“The current beta build of Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard, released to developers at WWDC ‚’07, is not as polished as what people have come to expect of Apple’s design team – users are still left with at best several disagreeable changes, and at worst a hideous hodgepodge of HIG contradictions. I have broken down 5 onscreen blunders that detract from the user experience and make Leopard the ugliest and most uncharacteristically ‘Apple’ OS to date.” Thanks to MacWereld for pointing this article out.
There’s been a thread on AI and basically people speculate that the only good reason behind the new shadow and the weirdly-shaped dock bed may be that they’re going to introduce some 3-D desktop concept (stacks stretching towards the back of the dock may be an example). There might be windows on different planes so the shadow’s going to feel natural once all the functionality and logic is there. Currently it all seems a little bit weird. So I guess not all UI features have been announced at the WWDC this summer. Let’s hope they’ll explain all that in October. There’s no way they’re going to keep those Aqua scrollbars, right? Just look at their website…
I’ll probably get a tonne of points taken off me.
MacOS X Leopard is one giant big disappointment, people gave Windows Vista a hard time – this will be in a class of its own. I can’t believe there are people who are also sucked into this hype.
10.2 -> 10.3 there was a big improvement, performance, features, applications load times, heaps of improvements. 10.3 -> 10.4 – yeah, it was a bit of a stretch, but after a while I found that there were features which I though were so-so which actually turned out as awesome.
Now fast foward to Leopard, and I’m sorry, there aren’t even features which are so-so – features which make me go, “geeze, maybe I should sell this computer and get a mac” when compard to Windows, Linux or Solaris.
People seem to overlook that in 2007, regular users still don’t know how to use their own computer. I fix computers for a living and computers seem to be used for nothing more than IE & MSN these days.
Having a backup feature in Leopard that people can actually use, is a really, really big thing. You’ve seen the statistics, nearly nobody backs up.
Remember when the iMac shipped with only USB ports? It kickstarted a huge industry push towards USB perepherials. It really did, there were countless perepherials at the time that mimicked the look of the iMac.
The fact that nearly nobody backs up at all, and that backup-equipment manufacturers have had no success in making usable software shows how big a deal Time Machine is. Apple could do quite well selling backup drives as an accessory with new Macs because they can be confident in how easy it is to use – plug in – done.
Tiger added search that worked. Search that works how people work. Again, that’s a big deal. A regular user can’t find a file they opened last week sometimes. I’ve seen people who use Word as their filer / document launcher because they don’t know how to use Explorer itself.
Spotlight is a real big deal, Vista and Linux wouldn’t be including meta-searching too if it wasn’t.
How you can call Leopard a “big disappointment” only shows how uterly hyped up people are, expecting Apple to invent a quantum computer that can do your work for you. The technology we have available in Tiger already is nothing short of outstanding, it actually feels like I’m using a computer from the 21st century and not one that’s still stuck in the principles of the 20th.
The technology we have available in Tiger already is nothing short of outstanding, it actually feels like I’m using a computer from the 21st century and not one that’s still stuck in the principles of the 20th.
Oh, please, come off the marketing speak.
True, it may sound like that when I write it here – on the Internet; but your perception of your computing environment is a personal thing. When I sat down with a new Mac it was a complete breath of fresh air. That may not be the case with other people, as YMMV.
IMO the Mac struck a deep chord with me because the whole engineering mentality feels different. I used a Commodore 64 before the PC and it was a computer that felt good. It was well engineered and enjoyable to use.
And then I started using Windows when I was 16, and felt empty and soulless. Windows is made on a completely corporate mentality that has nearly zero actual concern for people in a non-corporate environment. If Microsoft really cared about the experience of regular users, we wouldn’t have ended up with IE6.
Using a Mac for the first time reminded me of the Commodore 64. This was a computer that was designed for me, not for a price point for a CEO. If you’re aware of it, the difference is vast, the whole way it treats you. Windows is hostile, unforgiving and has no interest in you. The Mac is welcoming and easy to explore. Vista is better because it’s a better consumer experience, but Vista took three years too long for me, the Mac had everything I wanted years before.
Text is a very poor medium for real emotions, and people on the Internet who have never used any other operating system than Windows are going to have a difficulty understanding the emotion over the engineering in an operating system, especially systems before Windows. This is why I’m here at OS News.
I know it sounds cheesy, but for me, the Mac still has some of that spirit from the 70’s and 80’s when the goal was to put a computer in every home. And that mentality makes the whole world of difference even right down to each line of code in an OS.
If Microsoft really cared about the experience of regular users, we wouldn’t have ended up with IE6.
Give me a break. When it came out, IE6 was a good product with relatively good standards support [at the time]. It was their lack of updates that made IE6 what it is. An outdated browser.
For me, using OSX for the first time (not in a store that is), I wasn’t terribly impressed. It wasn’t a bad experience, but not great.
Give me a break.
I could care less whether anyone uses Windows or OS X, but lets be honest and remember we are talking about GUI not features. (And IE was never relatively good with web standards, you just never noticed it because sites worked to IE flaws.)
Obviously GUI quality can be highly subjective, but still having said that IE6 was one of worst visually appealing applications in its default setup. Everything from button size to icon bitmaps to color was bad and made it feel heavy and bloated. (Regardless of performance, we are talking GUI!)
Go ahead and load them all, Firefox, IE6, Opera, Konqueror, and Safari and then say that isn’t true.
(And IE was never relatively good with web standards, you just never noticed it because sites worked to IE flaws.)
No, in 2001 it had relatively good standards.
Also, at the time, the UI wasn’t really bad either. Of course you feel different, but that’s subjective. It’s also not fair to compare a UI from 2001 to UIs from 2006-2007.
I strongly disagree with this. IE6 did not adhere to standards well, and instead rode the coat tails of its predecessors popularity and prevalence. Basically, web developers had already gotten used to the quirks of IE and the it’s non-standard way of working that long implemented hacks still worked with IE as they did before. IE7 doesn’t even adhere to standards all that well, what makes you think IE6 did. IE6 was a horror for any web developer. In terms of the gui, it was better than the previous versions, but that’s not saying much.
Ok, what part of “relatively” and “at the time” are you people not grasping?
Yeah, and I’m telling you that even at that time “relatively” was stretching it quite a bit. IE6 has never adhered to standards. What you are saying is that it had a semblance of standards compliance, and I’m stating that this is not true at all. That the only reason people never noticed before is because IE4 and 5 had already trained developers to workaround the problems instead of demanding actual compliancy. People seem to have short memories, no one remembers all those sites with the must have IE5 or later warnings before you could enter the page because they truly wouldn’t work on anything else. This is less so today because most browsers actually try to adhere to standards and not have the devs work around the browser.
An example, citibank’s site warns you that it only works on specific browsers on specific OS’s, yet I go to the site in linux with no issues at all. Why, because the site was built with standards in mind. The same couldn’t be said about their site just a couple of years ago, when IE6 was the only game in town.
Edited 2007-07-11 16:49
Yeah, and I’m telling you that even at that time “relatively” was stretching it quite a bit. IE6 has never adhered to standards.
You mean fully? No browser fully adheres to standards. As far as I know, IE6 has fully CSS Level 1 compliance, which was the most used CSS standard at the time. CSS Level 2 was only starting to be implemented by other browsers.
Another problem is that IE added standards. Their own. It’s not that they poorly adhered to the standards at the time.
Please tell me what IE6 didn’t support, when it was released, that other browsers did at that time.
Edited 2007-07-11 17:29
IE6 (& possibly 7) does not have full CSS1 compliance.
You can’t use background-attachment: fixed on anything but BODY.
Yes, true, there are a few exceptions.
But the point is that generally speaking, it’s standard compliance was on par or better than other browsers at the time.
Compare them with the versions back then, I wasn’t suggesting you compare it with the latest.
Also, IE6 was still the main browser until Vista, so using 2001 is a little misleading. (It wasn’t a static release since then.)
This is pretty subjective. Personally I thought IE6 was an extremely poor browser when I first used it. Compared with other browsers like Opera I found it slow and bloated, with a poor user interface and limited features. The fact that its development was neglected just added to its problems.
The popularity of IE6 despite its many flaws and lack of development really shows the huge advantage of bundling an application with the OS.
I’ve been using Opera since 3.6. At the time 5.0 was out and it simply wasn’t very good. It was fast, but some of it’s CSS and JS support was very poor. IE was slower, but it had better overall support for the web at the time. Mozilla didn’t even have a 1.0 released for their browser (Navigator?) at the time.
Limited features, yeah. But not a big concern at the time. The web was still relatively young and simple as far as pages went.
Poor user interface — eh. Even if it’s subjective, the internet was very simple. Not sure how it could be considered poor.
“And then I started using Windows when I was 16, and felt empty and soulless.”
“I know it sounds cheesy, but for me, the Mac still has some of that spirit from the 70’s and 80’s when the goal was to put a computer in every home. And that mentality makes the whole world of difference even right down to each line of code in an OS.”
uh, I’m pretty sure that Intel and Microsoft were the only ones who really came anywhere close to achieving “a computer in every home” Apple and Commodore both had their chances, and blew it. Hopefully, Apple won’t blow it again.
The ideologies were different.
Apple wanted to put a computer in every home;
Microsoft wanted a computer in every seat in every office.
The core mentality made a huge difference in the final quality.
“The core mentality made a huge difference in the final quality.”
I don’t think that had anything to do with it. MS aand Intel wanted both, and in these cases, lower common denominator usually wins. Apples were historically more expensive, did not encourage tinkering due to design (a philosophy that lives on, can’t very well take an iMac apart) Part of the PCs success has been that each machine could be customized fully for your needs, with Apple, you took what you got, and liked it.
In the early 90s, what would you recommend to your boss? A computer that you could fix, were familiar with, and backed by the likes of IBM, or a closed case that had to have Apple reps come in and fix, or most likely sent away. I know what I would have done. You had a choice of OS’s, Windows, Early Linux, BSD, OS2. That’s mostly why Wintel won the desktop, the hardware was easy to understand, and cheaper than the alternatives. MS was just along for the ride.
Open up a little and tell us how you really feel. =)
As you said, YMMV. Windows sometimes seems openly hostile. But in my fledgling Mac career I don’t “feel” open hostility but rather something dark and insidious, a feeling of disquiet and discomfort. Anyway…
The Dock just isn’t working for me. The “light” under the icon just looks out of place. I don’t like the little arrow, but I don’t think the change in Leopard is a step in the right direction. While I think it looks cool, it’s not exactly more useful.
The drop shadow. Yeah. Um, tone that back down. That was a mistake.
The Translucent menu bar. It’s actually cool when you have a subtle background. I like how it looks with the default that was set in the latest developer seed (I suppose that background is always the default).
Spotlight is nice and fast but its transparent window is just not helpful. Depending on what is behind it, the transparency makes it very hard to read.
As far as the noise on the icons, I didn’t even notice until the author pointed it out. They look good.
Overall I like the way things are moving. I’m hoping Apple will let you customize things a bit more.
Oh dear, Oh dear!
Kroc, they do not care about you. They are selling to you. Its different. They have found what it takes to sell to you, and others. But the feelings they are arousing are facts about you, not about them or their products. They have been appallingly successful, but that’s all it is. I’m sorry its so, and don’t want to be hurtful or unpleasant, and hope it doesn’t come across like that. But its a delusion. No product, no company, can appropriately be the object of such feelings.
In fact I would go further and say that any company which focusses its marketing on producing such feelings has a strong element of evil about it. Which of course, the committed cannot see, any more than the members of any cult can see such things.
Oh dear. I used to be a committed Mac user, but I was never this far in! Thank Heaven!
Switching to Mac has taught me more about other systems than anything I could have learnt from using Windows. I know now how to use the command line much better, I understand Unix permissions. If Apple turn sour, I am better prepared to move to Linux than as I was a Windows user.
The fact that nearly nobody backs up at all, and that backup-equipment manufacturers have had no success in making usable software shows how big a deal Time Machine is. Apple could do quite well selling backup drives as an accessory with new Macs because they can be confident in how easy it is to use – plug in – done.
I still don’t see how Time Machine is more usable than Previous Versions in Vista. Time Machine is basically an application that can only run in full-screen, completely disrupting your workflow (I _hate_ full screen applications). The flashy interface also limits you in that you cannot check back in time two or more files/directories at the same time; you can only check one directory at a time.
In Previous Versions, I can check an endless amount of files/dirs at the same time, because Microsoft chose to place this backup functionality where it should be: in the file’s properties dialog. It may not have flying stars, but it is a lot more flexible.
On top of that, Time Machine is a pure backup solution, where Previous Versions is a file revision system; it does not rely on an external/extra hard drive (and remember, only the Mac Pro can carry more than one internal hard drive), so I can use the biggest feature (file revision) of Previous Versions on any computer I want – not just the ones with a spare hard drive. On top of that, I have the _choice_ to use external hard drives for PV – if I want to.
The flashy interface may have blinded a lot of people, but not me. Time Machine looks awesome, but it’s also a crude implementation technically, and that same flashy interface will really hinder you in doing the actual task at hand – restorting file’s backups.
Using previous versions, tell me how to find a 1600×1200 photoshop file in CMYK that I accidentally deleted three months, two days ago.
Previous versions can’t do that. It can’t recover contacts in your address book, just roll the whole address book back.
The “flashy interface” is what makes Time Machine work.
I can’t think of many customers of mine who know how to use the file properties dialog, let alone tell me where it’s located or what it does.
Oh, the PV UI is only available in Vista business/ultimate. So what good is a feature that consumers are supposed to use, when it doesn’t have a UI in the largest number of consumer computers!
Using previous versions, tell me how to find a 1600×1200 photoshop file in CMYK that I accidentally deleted three months, two days ago.
Go to the directory where you keep your photoshop files, click properties, select previous versions, check the revisisions there.
It can’t recover contacts in your address book, just roll the whole address book back.
Nonsense. In Vista, contacts are per-file, so you can just go the Contacts directory.
The “flashy interface” is what makes Time Machine work.
Not for me. It’s a full-screen applications, and during using Time Machine, I cannot access any of my other programs. And, as I said, I can only do one dir at a time.
What if the directory moved, was deleted, renamed to something you can’t remember? These things happen. Spotlight doesn’t care about that, nor should users have to remember where everything is precisely filed at all times in history, that’s what Time Machine is for.
As for full screen. When you’re trying to find a file you’ve lost to deletion, you kind of focus on that task, because you know, it’s important. I really don’t believe that people want, and can’t live without typing a word document whilst hunting for a lost file at the same time. It’s a non-sequitor
Plus, in Time Machine, you have full access to Spotlight. You can add meta filters, remove them, change your search terms. You can’t do that with PV. If you remember that it’s in a different folder, you have to stop, go there, requery and so on ad infinatum. PV is good for doing backups, but useless as backup -restoral-.
“Go to the directory where you keep your photoshop files”
What if you dont remember what directory it was in?
“so you can just go the Contacts directory.”
How many users know where the contacts directory is?
I’m not saying Time Machine is in any way better but some kind of search function in PV might be a good idea.
What if you dont remember what directory it was in?
That sounds completely ridiculous to me :/. I’m a control freak, I know where each file is, exactly, from the top of my head. The idea that you would not even know where you keep your Photoshop files… *shiver*.
How many users know where the contacts directory is?
Right there in you home directory on Vista. It’s kind of impossible to miss.
I’m sure a heap of other people have replied to this one and probably made the following points, but anyway…
1) not everyone is a control freak
2) I’ve always thought that computers should be able to do work for us, that’s the point of having one. Why should we remember where things are. Spotlight and iLife are two good examples. In iLife, I don’t need to know where my photos, mp3’s or movies etc. are, that is so cool. It’s a strange concept for some. I’ve had friends move from Windows to Macs and once they get the hang of that and “trust” the apps to look after things, they fall in love with it. Spotlight is a brilliant extension to this. I can put info anywhere on my computer and find it in seconds. Having said that, I still create folders and look after where I put things, but don’t need to anymore. My mum for instance used to always loose where she put a letter, photo or recipe etc… Not any more…
3) As for knowing where my contacts are, who cares. I open Address book and edit them there. Why should I care where they are stored. Oh, that’s right, because if I need to recover them using PV I need to know. With Time Machine I don’t.
4) The world is changing and the way we look at where information is stored and how we use our computers is changing. Apple (and others) are shining a small light in the right direction I think. I think MS is moving this way too (WinFS was an example of this), only slower right now.
5) Trust me, I’m not knocking PV, but the two tools are based on different ways of looking at the same problem, both have merit, personally, I like Time Machines approach.
6) Oh, and the argument about an external drive being a bad idea, sorry, but I love that idea. I can see why you don’t like it, esp. on laptops, however I hate having my main drive filled with data that I will probably never need. Why eat into your main drive, esp. if it is only 40Gb. I like knowing that I have a particular external drive and it’s purpose is backup. It just sits there and does it’s thing in the background… I have have an external drive for my Parallel images too…
“That sounds completely ridiculous to me :/. I’m a control freak, I know where each file is, exactly, from the top of my head.”
Good for you. The only problem with this argument is that most users aren’t control freaks and probably don’t know exactly where each file is (and was).
Look Thom we get it, you do not like Time machine. Just like you didnt like the iPhone and many of its features.
I respect that.
My point however (and Im not trying to convince anyone to change) is that the average person will credit more from time machine.
Apple makes Fun and Simple-easy-to-use ( some times with fewer features than other products). However it is this complete package that sells to the average person. This is what has made Apple famous, and this is why I prefer its products. You dont like them,fine. Don’t use them.
And since youre not a fan of simplicity and ease-of-use, next time you go buy a book about some topic youre totally unfamiliar with, why dont you go buy the Big university tome, instead of the mainstream simplified version. You seem to be coping just fine with Windows
Edited 2007-07-11 13:42
I know you Apple fanboys don’t like to admit it, but Previous Versions was here first. You’re not starting a trend.
It’s pretty ironic how you bash Vista, then Leopard delivers lackluster features and incremental improvements.
You talk about there being no reason to upgrade from Vista, but what about upgrading from Tiger? Or even just switching to Mac?
Of course, upgrading from Tiger will be a nonissue. Apple has a chokehold on it’s userbase in ways Microsoft can only dream of.
I don’t know about you, but there was a lot of thought put into making Vista even more user friendly. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to knock Vista, but most of them brought up by the Apple fanboys are hardly issues.
I find it rather myopic that people don’t grasp the impact that Leopard Developer Tools will do for Leopard and thus the entire family of Apple Products, both present and future.
The underpinnings of this OS have gone through a massive overhaul.
“On top of that, Time Machine is a pure backup solution, where Previous Versions is a file revision system; it does not rely on an external/extra hard drive (and remember, only the Mac Pro can carry more than one internal hard drive), so I can use the biggest feature (file revision) of Previous Versions on any computer I want – not just the ones with a spare hard drive. On top of that, I have the _choice_ to use external hard drives for PV – if I want to.”
Time machine *does* depends on a different partition, if you partition your disk into two or more partitionss time machine is available but you will get a message saying that time machine is on the same physical disk.
But having your backup on the same physical disk sort of defeats the purpose of having a backup when it comes to a complete hardisk-failure.
And time machine makes it possible to get an older version of your file/document/source-code and restore that.
regards
Claus
You don’t see it Thom because you have absolutely no idea when it comes to non-technical users interaction with computers. The bottom line is this, I bet a lot higher percentage of users will use Time Machine on a Mac than use PV on Vista…
I agree with you on the general quality of backup software, but Ghost is still around last I checked.
I haven’t used Leopard admittedly, but – other than inclusion with the OS – what does it provide over and above existing apps like CarbonCopyCloner?
Time Machine is automated. You plug in a hard disk, it keeps everything fresh on the disk in the background. At any point you can start searching through Time Machine without having to wait for a progress bar to slowly reach across the screen (except for the very first backup).
The problem is that end users never find a schedule for backing up. Even if they had good software, they don’t backup regularly at all. Time Machine helps by always being there and meaning that they don’t have to have a backup schedule they have to remember because to them it’s a chore, it’s a horrible chore nobody does until it’s too late.
Time Machine is automated. You plug in a hard disk, it keeps everything fresh on the disk in the background.
The fact that Time Machine (TC) *requires* an extra hard disk (or partition) is exactly why I call it a crude implementation. This requirement renders Time Machine *useless* on the Macs that sell the best: Apple’s laptops. Sure, you could repartition your iBook’s internal drive, but space already *is* limited on these small harddrives, so you really don’t want to lose 10 of your 40GB.
With Previous Versions (PV), I am not *forced* into using an external harddrive – in other words, where TC is useless on a laptop, PV will still perform its duty s a file revision control system. TC won’t.
Therefore, TC is a crude solution, *technically*, compared to more elegant options like Previous Versions or ZFS.
The problem is that end users never find a schedule for backing up. Even if they had good software, they don’t backup regularly at all. Time Machine helps by always being there and meaning that they don’t have to have a backup schedule they have to remember because to them it’s a chore, it’s a horrible chore nobody does until it’s too late.
PV also runs automatically, no need for user intervention either. The really crappy thing about PV is that no one will have it in the first place (you’re certainly right about that). Another victim of Microsoft’s idiotic product differentiation.
A backup on the same hard disk is not a backup at all.
Thom, I think you’re confused about the difference between backing up and versioning. Using VSC (“Previous Versions” is the client) on one drive is great for versioning and overwrite protection, but Time Machine is not a replacement for Subversion or CVS. It’s a BACKUP solution, and there’s only one way to backup – onto separate media. Apple has made that available to everyone. VSC and Previous Versions are FAR from ready for the average user. Plugging in a hard drive and having your OS walk you through the backup is revolutionary in my book.
VSC may be, feature-wise, more complete than Time Machine. But Time Machine is much more user ready.
Thom, I think you’re confused about the difference between backing up and versioning. Using VSC (“Previous Versions” is the client) on one drive is great for versioning and overwrite protection, but Time Machine is not a replacement for Subversion or CVS. It’s a BACKUP solution, and there’s only one way to backup – onto separate media.
I’m not confused at all – I have made the distinction several times in this thread alone. The thing is though, the way Time Machine functions, it definitely has versioning. You can go back in time and look at specific revisions of files – exactly, versioning. Time Machine does backup (saving copies of important files on a different medium), but by allowing you to access specific revisions of specific files, it is *also* a versioning system.
So, Time Machine offers versioning and backup, but *only* when you have an external hard drive. VSC/PV also offers both versioning and backup, but contrary to Time Machine, it does not require a 2nd harddrive to perform its versioning task. It does its versioning locally (TC does it externally), which is a lot more elegant – which was my original point.
The big downside, as I already said, is the fact that PV is only available to Ultimate/Business users, whereas TC is available to any Mac with an external hard drive.
“”VSC may be, feature-wise, more complete than Time Machine. But Time Machine is much more user ready.””
Yeah time machine might be ‘user-ready’ but it still won’t get used.
Like thom said macbooks are the top seller, so in order to use time machine you have to buy an external hard drive, leave it plugged into you laptop at night I guess (how well time machine acts when regularly disconnected from the back up drive is a good question too)? Any time you want to retrieve an old file you have to go home and plug in you hard drive.
basically meaning that for all the whizbangery in the interface it’s just as if not more inconvenient to use than any existing solution, the idea that “joe user” or whatever will use it is kinda ridiculous.
also on an unrelated note, am i the only one that thinks the “graceful arc” for small stacks look f–king retarded.
Sigh. Once again, Time Machine is for backups, not for versioning. If you need to retreive backups that frequently, you have bigger problems than TM or VSC can solve. TM is going to be used by most to save your ass when a hard drive crashes. With digital photo and MP3 collections growing, it will get used.
Probably.
Edited 2007-07-11 18:28 UTC
“”Sigh. Once again, Time Machine is for backups, not for versioning. If you need to retreive backups that frequently, you have bigger problems than TM or VSC can solve. TM is going to be used by most to save your ass when a hard drive crashes. “”
This may all be true, but apple keeps marketing it as versioning.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/features/timemachine.html
the page and the demos and the hype in general is consistently single file centric. heck look at the people defending it earlier in the thread talking about single records in databases vs an entire db, and specific image files or a single contact.
“”With digital photo and MP3 collections growing, it will get used. “”
I’m willing to put good money down on the fact that anyone who is smart enough or just paranoid enough to realize the importance of making backups of that sort of thing are already doing it.
1994: I’m willing to put good money down on the fact that anyone smart enough to use email is already doing it.
1996: I’m willing to put good money down on the fact that anyone smart enough to figure out the world wide web is already doing it.
1999: I’m willing to put good money down on the fact that anyone smart enough to use instant messaging is already doing it.
2000: I’m willing to put good money down on the fact that anyone smart enough to use file sharing is already doing it.
2002: I’m willing to put good money down on the fact that anyone smart enough to use a router at home already is doing it.
2004: I’m willing to put good money down on the fact that anyone smart enough to use a digital camera is doing it.
cute but allow me to insert an ellipses to point out why that’s not what i said:
I’m willing to put good money down on the fact that anyone who is smart enough … to realize the importance of making backups of that sort of thing are already doing it.
Point still holds. I think you’re being short-sighted.
Yes you’re the only one.
I’m not terribly enamored of either of those solutions, at least on their own. From my experience, the vast majority of data loss is due to hardware failure (and lack of proper hardware testing/knowledgeable techs, but at least it keeps data recovery companies in business) – so backing up to a partition on the same drive only saves you from software-related problems, or “whoops I didn’t mean to press delete” human error.
PV with a single drive is in the same boat, IMO. Unless you’re also imaging to a secondary drive or using some other complimentary solution, you’re still screwed if the drive fails.
The key qualifier is single drive. Thom’s point is that PV is more flexible than Time Machine because you can use PV’s versioning capabilities with only a single drive, but you still have the capability of using a seperate drive for automatic backups of the system. It’s not an exclusive choice. You can utilize both capabilities simultaneously.
That does sound much more sensible. I do hope, though, that the software offers some warning when activated – warning users that they should really be using a secondary drive too. Otherwise, I can see a danger of users developing a false sense of security, a la the morons who think that “four-wheel drive” means they can drive 120km/hr in blizzard.
That does sound rather nice – although still, IIRC CCC can run on an automated schedule as well.
I can see a slight potential for an increased risk of data loss, however, due to the automated/immediate nature of the backup. A data recovery tech has told me some horror stories about RAID mirroring setups where one drive in the array starts to fail – not catastrophically, but just enough to corrupt data. And then that corrupted data gets mirrored – so once the problem is discovered (E.g., the failing drive finally bites the dust), the user goes to restore the backup and finds it full of unusable data.
I think the largest part of the problem is that most users don’t know *how* to backup properly, combined with/exacerbated by most available backup software being unnecessarily-convoluted. IME though, it doesn’t take much to lower the barriers enough that most users will backup regularly. E.g., I normally setup two identical drives, then create a boot diskette/CD with ghost and the appropriate autoexec commands to dupe the primary drive to the backup. I’ve found that most users are a lot more likely to backup in that situation, when all it requires is: insert CD/diskette, reboot computer, go to sleep/go home for the day, come back to the finished backup.
What about KISS??? They can add all kinds of excellent, new features to a simple UI. Why fancy it up? Why make it less congruous than it already is? Apple doesn’t need to get into a bling war with Microsoft.
Don’t get me wrong, I am pretty committed to Apple, but I really don’t understand what their UI designers have been smoking.
I wish I could mod you up more.
People seem to overlook that in 2007, regular users still don’t know how to use their own computer.
I’ve noticed that a lot of features being implemented on desktops these days are specifically geared towards people who don’t know how to use computers. Great, so now grandma can back up her files. But what’s left for the power users to get excited about other than the fact that we’ll now have to spend less time backing up grandma’s stuff ?
I want some *real* features for a change. An OS for power users that doesn’t treat me like an idiot, while at the same time, not making it so complex so that I need a degree in rocket science to exploit all of the functionality. Basically, take the file manager Directory Opus as a base, and make the entire operating system like that
Now fast foward to Leopard, and I’m sorry, there aren’t even features which are so-so – features which make me go, “geeze, maybe I should sell this computer and get a mac” when compard to Windows, Linux or Solaris.
Yes, because Solaris is so close of Mac OS X in term of desktop …. lol!
I remember people when Tiger was in beta saying there was nothing new and they won’t buy it.
Everybody is using it today. It will be as usual, people will complain before but run bying it when it’s released …
One thing you are overlooking which is awesome imho and actually does make me want to buy a mac, even though i agree that 10.5 is visually a step backwards for my taste (that 3d dock… gosh, it looks so horrible bad, makes you think you use lookingglass) is coreanimation.
Yes, it won’t immediately appeal to joe-macuser (which in my experience is usually even less tech-savvy then joe-windowsuser) but if you are a programmer with an pretty interface fetish it makes you wet your pants in anticipation.
It’ a Beta.
Remember the Tiger Beta?
Remember the original Mac OS X Beta?
Remember the Vista Beta?
Remember the Windows XP Beta?
I do. And they all changed look sometimes significantly before shipping.
Granted though, Apple’s arrogance in UI is sometimes off the mark (iTunes 7), but generally it’s good.
And in the worst case scenario the community will build haxies to fix UI annoyances (Like UNO). Apple users are too fussy to a) not give Apple grief over it, and b) find a workaround.
That isn’t the issue. The issue is this; Once PowerPC end users finish moving over, they need something to keep up the growth.
They need to make their operating system compelling enough for Windows users to move. If there isn’t enough compelling reasons their growth will slow, their reputation will be hurt.
I’m sitting here, I’ve got a laptop running Windows/Solaris – I want something that will pull me to the Mac, and sorry, Leopard so far lacks that pulling power that would want me to make that change (back) to Mac.
Why should you demand that Leopard does that?? As a solaris user, that’s your choice, but you come from a market that Apple don’t pander to. You already have access to ZFS and other technologies that Apple users are waiting to receive. I don’t understand the “Hey Apple! Make me give up my choice!” and then pouting when it’s not good enough?
As a Mac user, I’m looking forward to Leopard, even if it’s a little rough on the 1.0. We know that our machines are going to perform faster than before, and not slow to a crawl, we know we’re getting improved game performance with multi-threaded OpenGL, we’re getting CoreAnimation that’s going to play a major part in just about every app in the coming years.
For me, like it was in Tiger, it’s about stuff under the hood – the enablers of technology. Tiger’s introudction of CoreImage/Video and other APIs enabled a lot of great apps, and features that pushed me over to Mac.
I think the same will be of Leopard. Within a year’s time, Mac developer’s ability to create stunning UIs with animation that helps the user follow the flow of the app is going to make Windows software look positively dead pan. There are a lot of Mac apps that have shown that your software should be fun, easy to use, nice to look at. Looking at grey squares all day just sucks the life out of people.
And for people who say they don’t like the eyecandy; There’s a difference between eye candy and usability UI. Switching to a Mac has shown me that even the most professional software can be luscious and easy to use. I’ve never saw any such attention on Windows – eye candy meant horrible god-awful custom chrome and owner-drawn menus for no discernable reason.
Edited 2007-07-11 09:18
“I’ve never saw any such attention on Windows – eye candy meant horrible god-awful custom chrome and owner-drawn menus for no discernable reason.”
While I can’t speak for the quality of OSX eye-candy (seeing as I have never used OSX) I feel pretty much the same as you in regards to Windows eye-candy. it’s usually more of an eye sore.
I think the same will be of Leopard. Within a year’s time, Mac developer’s ability to create stunning UIs with animation that helps the user follow the flow of the app is going to make Windows software look positively dead pan.
Heh, goes to show how much you follow Windows as a platform. Go look up Windows Presentation Foundation (formerly Avalon) and XAML. These were finished products before Apple even announced CoreAnimation. Not trying to criticize Apple here at all, because I’m excited about CoreAnimation, just trying to point out that Windows has already gone in the same direction. All mainstream desktop OSes will.
Oh, I know about Avalon alright. Sad thing is that Microsoft delivered it woefully late and have done nearly jack all with it. I switched to a Mac because Vista was late, over-promised and then under-delivered. Plus the hardware requirements for Aero are obscene. I have a 1.25 Ghz PPC MacMini with a Radeon 9250 that supports Core Image/Video/Animation.
Aero and WPF are not really the same thing though. You can use XAML to develop some cool UI and it doesn’t need obscene hardware.
Woefully late? I’m using WPF and XAML right now on VS Orcas with the Expression Suite… and was even earlier than that pre Orcas..
Are you using Core Animation right now? No?
Aero is not WPF. Just like Core Animation is not Quartz Compositor.
Microsoft is a victim of it’s own openness in terms of the development of Vista. They basically showed off everything they were brainstorming on, some of it was revolutionary and some of it was just a plain bad idea.
They then slowly but surely started to remove things that would be either too radical of a change, or impractical to deliver given their time frame.
A lot of companies do that when delivering products, there is nothing different with Microsoft.
I’m sure Apple has cut features from products. Of course, you would never know because of how badly they keep their users informed.
uh, a 1.25Ghz P4 or Athlon would run Vista just fine, and you’d only need a slightly more powerful VC, such as a Radeon 9600 to run Aero. I would hardly call that obscene. Stop exaggerating, it is so annoying how people keep parroting the same crap. Vista may have it’s problems. but needing “obscene” hardware is just a myth.
Aero and Avalon are NOT finished products. I know. I am MS Partner. They are Beta. And to be released by the end of this year. Don’t lie. The fact that MS developed a few samples using Aero, XAML and .NET 3.0 using betas of Orcas and Expression Designer, doesn’t mean that it’s “a finished product”. The same holds true for all the developers (myself included) working with these technologies to have a working piece of software “by the time it’s available”. But that doesn’t mean that it’s finished. It is definitely not. Bugs are there for you to enjoy.
🙂
On the other hand, Aero/XAML/.NET 3.0 DO look very very nice and will be an open door to the best Windows applications we have ever seen (and, at the same time, the most horrible/bad designed stuff you can possibly imagine). Think of microsoft bob.
🙂
Things look a whole lot worse if you have the dock on the left or right of the screen… I have it on the left and the 3D effect looks plain stupid. And transluscence is pointless.
Heh, I prefer the white light to the black triangle 🙂
Haha… the funniest HTTP error message ever!!
Go get yourself a real hoster
It’s the computer thought police :3
kinda like the design
” I have broken down 5 onscreen blunders that detract from the user experience and make Leopard the ugliest and most uncharacteristically ‘Apple’ OS to date.”
This completely belongs to the point of view of the author who seems to forget that Leopard is still in beta code. Also the opinion of the author does not correspond to the opinion of all the other people that will use Leopard.
I do like the extended shadow effect as it really gives better a dimension feeling to the desktop, i don’t see why the user should be distracted by this, i think that is just the opposite, the user will have a better view to where he/she is.
For me the dock looks nice, again it gives a better dimension to the desktop and the reflection gives a “live” feeling of the desktop. But anyway you like or you dislike, the opinion will differ with people.
For the menu bar, if he does not like it, well it seems that Apple is considering giving the option to switch off the transparency as far as i could hear from the WWDC.
Same thing for the rest of the things pointed out in the article, they refer more to what the author would prefer or not.
But again, i would say that it is smarter to wait for a final product to start to tell about annoying features, because for the moment this article is pointless.
I am of course agree that he point out the things that he dislikes, ok, …… but please is he obliged to go with all the pathetic comments like ugliest or most uncharacteristically ‘Apple’ OS to date.”? Come on, he is talking about a beta OS.
Also calling Leopard “most uncharacteristically ‘Apple’ OS to date.”” shows that the author does not know what he is talking about, and the same can be said to people who claim that Leopard is a less interesting version than 10.2 or 10.3 or 10.4, actually Leopard is a much much important version than earlier versions of OS X.
Just count the features that Leopard brings, Leopard is a more important version not only for users but also for developers, …… a huge deal for developers.
You don’t believe?, well it is because you were not at the WWDC………
Please consider the fact as they are, ……
But again, i would say that it is smarter to wait for a final product to start to tell about annoying features, because for the moment this article is pointless.
Isn’t the whole point of releasing beta versions that people should use them and complain about everything that they think sucks, be bugs or design decisions? That way the company can fix it before releasing the final version. If no one reported problems before the final version was released then those problems wouldn’t be fixed before the next final version comes out. Thus removing the whole point of betas.
It’s not that bugs are pointed out in the article but overall design dislike.
I know, I said so in my original post. Beta’s aren’t (or at least shouldn’t) be only about programming bugs. They should be about all design changes made. I know I often file reports about UI dislikes (or UI bugs as some people call them) when beta testing software and if enough people file similar complaints sometimes changes are made based on this between beta and release.
Yes, it is an personal opinion of the author, but I don’t see how Leopard being beta detracts from the quality of the article.
If Leopard changes for the better (at least for the article author), wouldn’t then the goal of that author be achieved?
If transparency is not default, then so be it. However, it makes as an horrible default. Words and icons on the menu bar are in black. As a general rule, most users won’t change defaults. If there is a dark background, the menu bar becomes less usable. Using, “if you don’t like it, turn it off” as an excuse is rather stupid.
Why should Apple release a beta then? I mean, if anyone posts a bug report – it’s a bit pointless right? Beta testers would be smarter to wait for a final product to start to tell about bugs that crop up…
Because?
Features like semi-translucent menu bars, 3D Dock with neon-light indicators and huge ass shadow? Yeah, revolutionary! More so than, I don’t know, the wheel.
But the article wasn’t saying that Leopard was pure crap. It was saying certain changes in user interface was not only pointless, it was (except maybe the last) a bad thing.
Developers loving things like CoreAnimation or 64-bit Cocoa does not detract from criticism of huge-ass window shadows or the ugly-fied menu bar/Spotlight.
As a general rule, most users won’t change defaults. If there is a dark background, the menu bar becomes less usable.
You do realize you just contradicted yourself? “Most users won’t change defaults” yet apparently they will be changing the background???? If they’re advanced enough to do that one would hope they can figure out how to turn off the translucency. Apple tends to put these sorts of configuration options within easy reach.
From the article,
“Finally, it almost seems like it’s a half-hearted grasp at imitating Aero Glass, and it hardly needs to be said that that isn’t a good subject for imitation.”
How it can be when in fact this is Aero which tries to use transparency like OS X has been using it at different levels since, well 2001.
“I can understand what they’re trying to do conceptually by trying to minimize the impact of the menu bar, but when another window is open, it actually ends up emphasizing the menu bar, which creates some sort of visual chasm between the top of the screen and the top of the window. ”
Why this, i really wonder what’s the reasoning of the author. This is just the opposite, the menu bar now fails back in terms of perception behind the windows. And this the expected effect, the user have the feeling of having larger space for his/her windows and it gives to the desktop a broader appeal. And the transition from the menu bar to the windows is easier because the user feels less the presence of the menu bar.
Given that the author fails to explain why he thinks so, i consider this point as irrelevant.
“Either way, it serves to make the bar harder to read, and might be confusing to the seasoned Mac user. ”
According to Macworld, Apple has indicated that the menu bar will be able to automatically adjust the transparency with the background photo in order to keep the menu items easy to read. And again, Apple seems to consider to add also an option to switch off the transparency. We’ll see….
– Glowing Dock Dots
“The little black triangles show the currently running applications, and again, are an unobtrusive part of the UI that blends into the background, only noticeable when you need it.”
What? Again this is the opposite. The triangle used to be much more noticeable and obtrusive than the new dots. In Leopard they are like inside the dock, part of the dock, which makes them only noticeable when the user wish so. The added dimension in the dock really allows
it to be more user friendly as it feels like it is part of the desktop, not something apart. Also the icons in the dock look now less obtrusive as they live now in the added dimension which makes them more elegantly appearing to the user.
“The new, neon-blue ‘magic’ dots are so out of place, they’re hard to describe, almost like a mystical throwback to Aqua.”
Non-sense……. This does not mean anything……
Also remember that Leopard is still a work in progress, the UI element are not decided yet.
-Spotlight Menu
“when they thought that combining a translucent menu bar, black menu icons, and bright blue accents was a good design decision, but that’s what you get when you access Spotlight in Leopard.”
It seems to me that this part of the UI is not finished yet, i don’t think that Apple will keep the blue, however for the rest, the UI makes sense.
-New System Icon
“Now, these might still grow on me, I haven’t decided yet, but they do seem a bit goofy right now. As you can see in this QuickLook screenshot, there is now almost a ‘grain’ to the folders, reminiscent of recycled paper.”
This is pure undecided personal feeling of the author and the rest of the sentence does not make any sense.
I don’t know why so many people are attacking the author of this article just because he’s criticising a Beta.
It’s true that we don’t know that the final product will have the same flaws, but we also don’t know that Apple will acknowledge and fix them.
Look at how many annoyances from OS X previews were still present in the early release versions. Most of the complaints were fixed sooner or later, but who knows if that would have happened if people hadn’t provided Apple with feedback.
I doubt the author would have bothered with this ‘nitpicking’ if he didn’t care about Mac OS X and want to see it improve.
If Apple are going to fix this anyway then the criticism does no harm, if they aren’t then complaining now could lead to a better product.
He says the whole point of the article was to make objections during the beta phase!
Frankly, I’d prefer it if people did speak their mind, lest Apple think that the translucent menubar was a good idea.
The menubar is the perfect subject for a court case on behalf of the visually impaired. Accessibility people are looking for a target to force software companies to do the right thing…
Given the quality of the OSX accessibility tools, I doubt that such a thing would ever happen. Even if there isn’t an option to turn off the translucency in the final Leopard release, Visually impaired people can just max out the quartz contrast until they can read the text.
Since it’s in beta status, it’s not any big deal… Let’s sit and wait for the finished product!
Since it’s in beta status, it’s not any big deal… Let’s sit and wait for the finished product!
How about “Since it’s in beta, we can complain about the things we don’t like and maybe they can be changed for the final” ? If one finds something objectionable with a beta, one doesn’t hope it will go away, one reports it and states that one dislikes it. To not do so would defeat the purpose of a beta.
Obviously, a problem with a beta isn’t as big a deal as a problem with a finished product, but that doesn’t mean it should be ignored.
Edited 2007-07-11 13:45 UTC
OK, I can’t comment on the article, because it’s down.
First of all, finally a unified theme! Now iTunes 8 has to follow an kill that stupid custom scroll bars etc.
IMHO the new theme is too gray. I hope that toolbar icons stay colorful and don’t become like Safari’s toolbar icons. With Tiger Apple killed the convention that a silouette of a toolbar icon should indicate the function. Apps like Camino add another layer and IMHO that’s great. Round icons are for nagigation-related things. And on top of that Camino uses strong colors: Green is back/forward, blue is relload and red is stop.
I didn’t see Leopard in action yet, but the WWDC build is supposed to be feature-complete (that should include the GUI). One thing I saw on screenshots is that Preview uses Mail2-style toolbar icons.
IMHO those icons suck. They lack distinct silouettes and they lack distinct colors.
If all Leopard apps use toolbar icons that look like either Safari icons or like Mail2 icons, then from the standpoint of visual usability, Leopard will be the worst Mac OS release in history. UNO 2.0 to the rescue.
Different UIs work for different people, not everyone is going to find certain features the best way for them to get a job done. That’s why i prefer a nice selection of window managers or desktop environments to use, because chances are someone is going to find one that suits them better than a default one or some other one they were using. This is a problem in my opinion with proprietary systems, there is not enough choice for your UI. I know OS X users will say that you can install X11 and run any window manager you want, but X11 on OS X seems a bit of a kludgy hack, it is not as well integrated into the system as a lot of the free UNIX like systems out there.
For the person that thinks Window XP and Vista’s backup and restore program is better than Time Machine just shows that you haven’t used it. Go to Apple’s website and see the video demo of what it does. You can VERY easily and VERY quickly restore a file, a record in a database, a record in your address book. You CANNOT do that in XP or Vista in any backup/restore software that I’ve seen. In those you have to restore the whole database, not just the record.
Nope, I can very well restore my contacts with Previous Version.
I get that “you haven’t used it” goes both ways right?
You can restore ALL contacts. But can you very easily with a few clicks restore ONE contact. Can you choose which version from which date? Not nearly as easily as with TimeMachine. How about records in a database? One record? Sorry, not with the XP or Visata backup/restore program. You restore the whole thing.
So again. Go to the video to show you why it is different. Have you done that yet? I thought now.
Yes, you can.
Open the previous version of the changed contact file or the folder containing the deleted contact file and drag that one file over to the current version of the Contacts folder, or you can open the previous file, copy whatever data you want from it into the current file. Same for the DB or any other file.
Yes you can. Stop regurgitating the FUD fed to you. You’re wrong.
…I STILL prefer Mac OS X 10.2 over the rest (visually I mean).
Oh well. That’s what ShapeShifter is for. They’d better have a Leopard version available.
The new beta Dock replacing the black arrows with the “white dots” looks very much to me like an attempt to use the “reflecting pond” look Apple uses on its website to feature products like the iPhone (especially if there is a black background). On the beta Dock, they are generic while, on the website, they are specific. Does anyone else get that feeling???
I’m not too fond of a lot of the new GUI styling in Leopard. I hate the transparent menu bar, looks horrible IMO with some backgrounds. The neon balls are also fairly hard to see – I could see an older user with bad eyesight having an issue seeing them versus the simple black triangle. I’m also not a fan of the new folder icons – they’re dull and flat compared to every other icon in the OS.
I do, however like the 3D dock, it just looks so freaking sweet when you have windows reflecting off of it. I also like the new unified look – finally my applications are looking (for the most part) — Unified!
But really, who cares what I think? It’s beta software anyway, subject to change.
What happened to the NDA? Or worse, is this a pirate copy? What is this guy thinking who posted the article?
A few days ago, there was a post about some new UI enhancements in KDE 4.
Any criticisms were shot down with cries of “it’s only a beta.” Especially Kroc’s valid (but harsh) statements.
Now people, (some of the same people) are saying it’s perfectly valid to criticize a beta product. In fact that is the point of a beta product. I happen to agree with this sentiment.
But why the discrepancy? KDE gets cut some slack because it’s open source? because it’s free? because it’s community developed?
Valid criticism is valid criticism.
Because it’s alpha.
“Because it’s alpha.”
Wow. Alpha means “don’t criticise this”. I didn’t realize.
No, Alpha means this code is so early that it has not even entered testing, it is still in the early stages of development, and should not be expected to work properly or error free.
No, you tosser. KDE’s Alpha means “the final release would look nothing like this”.
No, you tosser. KDE’s Alpha means “the final release would look nothing like this”.
Thanks for the clarification, my cultured friend.
Edited 2007-07-12 17:24 UTC
It’s really not the same thing. For starters, KDE4 is still at Alpha stage, not Beta.
Second, the tone of some of the criticism implied that what was seen in the KDE Alpha release was somehow representative of what would be in the final release. It’s not, and those critics were reminded of that.
Finally, Apple’s express goal in showing these UI tweaks is to get some feedback from users about their look. The KDE Alpha release is expecting bug reports about functionality, not looks (not yet anyway).
So there is in fact no discrepancy. Rather, you seem to be comparing apples and oranges (no pun intended).
It’s really not the same thing. For starters, KDE4 is still at Alpha stage, not Beta.
So alpha software should not be critiqued, but beta should?
That’s really subjective as to your definitions of what ‘alpha’ and what ‘beta’ should mean. I guess we differ there.
Second, the tone of some of the criticism implied that what was seen in the KDE Alpha release was somehow representative of what would be in the final release. It’s not, and those critics were reminded of that.
It was representative of what may be seen in the final release. KDE developers were not adding features that they then intended to remove before the release just for fun.
Finally, Apple’s express goal in showing these UI tweaks is to get some feedback from users about their look. The KDE Alpha release is expecting bug reports about functionality, not looks (not yet anyway).
Aaron’s article was expressly about showing some of the new KDE4 UI. UI includes functionality _and_ looks. The fact that some of the feedback he received was not good, was probably not what he intended, but should not have come as a surprise.
So there is in fact no discrepancy. Rather, you seem to be comparing apples and oranges (no pun intended).
There is indeed a discrepancy and you have failed to prove otherwise. The ‘apples to oranges’ cliche is overused and way off.
That’s not what I’m saying. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
No, it’s not. My definition is consistent with the one generally accepted in the industry.
However, it seems to me as if you’re just trying to divert attention from the fact that you did, in fact, mistakenly claim that KDE4 was in Beta, when in fact it wasn’t. In other words, you were caught making a false claim, and when confronted to it your first reaction wasn’t to admit your mistake, but rather to change the subject.
Widget styles, skins and the like are not “features”. The capacity to display them is, but the actual art comes later. You can’t seriously compare Apple making a drop shadow bigger, or making the menu bar transparent, to the changes in UI functionality Aaron and the others are implementing in KDE 4.
Actually, from an Alpha build point of view, it is about functionality, but *not* looks. Looks come when the underlying technology is solid and relatively bug-free.
I can tell you’ve never been involved in GUI software development…
Actually, what it showed is that – even on OSNews – people don’t really understand what an Alpha build is. The skinning of the UI in the KDE4 Alpha release was what we call “placeholder art.” It wasn’t meant to be critiqued, because it’s temporary in the first place. The KDE Alpha build is meant for people to test *functionality*, while the Apple Beta build is meant for bug-fixing *and* user feedback on the overall look’n’feel.
On the contrary, I’ve clearly indicated why there is no discrepancy, as well as highlighted a glaring mistake in your original argument.
Actually, it fits perfectly in this context. The KDE4 Alpha build is meant for feedback on functionality, while the Apple Beta is meant for feedback on look’n’feel. The two are *not* comparable, and your weak, fanboyish attempt at suggesting that OSNews readers are somehow pro-KDE and anti-Apple falls flat as a result.
That’s not what I’m saying. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
My intent was not to put words in your mouth. I was just trying to get a clarification on what your position was. Sorry for the confusion.
No, it’s not. My definition is consistent with the one generally accepted in the industry.
Pure hubris. I have worked on many different projects in a number of companies and the terms ‘alpha’ and ‘beta’ were never quite the same. Sometimes alphas precluded any new features and only allowed bugfixes. Sometimes vital features were permitted up until a to a later milestone. Often visual assets were frozen quite early on. It’s really at the discretion of the project managers and the companies/organizations concerned. Don’t claim that there is a de facto industry standard for these terms. I’m afraid there isn’t.
However, it seems to me as if you’re just trying to divert attention from the fact that you did, in fact, mistakenly claim that KDE4 was in Beta, when in fact it wasn’t. In other words, you were caught making a false claim, and when confronted to it your first reaction wasn’t to admit your mistake, but rather to change the subject.
Huh? There was a confrontation? I wasn’t aware that I was avoiding admitting to anything and I certainly wasn’t trying to change the subject, but just for your benefit:
I claimed KDE4 was beta. I was mistaken, it was in fact alpha. I’ve admitted it. My point still stands. Do you feel better now?
Widget styles, skins and the like are not “features”. The capacity to display them is, but the actual art comes later. You can’t seriously compare Apple making a drop shadow bigger, or making the menu bar transparent, to the changes in UI functionality Aaron and the others are implementing in KDE 4.
Who is putting words in mouths now?
Actually, from an Alpha build point of view, it is about functionality, but *not* looks. Looks come when the underlying technology is solid and relatively bug-free.
If that is alpha as defined by the KDE project, then fine. I’m sure you can provide me with a link to _their_ definition.
I can tell you’ve never been involved in GUI software development…
Now I have to laugh. I’ve been in GUI software development for over 10 years. Any more baseless assumptions you would like to make? I guess anyone can make a false claim, except mine was an honest mistake.
Actually, what it showed is that – even on OSNews – people don’t really understand what an Alpha build is. The skinning of the UI in the KDE4 Alpha release was what we call “placeholder art.” It wasn’t meant to be critiqued, because it’s temporary in the first place. The KDE Alpha build is meant for people to test *functionality*, while the Apple Beta build is meant for bug-fixing *and* user feedback on the overall look’n’feel.
Again, I don’t accept your universal definition of ‘alpha build’ however, my point was not about skinning or shadows or any other specific piece of visual art.
To put it another way:
KDE4 Alpha was to showcase functionality only, (fine let’s accept that as true). People criticized visuals _and_ functionality (for example the icons-over-icons feature) and the crowd shouted “it’s only an alpha!” regardless.
OSX Leopard Beta was to showcase UI (it’s meant to showcase many other things too, but lets keep this simple for arguments sake). People criticized visuals and the crowd shout “hear! hear!”.
I have nothing against the KDE project, in fact I have been an avid commercial Qt developer for the last few years and am interested on how the desktop based on this technology is evolving. However I see some overt protectionism from some camps which stifles dissenters, when some open dialogue could really make it be the best that it can be.
On the contrary, I’ve clearly indicated why there is no discrepancy, as well as highlighted a glaring mistake in your original argument.
I’ve confessed to that ‘glaring mistake’ (read: semantic hand waving). As for my actual point, maybe you have indicated there is no discrepancy in your own head. Of course in your own head I’ve never been involved in GUI software development, but reality states otherwise.
Actually, it fits perfectly in this context. The KDE4 Alpha build is meant for feedback on functionality, while the Apple Beta is meant for feedback on look’n’feel. The two are *not* comparable, and your weak, fanboyish attempt at suggesting that OSNews readers are somehow pro-KDE and anti-Apple falls flat as a result.
It’s very touching that you are so protective about OSNews readers and KDE, despite the fact that I wrote nothing inflammatory about either. I perceived a double standard between the previewing of two desktop environments and would have welcomed an exploration of that subject. Instead you resort to ad-hominem attacks and puerile terms like ‘fanboyish’. Now I realize. I could get a more mature debate from my four-year-old niece. Too bad I wasted this much time already to reply.
Apology accepted.
Right, they’re never exactly the same, which is why I said “generally accepted.”
I’m glad you’ve admitted it, but unfortunately it does weaken your point, because you are comparing reactions to an alpha with reactions to a beta. That means the comparison is flawed from the get go.
No one, but I remember the KDE4 articles well, and the criticism was essentially about how it *looked*, not about the functionality. So therefore it follows that the “features” you spoke of were really art, hence my question.
I suggest you go back and read the articles themselves, as well as Aaron’s comment. He *specifically* mentioned that the Alpha didn’t feature the final art and that they wanted feedback on functionality, not looks.
And you’re expecting an Alpha to have the final look? Well, I guess if you’re not actually using custom widgets and such, it doesn’t really matter – but the fact here is that KDE is a themable GUI, and that the framework for those themes needs to be implemented before artists go and produce the final look.
They only shouted “it’s only an alpha” with regards to comments about visuals, which were *not* the final ones in the first place. Therefore, criticism about them was misguided.
Exactly, because feedback on the look of UI elements is *precisely* what Apple wants (in addition to everything else you try to fix in a Beta).
Again, there is no discrepancy. Both builds have different goals.
It wasn’t protectionism, it was common sense. What good is it to complain about visuals when they’re not even the ones that are planned?
Not only have I demonstrated that there is no discrepancy, but you’ve even helped me proved my case here: the two builds have different goals. I have also explained why criticism of KDE4’s visuals was misguided (they were placeholders). I was wrong about you not developing GUI, and I admit that (I work in video games, so we don’t have common widget sets to use, and art is only finalized after the basic framework is done), but I think I’ve clearly shown how you cannot compare the reactions to the two builds and then claim that there are double standards from them.
I’m sorry, but your first post was quite confrontational, and that set the tone of the debate. Suggesting that OSNews reader will give a free pass to KDE at the expense of Apple *is* rather inflammatory, especially since it’s not true. If it makes you happy I’ll retract my accusation of fanboyism (which does not seem a particularly puerile term to me, then again English is not my native language) and again admit that I was wrong about you developing GUI software. That said, you continue to contend that there is some sort of double standard, even though you haven’t convincingly demonstrated this to be true.
So, you complain about ad hominem attacks, but I see you’re not above using them yourself. Well, do yourself a favor: don’t waste any more time on this off-topic subject.
Right, they’re never exactly the same, which is why I said “generally accepted.”
They are not “generally accepted”. That was my point. I accept that may be the criteria for the KDE project (and others) though.
I’m glad you’ve admitted it, but unfortunately it does weaken your point, because you are comparing reactions to an alpha with reactions to a beta. That means the comparison is flawed from the get go.
Not necessarily, it depends how you frame the argument. Maybe I framed it badly. We can split hairs on semantics or we can talk about pre-release software. I guess this may be more “fair” for you when the KDE beta is released. Then you may see what I was getting at (or not).
No one, but I remember the KDE4 articles well, and the criticism was essentially about how it *looked*, not about the functionality. So therefore it follows that the “features” you spoke of were really art, hence my question.
The criticism was mainly about looks, but it included functionality too. The criticism I was referring to was the criticism of the functionality.
And you’re expecting an Alpha to have the final look? Well, I guess if you’re not actually using custom widgets and such, it doesn’t really matter – but the fact here is that KDE is a themable GUI, and that the framework for those themes needs to be implemented before artists go and produce the final look.
Fair enough. Again, I was concerned with functionality. See above.
They only shouted “it’s only an alpha” with regards to comments about visuals, which were *not* the final ones in the first place. Therefore, criticism about them was misguided.
I distinctly noticed the “it’s only an alpha” being used as a blanket response to _all_ criticism.
It wasn’t protectionism, it was common sense. What good is it to complain about visuals when they’re not even the ones that are planned?
Again. I’m not talking about visuals.
Not only have I demonstrated that there is no discrepancy, but you’ve even helped me proved my case here: the two builds have different goals. I have also explained why criticism of KDE4’s visuals was misguided (they were placeholders).
I’m not convinced. But if you want to stand with the alpha/beta differentiation, only time will tell if you were right about the discrepancy.
I was indeed talking about those criticisms aimed at the visual elements. Other criticisms were mostly appropriate, in my view.
I agree that we should put this issue to rest until we actually get to see the KDE4 visuals. As you say, time will tell. Until then, let me say that I’m sorry if I sounded overly aggressive. As it happens, our team is currently racing to meet our Beta deadline, and I’m afraid my temper is a little shorter than usual! So, no hard feelings, let’s see how this turns out.
Are welcome changes in my book.
First what they call ‘unobtrusive’ with the little black triangles to indicate the currently running programs on the dock I call ‘impossible to see’… “Blending into the background” is NOT a desirable effect for one of the more important UI elements.
– not that any MacOS has been particularly stellar in showing you what programs are currently running being a total /FAIL/ as far as multitasking UI’s go. (But remember, I’m the guy who thinks Expose, Flip3d and Beryl are ***** useless – because those five copies of a text editor are SO easy to tell apart as thumbnails…)
Oh noes – a bigger drop shadow to indicate the currently active program. I’m thinking ‘about malfin time they give us SOME indication’ since the currently focused window doesn’t look all that different from the unfocused. Here’s an idea how about a 50% contrast or 50% color shift on the titlebar instead of the 10% they have now? Of course, I’d love to have a 3 pixel border around all windows letting me resize from any side, and a maximize button that actually maximized instead of an ‘enlarge’ button that resizes what it ‘thinks’ you will need (which is never ANYWHERE near what I want)
The icon complaint, meh. Big deal. The bright blue menu – again ties into my biggest complaint about NOT being able to change colors or even have font size controls. (which I thought we were supposed to get font resizing in Leopard – something that I’ve still heard nothing new about since it was announced two years ago… did that feature get axed?)
The only complaint they have I can get squarely behind is menu transparancy, but then I hate ALL transparancy effects on elements with text in them because it’s impossible to read ANY of it.
Once again OSX could take some usability lessons from KDE, Gnome and Windows – and actually let the user CHANGE some of these settings… and I’m not talking a handful of predetermined pastel schemes. Let the user pick ANY colors, Let the user pick ANY fonts for the title bars and menus, Let the user turn transparancies and borders off or adjust border sizes. Let the user turn OFF all the goofy animations that just take time and make the OS feel slower than it actually is. (sorry, but when I click on something I want it on the screen NOW, not after a one to five second goofy eye-candy animation)
Let the user turn shit off they don’t want. Apparantly that’s too much to ask of Apple.
Edited 2007-07-11 18:50
Let the user pick ANY colors, Let the user pick ANY fonts for the title bars and menus, Let the user turn transparancies and borders off or adjust border sizes.
Haha, that would probably just expose the fact that these aesthetic-design-loving Apple users really have just as bad taste as the rest of us and ruin the whole Apple experience 🙂
The person that backs up their computer to a space on the same hard drive is incredibly stupid. I can’t emphsize that enough. You might as well not be backing up at all.
As for needing a separate disk and Mac laptops. The great thing about TimeMachine is that you don’t need to be hooked up to that hard drive all the time. When it isn’t connect Mac OS X keeps track of all the files that have changed (and their versions). Then when you connect back to your network or local external hard drive it realizes that and updates the backups onto that external drive.
What happens if you are somewhere else and loose something? Well you can take that small external hard drive with you and pull it out and restore what you need.
If your hard drive fails and you are the idiot that backs up his files to the same hard drive then that person is SOL. With TimeMachine you just replace the hard drive, put in the Leapard DVD and do a minimul install (with TimeMachine included of course) and then you can do a full restore of everything from the external hard drive (which can also be somewhere on a network – it doesn’t have to be a local external hard drive).
Time machine needs an External hard drive to BACKUP your files? Something is certainly wrong here (insert sarcasm).
Why would you want to Backup your files on an another physical drive? You must be stupid, right Thom ? It’s not like hard drives EVER fail or go dead. After all, theyre only electronic devices……..
Why would you want to Backup your files on an another physical drive? You must be stupid, right Thom ? It’s not like hard drives EVER fail or go dead. After all, theyre only electronic devices……..
Go and read up the difference between versioning and backup. Then come back, read this entire thread, and ask me to remove your comment because it makes you look stupid.
The thing Thom is missing is that you can use disk utility to recover deleted files
Some actual work wouldnt hurt once in a while…
Gosh, I thought they must have done something terrible.
My real disappointment with apple is that my 2 year old mac running 10.3 can no longer run some software that is being written, eg macs own aperture, without paying for an upgrade.
I don’t think even microsoft has forced upgrades on people so rapidly. Kind of makes linux increasingly attractive.
If this is all the Mac people have to complain about they are seriously spoiled.
On my Vista install all my preview images are yellow (bad ics for my Samsung profile that won’t go away), a sometime not working mouse wheel (on my MICROSOFT mouse), sidebar that spontanously re-orders …
… and your #1 gripe is a big shadow.
Seriously.
]{
A bit of extra shadow, a bright dot, a different color folder, and Nick pees all over his diaper.
It’s hilarious how Mac simpletons get outraged with even the smallest change to their desktop.
Grow a few more brain cells Nick and you’ll be ok.
Frankly, I think that if those petty issues are all people have to complain about, it’s a good sign. I’m confident in the 10.5DP enough that I’ve made it my primary OS at work and home until the final release. I dig the new interface changes, from appearance to layout, and the new apps/features. I’ve had a few errors here and there, but all my apps but 3 or maybe 4 work fine.
The funny thing about the translucent menu bar, this was one of the most requested features to be added to Kaleidoscope on Classic Mac OS (was technically impossible) and now we have it, everyone is complaining about how bad it looks.
Those folder icons are pretty hideous though!