“The latest version of Apple’s operating system, Mac OS X, is here and it’s arguably the most significant revamp since X replaced 9. Leopard brings a new look to Mac OS X GUI, and a wealth of new features, some innovations other merely tweaks to old apps. In the first of a series looking at Leopard in depth, we go straight for Leopard’s soul: the Finder.”
Wow, that guy sounds like one unhappy camper. Still he does have a point about transparency.
It’s a very subjective thing. Some like it, others hate it. I personally prefer it to be really subtle. Apple should have given users the ability to adjust the transparency level.
And I’m definitely against MS and Apple’s obsession with big play-school icons. It’s fair enough to have this as an option for the visually impaired, but why have huge icons as the default?
Amazingly, the enormous default explorer icons in Vista aren’t as large as they can be. Move the slider to the largest setting and you get about 2 per page!
I guess it depends on the resolution you have, I find the default size of folders a little small and they resize to 128×128 like Tiger anyway. As for the transparent bar, I think it’s not that transparent and depending on the wallpaper you have.
Sorta reminiscent to boobs. The larger they are the more immediate detail is apparent.
The variety of icon sizes satisfy one’s moods.
/endOfSarcasm.
The purpose of big icons is to make recognition quicker. Smaller icons have less information, and the brain takes longer to figure out what the icon represents.
“The purpose of big icons is to make recognition quicker. Smaller icons have less information, and the brain takes longer to figure out what the icon represents.”
Funny I always use the “detailed list” view when in Windows or Linux. Shows me a lot more information, than a large icon of a generic folder, with no information attached to it. Also you can see a lot more of of these smaller icons at the same time, so you dont have to scroll about the window as much searching for it. Its certainly a lot quicker for me.
(Of course, maybe big icons “just work” on a Mac in a way that us users of other operating system “just don’t get”).
Edited 2007-11-06 14:58
(Of course, maybe big icons “just work” on a Mac in a way that us users of other operating system “just don’t get”).
LOL. That was priceless. You sir deserved the mod point for this statement alone!
It depends on how “default” is the default. Both MS and Apple are betting on wide availability of cheaper high-res panels Real Soon Now™. At 1920×1200 (as in the BTO 17″ MBPs which I’m drooling for for quite some time now) icons measuring 32×32 pixels are really tiiiiney. Not so much on a 19″ CRT, but on a 17″ wide panel, they are.
Now, just imagine 2560×1600. Suddenly you can only fit ELEVEN 128×128 icons on a column given this resolution (and adequate inter-icon spacing). It doesn’t sound nearly as absurd now, does it?
Edit: 3 typos in a row. I’m off to bed now =P
Edited 2007-11-06 05:24
“Amazingly, the enormous default explorer icons in Vista aren’t as large as they can be. Move the slider to the largest setting and you get about 2 per page!”
Ahh..so it is adjustable to your liking. Try moving the slider the other way and they may get smaller.
“And I’m definitely against MS and Apple’s obsession with big play-school icons. It’s fair enough to have this as an option for the visually impaired, but why have huge icons as the default?”
You need a new monitor or something. The default icons on either OS are not “big play-school icons”. They normally adjust to the screen resolution.
Get yourself a real monitor, such as a 15″ or higher flat panel, and both of those “issues” will disappear. Have you noticed by chance that even laptops have a default of 17″ screens at 1920×1200? I am guessing not.
“Amazingly, the enormous default explorer icons in Vista aren’t as large as they can be. Move the slider to the largest setting and you get about 2 per page!”
This reminds me to a “reviewer” who one reviewed some Linux distribution and stated: “I don’t like the Linux file system, because the pictures are too big.” Of course, “pictures” refered to icons at their default size.
Good to see Mac OS X Leopard has a slider to tweak file system parameters by moving a friendly slider – just as entertainment. 🙂
To get serious again, I found the review very interesting. Note to read section “Verdict” on its page 4. Furthermore, the author writes a lot about look and feel and makes comparisons to former Mac OS X versions. I’d be interested in some information what’s new in 10.5 “under the hood”… color schemes, 3D look and transparency definitely are a very individual thing, as it has been stated before, some like it, some hate it, some don’t care anyway.
Nice review by reg os 4 thumbs up.
Well, except talking about the transperant menus of the dock or size of the icons. Has anyone had a chance to see rather Leopard features:
– ‘rename all’ option with a simple right click by default?
– Or does Mail application got any better for business? Is it still going to painfull to attach documents(as a attachment not as inside the mail)
– Has the network capabilities improved? Can we now share the folder we like, with collegue we like on our network as windows users do?
– Does Safari provides easy FTP server access(i mean that we can upload, create new folders with ease), or do we still have to find a ftp softwore do to rest.
I have moved to Mac almost a year ago, both at home and at work. At home, there is no problem. But at office, in a network with thousands of windows PC’s, and ms exchange server. Not everything is nice and dandy. And lacking a simple usefull feature like ‘rename all’ by default and nonexistance of little features like that doesnt make it any easier.(also lacking ‘cut’ feature is pain, when you are in rush at office.) Wish it was possible to get in hand one of these arrogent developers insisting on their theory when I’m having this rush hours in anger, than I would show him how in realife their theory sucks, and I’m sure I would convince him for the next version in my own way:)
Wish it was possible to get in hand one of these arrogent developers insisting on their theory when I’m having this rush hours in anger, than I would show him how in realife their theory sucks, and I’m sure I would convince him for the next version in my own way:)
I think it matters what you’re used to. I understand how you feel, I scream at my Linux/Windows box when it does stupid things and a deadline is looming. I scream less at my Mac.
No, I can’t afford to go to “therapy” so the cheapest and most productive option is to stick to using my Mac.
I’m not a huge Mac user, but I’m surprised that Apple didn’t include a little control panel or applet to handle the preferences for the dock and the top panel so that users could add as little or as much transparency as they wanted, or apply different or custom appearance settings to the dock. Why they hardened such settings “in stone” forcing users to resort to dirty hacks to change things that are obviously open to subjectivity is incredible to me. Perhaps I’ve been using Gnome / KDE for so long that I take such flexibility for granted.
Ditto. I am not a huge fan of the translucent menu bar nor the new 3D look of the Dock either. If I were a Mac user, I’d go out of my way to find a hack – if there is one – to allow me to revert to the old dock and to turn off the menu bar transparency completely…
Add a white stripe to the top of your wallpaper. Then for the dock enter the following in the terminal: defaults write com.apple.dock no-glass -boolean YES; killall Dock
Just in case anyone hasn’t seen those yet. Editing wallpaper to make the menu look right is a horrible hack, but it works. The dock fix is a little nicer.
Edited 2007-11-07 01:54