Re: Someone please tell Steve Jobs . . .
- From: ZnU <znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 01:52:07 -0400
In article <nobody-5793B3.11155919082005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
John Rethorst <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> After some years of OSX, the smoke has cleared and:
>
> 1. The Dock is interface design on drugs. Xerox PARC found that menus
> work and users like them. Do we have to think _that_ different?
Stuffing running apps into a single menu was a reasonable way to cram
app switching to the classic Mac UI -- which was developed without the
idea of running multiple apps in mind.
It's not such a great idea these days, though, when multitasking is the
rule, not the exception. Dock icons are easy to recognize (the brian can
pick out pictures much faster than words), they're always visible (so
they can give useful feedback), there's one less click needed to get at
them, and they provide nice big targets to quickly hit with the mouse
(unlike menu items, which are only, what 16 or 20 pixels high?).
> 2. For Apple to put such extensive and intelligent development into
> AppleScript, and then for newer Mac programs not to support it (e.g.
> Pages, the new word processor, is not scriptable, TextEdit only
> partially so) does not make sense. Will his next step be to sell
> hardware which no OS will run on?
The NeXT side of the new Apple didn't take AppleScript too seriously,
initially. There are some signs it's getting more attention now.
> 3. The enormous overhead of users and permissions on OSX wastes
> everyone¹s time. The age when the family shared a computer is like
> the age when the family shared a TV set - dead and buried. Employees
> in large corporations don¹t need it either since they don¹t use Macs.
> Creative people, who do use Macs, don¹t need it since they can¹t get
> along with anyone well enough to share a computer no matter how much
> file permissions is implemented.
The Mac is being taken more seriously in the corporate market these
days. And you're forgetting about the academic market, which has pretty
much the same needs in terms of this sort of feature.
Moreover, permissions are not just about multiple users on the same
computer. They're also about security. Particularly with any machine
that will be providing services on a network.
> But it¹s the first thing you should fix when troubleshooting.
I've never actually run across a problem that was fixed that way. While
fixing permissions is possibly useful in some cases, and it makes sense
to try it before engaging in manual troubleshooting because it's quick
and easy, bad permissions are not actually a significant cause of
problems in OS X.
> 4. $129 for an OS upgrade that comprises one spiffy search feature
> plus a bunch of junk is not good business. I know that Jobs wants to
> _be_ Bill Gates, but why put that on the backs of the users?
Tiger has *massive* under-the-hood improvements as well. If new users
features + massive under-the-hood improvements aren't enough for you,
what exactly do you *want* from an OS update?
Would you prefer that Apple followed the Microsoft model and only
updated once every five or six years?
> But I hear it¹s a real bear to convince Jobs of anything. I think
> that¹s why Wozniak left Apple to teach kindergarten, to get some
> peace and quiet.
--
"It's in our country's interests to find those who would do harm to us and get
them out of harm's way."
-- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Someone please tell Steve Jobs . . .
- From: Anybody
- Re: Someone please tell Steve Jobs . . .
- Prev by Date: Re: A defense of Windows, sorta (was Re: Windows 2000: Unsolicited Testimonial)
- Next by Date: Re: Someone please tell Steve Jobs . . .
- Previous by thread: Re: Someone please tell Steve Jobs . . .
- Next by thread: Re: Someone please tell Steve Jobs . . .
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
