[matt_s]

ASM is awesome!

I only have 3 shareware programs installed on my Macs, and I use them virtually every single day: ASM, Mail Attachments Iconizer & CleanArchiver.

Mail Attachments Iconizer provides control for Mail messages, either viewing in place or attaching as a file. Sometimes, you don't want to send an image embedded in an email, you just want to send it as an attachment. Works perfectly. Too bad Mail isn't that smart (Entourage is).

OS X sends .DS_Store files within Finder generated ZIP ARCHIVES, and this was confusing to our PCB manufacturers. They thought these were important design files sent within the design archive but couldn't access them from their Win systems. As a result, work ground to a halt. It was costing us money.

Enter CleanArchiver. Removes all the spurious elements OS X should know better to do but for some reason doesn't, and makes zip archives Windows-user friendly.

BTW, I just transfered an Address Book contact from a 10.5.3 machine to another 10.5.3 machine, and all Notes were deleted.... watch out.

[whitedog]

{quote}I have a 1 Ghz Titanium PowerBook, and my biggest gripe with Leopard was that I no longer had as much power to see my White AirPort base station.{quote}

I suspect the real problem with your PowerBook and Leopard is - power. Though your Mac's CPU exceeds the minimum requirement for Leopard by a smidge, the graphics card certainly does not. Indeed, it can't take full advantage of the system's graphics capability, even in Tiger. If you check System Profiler under Graphics/Displays I think you'll fine it says Quartz Extreme: not supported. You don't mention how much RAM you have installed, but this could be a factor too if it's anything less than the 2 GB maximum. There's a good reason that 2 GB is the minimum installed now on all but the lowest of low-end new Macs. And all but the Mac mini can take at least 4 GB.

Your PowerBook is right on the cusp between Macs that can and cannot run OS X 10.5x. So its lack of efficiency under Leopard should be no surprise. The WiFi issue is another matter, but there is clearly a compatibility issue of some kind involved.

I think it's fair to say, all things considered, that Tiger is the end of the road for your PowerBook. This doesn't mean it does not have plenty of life left in it - as long as the display holds up, and there are few applications (besides Aperture and Premier CS3) that you cannot run. But there is no doubt that you will continue to be frustrated if your software aspirations exceed what your Mac can effectively support. This is no one's fault. It's just the way it is - technology moves on relentlessly. Whether we keep up or not is a matter of personal choice and necessity.

[matt_s]

Quote

{quote:title=whitedog wrote:}The WiFi issue is another matter, but there is clearly a compatibility issue of some kind involved.{quote}

The WiFi issue is well documented. Chances are it's not a compatibility issue, it's the same OS X bug that affects so many people. Apple lost several million dollars in educational sales because of this fault. They still haven't solved it.

[Dan Frakes]

Pennywigeon said:

>> "Nowhere do the official instructions warn that you should back up beforehand"

Quote

Backing up is mentioned twice in the READ BEFORE YOU INSTALL pdf. and mentioned more than once in the Install and Setup Guide.
:-P

All mentions of backing up in those docs?2 in the first, 3 in the second?occur in sections explaining how to reformat your hard drive. So, no, Apple's instructions do not say you should back up before installing OS X.

Quote

They also discuss Archive and install and Erase and install.

Neither document recommends the options, nor does either explain why a user might use one of these options instead of a standard install. Users are left to find that information for themselves.

Quote

Also repair permissions is recommended by Apple after software updates as routine maintenance. Dan even knows this and has written about it.

Again, we're talking about Apple's instructions for installing Leopard. Those instructions do not include any mention of repairing permissions.

Quote

The big problem that usually happens with OSes and consumers is this.
(snip)
Instead they just installed a Major UPGRADE to an Operating system and the only preparation beforehand was opening the box the disk came in and ejecting the disk that was occupying their CD/DVD tray.

I have noticed though that people that actually read the PDF in its entirety (as instructed) and those that actually took installing an OS Upgrade a little more serious than playing Burning Monkey Solitare actually haven't had any of these ill reported "bugs".

Except that reading Apple's instructions in their entirety wouldn't really change things because they tell the user to perform exactly the procedure you say they shouldn't: put the disc in the drive and click Install. Few of the things you feel are necessary to ensure a problem-free installation are mentioned. How can we fault users, many of whom are tech novices, for following Apple's instructions and for not performing undocumented (by Apple) procedures?

Mac OS X is a great OS. The best, in my opinion, by a fair margin. But it's not perfect, and its issues can't all be blamed on the user.

[whitedog]

{quote}I'm a long time Apple user, since the Apple II. One thing I've learned is NEVER to adopt a new OS until dot 3.{quote}

I don't have any set upgrade point for a new Mac OS. I prefer something less arbitrary. Because of early problem reports I was even more cautious than usual with OS X 10.5. I installed Leopard on an external drive partition and tested it frequently - while waiting for the utilities and programs I use regularly to be updated for compatibility. Once TechTool Pro and DiskWarrior were upgraded, I cloned my system to the external drive and did an archive and install to Leopard. I tested this for some time to assure myself that my most essential applications worked OK. Only then did I upgrade my main system to OS X 10.5.2. Even now I have a backup copy of Tiger handy in case something goes drastically wrong. Of course Time Machine makes such a reversion unlikely as I can now restore my system to a specific place in time, which is a lot easier than the complete reinstall that has previously been the only way to revert the system (other than having a recent cloned backup handy - something else I do routinely).

Of course, the "average" user cannot be expected to go to this much trouble to prepare for an upgrade. Which is why I do not yet recommend Leopard to most of my friends and clients. But then, I waited at least a year before recommending Tiger as well. Quite simply, I don't want people to blame me for messing up their computers. I prefer it when they come to me because someone else has messed them up. :-)

Like others, though I enjoy the new Mac/PC ads, I can't help running a caveat in my mind when I watch one. Leopard is not all it's hyped up to be. What makes these ads bearable is that Vista is much worse, so the relative superiority of the Mac OS remains.

Which brings up an interesting point. By the end of this month people will no longer, in most cases, be able to buy a new Windows PC with XP on it. It will be Vista or nothing. Many people find this a reason for concern. In contrast, Apple stopped shipping Macs with Tiger more than six months ago. You can still install Tiger on a new Mac if you want to - as far as I can tell - but few people are likely to go to the trouble. Yet there has been little if any outcry over this issue. Besides the differences in quality between Vista and OS X 10.5x, this highlights significant differences in the market for Windows and the Mac OS. The main difference being that Windows is a staple in the enterprise arena and changing operating systems is far more problematic in that environment. One might even say Apple is lucky not to have such problems.

[whitedog]

Biallystock: If you are going to summarize the feedback in this blog you should get a few things straight first. To begin with, I don't remember reading anything about Snow Leopard making the problems with OS X 10.5x irrelevant. I think you pulled that conclusion out of thin air. It's bogus in any case. Next, between now and when Snow Leopard does emerge from its cave, there are bound to be numerous updates to Leopard to fix many of the issues raised here. The Mac OS has never stood still and isn't likely to do so now. Further, whether or not they charge for it, the changes in Snow Leopard that Apple has so far disclosed will be significant, even without major feature enhancements. I think the fact that Snow Leopard will bear at least a superficial resemblance to Leopard has confused some people. Is it a new version of OS X or not? In point of fact we don't yet know to what extent this will be the case; nevertheless, apparently it will be a different sort of cat in a number of unique ways. Among them will be enhanced multi-core integration, improved support for 64 bit processing and, perhaps, Intel only compatibility. These are all important changes, yet none of them will alter the appearance of the OS.

In the meantime, we will be living with the black leopard that is OS X 10.5x. The focus of this forum, therefore, is properly on what improvements are needed to bring 10.5x up to par. Clearly there are plenty of problems to absorb out attention for the foreseeable future. The extent of this blog thread is testament to that.

[Biallystock]

whitedog,

I wasn't making the case for the mere mention of Snow Leopard resolving all these issues, that was made by another poster. Not the first time I have heard such an argument. If that case had merit, then all Vista's problems are now gone just because Microsoft has announced the "imminent" arrival of "Windows 7" which is nothing but another of Ms' classic ploys to make those about to leave, hang on longer in the hope that something will improve.

I am aware of what you are saying, but according to statements from Apple Snow Leopard will concentrate on polish and bug fixes to the existing Leopard.

I am also aware that Apple will continue to issue periodic updates to OSX 10.5 before Snow leopard ships.

Further I am aware of the past history of these updates. There were several very annoying bugs in Tiger that I diligently reported after every point release right through to 10.4.11 but never got fixed in Tiger. Leopard fixed some but not all and we were distracted by further GUI annoyances introduced with Leopard's Dock and Finder.

Unfortunately Apple ties all its new computers to the latest OS at the time of manufacture and it is impossible to go back to a more solid, consistent and reliable version as it is with Linux or Windows.

Let's hope that a lot of spit and polish is being applied to Leopard updates and ultimately to Snow Leopard, but we can not escape the problem of Apple's programmers constant fiddling and basically having divergent views of what represents good software design. They obviously don't agree with themselves, its appearance and behaviour has veered all over the road.

If they were being followed by the Usability Police they'd be pulled over and breathalised repeatedly!

[whitedog]

MrChristopherSEA said:

CS3 stability seems to be pretty good for me so far which is good. The hiding problem is probably my biggest annoyance. Luckily though InDesign has really good crash recovery, but I still save constantly just in case.

Photoshop has always been hard to hide because it requires a different key combination than usual. Instead of the standard Command-H, it uses Control-Command-H. Of course, sometimes even this doesn't work, which can be annoying.

[whitedog]

{quote}...but we can not escape the problem of Apple's programmers constant fiddling and basically having divergent views of what represents good software design. They obviously don't agree with themselves, its appearance and behaviour has veered all over the road.

If they were being followed by the Usability Police they'd be pulled over and breathalised repeatedly!{quote}

I agree Leopard needs work. It certainly feels like Apple rushed it out the door, leaving important issues unresolved and unrefined. It appears obvious, judging by the results, that they failed to provide sufficient time for and resources to the project. But I wouldn't blame the programmers. They don't hire staff, set priorities or deadlines. Their managers do that - or their managers' managers. Since Steve Jobs gets the credit for things Apple does well I see no reason he shouldn't get the blame when his company messes up.

Just as he did when he dumbed down iMovie. He went for sizzle and forgot the beef. Leopard reflects a lot of that same cavalier attitude toward substance and, as you say, usability.

Sure OS X 10.5 is superior to Vista, but that's not saying much. It has some of the same kinds of problems, all mostly a consequence of bad planning in the front office.

[MackyMoto]

whitedog said:

Photoshop has always been hard to hide because it requires a different key combination than usual. Instead of the standard Command-H, it uses Control-Command-H. Of course, sometimes even this doesn't work, which can be annoying.

It's not the key combination that is the problem with the Adobe apps. Although I can't understand why: A) Adobe can't abide by Apples recommended key combinations for Hide and Hide Others; or B) why Adobe can't at least make the key combination the same on all their apps. Photoshop uses Control-Command-H, InDesign uses Command-H, and Illustrator has no key combination to Hide.

The problem with the Adobe apps (mostly InDesign in my case, but I've had problems with them all) has to do with their frequent failure to hide using either the correct key combination or the Hide command in the pull down menu. I've even tried to approach the problem another way by switching to the Finder and then trying to Hide Others. All my other apps will obediently disappear, except InDesign. It stays stubbornly on the screen and there's nothing you can do to get rid of it short of quitting the app.

[Martian]

MackyMoto said:

All my other apps will obediently disappear, except InDesign. It stays stubbornly on the screen and there's nothing you can do to get rid of it short of quitting the app.

Is minimizing into the Doc a satisfactory workaround? If it is, why not experiment setting Command-H as the minimize command for InDesign using System Preferences > Keyboard & Mouse > Keyboard Shortcuts.

[MrChristopherSEA]

I've ALWAYS been annoyed by the fact that Adobe can't synchronize the Hide command. I think Command-H should a hallowed keyboard command reserved ONLY for hiding an application.

Except Adobe is random about how they implement it and I'm forever accidentally turning on some feature that is mapped to 'H' in Illustrator.

[MrChristopherSEA]

InDesign is the worst in terms of the inability to Hide issue. However, it's not the only application I've had this problem with. Modo also does this from time to time. In fact I beta test for them and ran into it recently right after a fresh restart, Modo being the only application to be launched. So I pulled up my SnapitzPro and did a quick capture of it to show them.

I have a feeling it's an OS X problem somewhere along the way and certain apps run into it for some reason.

[whitedog]

{quote}It's not the key combination that is the problem with the Adobe apps. Although I can't understand why: A) Adobe can't abide by Apples recommended key combinations for Hide and Hide Others; or B) why Adobe can't at least make the key combination the same on all their apps. Photoshop uses Control-Command-H, InDesign uses Command-H, and Illustrator has no key combination to Hide.

The problem with the Adobe apps (mostly InDesign in my case, but I've had problems with them all) has to do with their frequent failure to hide using either the correct key combination or the Hide command in the pull down menu.{quote}

Spaces would be a good alternative to hiding apps - if it worked reliably.