What I’d Like to See in Tiger: Part 4, A Self-Repairing OS
Every operating system has its quirks. OS 9 was marred by frequent crashes. A typical prevention regimen included running Norton Disc Doctor religiously (defragment, defragment, defragment). Other OS 9 fun included memorizing all your extensions and when you installed them. Looking back, Conflict Catcher, which would start up your Mac a bizzilion times with every conceivably combination of extensions turned on and off.
Thankfully we don’t have to worry about this in OS X. When you install an application you need not worry whether it will conflict with another application. This is welcome relief.
However, as I said every operating system has it’s quirks. And while OS X is a far superior operating system to OS 9 there are still troubleshooting issues that pop-up. These issues are inherently anti-user because they make no sense whatsoever. I appreciate that OS X is built on top of a rock-solid Unix foundation. But I don’t appreciate that I have to run fix disk permissions every couple of weeks or so. Why isn’t this function build into the operating system?
Permissions are one example, rebuilding the disk directory with third party tools in another. In 2005 you’d think we were beyond these issues. More than Dashboard users want a computer that does as much as possible to take care of itself. With Tiger, Apple should do everything it can to make the operating system more intelligent, and more able to take care of itself.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
Mark - you don’t have to be such an Apple apologist. Perhaps my point wasn’t clear to you. I meant that the poorly designed OS X Finder windows don’t update EVER unless and until you click back into them.
If Apple offered to sell you a MK2 version of its sports car with brakes which only took effect after a four second delay - and told you not to make a fuss as ‘good drivers’ will always find a work-around - would you buy it?
If you have some counter arguments to make then do so. If you’ve exhausted any valid contribution, then it’s best not to fall back on trying to sabotage the discussion through personal insults.
Actually, slopes, I was merely defending the insinuation by Nathan that I wasn’t a “power user” because I would opt to use a workaround for the Finder update problem that we have all agreed is a problem.
Your car analogy is flawed - nobody dies because they have to click on a folder to refresh a file list, unless you sit there waiting for hours and forget to eat.
Besides, who’s suggesting that users not make a fuss, as long as it’s positive? I’ve submitted bug reports and feedback for this issue (several times since X came out). I trust you have as well. Repeatedly bitching about “eye-candy” isn’t what I would consider a “valid contribution.”
Mark, I must agree with you that Slopes is not being genuine. Robotically he repeats the “eye candy” phrase but he doesn’t DEVELOP the idea. Instead it’s the “Polly want a cracker” bit. Pull the cord and he will say it—like a wind-up doll. I would prefer honest conversation myself—even with people who take issue with my point of view.
As for Finder refreshes, they DO happen under many circumstances. If you download a file from a web browser to a predefined folder and you have a Finder window open to that folder, this window will update on the spot with your newly downloaded file—sans any “workaround.” Same goes for downloads from e-mail clients. If you copy a file from one Finder window to another (under Panther), the destination window will auto-update to show the newly added file.
There are, however, certain conditions under which this does not take place. If you copy a file over the network to a folder on a remote Mac, the window will not auto-update right away. But it WILL update at some point. As a test try copying a file to the desktop of a remote user. The icon will not appear on the desktop straightaway but the user will see it appear after a certain elapsed time. I’m not sure of all the variables at work here, but it will appear. (Of course, this behavior is unacceptable and is in need of a fix.)
If from a UNIX command shell you go to the Desktop folder and touch a test file—as in “touch Testing” then this file WILL almost instantly appear in a Finder window even though it was created via the command line.
So contrary to what Slope contends, there is more to this than meets the eye and it’s not as bad as he would have people believe.
Also, it’s interesting to note that he is yet to acknowledge the shortcomings of OS 9 (of which there are many and which I have pointed out myself), even as those of us who prefer OS X are balanced enough to acknowledge not only the strengths but also the weaknesses of our platform of choice. So who is the real apologist here?
Jeff - whether or not you think I�m genuine is something you�ll have to work out for yourself. It strikes me I�m being genuine when I address my thoughts and ideas directly to the person I want to hear them - rather than furtively using a third party.
Anyway, I�ll to attempt to answer your concerns.
From all your replies - both in this and the previous article - I get the impression you�re not really a busy Mac user. People who use Macs seem to fall into two groups - those who use them as tools for creating (producers) and those who use them as a receptacle (consumers). It seems to me from the all examples you�ve provided of what want from a �good computer� - looking at pictures of your dog, downloading from the internet, listening the your Bach records, helping your old Dad open his emails and dabbling around with UNIX command shells (whatever they are) - you fall very much in the second camp. For those of us who are in the daily hothouse of leaping between QuarkXpress, Illustrator, Photoshop, Word, GoLive etc, creating and hammering out our work for busy deadlines, the appalling inability of the OS X Finder to simply update itself as I save, replace, export, open all my various files (like OS 9, OS 8, and OS 7 used to do) is a VERY REAL frustration.
Your being puzzled over anyone having a preference for the simple grey GUI of OS 9 also appears to reveal your lack of any broad experience of the Mac platform as a creative tool and its user-base. When used in a design sense, the words �Functional� and �Minimal� usually refer to absence of decoration, simplification of form, or the smallest amount or degree of formal elements needed to make an object useful.
�People who stare at their computer all day long� (if they are working) are usually staring at their work which is the focal point of their concentration - so they don�t really want Apple competing with them on all fronts by throwing in distractions such as bits of 1980�s brushed-metal effect here, a few sets of 3D traffic-light effects there, over-the-top drop shadows around everything, throbbing 3D liquid buttons, stripy boxes all over the place, plastic window strips (if you�re lucky), multi-coloured folder labels stretching across your finder windows, bevels on everything, psychotic Docks, etc etc etc.
Mac OS 9 GUI was decorated too of course - to the point of austerity. Because the people who made it had the sense (and the self belief) to KNOW that a good GUI should very much sit in the background and play second fiddle to a user�s work. Any decoration they added to the neutrally colour-valued GUI was minimal and there for a PURPOSE - to provide a helpful visual prompt as to the function of the element it was applied to.
Perhaps you should give it a go Jeff - it might make your dogs look even more attractive.
Slopes, you still refrain from offering any comment about the numerous examples of shortcomings of OS 9 which I have provided in this and the other forum. The Chooser, the remote server eject procedure (involving the Trash Can), the complete vulnerability of the System Folder not only to power users but also to novices, the fact that font management takes place WITHIN the System Folder (which is ridiculous), the anti-intuitive way to add a printer or network volume, the fact that the only way to open a folder is to have a separate window for it (which leaves a screen littered with innumerable windows and a clumsy way to navigate among them, etc.—these and many more examples you have yet to comment on. The ONLY things you have said about OS 9 are positive and the ONLY things you have said about OS X are negative (unless you have mentioned the increased stability of OS X).
This behavior is typical of the close-minded platform bigot who is unable or unwilling to see pros and cons on BOTH sides. In these forums I cite a number of shortcomings of OS X as well as OS 9. In contrast, you provide no such balanced view. This tells me you are a zealot and thus your credibility on this issue is undermined.
As for how I use a computer, I’m an IT systems manager for two organizations—one is a Macintosh-only shop which started with OS 9 and migrated later to OS X and is now using Panther exclusively. The other is Windows-centric; it uses Windows 2000 workstations, Windows 2003 servers, Linux, and Novell. In part because of my influence some Mac laptops are soon to arrive on the scene at this Microsoft-oriented office. I myself use computers for system admin, for database development, and for a number of other production purposes. I have spent much of my career in software quality assurance and design, and I have been a manager at IBM and also at a manufacturer of laser printers.
And I must say it’s a joke if you want to say that the biggest payoff to OS 9 is those who rely on it for production work in the graphics area. These are the very people who would be most sensitive to productivity lost through crashes, through networking inefficiencies with Windows, through the lack of preemptive multitasking, and to the fact that development is all but frozen at this point on the OS 9 platform. Adobe no longer updates its Creative Suite for OS 9. Many developers are in maintenance mode only for this platform—if even that much. Not to mention that OS 9 isn’t supported on the dual G5s, and if production is a concern, you would want that horsepower for your graphics.
As for the use of color, again you exemplify the all-or-nothing mentality of the platform bigot—to wit, either there is to be no color or a platform is guilty of being over the top. The idea that there can be a judicious use of color completely escapes you. If you want an example of an OS that gets in your way and that uses colors too vivid and in-your-face, take a look at Windows XP.
You can pretend to speak for graphics professionals and to pretend that the only people who prefer OS X would be home-oriented consumers, but the fact is that many OS X platforms are dedicated to graphics production today—and more are migrating each week.
Yeah, what he said! And BTW, how many “consumer” Mac users do you know that dabble around with UNIX commands. What a joke! Case and point when slopes bags on the drop-shadows - he apparently doesn’t “get” how they make for more intuitive navigation of a busy system, something I trust just about any professional graphics person using OSX appreciates.
Jeff - I kind of figured that you are an IT admin guy. That makes our relationship one of a user (ME) and of a mechanic (YOU).
Now I haven�t a clue what goes on under the hood (that�s your job), all I know is that I want a responsive, fast, and concise OS to get my work done on. And from my experience of both systems, OS 9 is much better at achieving this (so far) than OS X is (regardless of OS X�s acknowledged good points).
The only shortcoming of OS 9 is that it�s being phased out before something anywhere near as good is ready to replace it. I prefer the speed of the occasionally crashing Porsche to the �safe� hesitant Bread Truck.
To me (as a user) the Chooser was fine. The Trash I�ve already dealt with. I don�t remember hearing that many problems about where the Fonts were kept (but hey, keep them where you like it doesn�t really matter to me). As mentioned in the �Spacial Finder� article linked above, I love my Desktop to be a reliable surface, cluttered with whatever Folders I choose, placed where I choose, containing whatever objects I choose - that�s no different to real-life experiences and contributes enormously to the efficiency at which I work.
You know, I don�t REALLY mind if Apple heap on as much eye-candy as they like (bring on the pretend brushed metal and Christmas tree lights) as long as that which it�s placed on works as well as its predecessor in the way I want it to. As a mechanic, your job is to help me get the OS performance I�ve had, I�ve liked, and I want - rather than spending so much energy trying to convince me that something which (in many ways important to me) offers such an obviously inferior experience, is actually better for me.
Slopes, I’m not going to take the bait in your last paragraph, but despite our combined and repeated attempts to drive it out of you, what EXACTLY are YOU trying to do with your Desktop that you can’t in OSX and used to in OS9? (besides the file refresh problem)
Perhaps you just need some OSX driving lessons.
Slopes, I’ll give you one thing—you are flexible. This is my kind and euphemistic way of saying you are again disingenuous. First you say that I’m just a consumer who catalogs photos of his dog and maybe browses the web a bit. Now you say you have suspected all along that I was an IT guy. This is creepy and pathological.
You say you want speed. Most curious. I thought all this time you were defending the GUI of OS 9. If this is about speed, may I suggest MS-DOS, for without all the GUI overhead, more system resources can be devoted to processing your tasks. The only reason OS 9 is somewhat more responsive than OS X in its interface is that OS 9 lacks the overhead of a microkernel architecture, journaling file system hardware abstraction and memory protection, security encryption, preemptive task scheduling, true multi-user support, etc. When you build a tinker toy OS, then it can be made to be more responsive than when you build a bona fide operating system.
Use whatever OS turns you on; but don’t pretend your choice derives from your status as an end user who requires his computer for production work. OS X is a UNIX workstation. It is used by many people in the graphics, audio, video, and prepress production fields. It is used by scientists whose demand for speed is far greater than yours could ever be. What do these people know that you don’t? You don’t seem to have the self-insight to even pose this question.
OS 9 is a dead platform. That you intend to continue using it is actually quite bizarre. You need to get over it—Apple has moved on. Make your interface suggestions to Apple’s web site and move on too. You will live longer and be happier for it.
The GUI performance of GNOME and KDE are much faster than OS X - and they offer all the items you mention: preemptive multi-tasking, protected memory, etc. etc. I have no clue whether this affects GUI perf or not.
What does slow down the GUI is all the OS X eye candy.
But I love the candy: sometimes I shift-click the minimize button just to see the genie effect in slow-mo. I saw the Dashboard animation in/out effects - and they are astounding.
Right now, the OS is at a draw: lovely to use, but devastatingly slow in areas (on my 1GB 1.5 G4).
iPhoto 4 comes to mind as s-u-p-e-r-s-l-o-w. I don’t want eye candy for iPhoto. I do want eye candy for transition effects (Dock animations, Dashboard).
Maybe I should get a G5. Or maybe Apple should be more mindful where the performance/pleasure is in the right ratio.
Nathan, the thing is that since OS X is so customizable, much of what you describe can be turned off at your discretion. Not all of it but much of it. Also, I object to the term, eye candy, to refer to ANY concern with aesthetics and color. Eye candy should be reserved only for what is clearly over the top, gaudy, obnoxious, etc. I find the Aqua GUI to be pretty conservative on balance and the only way it looks like eye candy is by contrast with someone who stares at nothing but gray all day long—meaning OS 9.
The irony here is that one of the most popular shareware products under OS 9 was Kaleidoscope—the very purpose of which was to add “eye candy” if you must use that term. So users were clearly willing to trade some CPU cycles to make their computing experience more pleasant and even a little fun and lighthearted. Some of the kaleidoscope schemes developed by third parties were ridiculously over the top, but this was part of the fun of things. I myself opted for the more conservative themes, but to each his own taste. (All gray is TOO conservative to me.)
If you and Slopes persist in the idea that ANY color qualifies as eye candy, then I guess I’ll just have to characterize the OS 9 GUI as “eye sore.”
Yes, OS X can be slow on hardware which is old. The speed DOES need to be improved—I don’t dispute that at all. But some of the extra cpu cycles go toward things such as keeping the window contents visible even as it is dragged on the screen. This is something OS 9 could not do—and this is not only aesthetic but functional.
So, again, there are trade-offs to everything. I myself see lots of room for improvement in the Finder and in OS X in general—but then it’s only four years old. Apple has shown a great willingness to re-incorporate the best of OS 9 into OS X. It has a mechanism on its web site for user feedback. I hope you use it!
OK Jeff, let’s draw a line there. You’re right, we’re having two discussions in one (the speed/response issue and the Finder/GUI issue). At least you’ve acknowledged that the OS 9 GUI was more responsive - which was my point all along. You are ignoring many of my GUI points - especially as you know I haven’t based my criticisms ONLY on colour - so I’m beginning to feel I’m not going to gain much ground with you on that one. As for the Finder, maybe Nathan will find a third party developer and give those of us who prefer working with a traditional Mac type Desktop the chance to have one (in its fullest sense) when Tiger arrives.
I denote eye-candy as the portions of the Quartz drawing layer that enables the fancy “brushed metal” interface, the Genie effects, the live window resize, the transparency effects, the drop shadow, the list goes on.
That is easily defined as eye candy, sacrificing speed for visceral experience.
I am a user-experience designer - I love this stuff. I loved the Kaleidoscope Copland theme that made the spiral effect when windows spawned and closed.
BUT, when it gets in the way of me (for example) viewing my photos and quickly adding comments to them (a chore) - the click on a thumbnail then wait for about 8 seconds, then highlight the comment field, type, then wait 5 more seconds - the cycle of this is so irritating. Even trying to rotate or create photo albums is a feat in itself, a true test of my patience. I know this performance problem has got to be superfulous eye candy sucking up processor cycles - because Adobe Photoshop can grind through the same tasks with minimal wait time. And believe me, I am no huge fan of Adobe CS performance either.
Whether iPhoto’s poor performance is because of the brushed metal, or poor coding choice of live updating thumbnails, or whatever it may be - the fact of the matter is that it could be orders of magnitude faster given the same hardware… why isn’t it???
In fact, all the iLife and iWork apps guilty of this. iTunes and Mail have the best performance - but Font Book, iCal, iPhoto, have to take the cake.
I know complainin’ don’t fix nuthing. So I have waiting patiently for the PowerBook G5. That will be the day of days.
Nathan, it sounds like you’re trying to run advanced applications on an under-powered system. It also sounds like you haven’t completely optimized your system (turn off genie and bouncing in the Dock, turn off drop-shadows in iPhoto, etc.).
I’m running iPhoto on a G4/400 AGP and also a 1GHz PB 17” with about 4000 hi-res images, and don’t experience the delays you are talking about, even on the slower machine. Do youhave enough RAM? Is your hard drive almost full? Have you exceeded your iPhoto porn limit?
I agree that FontBook and iCal have some problems, but I don’t think these can be solely attributed to the “eye-candy” if they don’t seem to affect the performance as much in other applications.
BTW, drop-shadows in the Finder are NOT “eye candy” based on your definition - they provide positive feedback to the user, even if it’s not often noticed (but you sure would notice if they were turned off).
-M