So what is left for OSX?

[clarkgoble]

Well we've all played with 10.2 and probably loaded 10.2.1. So what major features are still missing?

I'd say that while networking has improved, it still needs work, especially hooking up to Windows printers. I don't mind that integrated FTP doesn't work since I tend to use the command line for that.

The Finder is night and day above the 10.1 Finder (IMO). Indeed that's finally what made me decide to go out and get a new G4 for home instead of a PC. However one thing I wish is that "unknown" extensions don't get simply labelled "document." Right now when I sort by type so as to easily select all files of a certain extension it won't work because all sorts of different extensions get the same "type." Very frustrating.

Everyone mentions better "comments" or "labels" support, and I'd second that, although it isn't a big deal.

I'd definitely like to have better metadata and perhaps something like a filter you can apply to the current view in the Finder. (i.e. display only .c, .cpp, and .h files)

For Mail I'd really wish that HTML mail had more features, such as indentation using the blockquote tag. That's really annoying as I was used to quoting using that sort of indentation. (I hate blue bars to the left of text) I also wish that you could resize the drawer with the list of mailboxes. I use short names and small icons, but it won't let me resize it accordingly.

[Adam Betts]

Why the F do people still want metadata when Steve Jobs and every Apple staffs said "NO, you will not be getting it anytime no matter how high the demand are."

I like the new way better than metadata, that's for sure

[KaptainKaya]

I agree about the metadata thingy. I would like to see tabbed folders return, but I'm not demanding them. Maybe along the sides of the screen would be cool.

[Brass]

Originally posted by Adam Betts:
Why the F do people still want metadata when Steve Jobs and every Apple staffs said "NO, you will not be getting it anytime no matter how high the demand are."

I like the new way better than metadata, that's for sure

Huh? You cannot have a file system without metadata... it just wouldn't work!

There's lot's of Metadata used by Mac OS X at the moment. 3 different types of date/time stamps, ownership and permissions, file names, file types, etc, etc, etc.

Yes, File names ARE metadata, and so are file types, even if they are stored as part of the file name.

When did anyone at Apple ever say they would not be using metadata in OS X? That's absurd.

In fact, it looks as though Apple are currently investigating ways to use file type metadata better in OS X, as the current system is so badly flawed, and terribly limitted.

Even if Apple had said that, why on earth would that change what people want? We're not all brainwashed by Apple... we don't base our desires on what they say we should be happy with!

[Terri]

Some kind of Labels are a really big one for me.

The Open/Save dialogs are really lacking. You can't view by date, can't type a letter to go to. I would really like to turn off column view. I really like the Open/Save dialogs of System 9.

Tabbed folders would be nice. Actually being able to split the dock up would work well. I already use Windowshade and Fruit menu so right now I'm really just using the dock for an application switcher along with ASM. If I could split the dock up then I could use it for tabbed folders, at least if they put spring loaded folders in it.

More themes. I want a neutral gray one, something like the platinum color of System 9.

Some way to move windows besides the title bar. I'm not sure I want borders like in System 9, but a key combo or something. I've already had to deal with stuck windows that I couldn't move because I couldn't get to the title bar, just like before System 8 days.

A recent servers menu like back in System 9. Also I should be able to select the recent docs, folders, and apps menu and let go so that a window opens up with the alias in it. Like the way it works in System 9.

Feedback when I have a folder or app open in the Finder. Feedback on scroll thumbs. Feedback when I have selected a folder in the menu bar. Again just like it works under System 9.

I'm sure that I could think of more things. I agree that 10.2 is a major improvement.

[milhous]

All I want is a stripped-down implementation of Aqua as an option. There's no reason why a system should work so hard to activate pull down menues and menu transparency and then for the menu to fade away in a nice manner. Wireframe resizes also should be implement as an option for the simple reason that real-time resizes at this time are just not nice and is in a sense counter-productive especially for pros.

After booting back into OS 9 for the first time in two months, I just love the fact that the menus and the interface activate without hesitation. The interface is quick and lean and doesn't act like it's under duress like X.

I'm sure this could be implemented for next to nothing. It would be really nice to integrate the traditional look and feel of OS 9 for those users who do not need that much eye candy like professionals who require instant GUI gratification.

[Deal]

Did anybody notice, in pre Jag X, you could get info on a folder, and then click another folder without having to re-get info and the get info box would show you the data of the next folder.

In Jag, you have to re-get info for every folder you want.

Now they both have advantages. If you need to compare a bunch of folders with get info side by side, Jag is better. But if you want to brows accross several folders (or apple click multiple folder) you could watch the info change on the fly. This was great in Pre-Jag.

I would really like a preference somewhere to toggle that on and off.

WIshfull thinking I'm sure. Most people could care less. But for some admin pushing lots of data around, it made my life easier before they changed it.

[gorgonzola]

Originally posted by Deal:
Did anybody notice, in pre Jag X, you could get info on a folder, and then click another folder without having to re-get info and the get info box would show you the data of the next folder.

In Jag, you have to re-get info for every folder you want.

Now they both have advantages. If you need to compare a bunch of folders with get info side by side, Jag is better. But if you want to brows accross several folders (or apple click multiple folder) you could watch the info change on the fly. This was great in Pre-Jag.

I would really like a preference somewhere to toggle that on and off.

WIshfull thinking I'm sure. Most people could care less. But for some admin pushing lots of data around, it made my life easier before they changed it.

They actually do have both. Cmd-I does the old-school Get Info (multiple windows) and Cmd-Opt-I (single window inspector) does that thing you're looking for. You have to hit cmd-opt instead of cmd, but hey, at least it's there.

[passmaster16]

Above all, I would just like to see the performance of the GUI improved. 10.2 was a good start but it can be faster. Or at least what one of the previous posters mentioned, at the very least give the user the option to go to a leaner version. Or give the user more flexiblity to turn off certain effects that slow down the GUI.

[OverclockedHomoSapien]

These aren't the only changes I'd make to OS X, but I'd like to see the following improvements to Open/save dialogues:

�Save the view from last time.

�Scrollwheel support.

�Adjustable collumns....the view should be the same as a finder window in collumn view.

�This is a cool feature from Windows: I want to be able to click on a file and have its name appear in the file name box. This helps when I'm saving lots of files with identical names except for a number or letter.

�The top of the save dialogue could have the same icons as the finder toolbar for locations, including the Computer location to navigate different volumes easily, and then a pull-down menu for favorites. This would make navigating as easy as it is in the finder in collumn view. There's no reason not to have this sort of navigation support in open/save dialogues.

�Of course, carbon and cocoa should have identical open/save dialogues.

�There should be built-in finder support for saving directly to PDF format and also for file encryption. The technology is there, just put a GUI on it.

�Permit renaming of folders and items in the open/save dialogue. It can be done the same as in a Finder view.

�Have some view options, such as font size and icon size.

Aside from these changes, I'd also like to see some improvements to the dock:

1. Spring-loaded folders in the dock.

2. A utility for creating and managing "apple menus" in the dock, i.e., for creating folders filled with aliases, and giving these folders custom icons. I can do this no problem, but many new OS X users don't realize that this can be done with the dock, and to compensate they fill the dock with every app icon they have, making it unusable. Apple needs to lead people through this with a dock utility, it could be a tab within the dock preferences in system preferences.

3. Additional dock customization features, like separators, spaces, and the ability to create multiple docks.

4. How about the option of separating the trash from the dock and giving it its own small "dock"? I'd like to be able to put it in a corner and keep it hidden, then have it pop up whenever I drag something to said corner.

FINDER: Jaguar's finder is an enormous improvement over Puma's. Still, it needs better threading and more performance optimizations. I don't want to see the spinning LSD-cursor ever again. List view should work instantaneously, menus should pop open instantly, and the Finder should never stall or become unresponsive when doing network activity. Much of this comes down to better threading.

Aqua: I like Aqua in Jaguar very much, but scrolling and window resizing still need work. Apple needs to nail window resizing so it's instantaneous, I don't care how they do it. Maybe they need to find a way to hardware accelerate more of Quartz? I'm no programmer but it must be possible to have fast live resizing, because in Windows XP it's fast enough to keep up with cursor movement. I want the same for OS X.

[funkboy]

I don't think I need anything more in OS X, save for the aforementioned things.

I need new hardware to *run* the darn thing on ;)

[DeathMan]

I'd like to see a nice wrapper on cron, with some capabilities for setting up jobs. A nice graphical way to schedule jobs. That would be really cool.

I'd also like to kill specific windows. like if there is one explorer window that I know is hanging up, i'd like to just be able to kill that one, leaving the others in tact. I don't know how feasible that is, but hey, the cron thing alone is asking a lot.

I agree that the save/open dialoges can be better.

I don't care if they make a stripped down window manager or not, if they can get things opening and closing a little quicker. I want it it be like butter. I think they have a great idea with the glassy look, but it needs to be smooth as glass when redrawing, not just sitting there. Faster machines are already pushing the level I'm talking about. It will be nice when the "average" machine looks smooth like that.

SMB browsing should be limited to only windows machines that have sharing turned on. It's a little confusing otherwise.

Other than that I think things are really great. I'm very happy with Jaguar, and personally have had no problems with it.

Also they should make a nice tar app iTar (??) because stuffit bites the big one.

[yuriwho]

Try downloading cronnix from versiontracker. It's a pretty good gui on crontab.

Y

[Ibson]

Originally posted by DeathMan:
I'd also like to kill specific windows. like if there is one explorer window that I know is hanging up, i'd like to just be able to kill that one, leaving the others in tact. I don't know how feasible that is, but hey, the cron thing alone is asking a lot.
That simply isn't possible on a Mac system. On Windows, each explorer window is actually a new instance of the Internet Explorer application; it loads quickly because most of the functionality is hidden away in those nasty DLL files.

Each window doesn't have its own memory space, it is part of the application's global memory space. A window is no more significant to an application in terms of memory isolation than a button or menu. But the cron idea sounds nice. I'm sure Apple could implement it in a really neat and intuitive way.

[eplegutt1]

Is there a chance that Apple will make the QE engine working with PCI based graphic cards? I'm stuck with my 16 MB ATI Rage 128 in my B&W

[biscuit]

Originally posted by eplegutt1:
Is there a chance that Apple will make the QE engine working with PCI based graphic cards? I'm stuck with my 16 MB ATI Rage 128 in my B&W

Sorry to have to tell you, but QE will never work on a Rage 128. It doesn't support the necessary features, multi-layer transparency is the culprit IIRC.

However, you can get QE to work on PCI Radeon cards. It saturates the PCI bus so your other cards would be screwed, but it might be worth a try if you can pick up a cheap card. Go for lots of VRAM as that will alieviate the bus traffic.

As for OS X, I love it but some things aren't right. It misses some of the small details, but then this is only the third revision I suppose...

biscuit

Edit: Re-read your post and saw you said would Apple 'make' it work. Well I think the answer is no there too. I guess they don't see the point in investing resources to make it work with cards that are now obselete. All new Macs ship with compatible ones.

[Targon]

Originally posted by Adam Betts:
Why the F do people still want metadata when Steve Jobs and every Apple staffs said "NO, you will not be getting it anytime no matter how high the demand are."

I like the new way better than metadata, that's for sure

Hey Adam, change a DMG file's extension from .dmg to .txt and see what happens. Great init, just like Winhoez the file has totally lost all association witht he application that it belongs to.

Im finding this new behavior rather disturbing lately.

[chris_h]

Originally posted by Targon:


Hey Adam, change a DMG file's extension from .dmg to .txt and see what happens. Great init, just like Winhoez the file has totally lost all association witht he application that it belongs to.

Im finding this new behavior rather disturbing lately.

That is infinately better than the system OS9 had.
I've spent most of my computer life as a lunix dork, but I still don't know how to change a file's association in OS9, without using some crappy shareware app.
I'm talking about changing the type/creator codes. Which, by the way, are only marginally better than file extensions... most of the codes are arbitrary and dumb... i mean, MOOV? what the flying fvck?
And then there'd be files that double-click behavior was really dumb.
My favorite example was a something.pl file I had downloaded from somewhere. It was just plain text. Double clicking it said "choose an application to open this file" and the list had a few dumb things in it (like quicktime) but they were ALL greyed out... I also couldn't open it from simpletext because simpletext wouldn't show it in the open dialog.

That sysem was terminally retarded.

OSX's right click> open with/always open with is perfect.

[Developer]

Originally posted by chris_h:

I'm talking about changing the type/creator codes. Which, by the way, are only marginally better than file extensions... most of the codes are arbitrary and dumb... i mean, MOOV? what the flying fvck?I happily agree with you that it was very unfortunate that there was no user interface to change the document->application binding in OS 9. But I disagree with you that the type/creator codes were poorly chosen. They are just numbers and have never been intended to be user readable. Any arbitrary number is as good as any other. What was intended to be user readable was the kind string associated with the type/creator codes. For MOOV that was something like "QuickTime Movie". Any interface designed to let the user change the file type would have to show the user readable kind string instead of the raw file type code. That most of the time type and creator codes that translate to somewhat memorizable ASCII have been chosen was just a convenience for the developers that registered those codes.

[Stephane]

Originally posted by Terri:
Some kind of Labels are a really big one for me.

The Open/Save dialogs are really lacking. You can't view by date, can't type a letter to go to. I would really like to turn off column view. I really like the Open/Save dialogs of System 9.



I vote for this one too and the ability to manage things inside the Save window (rename a folder, change the folder label color...) before saving a file. For now you have to go find the folder, modify things then get back to the app to open Save box.


Tabbed folders would be nice. Actually being able to split the dock up would work well. [...] If I could split the dock up then I could use it for tabbed folders, at least if they put spring loaded folders in it.


I mourn the old Launcher aiblity to switch between categories of buttons (Video, Office, Graphics... for example) : I tried 3rd party solutions but nothing equals the old Laucher ease of use.
You always have to : keep the original dock hidden while using Dragthing for example or have several docks or use a control console to switch between docks...
I think Apple could come with a clever way to switch between different docks (for the Applications part only, keeping the minimized folders, files, windows common to different docks), even by simply dragging a file of the adequate icon.
Imagine 4 icons a the left side of the dock representing 4 different dock configs; then when you drag a file on the "Graphics" icon, it displays your graphics apps, you then drop you jpg file on you Graphic Converter icon and the dock can even go back to its standard (read common used apps) config. The user can use customized icons etc.
The advantage is that besides the icons corresponding to different docks, nothing goes against Apple GUI coherence. And use of separators. And the dock will still look alike the one we have now.


More themes. I want a neutral gray one, something like the platinum color of System 9.


I would just say a less intrusive Graphite one (Graphite contrast too much with windows textures/backgrounds) and maybe flatter scroll buttons (like the new ones in dialog boxes). Graphite folders also : when you works on graphics, the more discreet the GUI the better.


Some way to move windows besides the title bar. I'm not sure I want borders like in System 9, but a key combo or something. I've already had to deal with stuck windows that I couldn't move because I couldn't get to the title bar, just like before System 8 days.


Triple "yes" to this one.


A recent servers menu like back in System 9. Also I should be able to select the recent docs, folders, and apps menu and let go so that a window opens up with the alias in it. Like the way it works in System 9.


Yeah true.

Also, I would like a way to edit favorites in "Go To" dialog box displaying the connected servers list : since Jaguar doesn't see all the Macs on a network, I often have to use the IP address of the one I want to reach. I would like to be able to name it like I want and edit its IP address (you know like in some browsers Favorites ;) ). Also I use different networks (Powerbook owner) and I would like to be able to clear the recent servers list (many macs I will never see again).

[IonCable]

I'd like to see a system level theme support or at least more customization built in. I know there are haxies, but I avoid them. I like a stable system that doesn't get broke with an update.

Of example I'd like a "icon library" and when I make a new folder be able to use a contextual menu to select a custom icon for it. I'd like more color choices than Graphite and Aqua.

Pop-up windows would be nice. I know I can put folders in the dock but I like pop-up folders.

I want all apps to be Dock a where and NOT open windows into the dock space.

However I Love OS X since the beta

[C.J. Moof]

I'd love a remote login system like Window's RDP. Timbuktu and VNC are nice, but they're pathetically slow compared to RDP. Give me a java-based client app that I can carry on my USB keychain drive, or run in a webpage like gotomypc.com.

Applescript Folder Actions.

When previewing a jpeg in column view, tell me the pixel dimensions.

Stop apps from declaring themselves the frontmost as they feel like. If Stuffit Expander was a physical object, I woulda smacked it with a baseball bat LONG ago for throwing it's progress window in front of me while I'm typing a letter/email/forum post/ect. The user should control what app is frontmost, not the computer. It should NEVER interrupt my interaction with the interface unless it needs to tell me my chair is on fire. You are my servant, computer. Act like it.

More transparent window feedback, as in the brightness and volume controls. What if that stuffit progress bar was a click-through onionskin where I could see what was happening, while I continued to write this post? Then diskcopy could mount the .img and keep me informed the same way. I would love that.

[daftpig]

Originally posted by Terri:


More themes. I want a neutral gray one, something like the platinum color of System 9.


You could try a theme called 'workspace'... it's on the site from which Makki is downloaded from.. not sure if it's by the same author tho.

But it's the MOST neutral of themes I've come across for X. it doesnt have the bluish tint of graphite... just gray but a much lighter gray than platinum tho.


kwok

[clebin]

I agree that the Finder still isn't good enough.

Particularly the Connect To Server functionality. My AD domains from work still appear when I'm at home. If I accidentally click on one, it goes searching. While it does this 10 minute search, it locks up the Finder so you can't even restart it.

And as I explained in another thread, SMB in the Finder still has problems that the command line smbclient doesn't.

EDIT: And the fact that you can browse to the server, but not see what shares are available is plain crap. There's a command line utility for this - why not incorporate this into Jaguar's 'marvellous' networking GUI?

CUPS is also something of a botch to get working.

Considering they made such a big thing of networking in Jaguar, you think they would bothered to make this stuff work first. Traditional Apple ease-of-use is being heavily compromised in this area.

Chris

ps. oh, and let's have the install CD boot straight into the Finder a la OS 9.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by C.J. Moof:
Stop apps from declaring themselves the frontmost as they feel like. If Stuffit Expander was a physical object, I woulda smacked it with a baseball bat LONG ago for throwing it's progress window in front of me while I'm typing a letter/email/forum post/ect. The user should control what app is frontmost, not the computer. It should NEVER interrupt my interaction with the interface unless it needs to tell me my chair is on fire. You are my servant, computer. Act like it.

Wow. One of the best feedbacks I've seen so far.

[pliny]

printing in the finder ala desktop printer would be nice to see again. don't know why this was ever removed, it is very useful.

[macaddled]

Originally posted by pliny:
printing in the finder ala desktop printer would be nice to see again. don't know why this was ever removed, it is very useful.

how? I always found the desktop printer idea unnecessary and annoying. what function did it serve that can't be emulated by having the print center in the dock?

[Terri]

Originally posted by daftpig:

But it's the MOST neutral of themes I've come across for X. it doesnt have the bluish tint of graphite... just gray but a much lighter gray than platinum tho.

That would be a start, but platinum is still the best. I came to computers from being a photographer. Platinum is real close to the 18% grey cards that we would use for calibration. They really got it right when platinum came out.

Also I really don't want to hack my system with themes that always seem to break or get messed up someplace.



_

[clarkgoble]

I have to agree that other applications bringing up windows is annoying. That's the #1 complaint I have on Windows which does it *all* the time. It is also a security risk in public environments as it frequently happens while I'm typing a password. OSX is actually considerably better in this regard, and I believe it is GUI guidelines to simply have the hopping icon in the dock. But there are a few, like Stuffit, that chap my hide.

Two other things I thought about are more for Unix weenies. First off some standard GUI for common Unix commands would be nice. They don't have to be known to users. We have the /Developers directory for all those (potentially dangerous) tools. Why not one like that for some Unix apps like a GUI for cron or related things. Perhaps Apple has an incentive not to do this because of OSX Server, but many tools would do to have a common interface.

On the other hand a lot of this would become somewhat moot if there was a TK port to Aqua so we could do that easier with Python or (ugh) Perl. Yeah you can do a lot of this with Applescript Studio. But I think paying a couple of college kids for an internship could develop a lot of this. Hell, pay some shareware dude a few thousand for their apps would sometimes do the job - and probably give them more money than they'll earn by shareware payments.

Regarding the Open window. I agree with all those comments. Some of those can be fixed with Default Folder. But the column view in both the Finder and the Open dialog does need more features as outlined.

BTW - does apple have a suggestion booth for these things? Do they actual read it? I'm curious as some of these suggestions seem pretty easy to implement. (As opposed to things like comments/labels which pose many conceptual problems)

[pliny]

Originally posted by macaddled:


what function did it serve that can't be emulated by having the print center in the dock?

printing in the finder--that is, dragging x number of documents to the printer icon, which would then spool and print each one by opening the app, spooling, closing the doc,printing the doc, etc. it was very quick. can't do that in X. can't drag anything to print center.

[El Pre$idente]

I want labels, speedy resizing, proper video acceleration (the interface jerky if you open a few different vids) and would like the Finder to have better multithreading.

Internet performance is very poor and for some reason I don't think it's the fault of all the browsers since they have all tried their best and none of them are as fast as Windows or Classic versions.

[k2director]

1) I'd like to see applications running in the background **NOT** slow down the interface for active apps. When I do a long render in Final Cut, and then go to Word or Navigator so I can continue to be productive, why does Final Cut's render (which is in the background) have to slow down Word or Navigator so much? (on a Ti 800). It shouldn't...

2) For PowerBooks, X's Finder often hangs when you go to sleep while connected to external servers (another Mac, idisk, etc.), and then wake up in a new location, without having a net connection.

3) This isn't OS X specific, but related: why don't more Apple apps use multi-threads? In Quicktime, if you do an export, it should run as a thread, so you can continue to do other stuff in the Player. Same thing with Final Cut--exporting and capturing should be a process that doesn't stop you from using the rest of the program.

4) In general, the interface could still be quicker when it comes to switching apps (it takes a second for open apps to come up when called from the Dock) and window scrolling is still bothersome.

[C.J. Moof]

Originally posted by macaddled:


how? I always found the desktop printer idea unnecessary and annoying. what function did it serve that can't be emulated by having the print center in the dock?

I liked desktop printing for the time you realize that your officemate is printing a 250 page document on the printer you just need that one simple page before the client meeting... open desktop printer, pick up your document, drop it onto an alternate printer, problem solved. I like having an interface element for each printer, with an icon that even LOOKS like the physical object it controls, vs Print Center's one-icon-fits-all approach. The ability to just pick up a document and drop it onto a printer was never really that useful, but just kinda cool.

I was going to compare this to how you'd do it with X and print center, but I'm forced to look at the pinwheel for about 7-10 seconds every time I ask for a print dialog. Aaaarrgggh. So let's put "speed up the print time!!!" onto the list. Well, speed up everything, really.....

And on the topic of printing, Paper Feed used to be on the first tab of the print dialog, where it belongs. I find the most commonly tweaked options to be the page range and a specific paper tray, which now takes visiting both Copies and Pages and Paper Feed screens on the laserwriter driver.
I will give praise for finally allowing mutiple, named presets and save as PDF right on the printer dialog tho. Those are wishes come true for me.


I think it's terrible that when you hide an app, it's minimized dock windows dissapear from the dock. But the dock icon doesn't (fortunately!) So I was to minimize my post window, switch to mail and hide others, I have to select the Omniweb app from the dock (getting a new blank window I don't want!), watch the document return to the dock, and then maximize my document to return to where I am now. Yuck. I put the document in the dock, I'd like it to stay there until I ask for it. I'd like my dock to not remove documents from it until I click them, drag them out, or quit the app. In my mind, the dock contents should be immune from the hiding command... my dock is already hidden until I go ask for it.

And could we PLEASE go back to updating a window's contents as soon as something is added to it, and not wait for a click to refresh it? As in get email with attachment, drag attachment to desktop, but then have to click Finder to the frontmost for the desktop to reflect that the attachment was copied there. We had this right many years ago.... I used to laugh at Win for needing a "refresh" contextual menu. I don't anymore.

"Connect to Server" is kinda confusing. My lefthand column looks like this:
MOOF
Moof Zone
moof.com
Local
WORKGROUP

(okay, not really, but I should be working... I'm not announcing where I'm not working :D) MOOF= NT Domain, shows SMB clients. Moof Zone= Appletalk Zone. moof.com= I have no idea where it gets that from, it's blank. Local pulls the same list as Moof Zone, afaik. Workgroup does nothing. So behind which door is that server with the file I need?
At least give them differing icons... those of us on the forums might know the difference between an Appletalk zone and an NT domain, but the account rep down than hall doesn't care and shouldn't be expected to learn.

xi_hyperon: much appreciated!

[C.J. Moof]

Originally posted by C.J. Moof:
Applescript Folder Actions.



I actually just stumbled upon folder actions. I felt like Arthur Dent searching out the Display Department, but I found them.

I can't really tell why they decided to move from a contextual menu item to an interface based on running scripts to control this feature, but it is there. It seems to run on closed folders now too!

[clarkgoble]

Yeah, Print Center really needs to be drag and drop aware. I'd not thought of that because I rarely need to do it. But that is something that is (a) easy to add and (b) a glaring omission.

An other thing that has always bugged me is the inability to print directories from the Finder. Yeah there is shareware and having the Shell solves a lot of that now. However for "newbies" and just plain convenience it really ought to have a "Print" menu.

One other final thought. Am I the only one who hates the way the horizonal scroll bar works in the finder? When you click to the right or left of the tab in the scroll bar it doesn't move right or left one directory but "jumps" to that position in the graphical display. Trying to go up or down a directory is a pain in the Finder Column view. Once again something that ought to be trivial to fix and I honestly can't imagine anyone really liking it the way it is.


Once again -- anyone know where to send suggestions to Apple?

[voodoo]

Labels, labels, labels!

<said in a developer, developers, developers! kind of way>

[CheesePuff]

Originally posted by gorgonzola:


They actually do have both. Cmd-I does the old-school Get Info (multiple windows) and Cmd-Opt-I (single window inspector) does that thing you're looking for. You have to hit cmd-opt instead of cmd, but hey, at least it's there.

Holy poo you are the coolest.

[Ibson]

Originally posted by k2director:
1) I'd like to see applications running in the background **NOT** slow down the interface for active apps. When I do a long render in Final Cut, and then go to Word or Navigator so I can continue to be productive, why does Final Cut's render (which is in the background) have to slow down Word or Navigator so much? (on a Ti 800). It shouldn't...

...

3) This isn't OS X specific, but related: why don't more Apple apps use multi-threads? In Quicktime, if you do an export, it should run as a thread, so you can continue to do other stuff in the Player. Same thing with Final Cut--exporting and capturing should be a process that doesn't stop you from using the rest of the program.

...

1) This just isn't how computers work. For your dream to come true, you'd need a pretty powerful multi-processor machine. If you wanted Word to continue being responsive while you render, Final Cut Pro would have to take 10 times as long to complete the render. It's simply impossible to have a very processor-intensive task such as rendering going on, and then expect to be able to have good performance in other apps. on a single 800 MHz G4.

2) This is related to #1. Playing a movie is processor intensive. Exporting one is even more so. Doing those two things at the same time on a SP machine is ludicrous! Everything would slow to a crawl. Especially in something like FCP.

Any threaded task on a single processor machine is going to be slower than one running in the main thread. You know OmniWeb? It uses many threads, meaning it can crawl on a SP machine. Switch over to a DP one, and its so much faster.

What you want is simply impossible. Sorry.

[PowerMatt]

I want to be able to switch users (a la Win XP) while keeping programs running. I wouldn't mind stripped down Aqua but if it were there I would use it. The dock still needs improvement. Finally, I don't like how when i print in Word v.X, when I change settings in the print dialog, the "Print" buttons will expand behind the dock and sometimes off the screen altogether.

[OverclockedHomoSapien]

Originally posted by Terri:


That would be a start, but platinum is still the best. I came to computers from being a photographer. Platinum is real close to the 18% grey cards that we would use for calibration. They really got it right when platinum came out.

Also I really don't want to hack my system with themes that always seem to break or get messed up someplace.

_

No, YOU like Platinum the best. Many other Mac users have embraced Aqua as their favorite GUI and forgot about Platinum long ago.

Me, I love Aqua. It's gorgeous while being highly functional. Most of the eye candy serves a purpose, and compared to Windows XP Aqua is downright subtle. Where XP is gaudy and ugly, OS X is pretty and functional.


Well this is only MY opinion, but I think Aqua is the best GUI EVER designed for a personal computer. And since it's MY OWN opinion, it's more right than anyone else's opinion! ;)

[chris_h]

Originally posted by Ibson:


2) This is related to #1. Playing a movie is processor intensive. Exporting one is even more so. Doing those two things at the same time on a SP machine is ludicrous!

My bullsh!t detector is going crazy.

On my 800mhz machine, I can be exporting a movie to MP4 in quicktime, and I can watch another movie (even something proc intensive like a divx) either in finder preview mode or one of the many shareware movie player apps.

The fact that quicktime player won't do anything else while its exporting is just lame.

[OverclockedHomoSapien]

Originally posted by pliny:


printing in the finder--that is, dragging x number of documents to the printer icon, which would then spool and print each one by opening the app, spooling, closing the doc,printing the doc, etc. it was very quick. can't do that in X. can't drag anything to print center.

Yeah this was a sweet feature. I never used it often, but when I did use it it was nice to have.

There are many details like this from OS 9 that OS X still needs to acquire. One wonders how many of the features are planned, and if planned, how many are actually done. I can envision Apple sitting on a mountain of small features derived from OS 9 so that they can bundle the features into each OS X point release for several years, thus providing a more compelling reason to pay for OS X upgrades. For example, I suspect that spring loaded folders were completed in time for the 10.0.0 release, but Apple waited so they would have a reason to charge full price for the Jaguar update.

It's all a diabolical plot, man!!!

[biscuit]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
BTW - does apple have a suggestion booth for these things?

Yes they do. Its called the Mac OS X Feedback Page (http://www.apple.com/macosx/feedback/) and I think we should all have it bookmarked.

Do they actual read it?

Who knows. But if we all send in enough feedback then the message will get through.

You guys should also check out this thread (http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=124248), although thats more about bugs.

biscuit

[OreoCookie]

A new filesystem. Just read an article about the new FreeBSD filesystem that is (sort of) journaled.
Other than that, a smart integration of database-like features into the filesystem would be very cool, especially for offices with several thousand docs.

A fluent GUI, I don't want to swim through molasses. Ever.

[khufuu]

The total annihilation of that evil little spinning lollipop would be my fav.....

[waffffffle]

Apple needs to implement classic window layering at the OS level. The current hacks that do it don't do it all that well, windows still pop up out of nowhere. I hate that an application's windows can be mixed in between another app's windows. That's just stupid. I guess it should be an option for those people that actually like it, but I can't stand it.

[chris_h]

Originally posted by waffffffle:
I hate that an application's windows can be mixed in between another app's windows.

I seriously don't understand what you're saying... you want something like single window mode?
don't you work with more than one app at a time?

[chris v]

Originally posted by chris_h:


I seriously don't understand what you're saying... you want something like single window mode?
don't you work with more than one app at a time?

He's probably referring to the stacking order, where different app's windows get between one another when you've got multiple apps with multiple windows open. If you click on a window title bar, just that window will com forward, instead of all the windows belonging to the app. I think if you click on the app icon in the dock, they'll all come foreward.

CV

[beb]

Shaded list-view windows.

[chris v]

Add option to turn off menu blinking/fade-out. This would do tons of good as far as percieved speed goes.

CV

[mrwalker]

Originally posted by gorgonzola:


They actually do have both. Cmd-I does the old-school Get Info (multiple windows) and Cmd-Opt-I (single window inspector) does that thing you're looking for. You have to hit cmd-opt instead of cmd, but hey, at least it's there.

If you click on the file menu in finder and tap the option key, you can see the menu item changing back & forth from on e to the ohter. This works in a few other menus too.

-mrwalker

[P]

I want the OS the wake everytime I sleep it, instead of just the first time after reboot (it goes into coma the other times). Other than that, I have to say that I'm good.

[pliny]

that coma thing is a total drag. i put it to bed last night and this morning the green light was on, case hot. Coma. :o

friggin irritating.

[MindFad]

�The idea for a stripped down Aqua I second loudly. And maybe more themes, or the ability to choose any damn colors I want.

�Window resizing. It's not really a big deal to me, but it would be nice if it were fixed, eh?

�Scrolling. If scrolling were like OS 9, I swear I'd be the happiest Mac head ever. Scrolling is greatly improved in Jaguar, but damn I wish it were at least close to 9. (Especially in Photoshop, GFDI!)

That's it. Give me my performance. Well, give me better performance. X is fast, faster than 9 at quite a few things, I noticed, but some GUI elements are ... well, gooey.

[rgoer]

Originally posted by waffffffle:
Apple needs to implement classic window layering at the OS level. The current hacks that do it don't do it all that well, windows still pop up out of nowhere. I hate that an application's windows can be mixed in between another app's windows. That's just stupid. I guess it should be an option for those people that actually like it, but I can't stand it.

(Bold emphasis added par moi, since that is the point I'm going to address)

There is some subtle reasoning to the layering method Apple chose for the Aqua window manager... it is Apple's way of politely nudging, herding, corralling OS X developers in the direction of document-centrality, rather than application-centrality. Things like Services, minimized Dock windows, Sheets (print, save, open [have they implimented an "open" sheet yet?]) are built for this. These things might seem a bit crippled right now (Services anyone?), but once developers swallow the bitter pill that is "bleeding-edge-design-paradigm," it is these Document-central features of OS X that will knock your socks, shoes, pants, and underpants off.

The reason it pisses you, and me, and everybody off so much (right now) when the window layering seems stupid is because the lion's share of OS X apps were designed while the programmers were wearing the same thinking cap they wear when they design an app for Classic Mac OS or the Windows MDI.

Photoshop is not the only application in the world, I know this. Bear with me... I'm going to use Photoshop as an example of what I'm talking about:

Ever used Photoshop on Windows? All your document windows are housed within a larger, "top-level" Photoshop nest window. This window has all Photoshop's menus and such in its title bar. No document window (or toolbar window, or pallette window, or color-picker window, etc) may leave the boundaries of this Photoshop nest window. This is a window layering system that is stupid. If Photoshop encounters a problem while minimized, and need the attention of the user, in order to pop-up an alert dialog window, the entire nest window has to be brought forward.

Oh, dear god, please don't let anybody interpret that last paragraph as my desire to start some lame fscking OS X/Windows debate of merits. That was not my intent. Too much of that lately around here...

Photoshop for Mac OS X has different problems, but they are still problems that center around the fact that Photoshop thinks of itself as an "application" that creates, houses, modifies, and saves documents, rather than as an abstract environment in which a particular, Photoshop-specific set of actions and services may be executed. In the Photoshop environment, every document window should have hooks and widgets for any control that said document would need access to. With the current window layering, floating pallette and toolbar windows are easily lost if the user has many windows open and switches appliactions frequently. They provide a supreme example of how not to do things, of how this (potentially awesome) window layering system can suck when apps are designed without consideration of all this OS has to offer.

Sorry to ramble... let me summarize. Documents are the future of this OS, not Applications. Once software developers figure this out, the window layering will: 1) make sense; 2) not suck; 3) make itself known as a godsend; and 4) cement OS X's place at the forefront of OS innovation.

[Terri]

I don't see it. If I switch to Photoshop I want all the parts of Photoshop and it's open documents, not just a piece of it.

I often have Photoshop, GoLive, Illustrator, IE, Netscape, Quark, Outlook, Palm, BBEdit, and a bunch of other little apps open. When I switch from one app to another I need all it's pieces because that is what I'm working on.

I don't want to have to go hunt down open windows either in the dock or under some other apps window.

All this talk about services sounds a lot like publish and subscribe or Open Doc or whatever it was called.

I hate the Windows does it, that is why I use a Mac. Some of the things that they have done in Mac 10 makes me wonder if they had anybody around who did production work on a Mac when they decided on this new interface.

All these ideas sound great, but first let's just get this new system working as well as it did in System 9, then show me a better way of doing things. So far all they have down is make it harder for me to get my work done in System 10.

[rgoer]

Originally posted by Terri:
...So far all they have down is make it harder for me to get my work done in System 10.

Agreed. However, once they (Apple and OS X app developers) figure it out, your workflow will become like butter... smooth, creamy butter.

You are 100% correct that you should not have to hunt down a zillion individual Photoshop windows in order to get any work done. My opinion is, those windows shouldn't even be there.

Document Toolbars (and Drawers, for that matter), once fully explored, should make all "floating" non-document windows obsolete. That way, the only windows you are having to sort out are Document windows.

Which is the way it should be. The only windows you have period should be document windows. At that point, layering-related confusion of windows should become a thing of the past.

Better use of the Dock on Apple's part should help this out as well. (i.e. if they want developers to think more doc-centrically, why are only Applications given spots in the Dock? Shouldn't it be each Document, not Application that has a space? And clearly labeled, too, but that's a whole other can of worms...)

[Liudger]

Multiple desktops that would be a great feature!!
I know there is an app that can do it (although a little buggy)
but it can be done in a different way;) (and we make users like that)

If you have the money you would have 2 monitors for your work.
One for your workspace and one for your palettes or modifiers.
The problem is that you need a lot money and it's a lot of moving with your mouse. So there must be a better way.

That is the multiple desktop option. If you press a certain key the screen will switch desktop (with use of quartz extreem this could be done nice) and you can select the modifier you want to use on your work (just have you mouse floating above the palette). Now you press another key that will switch back to your workspace except the palette will be floating (transparent, smaller or just normal) in the corner of your screen with your cursor above it so you can adjust your image, video or 3d model in realtime.
With quartz extreem this should be working fast so you don't need a second monitor and it's less mousing.

I hope i described it clear enough.

[rgoer]

Originally posted by Terri:
I don't see it. If I switch to Photoshop I want all the parts of Photoshop and it's open documents, not just a piece of it...(Hate to make two replies, but I just got a completely different idea, and it's on slightly different subject, so...)



Let's think about this: If I switch to Photoshop I want all the parts of Photoshop and it's open documents. Is that really the way you want to work?

Let's pretend you are me, and have anywhere between thirty and one million separate projects going on at any given time. Some of them are graphic design-related, and may be done in Photoshop, or Illustrator, or Quark, or Cinema4D, et cetera. Some of them are text-based, and might be papers or something done in AppleWorks or TextEdit or Word, or maybe application developement code in Project Builder. Some might be something unique entirely, hard to categorize. Anyway, we would hope that there wouldn't be too terribly many of these open at one time, especially if they were all from vastly different "categories" (as we defined them here).

But let's take the categorization to a deeper level: let's categorize the documents themselves, not the applications, and let's categorize them according to what relevence they hold to other documents.

Let's say that one of the projects we've got going is that we are working on a 3D project in Cinema4D, a polygon model of a schoolbus. Also, we are working on the textures for that schoolbus in Photoshop (and maybe Illustrator).

To keep things simple, the only other project we're actively working on is some web design; we've got a couple of HTML documents open in TextEdit and we are doing some images in Photoshop.

The way you seem to want things done (and correct me if I'm wrong), is that you want it to be thus: you App-switch into Photoshop, and all open Photoshop documents are brought to the front, allowing you to pick which one you want to work on. All other Photoshop windows (tool palletes, etc) are also brought forward. You can resume work in Photoshop.

(Hate to repeat myself, but) is that really the way you want to work? Wouldn't it make more sense if you could switch according to the project? According to the relevence of the Docuement, not the Application?

Back to my hypothetical: we're hard at work on the polygonal schoolbus in Cinema4D, and we're ready to start texturing it. We import the .psd files as the textures, but--lo and behold, we made a mistake! We spelled "school" "shcool" and need to correct the error in Photoshop. I propose that the future will involve not switching Applications to "Photoshop," but instead switching Documents to "SchoolbusTex.psd."

Just think, if the Schoolbus.c4d document was a self-contained and self-sufficient window, as was the SchoolbusTex.psd document, we could window-switch between two Documents that were created in separate Application environments but hold the same relevence to the end result (work-wise, that is) we are trying to achieve. The important thing here is this: switching to the SchoolbusTex.psd document to edit it in the Photoshop environment would not bring forward the web-bound images of Jennifer Garner we are also working on in the Photoshop environment.

That is not to say, though, that the SchoolbusTex.psd window will be crippled, relying on other windows to get its work done. All the features that now exist in "floating," non-document windows, must be incorporated into each document window. This is the future of user interfaces. Window-based Toolbars (a la the Finder, OmniWeb, System Preferences, et al) and Drawers hold the key. "Floating" windows are a weak design habit; they ask too much of the user (think of all the time and muscle memory we've invested into the knowledge of: A) the Photoshop tool pallete will be in the upper-left corner of the screen, and B) the exact location of each tool within said palette), and offer so little in return (there is so little room for user-feedback in those palletes that Adobe had to come up with a whole other toolbar, resting right under the fscking menu bar--but I won't get into that--in order to house the necessary feedback information!) that I have grown to hate them. But that has probably become obvious... ;-)

So, at this point, we corrected the misspelling and are going to call that shite a day. Oh, but wait! Just thought of a great little bit of dHTML we needed for that Alias site, and realized that we forgot to "save for web" those Garner images in Photoshop. We can now switch to our web-related documents easily, and without cluttering up our workspace with the other Docuements created in Photoshop (SchoolbusTex.psd). This is what I'm talking about.

And, though I sound like a broken record when I say it, once Services get off the ground, this will get even better.

Anyway, the long and short of it: it should be made easy for us to switch from document to document, or even from project to project, rather than them lazily forcing us into accomodating a lack of developmental vision by switching from app to app.

[Terri]

Originally posted by rgoer:
The way you seem to want things done (and correct me if I'm wrong), is that you want it to be thus: you App-switch into Photoshop, and all open Photoshop documents are brought to the front, allowing you to pick which one you want to work on. All other Photoshop windows (tool palletes, etc) are also brought forward. You can resume work in Photoshop.


That is how I want it to work. Just having the document does me no good because all the tools are not there, often it is more then one document in the program that I need. Also I often have 3 or 4 documents in Photoshop that I'm dragging bits and pieces around from.

Don't tell me that my html editor and my image editor are going to have the same sets of tools because I don't need or want the same set of tools for both. It would be a pallet mess!

I can already drag and drop between running programs and if I use publish and subscribe then I only have one file to update.

This is how things are in the real world. We have sets of tools to do certain things, think applications. I can't use my plumbing tools to do yard work or my yard tools to fix a leaky pipe. It's all part of my house, think document, but all the tools are different.

[oharag]

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:


Wow. One of the best feedbacks I've seen so far.

Didn't MacOS 9.0 have a feature that alerted you that another application needed your attention without allowing that app to interfer with your current application?

Windows software is very rude. All the apps take precedent over others. I'm always interupted by other SW jumping to the front while I'm trying to do something.

Can't say I've noticed this on MacOS X yet. Hopefully Apple implements what they had in 9.

[Terri]

Originally posted by oharag:


Didn't MacOS 9.0 have a feature that alerted you that another application needed your attention without allowing that app to interfer with your current application?

The Applications menu blinks and if you click on it there is a bullet in front of the app that needs your attention, works great.

[oharag]

Originally posted by gorgonzola:


They actually do have both. Cmd-I does the old-school Get Info (multiple windows) and Cmd-Opt-I (single window inspector) does that thing you're looking for. You have to hit cmd-opt instead of cmd, but hey, at least it's there.

gorgonzola, thanks. I kind of missed the stationary information window. Thanks for the tip. I used to hate opening seven different windows to compare info.

[oharag]

Originally posted by Terri:


Tabbed folders would be nice. Actually being able to split the dock up would work well. I already use Windowshade and Fruit menu so right now I'm really just using the dock for an application switcher along with ASM. If I could split the dock up then I could use it for tabbed folders, at least if they put spring loaded folders in it.

I miss OS 9 pull down window on the right side that showed open apps. It had a hide all, show only, etc... I believe this functionality is now available with ASM. Still I miss it. I guess Apple wants everyone to use the Dock for everything. I'm just not comfortable with it yet. Bring back window shade functionality. When I double click on the menu bar it shrinks to the Dock. I have to travel over there (it seems like miles) to reoprn the window.

The Dock seems limited for space. How many things should I be expected to stuff onto it? (Again I miss MacOS 9 functionality that allowed alias to be placed in the Apple Menu Folder).

I thought I say a screen shot of someone's desktop that showed tabbed windows on the Dock. Each Tab was for Apps, Utili, et al. Does anyone know of this functionality?

[Graymalkin]

OSX needs iOptimizethedamnharddrive or maybe iDefragment. I think the decision NOT to include a disk optimizer into OSX is a bit of an oversight. Don't go and point to fsck either, you're LUCKY if it doesn't hose your partition.

Think for a second about all the read-write files on your OSX partition. There's various program cache files, config files, logs, virtual memory blocks, everything in /User, and dozens of application resources in .app bundles. HFS+ does not do the best job of keeping these files arranged efficiently and UFS definitely doesn't do much of a job at all.

App loading speed would be much increased by optimizing all bundles and frameworks to reside on the beginning of the drive saving the rest of the space for document files. Those of us on laptops running 4200rpm hard drives are especially aware of the inefficiencies of the file system's optimizations. If the solution were as simple as just upgrading to a 5400rpm drive I'd go that route but after a while the fragmentation on my drive would eat up my performance gain. I want a native disk optimizer! I don't want to pay an extra $50-$80 for Diskwarrior or Norton.

I also agree with the Aqua replacement, Quartz is a fine rendering system. Aqua however loads far too much onto it to have it run well on anything but the fastest uberhertz G4. Cocoa apps are transparent to aqua, when you call NSButton you're calling the Cocoa object, not a specific Aqua object. A drop-in replacement for Aqua is entirely possible, preferably one that makes a little less of a requirement on my processor.

[oharag]

Cmd-W closes a window, Cmd-M minimzes. What Cmd key combo allows me to maximize a window?

[rgoer]

Originally posted by Terri:
Just having the document does me no good because all the tools are not there, often it is more then one document in the program that I need. Also I often have 3 or 4 documents in Photoshop that I'm dragging bits and pieces around from.

Don't tell me that my html editor and my image editor are going to have the same sets of tools because I don't need or want the same set of tools for both. It would be a pallet mess!

I can already drag and drop between running programs and if I use publish and subscribe then I only have one file to update.

This is how things are in the real world. We have sets of tools to do certain things, think applications. I can't use my plumbing tools to do yard work or my yard tools to fix a leaky pipe. It's all part of my house, think document, but all the tools are different.

You seem to have misread my (grantedly, quite long) post... for one thing, in the future about which I speak, there will be no palettes.

Your HTML editing environment will, clearly, not have the same toolset as the Photoshop environment, but that will all be taken care of by the different documents' toolbars and drawers, not palette windows.

And all those Photoshop documents you are currently dragging and dropping bits and pieces between, wouldn't it be handy if you didn't have all the other Photoshop clutter (palettes, menu-toolbar, etc) blocking your view of the work you are trying to accomplish?

Your tool analogy is accurate to the present paradigm of doing things. But, the future of Mac OS X lies within this allegory: we have a set of chores that need to be done, think projects. There are many different facets of those chores that all need to completed in order to call the chore "done" (i.e. "clean the kitchen" = "sweep the floor" + "do the dishes" + "wipe down the counters" + "take out the trash"), and each one of those facets needs to be attacked in a different way.

Here is where it gets different: in your way of doing things, it is up to the user to pick the right tool for the job and then get that part of the project done. The future, and the reason for the window-layering system being like it is today, is that it will only be up to the user to pick the piece of the projcet that they want to work on (think document), and the right tools will be given to them based on what that document actually is.

But there won't be any fscking palettes to get in the way, either!.

The beauty of that system will be realized as soon as you think about trying to "clean the kitchen" at the same time you are "washing the car," "raking the leaves," "reading the paper," and "fixing the lawnmower." I mean, come on! Feel like I'm whipping a dead horse here, but think about it.

[Terri]

Originally posted by rgoer:



But there won't be any fscking palettes to get in the way, either!.



I don't want my pallets in drawers or stuck to the side of some window. I want them out where I can see them, think about what tool it is that I want to use. In Photoshop I have so many tools that I need a second monitor just to keep them all in the open, same with GoLive. No matter what I still need these tools to work on my document. This isn't even counting all the document windows that I often keep open for access to my libraries of elements of pieces like logos and bits of code.

Do you actually do design and production work? This idea that you have will not work in the real world. If this is where Apple is going then they really are in trouble and better hire some folks from the trade to learn how their products are really used in the real world.


_

[drmcnutt]

Originally posted by rgoer:


You seem to have misread my (grantedly, quite long) post... for one thing, in the future about which I speak, there will be no palettes.



Try TAB to toggle those pallettes out of the way in Photoshop and the myriad shortcut keys to select tools so you won't rely on those pallettes.

DRM

[rgoer]

Originally posted by Terri:
Do you actually do design and production work? This idea that you have will not work in the real world. If this is where Apple is going then they really are in trouble and better hire some folks from the trade to learn how their products are really used in the real world.

Yes, I actually do design and production work, and you are correct: at present, palettes and floating toolbars are a good way to do things. An even better way can be seen in Alias|Wavefront's software: the marking menus from Maya and Studio are a true boon to good workflow.

I'm not claiming to have all the UI answers, here, but let's think about what you said: In Photoshop I have so many tools that I need a second monitor just to keep them all in the open...

I know exactly what you mean: I keep my After Effects and C4D layouts so widely opened up that anything less than two monitors makes them feel cramped and useless.

However, what I'm screaming is: is that really a good way to get work done? Shouldn't we be able to keep (all) our screens full of actual work instead of UI clutter? As soon as applications stop thinking of themselves as singular, isolated entities and start to realize that it is the fscking content we are creating that is actually important, the remedies will start to flow. And believe me, as much as you might disagree with me now, you will appreciate it.

[rgoer]

Originally posted by drmcnutt:
Try TAB to toggle those pallettes out of the way in Photoshop and the myriad shortcut keys to select tools so you won't rely on those pallettes.

You're preaching to the choir here, brother... believe me, this is the only way to fly.

[Terri]

Originally posted by drmcnutt:


Try TAB to toggle those pallettes out of the way in Photoshop and the myriad shortcut keys to select tools so you won't rely on those pallettes.

DRM

It's tab in Photoshop, it's command J in GoLive, I know my shortcuts. I often do hid my pallets, but most of the time I have the ones that I'm using right now open, some windowshaded, some docked on the side of the screen, no not in Mac 10's doc.

What is being described is a suite like Coral Draw, or Word, or Apple Works. The last thing that I want is my programs turned into any type of does everything, but does nothing well.

I like the fact that the Mac is based around applications, not windows like Windows. Click on a apps window or switch to that app and I'm in that application's environment, but other environments are in the background if I want to drag and drop something on one of it's open windows.

Yeah sometimes I have to hide pallets, windowshade something, move objects around, but this is just like working in the real world. This IS the reason that I use a Mac. Macs work as if you are working with real objects, almost no learning involved, no trying to understand how the computer wants to do it, it doesn't get in the way of my creativity.



_

[cowerd]

I don't see it. If I switch to Photoshop I want all the parts of Photoshop and it's open documents, not just a piece of it.

I often have Photoshop, GoLive, Illustrator, IE, Netscape, Quark, Outlook, Palm, BBEdit, and a bunch of other little apps open. When I switch from one app to another I need all it's pieces because that is what I'm working on.
Do you actually use OSX? All Adobe apps bring up associated palettes whenever there is focus on a document window...in other words click on an Illustrator window and all open Illustrator palettes appear. If there is focus on another app all Adobe related app palettes disappear (a rather dubious feature).

If you want all open documents associated with an app, just TAB over with the Dock, or click on the Dock. Otherwise the active document is the one you click on--which is supposed to be a useful UI feature. Is that so wrong?

And the document-centric window model does work really well for Adobe drag-n-drop integration.

[Terri]

Originally posted by cowerd:

If you want all open documents associated with an app, just TAB over with the Dock, or click on the Dock. Otherwise the active document is the one you click on--which is supposed to be a useful UI feature. Is that so wrong?

Yes, it doesn't work well for me. I like to just click on the window I need, don't want to go hunting for a icon if a dock.

Actually I installed something that makes things work like they do in System 9 because I got sick of trying to do it the way the computer wanted me to do it.

I like the fact that the pallets hide when I switch out of the program in Adobe apps. If I'm not in the program then I don't need them. I just need to be able to see the program's open windows in case I want to drop something on one or click it to return to the program.

[ReggieX]

Why oh why can't Apple get the Finder right?
I just installed 10.2.1 and, once again, they've FUBAR'd the renaming. I make a new folder, and the "untitled folder" gets selected and IMMEDIATELY unselected. I then have to hit return to start naming it. This was working normally (ie the OS 9 way) in 10.1.x, why the hell did it suddenly break? From what I can see, renaming *individual* files is back to the old way, what happened?

[stew]

Originally posted by oharag:


I miss OS 9 pull down window on the right side that showed open apps. It had a hide all, show only, etc... I believe this functionality is now available with ASM. Still I miss it. I guess Apple wants everyone to use the Dock for everything. I'm just not comfortable with it yet. Bring back window shade functionality. When I double click on the menu bar it shrinks to the Dock. I have to travel over there (it seems like miles) to reoprn the window.

The Dock seems limited for space. How many things should I be expected to stuff onto it? (Again I miss MacOS 9 functionality that allowed alias to be placed in the Apple Menu Folder).
Bite the bullet and register Unsanity's WindowShadeX and FruityMenu. I paid for WindowShadeX and don't regret it, it was a good investion. I have given up any hope that Apple would ever fix that - they seem to be more after visual effects than actual usability after Jobs came back. It started with the horrible mouse of the iMacs and goes on to removing MIP before releasing 10.2.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by rgoer:
...resting right under the fscking menu bar...
...there won't be any fscking palettes to get in the way...
...it is the fscking content we are creating...
I think you're a little confused. Disk Utility is an app that does quite a bit of fscking, but to the best of my knowledge, Photoshop does not fsck at all, nor is it designed for that purpose. Perhaps your problem is that you're not using the correct tools for the task.

[rgoer]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
I think you're a little confused. Disk Utility is an app that does quite a bit of fscking, but to the best of my knowledge, Photoshop does not fsck at all, nor is it designed for that purpose. Perhaps your problem is that you're not using the correct tools for the task. tee-hee-hee

[Terri]

Originally posted by CharlesS:

I think you're a little confused. Disk Utility is an app that does quite a bit of fscking, but to the best of my knowledge, Photoshop does not fsck at all, nor is it designed for that purpose. Perhaps your problem is that you're not using the correct tools for the task.

ROTFLMAO


The sad part is that soon with services Photoshop will fsck disk and Disk Utility will do all your bit map, html, text editing and more.

[rgoer]

Originally posted by Terri:
The sad part is that soon with services Photoshop will fsck disk and Disk Utility will do all your bit map, html, text editing and more.

Holy crap! Did you not read what I wrote? Is English not your native language (if not, please forgive me... I mean no insult)? Of all the things I've written so far, absolutely none of them could be taken to mean "Photoshop will fsck disk and Disk Utility will do all your bit map, html, text editing and more."

Photoshop will still be a product you have to buy in order to use its particular set of tools when editing a document. Those tools will not be available for the user to use unless the Photoshop environment is installed.

If you are editing an image document, then the Photoshop tools will be available to you to use. But so might some Mail.app (or other email program) tools (in case you wanted to email the image).

If you are editing an HTML document, then the TextEdit tools (or other text/html editor) will be available to you to use. But so might those same Mail.app tools, and maybe even those Photoshop tools (so you can easily insert and modify graphics in this HTML document).

I mean, for fsck's sake! I feel like I've explained this fifty times! Do you understand? Unless something drastic changes with the direction in which Apple is prodding its OS X engineers, this is the future of this operating system.

[Terri]

Originally posted by rgoer:
I mean, for fsck's sake! I feel like I've explained this fifty times! Do you understand? Unless something drastic changes with the direction in which Apple is prodding its OS X engineers, this is the future of this operating system.

So then I can look forward to Photoshop making my morning coffee and Apple Works doing my laundry. Which program will feed my cats or will this all be done in iJunk?



Photoshop already does this. If you have an open document in Photoshop and you click on the bottom of the main tool pallet it will open the image in ImageReady. In ImageReady you can do the same thing and it will open in Photoshop. This is much like the way Services is suppose to work and this is fine. I sent the document to another program, saves me from having to choose open in that program, great.

That's all fine, but if I click on a program's open window I still want all of it's windows brought forward along with the application.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Terri:

That's all fine, but if I click on a program's open window I still want all of it's windows brought forward along with the application.

Right. And I want labels. Did I mention this already?

[cowerd]

So then I can look forward to Photoshop making my morning coffee and Apple Works doing my laundry. Which program will feed my cats or will this all be done in iJunk?No you'll still have to think, though with your ingrained habits you may not like that.
Photoshop already does this. If you have an open document in Photoshop and you click on the bottom of the main tool pallet it will open the image in ImageReady. In ImageReady you can do the same thing and it will open in Photoshop. This is much like the way Services is suppose to work and this is fine. I sent the document to another program, saves me from having to choose open in that program, great.Not Services, just Adobe compensating for lack of web strategy by providing two slightly bloated pieces of software instead of just one really bloated piece of software. Proper use of Services would allow you to spell check, interactively if you wish, and in whatever language you choose, while in PS, or any other program. It should allow you to FTP or email a file while in any app. There are also excellent word parsing servics that allow you to delete carriage returns and other fun stuff--excellent for bad Illustrator text imports--if it subscribed to services. Services is system wide not app specific, and potentially an excellent thing--if you actually stop to think about the potential, rather than just whining about how strange things are. There is alot of app specific redundancy (spell checkers, much of stuffit's extras) which could be centralized and improved upon with Services.
That's all fine, but if I click on a program's open window I still want all of it's windows brought forward along with the application.Use OS9.

[Terri]

Originally posted by voodoo:


Right. And I want labels. Did I mention this already?

Labels is right at the top of my list too.

Look at the bright side, we got a bunch of iApps that are of no use to me or most of the user base of Apple. So what that I now have to have little bits of paper all over the place with lists of files that I can't move, rename, or since Mac 10 can no longer Label.

Next I will be hiring someone to search and organize my file lists that I have on bits of paper all over my office. Maybe we can implant Services into my hired help�

This is progress, or at least this is what Apple wants us to believe.



I just want what we had, then come out with new ways of doing things.

[rgoer]

Originally posted by cowerd:
...There is alot of app specific redundancy (spell checkers, much of stuffit's extras) which could be centralized and improved upon with Services.

Exactly. This is what I'm talking about. Take Photoshop 7: granted, it is a better product than Photoshop 6, but think about how incredibly awesome it could have been if the programmers who were responsible for implimenting a Photoshop spell-check algorithm were, instead, assigned to some other, possibly innovative area of Photoshop engineering.

I mean, spell check is, at present, a system wide Service. They could have hooked that into Photoshop, allowed the user the option of disabling it (if they didn't want it for whatever reason), and gotten to work on something that could have been new and groundbreaking instead of something that ended up being the same old thing, just a few years too late.

P.S. cowerd: finally! It seems like you are the first person who understands what I'm talking about! It seems that the rampant disease I-miss-obsolete-way-of-doing-things-x-from-OS-9-itis has mutated, into a more frightening strain of I-steadfastly-refuse-to-be-pointed-in-the-direction-of-the-future-osis.

[Stephane]

Originally posted by Terri:

Do you actually do design and production work? This idea that you have will not work in the real world. If this is where Apple is going then they really are in trouble and better hire some folks from the trade to learn how their products are really used in the real world.


I have to agree with rgoer, being a web designer myself working often at the same time on Flash anims, Golive, BBEdit, 1 or 2 browsers, Photoshop, Imageready and iMovie, I understand, as you, what screen clutter means.

Now if I imagine work on a graphic for the web : you switch (in a badly implemented way, thought) between Photoshop GUI and ImageReady GUI : some palettes change totally, other not and you are working on the same file (nearly) in both environements.
If I understand rgoer well, we could have added to this behavior (GUI commands and elements adapted to 1 document and evolving to follow our needs without feeling like swithing apps) the fact that a document is linked to a project and that all documents linked to the same project are sharing the same work interface : more tools are shared (edit, save, select box, zoom, move, crop, eyedropper, type, color) and options appear/vary with the media you are working on and other open documents windows unrelated to the project don't show.
Apps are then just ensembles of modules called by the system when needed.

Example : you work on a flash project. You need to edit some html/javascript code (BBedit, Golive), import audio, design for web use some .tiff graphics (Photoshop), make the anim with vectorized elments (Flash, Freehand) and test the anim in a browser.
It would be easier if, when you switch between tools environements (just click on one of your medias/documents/windows), only the tools/windows linked to the project are visible (no menu/layout toolbar for BBEDIT if you just need to type, only the essentials in photoshop and Freehand).
Only the tools/palettes useful for a web project would be available (you determine tools/panels/palettes needed in project preferences) : no need for Photoshop PAO features, Freehand saving box with several formats. You save the project altogether in one click and the diffrent medias used are just like object (like in Golive or Symbols in Flash).

[lookmark]

Originally posted by Terri:
I don't see it. If I switch to Photoshop I want all the parts of Photoshop and it's open documents, not just a piece of it.

I often have Photoshop, GoLive, Illustrator, IE, Netscape, Quark, Outlook, Palm, BBEdit, and a bunch of other little apps open. When I switch from one app to another I need all it's pieces because that is what I'm working on.

Terri, as I see it OS X gives you the choice of either way.

You can choose to have the application and all of windows come forward (click or command-tab to the app in the Dock), or you can select a single window.

There are times when the second behavior is quite useful.

That said, I agree that the second, more window-centric behavior is now favored, and it would be nice if Apple offered the user more control over these behaviors. For the moment, as I'm sure you know, ASM and Yapasu (to be updated for Jaguar soon, I hear!) do offer finer control over application window layering behavior.

OTOH, if you're not satisified with window management vis-a-vis minimization in the Dock, join the club. ;) I find the combination of modest window minimization and hiding apps works for me -- for the most part. Others may prefer using Windowshade X. But I don't think the solution to this all that simple. I do strongly suspect Apple is working on improvements.

[lookmark]

p.s. Predictions for 10.3 gatherin' over here. (http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=5&t=001505)

[Douglas Kine]

This may seem a liitle silly, but I would like it if the empty trash warning showed me how big the trash is like under pre-X os's.
Also I REALLY wish my modem on my Wallstreet worked under OS 10.2.
It worked fine under 10.1

[hayesk]

Originally posted by rgoer:



Photoshop will still be a product you have to buy in order to use its particular set of tools when editing a document. Those tools will not be available for the user to use unless the Photoshop environment is installed.


Dude, you just described OpenDoc - it was a market failure. Too bad too, I kind of liked it. :(

[hayesk]

Originally posted by rgoer:
Of all the things I've written so far, absolutely none of them could be taken to mean "Photoshop will fsck disk and Disk Utility will do all your bit map, html, text editing and more."
I mean, for fsck's sake!

Lighten up. When you use fsck in place of a rude word (which is still being rude), people are going to make jokes about the fact that you used fsck (they meant the disk function, you meant curse - same "word") and Photoshop in the same sentence. :p

[Terri]

Originally posted by hayesk:


Lighten up. When you use fsck in place of a rude word (which is still being rude), people are going to make jokes about the fact that you used fsck (they meant the disk function, you meant curse - same "word") and Photoshop in the same sentence. :p

You have ruined my sex life, now my boyfriend only wants to fsck when he comes to bed.

[yukon]

yeah, the applications declairing themselves active is terrible, especially when opening .dmg.gz files. It happens in windows whenever a webpage refreshes, which kills me.

"Empty trash" is now horribly slow in 10.2 for me. opening folder is slow, even after disabling the little zoom animation. QuicktimePlayer is crappy slow when it tries to update itself for codecs that aren't available (force quit is faster than waiting for it). The dock still taking so much CPU to draw the names of applications when the cursor scrubs it. The finder in 10.2.1 shows me the wait cursor more, especailly when a disk is spinning up - applications do it more now too. "get info" is so very slow now, 2.5 seconds, and the new organization is functional yet ugly and hard to click.

I want GUI programs to still run, while i can login as a different user (mpg123 does it). I want a filesystem that can journal itself, and has the option of journaling the entire disk. I want the finder option "keep all opening windows in the same view setting as the previous window" back. i want tu turn off the fading menus, its not slow on my machine, but it just wastes time to animate. I want Apple to document it's keyboard shortcuts. I want a transparent menubar, like the one that would appear for a second when forcequitting (the finder?). I want the option of having windows in the background fade slowly as they remain unused, with an option to turn it off or speed/slow it. Since haxies and themes are common, Apple should add some places for it so they don't break anything. I want an option to clear all "cached memory", so OS X doesn't page cached data to the disk (i have 768mb, it's pointless to cache a disk's files to the disk anyway, they are already there). I want multiple desktops, where I can have different doc configurations and desktops (like "this is my internet desktop, this is my graphic design desktop...") as an option. I want the option of transparent finder windows, simply because it would be cool and impressive. I want a feature that allows me to reposition an icon in a finder window, and have it actually stay where i put it (i have to reorganize in OS9 so the icons stay put in OS X). I want Apple's developer servers (mercury1.apple.com) to support resuming so when I'm on a modem, i can update to whats necessary (off topic). I want a shortcut where I can cycle through windows in an application, even if it's in the dock (might be around, it's not documented and i don't know it). I want a way to restore a system from the install CD, even if updates have occured. (it can undo them, i don't care). This is what I want.

Yep, I want lots. But, what comes next? When an OS is stable and a good server, yet is easy to use, where do we go frem here? Our GUI already is accessing OpenGL, how long until a partially 3D GUI? All i can see in the future, besides what I've mentioned, is bugfixes.

[rgoer]

Originally posted by hayesk:
Dude, you just described OpenDoc - it was a market failure. Too bad too, I kind of liked it. :(

But if we clap our hands and repeat "I believe in OpenDoc," maybe it can be resurrected...

[clarkgoble]

Opendoc is a great idea. It failed originally (along with QuickDrawGX) because Apple had poor tools for implementing it. More improtantly Apple didn't provide any applications that really used it, beyond CyberDog.

I've said it several times over the years, but AppleWorks ought to be the technology showcase for Apple. That it ends up being so poor is a shame. I mean it does the job, don't get me wrong. I just ordered a copy myself. However Apple applications really ought to be showcases.

While I'm willing to let some of the iApps have some slack, I really wish they did more. I mean iMail's display features for HTML suck. It does have nice Applescripting, but the interface features still are limited.

I'd love to move to a more document centric model. And the basis is there in OSX. However Apple has to showcase the tools. And it hasn't. Perhaps I'm cynical, but I don't think it will.

[clarkgoble]

Oh, one more thing for my "what's left." I finally tried to shift over to Project Builder for development and have shifted back to Visual Studio for the following reasons.

1. No persistent watch variables. In Visual Studio I have a pane with for tabs for holding watch variables. They stay there between calls to the debugger and even between calls to the studio itself. They can be expressions, variables and so forth. I can right click on a variable to add it to the watch window. This is pretty much a deal stopper as I'll frequently make a change and then go to debug and find that all my debug variables are *gone*!

2. Find is so much more powerful in Visual Studio.

I really wanted to be able to move over the Mac, but it just isn't ready, IMO. A lot of the things in Project Builder that don't work are *trivial* to add. They'd be a few weeks work tops. But they keep me from it.

[Graymalkin]

Clark: have you tried Metrowerks? Project Builder is fine for some apps but Metrowerks is more of a real professional developer suite. For being free with the OS, Project Builder isn't so bad.

OpenDoc has some good points to it but it also had some bad points. I specifically DON'T want particular controls attached to every document object. For any benefits it MIGHT give you you're losing some serious usability points. Eventually two programs will both attach their controls to a single document type. Photoshop will attach itself to GIF and JPEG files but then so will some app that doesn't really do much to JPEG files. It's a kludge to have multiple controls attached to a single document first off, two different interfacedesigns in the same program isn't a good idea. Also if you want to just view some JPEG image the system is still going to load up all of your Photoshop controls to edit it. If I open something in preview I don't want a bunch of editing controls popping up to bother me and take MORE time to load from my slow hard drive.

Try using OLE objects inside Office documents on Windowssometime, it is annoying as all hell to work with. I don't want Excel controls embedded into a graph when I just want to read the damn thing. If I don't have Excel the graph won't even load properly where if it were just a graphic Word supported it would work fine. Attaching app controls to documents is more of a pain in the arse than not having said controls.

[cutterjohn]

hmmm... what's left?

well at a bare minimum I would say that there needs to be something done about the filesystem to actually support case plus journalling or soft updates. Also, since Apple hired one of the 2 primary BFS (Be filesystem engineers) I'd also expect some BFS like db/metadata support.

There is an AWESOME amount of low level optimization that the Apple engineering staff would be better off applying themselves to than producing more junky iapps. e.g. an OS that doesn't gag on more than 50 items in a list would be nice to start off with...

[OreoCookie]

A 64 bit version :D

[rgoer]

...I specifically DON'T want particular controls attached to every document object. For any benefits it MIGHT give you you're losing some serious usability points. Eventually two programs will both attach their controls to a single document type...

Well, continuing down this hypothetical tangent of OpenDoc resurrection, this is what I have to say about that: Apple, should they, in fact, do anything like what we are describing here, must allow the user the option of customizing exactly what set of tools they want hooked into what type of document. And, in the instance, say, that you've got Photoshop toolsets and Corel Painter toolsets hooked into .tif documents, it must be made easy for the user to choose which one they want in front of them, presently. Something along the lines of the show/hide toolbar widget, or maybe not...


...It's a kludge to have multiple controls attached to a single document first off, two different interfacedesigns in the same program isn't a good idea...

Right you are; again, if anything like this were to happen, it would be incumbent upon Apple to come up with some serious revisions to the Aqua HIG concerning this new, rather OpenDoc-ish way of doing things. And developers would probably need some pretty good reasons to follow said HIG (not just "pretty please, Adobe" and then let them get away with tossing the guidelines out the window).


...If I open something in preview I don't want a bunch of editing controls popping up to bother me and take MORE time to load from my slow hard drive...

I feel that this should also be a case of user preference: the user should be the one deciding if the tools get loaded or not; most likely, there would have to be a change made in interface paradigm altogether. The concept of "opening" a document would need redefinition, drawing a clear distinction between "viewing" and "editing." Also (and I believe the original OpenDoc mission involved some of this next bit), it should be nothing more than a trivial task for a user, after the editing of a document is completed, to save a version of that document that is (in the interest of mass distribution) read-only.

So, um, yeah... when I'm head of Apple, this is the course I'll have in mind when I set sail...

[clarkgoble]

I used Metrowerks because one of our large clients who bought our toolkit used it. It sucks. Really. Unless the latest version (I didn't upgrade) changed significantly, Project Builder is vastly superior in most things to Metrowerks. It is just that Visual Studio is vastly superior to Project Builder. It is sad that the development tools are like this. Visual Studio 6.0, which is very dated now, has more features than either of the prominent Mac tools.

What is really sad is that the features that make Microsoft's offerings better in practice are things that could be added extremely easily. I mean take a tabbed pane for persistent debugging variables. All you need is a small file of text that is stored with the project. A simple implementation would take about a day to add on top of what is already there. But the practical effect is to make the programmer's life *so* much easier.

It is as if the "gee whiz" features get added and focused on while the features that are easy and actually improve productivity are ignored. That's what I expect with things like WinXP, but Apple used to think about those user interface features. However the one thing Microsoft always did was figure out the top 10 thing that people actualy need for productivity and focus on them. Apple often got caught up in style vs. substance. That was how they lost out to Microsoft back in the 80's.

[lookmark]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
What is really sad is that the features that make Microsoft's offerings better in practice are things that could be added extremely easily. I mean take a tabbed pane for persistent debugging variables. All you need is a small file of text that is stored with the project. A simple implementation would take about a day to add on top of what is already there. But the practical effect is to make the programmer's life *so* much easier.

Have you suggested this to Apple Feedback? Do. They're paying attention.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/feedback/

[clarkgoble]

I have sent in feedback to Apple. What gets me though is that surely Apple is using Project Builder for development. Persistent watch variables is so basic an issue that I can't believe that it has been unimplemented for more than a year! Don't they listen to their own programmers?

[clarkgoble]

That may have sounded a bit harsh. Let me add that I think the Mac is at this point the pre-eminent platform for doing UNIX development. While I have problems with Project Builder because of some obvious missing features, it is still hands and shoulders above the offerings from Sun or the various Linux vendors.

At this point I do as much of my basic development and debugging in Visual Studio and then do the rest on the Mac. I then test on Linux, OpenBSD, and Solaris. (Oddly GCC sometimes performs differently on different platforms. I had a really weird linking problem that only occurred on a certain version of GCC in RedHat, for instance)

I just wish that the interface for Project Builder was a bit more polished as I'd probably do everything on the Mac at that point.

[Graymalkin]

I see what you mean about Project Builder and Codewarrior. Remember however Visual Studio which I've used quite a bit is a product sold for many kilobucks, Project Builder is free in the OSX box. There's a bit of a difference as to what you can expect.

In PJ's defense it is just a port of the old PJ from the NeXTStep days, half of the tools have undergone little to no change between the old NeXT version and the current one. They might look a little different but deep down they're incredibly similar. For professional development I don't know that PJ is going to be anyone's first choice.

That of course has been a Mac problem for a long time, Codewarrior and MPW never really stood up to Borland and Microsoft's development offerings on Windows. I think OSX would come a long way in credularity if it had some really spiffy development tools available for it besides just the Dev tools CD.

[clarkgoble]

But the fact is that Project Builder is, in many ways, an excellent program. It is a fine way of having a *real* interface to gdb and gcc. After having to suffer in development on Solaris and Linux, Project Builder is a breath of fresh air.

What gets me is that the polish to make it great is so *easy* to do. Hell, it could be done by a couple of interns in a week. But the benefits to Apple would be very big in terms of encouraging development.

With Codewarrior I was frankly shocked. I'd left the Mac platform during the dog days of MacOS 8-9. When I bought Codewarrior for a contract I was shocked at how little the interface had changed! Surely these folks have used Microsoft.

The really interesting thing is that while Microsoft has the best editor/IDE in my opinion for straight programming (no RAD), their compiler isn't as good in many ways as gcc. (I've not used the Macro or programmable features of Visual Studio, so I can't speak for that. The most complicated thing I did is create a menu for running a YACC/LEX compile) I've not played around much with Microsoft's latest version of Visual Studio. Mainly just VB.net which has some very nice features along with some annoying ones.