Re: Aero and Aqua

"Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
12v7s7aakpcbd30@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 3/11/07 5:06 AM:

"Snit" <SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:C2185439.7A8A1%SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
12v58k16qpbibab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 3/10/07 5:20 AM:

[snip]
I'd love to be able to prove that it's really Apple
stealing folders from MS. :D

In the name of folder naming it does seem that MS moved
to Apple's "way" more than the reverse.

Well, that may be, but neither is renaming things very
much, so it's a pretty weak argument either way.

Some of the most high profile folders in Vista are now names as they are in
OS X... alone this would be a poor argument, but together with the other
ways Vista is OS X-like and it becomes a pattern.

[snip]
I don't begrudge Apple ripping off MS. Honest. :D

It was not just the move to the arrows and away from the italics... the plus
while dragging to show a copy. Apple did it in a more consistent way, which
MS has gotten closer to, but Apple still copied MS in that.

I never noticed this "more consistent way"; please elaborate!

<http://comp.gallopinginsanity.com/mac_win_detail.html#dragrules>

And, of course, contextual menus... and other things.

That's a bit of an OS/2-ism. But OS/2, Windows and OS X all have slightly
different mouse semantics for this. OS X is, however, closer to Windows than
OS/2.

Fair enough.

It does work both ways. Still, MS seems to copy Apple more - and even if
were the same amount, given market share that is an amazing thing for Apple.
For a company with such a small share of the market they have amazing
influence.

They do. But I think that part of the difference is that people say MS has
copied Apple when they haven't, and ignores it when (say) MS copies from
someone else.

That does happen... no argument here.

[snip]
I am not asking how often it is used - I am curious what percent of apps can
be so programmed (no, I am not asking for an exact percent! rough!)

I do not have figures for this, any more than you have figures for
AppleScript.

Most programs have some scriptability ... though the level of support
varies. Using UI scripting, however, does get around this limitation, at
least to some extent.

I have never seen any evidence that one is more prevalent than
the other, but on technical grounds I'd expect OLE Automation
to be more common, because it's easier to implement.

[snip]
The thing about AppleScript is what it sends to apps are
not simply method calls but are more like little programs
encoded as Apple Events.

I have no problem with that... not for my purposes.

That just means you aren't a very good WinTroll! :D

[snip]
With Objective-C actions, you eliminate all this scripting
stuff. As long as your application is written in C, Objective-C
or C++ you can talk to it directly, without any scripting
layer at all.

Can you give an example of how this effects a real world work flow?

I have never understood what "work flow" means.

How people get work done.

I do understand, however, that AppleScript is breathtakingly
slow. For a technology from about 1994 or so to be this
slow on modern hardware is astonishing.

It also does not really let you chose your favorite scripting
language very well. It's pretty much AppleScript or bust.
It was meant to do that, back in the day.

Your complaint of speed - sure, I can buy that.
Your complaint that AppleScript only lets you use AppleScript is inaccurate.
You can, for example, call shell commands and the like.

You don't even really need an application, strictly. Your
action could directly load application components into
Automator and use them, which is something AppleScript
could never do.

But Automator and services do.

Automator should be able to do it, yes, but the
Objective-C support is too unfinished for it to work
properly.

And that's a shame.

If by "services" you mean the things that turn up in your
menus, I believe those do work by launching the
service-providing application.

I believe you are correct.

Strictly speaking, even the "spell checking
service", which is technically quite different, does that-
though in that case it doesn't show in the UI.

I can see where being able to do these things more in the background could
be a benefit.

[snip]
Make it go fast? :D

How about control an application without actually opening
that application in the UI?

There are benefits to that... I can see that.

What annoys me is that it's so *close*. They have
a really great idea in Automator, but they just didn't
quite *finish*!

They do not have a feature you would like - I would not say that means it is
not finished.

So now, all I can really hope for is that MS will copy
Automator and carry it through.

[snip]
Well, App vendors are well aware of the limits of the package
installer system, and they know that 'everything in the bundle'
is the best available way to cope.

Best way to cope? Having an application be (or appear to be) one
simple icon is a great thing for most users. This is a benefit, not a
coping
mechanism.

Bundles are not required for that; you can do it with shortcuts
(er, aliases) instead. Works just swell. But there's nothing wrong
with bundles as such.

Shortcuts / aliases most certainly do *not* work as well... I have given
example in the past, but here some are again:

* Consider this work flow (a real world one I and other Mac users use):
I download a program to my desktop and then either run it and make a
decision to keep it, toss it, or play with it more later. If I:
* Keep it: I make an alias to a "favorite applications" folder
and then move the application to the Applications folder. The
alias *never* breaks and needs no time to fix itself. This is
not true on Windows... and even moving the Application might kill
it on Windows.
* Want to toss it: just move it to the trash. No need to run an
uninstaller or do *anything* else. Sure, there will be a pref
file left behind and maybe some other stuff in my Library...
just a registry entries might be left behind on Windows,
*except* if I opt to clean that stuff up I do not need to
enter any specialized tool such as regedit. Heck, just go
to my ~/Library and look for recently changed files... very
easy (though, again, something most users never do and have
no need to do)
* Play with it more later: I put it in a "work" folder and
can come back to it as I choose.

I also, of course, have the option to put the Application into my own user
Application folder so it is not available to other users. I can later, at a
whim, move Application back and forth for all users or just me.

I do not put applications I am testing into my Applications folder (where
other users would have access and I might forget they are being tested), nor
do I add them into my folder structure that is similar to Windows "All
Programs" section in the Start menu. What would be the comparably easy and
flexible work flow on Windows?

But it's not a very good user experience, even when they
do that.

In what way?

The problem is that the user experience for installing and uninstalling
software is inconsistent and sometimes mysterious.

There are *some* programs that are inconsistent... ones that do not work as
I describe above. It is also true that there are "odd" programs on Windows
that *do* work much the way they do on Macs - though they rarely are just
one icon and if they are they do not have a semi-hidden folder structure.

Sometimes you install software by double clicking the icon you
are given (this is for packages) and sometimes by dragging to
/Applications (for 'raw bundles').

Incorrect: software is not "installed" by dragging it to the Applications
folder. That is, however, a reasonable place to put them.

Sometimes you uninstall by double clicking an 'uninstaller' icon;
sometimes by dragging an icon to the trash, and sometimes you
just can't uninstall.

And the "drag to /Applications" is a pretty nonobvious install
technique. That's why it has become routine to put the bundle
in a disk image that has a background image containing
instructions.

Or an alias to the Applications folder... which makes it quite easy. But,
again, you do not need to move the app anywhere to install it. It is
already installed.

I couldn't say whether "Add/Remove Programs" is more
user friendly than "drag icon to trash", but I'm sure it's more
user friendly than "*sometimes* drag icon to trash".

Not all programs on Windows have uninstallers... or installers for that
matter. For an example, see here: <http://kstudio.net/dlpages/rewin.html>

And even if it were, the package installer system is still
half baked.

While I can see the advantage of a more comprehensive uninstall ability
for
those programs that need it, for the most part the installer process works
great.

I am not saying it is *broken*; I am saying it is half-baked.

Different thing.

What it does it does fine, as far as I know. But it does not
do what it ought to do.

Do you think the Windows way is better - where you have uninstallers that
do, sometimes, work but certainly fail on a regular basis?

[snip]
Well, perhaps I'd like to add a checkbox to the last page of
the installation to indicate whether the launch the install application
when the installer completes, or not?

For most programs there is no installer process. If you want to launch the
app you just do it... no need to install at all.

I know better, but it's not worth arguing about, since it's
beside the point: the *installer* is half-baked. That may be
a good reason not to use it, but it is still half-baked for all
that.

What installer? If there is no installer present it is because none is
needed - the program is already installed.

Or perhaps I'd like to show the users some pretty images
during the long boring copying process?

What copying process? For most programs there is none... though there is a
download process... and then a decompression.

Well, during the long boring "optimization" process, when OS X pre-binds all
the executables.

(As far as I can tell, bundle-based installations simply do not get optimized.
Too bad that.)

I believe they do the first time they are run.

[snip]


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Aero and Aqua
    ... on Windows you do get a consistent UI for this: ... uninstaller or do *anything* else. ... Application folder so it is not available to other users. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Error 1324
    ... MS-MVP Windows Shell/User ... I cannot find any reference to the "The Folder Path Contains an Invalid ... The Windows Installer CleanUp Utility does not: ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Partitioned Hard Drive & Windows XP
    ... There are hundreds of these files in the Installer directory. ... windows installer patch. ... folder everytime they try to install? ... the C drive having 13 gig and the D drive having 55 gig. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Partitioned Hard Drive & Windows XP
    ... There are hundreds of these files in the Installer directory. ... windows installer patch. ... folder everytime they try to install? ... the C drive having 13 gig and the D drive having 55 gig. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Mac OS X Security - Not Quite as Strong as you Thought
    ... These do not use the installer. ... That's probably why the majority went windows early on. ... Their track record for poor security is very much public record. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)