[estumpges]

While I would like to see most of these features implemented in OS X, I strongly disagree that Apple should offer another version of its OS for a higher price. Apple should instead build this functionality into its existing operating system. We need to keep pressuring them to do this.
I despise the fact that Microsoft makes the Vista version decision so difficult and I love that Apple offers a single, "full featured" version of its OS for consumers and Server version for businesses. That said, Apple definitely does need to do some more work with Leopard and its future OS releases on making them more user adjustable.

[simX]

This is the most inane article I've ever seen you write, Rob.
I don't mind you requesting additional customization, but the way you present your idea by asking Apple to create "OS X Choice" is just trolling for hits.
Seriously, let me ask you a question. Would you rather have Apple integrate all these features you want into a minor (e.g. 10.5.2) or major (e.g. 10.6.0) update to Mac OS X? Or would you REALLY rather have Apple create "OS X Choice" and charge you $100 more for it? Based from your responses here, you would actually rather have the former. So then why don't you simply ask for that? Because you're trolling and you want more people to read your ridiculous article.
To drive this point home, why do you think that it's any more likely that Apple would create "OS X Choice" rather than simply integrate these features into a minor or major upgrade to OS X? Apple hasn't created separate versions of OS X in the past, and they've actively lampooned Microsoft for doing so. There's no reason to think that Apple would do "OS X Choice" over integrating your requested features into OS X 10.6. In fact, I would argue that "OS X Choice" is more UNlikely.
So if there's no reason to think that "OS X Choice" is more likely than OS X 10.6 with your requested features, why do you go and request the former option over the latter, even when you ACTUALLY prefer the latter?
Because the latter option is more entertaining, and precisely because it's ridiculous, more people will read your article.
Thanks for the troll, Rob. Most of your other articles are spot on, but this one is just ludicrous.

[pdbreske]

There's a reason you can't buy a new car in any color you want: Some colors are ugly and the manufacturers don't want people driving around town in a poor advertisement for their own design.
I think Apple makes computers that do a fine job of letting people use the computers without too much fussing about when they use another person's computer. As a broadband technician, one thing I really hate is when I have to sit down in front of someone's family computer that they let little Jimmy "customize" with all his favorite fonts and colors and wallpapers, and I can't even see the damned icon names from all the glowing pink background noise.
Too much choice can be a very bad thing. Apple does a good job of balancing choice with UI control.

[griffman]

No, this one is the result of waiting seven years for them to implement these features, from 10.0 public beta through 10.5. Given that it hasn't happened yet, I would gladly pay another $100 if it means they'd actually get it done -- I was quite serious, not trolling for hits. I would, indeed, fork over another $100 for OS X Choice if it actually offered control over the OS.
And yes, I've sent feedback. And filed bug reports. For years on end. Really, Apple seemingly only listens to Apple, which is apparently fine: they've done quite well over the years. I just really do wish they offered a version of OS X for those who want more control than what's provided in the current shipping version.
Call it trolling if you want, but it wasn't -- it reflects my genuine desire for more control over how OS X works. If that means I have to pay another $100, then so be it. Do I wish they'd roll all this into 10.6? Sure. But it's not going to happen, based on the last seven years of real world experience.
-rob.

[wineguy]

If you have waited for seven years, you don't seem to have much of a life. Enjoy what Apple does they do a great job, and offer more than your money's worth. I find it amazing that there are so many critics that are no more than arm chair quarterbacks.
You folks at Macworld are great, and help a lot of us out, but this "they need to do this, they need to do that" stuff gets real old and boring. If you can do it better than build and sell your own competing OS.
Mr Beaune

[simX]

Quote:

---

No, this one is the result of waiting seven years for them to implement these features, from 10.0 public beta through 10.5. Given that it hasn't happened yet, I would gladly pay another $100 if it means they'd actually get it done -- I was quite serious, not trolling for hits. I would, indeed, fork over another $100 for OS X Choice if it actually offered control over the OS.

---

Rob, the point here is not that you haven't waited seven years. Stop trying to twist my words, or trying to take down a straw man. I never insinuated that you haven't waited, or that you haven't filed bugs, or that you haven't sent feedback. I never claimed that any of these statements were false.
The reason that it's a troll is this: it is STILL more likely for Apple to integrate these features into OS X 10.6 than it is for them to introduce a new version called "Choice". Again, you actually PREFER that Apple integrates it into 10.6. So if that's the more likely option, why don't you just ask Apple to integrate it into 10.6?

[Hummingbird1934]

Uninspired article. Nevertheless...
I have used Mac's for 24 years and other Apple PC's before that.
Apart from one extremely temporary flirtation with a limited user definable UI Apple have always presented its customers with a rather austere grey (suited and booted) view of the world. Sure, at one time you could pick a Mac wearing a different set of ghastly coloured plastic macintoshes...accompanied by a variety of selectable and equally unexciting Finder Window Bar colours. But someone drank coffee at Infinite Loop and sanity was restored; the Zappalien Freak Out went all entropic.
Apart from those two lapses (when Apple almost became more libertarian and democratic), Apple Inc. has ruthlessly and fascistically maintained a (lack) of choices and respect for its consumers. Ironically, despite the largely conservative IBM PC world view which has tended to regard Apple as a quirky enterprising hippy PC manufacturer, it has actually been Apple who have remained the most reactionary and staid PC manufacturer. The OS may be a fabulous building on the inside but it has always looked like prefabricated concrete spattered with a few jelly beans from without ...
We (Apple patrons) may well have had many a year laughing at the ghastly beige PC world but we've always been lumbered with even bleaker world made from shades of GREYS .
You have to remember some vital facts about Apple; There will be no "choice". Not now not never; Apple is deaf, Apple is blind, Apple is dumb. The spirits of three little apes always attend Apple meetings.

...

[griffman]

"So if that's the more likely option, why don't you just ask Apple to integrate it into 10.6?"
<sarcasm>Perhaps because asking in the past has proven so wildly successful?</sarcasm>
-rob.

[simX]

Quote:

---

<sarcasm>Perhaps because asking in the past has proven so wildly successful?</sarcasm>
-rob.

---

And that matters NOTHING. IT'S STILL MORE LIKELY THAT APPLE WILL INTEGRATE YOUR FEATURES INTO 10.6.
Jeebus.

[griffman]

Feel free to disagree with my opinion, which you obviously do, but there's no need to resort to YELLING over an opinion piece. It matters not one whit what Apple will or will not do -- this was my opinion on what I feel they should do, period. I've been trying to explain to you the reasons why I feel the way I do, but clearly, I'm not succeeding.
-rob.

[JaxbNimbel]

There is 1 simple reason why this won't ever happen...
If the GUI attributes weren't forced on you, you'd never know your Mac was slow and outdated and probably would never buy a new Mac!
/forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[simX]

Quote:

---

Feel free to disagree with my opinion, which you obviously do, but there's no need to resort to YELLING over an opinion piece. It matters not one whit what Apple will or will not do -- this was my opinion on what I feel they should do, period. I've been trying to explain to you the reasons why I feel the way I do, but clearly, I'm not succeeding.

---

Because you clearly don't actually want Apple to do what you wrote in your article. Your comments clearly indicate that you want Apple to integrate your desired features into Mac OS X 10.6, rather than create separate versions.
You don't actually want multiple versions of OS X. You obviously came to that conclusion when you posted your article lampooning Vista. That's a reasonable conclusion, and you came to it. But what you wrote in this article is not reasonable.
Say you have option A and option B. Option A has a 50% likelihood of happening. Option B has a 1% likelihood of happening. Option A is also more desirable. For which option do you advocate?
You would obviously advocate for option A. Regardless of whether option A has happened or not, you still would advocate for choice A if it is still more likely. But no, you're advocating for choice B, this ridiculous notion of "OS X Choice". It's stupid!
I understand that you're frustrated that 7 years have gone by and Apple hasn't integrated your features into OS X. SO WHY NOT SAY SO? Jeebus, is that hard? Why do you have to troll for hits by creating some mythical entertaining choice that won't actually happen?

[griffman]

Your scenario has as much chance as my scenario, because neither have happened over seven years. I seem to remember a company named Apple making fun of the cell/PDA market, saying they'd never go there. And look where we are now.
I seem to remember a company named Apple seriously making fun of the Intel chipset, extolling the virtues of PowerPC, and saying they'd never go Intel. And look where we are now.
So to say that one is more likely than the other -- from anyone outside of Apple's inner core -- is conjecture, and attaching odds is a strawman.
I give up, though: you win, as I've tired of defending my writing. It was an editorial, those are my opinions, and really, I don't prefer one solution over the other. Sure, it'd be great (and cheaper) if they bundled it. It'd be just as great (but more expensive) if they made a new product. I just want it to happen. But you can't seem to accept that, so I'll just give up trying to explain it any longer. I have better things to do with my time.
One thing I won't accept, though, is that I was "trolling for hits." When I write something, I'm not concerned in the least about hits. Really. I write about things that are forefront in my mind, and I write them the way I feel them. I've never changed a word, phrase, paragraph, or overall concept in pursuit of "hits." I really, really don't care -- but given you won't accept my other position (that I would be fine with a separate product), I doubt you'll believe this one, either. But it's the truth, as I would be a most unhappy person if I spent my time trying to think up ways to get hits. I write what I feel, period.
-rob.

[rfrmac]

Good ideas for product inclusions. Poor idea for there implementation. I find it hard to believe that you of all people came to the conclusion you came to.