

I use RPG (random password generator) to generate most of my passwords. I can cycle through different accounts in logins by typing the first few letters. Syncing between computers is a plus, though, although you could probably manage with some additional keychain file (although it's probably nowhere near as convenient). With online banking, I switch off autofill on purpose for security reasons.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

If you have any more than basic password needs then you need 1password.

Examples of this is multiple accounts, storing of financial information (got to love autofill of credit card info), unique password generation, enhanced security and syncing between multiple computers and your phone without the need for MobileMe.

MobileMe doesn't sync passwords with iPhone.

And auto-fill-in of credit card info is probably the dumbest idea ever. Apart from that, you make sense.

[kylef]

I had the fortune of not paying for 1Password (similarly for the iPhone); which is perhaps why I appreciate it so much.

[P]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

So you reckon the problem is that there just aren't enough Web browsers in the world?

All the people who don't like hacks, that's fine, I understand. They cause problems. But that's the downside. The upside is that they can make people's lives easier and happier. And if you're ignoring that and just making unreasonable demands, it makes your position look more unreasonable than it actually is. Creating yet another friggin' Web browser just to implement one additional bit of functionality is really overkill. Even if all of Safari were open-source so you could just plop the functionality right in there (which isn't the case), forking for every feature you want to add is ridiculous. As for using a WebView — nobody wants to use a "trivial browser." In fact, 1Password users want a browser that's more powerful than Safari.

My problem is this sense of entitlement, calling hacks "plugins", and that Apple is just removing the Inputmanager hacks because they're some sort of control freaks. That is a security hole that should have been patched long ago, before those simple hacks evolved into full products that rely on that functionality. Now they're products for sale that advertise themselves as "plugins".

As long as you know that what you're doing is something very much unsupported, go right ahead - hey, I made the Apple menu blue with Resedit once back in the System 7 days, and I still try things like that on occasion - but when you start thinking of them as plugins and "stuff that should work", you're also assuming that developers should support them. That will be impossible - you cannot ever control the behavior of your program if someone else's code is running in the same memory space. That path leads to the crashing extensionitis hell that was System 7.5, and even if that had some pretty nifty features it wasn't worth it.

As for the mostly throw-away line about making your own browser: An app like 1Passwd would ideally work using a legitimate public API, and it turns out there is one: Services. Now it's mostly forgotten, but if the Inputmanager hole hadn't been there, I'm sure most current hacks would have been implemented that way, and if there's some major piece of functionality missing from that API, it would have been added by now. Other hacks like SAFT should indeed be new browsers. Really. Make the best browser you can without having to bother with annoying details like the rendering engine.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by P 

My problem is this sense of entitlement, calling hacks "plugins", and that Apple is just removing the Inputmanager hacks because they're some sort of control freaks.

That very well might be the reason. Otherwise, the most appropriate response from Apple would be to remove input manager hacks and add a supported plugin API.

Originally Posted by P 

As for the mostly throw-away line about making your own browser: An app like 1Passwd would ideally work using a legitimate public API, and it turns out there is one: Services.

What? Services = copy and paste. It's certainly not up to reimplementing 1Password. Watch the videos on 1Password's site and tell me how many of the features could be described as "Drill through four levels of awkwardly located menus, copy the selection from the Web site and paste a transformed version of it." What 1Password is doing is quite a bit more sophisticated and Services just isn't up to snuff.

Originally Posted by P 

Now it's mostly forgotten, but if the Inputmanager hole hadn't been there, I'm sure most current hacks would have been implemented that way, and if there's some major piece of functionality missing from that API, it would have been added by now. Other hacks like SAFT should indeed be new browsers. Really. Make the best browser you can without having to bother with annoying details like the rendering engine.

As I said in my previous post, that is a ridiculous suggestion. That's like suggesting that OS X should never have been made, and instead Apple should have made 12 different operating systems — one with disk burning, one with Aqua, one with Cocoa, one with file browsing, one with preemptive multitasking...

Having a lot of good features spread out between a bunch of mutually exclusive browsers is totally nuts. What good is a browser that has one good feature is it doesn't do anything else? There's a lot of value in having one browser with lots of good features rather than having a lot of browsers that have one good feature apiece and are otherwise utter crap.

[CharlesS]

If someone would branch the Shiira project and make it a viable browser again, I'd use it. I used to love that browser.

[Chuckit]

How is Shiira not viable?

[CharlesS]

1. Everything still seems half-implmented

2. Years after the 2.0 rewrite, it still doesn't have basic features that 1.x had such as toolbar keywords

3. The author stopped maintaining the SVN repository years ago, claiming he didn't have time to keep it up anymore

4. The English version of the web site doesn't work anymore

5. Back when I could actually get to the forums (before the English page went down), it was overrun with spam with the only legitimate threads having titles like "Is this dead?"

6. Sending e-mails to the author gets no response

7. Sending patches to the author gets no response

Eh... it's dead, Jim.