[jmincey]

Quote:

---

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.

---

I don't agree with you on this. Apple does not go nearly far enough in respect to user customization of the interface. Most (if not all) of Rob's feature requests in the article above are modest in terms of their implementation while potentially great in their impact on the user experience.
If you don't want to fuss with UI settings, the solution I would recommend to you is this: Don't. The existence of customizable options in no way constrains you to fuss with anything. I'm confident Apple can design Rob's optional settings in a way that would not violate its minimalist UI aesthetic.

Quote:

---

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.

---

I don't think the annoyance of broadband technicians outweighs Apple's satisfying its customers with user-selectable options. Besides, I would advocate that Apple define its default interface and make it summonable en mass by a single command. That way, any technician could approach a Mac, toggle that command, and instantly have the appearance and behaviors he or she would expect. But when the technician is finished, the user can toggle it back to his preferred settings.
This could be done if only Apple had the will and if only it did not seek to impose a one-size-fits-all UI vision on everyone. A computer is a tool. Users should be able to adapt that tool to the working style which is most effective for them.

[jmincey]

"...I would gladly pay another $100 if it means they'd actually get it done.... I would, indeed, fork over another $100 for OS X Choice if it actually offered control over the OS."
As I have already said, I'm opposed to splitting the code base of the workstation edition of OS X and creating multiple products out of it. But even if Apple were to take up your idea for an OS X Choice edition, I would not gladly fork over an additional three-fourths of the full retail price of the product merely to have a more customizable UI.
At most I would pay an additional $35 for this.

[caduceus]

I see your $100, and raise you $200...
I'd pay $200-300 more for unlimited online backup using "Time Machine for .mac" -- or ".mac Choice" if you like. Sure the first full would take a week or more, but who cares if it's doing it when the computer is idol (yeah, I know you think I spelled that wrong, but this is a Mac we are talking about, idol is much more appropriate than idle, isn't it). Maybe only update weekly incremental to cut down on network traffic with the daily and hourly incrementals stored locally. I went and bought a external hard disk (like many of us who installed Leopard), but I would still pay for offsite backup. Actually, I did pay for it on Mozy, and was very satisfied with running Mozy for Mac (beta pre-Time Machine). I think I paid close to $200 for two years of Mozy, now it looks like you can sign up for monthly plan... now they just need to make it work with Time Machine.
Make the cost on par with an external hard drive and integrate with Time Machine and many of us would pay the extra ..and never have to think about back up again!

[Axl]

I don't know about the extra charge and why have a different os package? How about an option in the system prefs/personal/UI (but better named) that allows you to select 'normal' or 'advanced'. Under advanced all the aforementioned options would be invoked.

[jmincey]

Many of us (myself included) tend to think of OS X strictly in consumer terms, but even though Windows dominates in the enterprise sector, Macs are used in some businesses, non-profits (NGOs), schools, etc. And the ability to customize a UI can be important to organizations which want to make LAN-wide UI changes for policy reasons.
The less an IT department can customize the work environment of an OS, the more problematic it is to use. And no organization will pay $40 - $100 extra per copy for the settings Rob describes above. Instead, they will just migrate to another platform which does allow more flexibility.

[folklore]

Quote:

---

"...I would gladly pay another $100 if it means they'd actually get it done.... I would, indeed, fork over another $100 for OS X Choice if it actually offered control over the OS."
As I have already said, I'm opposed to splitting the code base of the workstation edition of OS X and creating multiple products out of it. But even if Apple were to take up your idea for an OS X Choice edition, I would not gladly fork over an additional three-fourths of the full retail price of the product merely to have a more customizable UI.
At most I would pay an additional $35 for this.

---

I'm with you on this. Having different versions of the OS is silly - at least for something like this that really isn't that much of a difference in the majority of the code base.
A better implementation would be a separate stand-alone app. Instead of a $100 different version of the OS, why not a $30-50 application that performs all of the functions described by Rob? That way, it's a barrier for "non-power" users and other folks who don't want/need to customize the UI.
Another implementation could be like Microsoft's TweakUI in the PowerToys from years ago - free but officially unsupported.

[trip1ex]

Bah Apple deals with millions of consumers. You can't please 'em all. If you really want unbridled choice then go with Windows where you have many more choices. Or go with 3rd party programs which I'm sure will give you plenty of GUI customization.

Really what you're asking for is an OS/X GUI construction kit. I would think a 3rd party could do this for you easy if there's a market for it.

[simX]

Quote:

---

Your scenario has as much chance as my scenario, because neither have happened over seven years.

---

Well then you need to go back and take a statistics class, because even if something has not happened yet, it doesn't mean that it isn't more likely. You can have a string of 500 tails when you flip a coin, and that doesn't change the fact that the odds of getting a head on the next flip is 50%.

Quote:

---

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 don't think so. It needs a fair amount of conjecture, yes, but it's not outrageous like "OS X Choice". I agree that Apple has said things in the past and then gone back on them, but Apple is running ads NOW about the multiple versions of Vista. We're not talking about some ad campaign in the past, we're talking about Apple making fun of Microsoft right now, and it indicates Apple's current attitude to multiple consumer versions of Mac OS X. It indicates that it's highly unlikely that Apple will release a premium version of OS X until these Vista ads have passed well out of most Mac users' minds.

Quote:

---

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.

---

This is where I think you're being disingenuous. I don't think you really want Apple to create separate versions. Otherwise, why did you write that article lambasting Microsoft for having multiple versions of Vista? You clearly came to the opposite conclusion before; why do you come to this conclusion now so soon afterwards? It doesn't make sense. And I think almost everybody in the Mac community would agree that having one single version of Mac OS X for consumers is a good thing.
I have trouble believing that you think that both options are equally desirable.
It's hard to accept because I read a lot of the stuff that you write and it's almost always very reasonable and well thought-out. The Vista article is one of them, but there was another one about Leopard hiding options and neat features only inside contextual menus, which is a no-no in terms of the HIG. And that was a great article, too.
It's hard to accept because you're coming to a completely wacky conclusion when you've demonstrated many, many times before that you actually do have good ideas and opinions about many things regarding Apple.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Maybe not, but that's really how it comes off. I can see from your article that you're really frustrated that you still aren't able to customize these things right out of the box. And you've been requesting them for years on end and nothing has happened.
But it looks like you realize that all of these arguments have already been talked about ad infinitum, so no one will care if you write about it again. So the only way to get readers to your article is by creating an entertaining, mythical, pie-in-the-sky (and yes, stupid) option of "OS X Choice". Because, as you sarcastically said, being sincere about what you want has not brought about any results in the past.

[jmincey]

Quote:

---

Bah Apple deals with millions of consumers. You can't please 'em all. If you really want unbridled choice then go with Windows where you have many more choices. Or go with 3rd party programs which I'm sure will give you plenty of GUI customization.

---

And your reason for opposing enhanced GUI functionality and flexibility in OS X is... ?

Quote:

---

Really what you're asking for is an OS/X GUI construction kit. I would think a 3rd party could do this for you easy if there's a market for it.

---

OS X already provides SOME user customization of the GUI -- this doesn't mean OS X comes with a GUI construction kit. Rob is simply calling for some additional GUI features and user options. That's not the same thing as building a GUI outright.

[jmincey]

Quote:

---

...you need to go back and take a statistics class, because even if something has not happened yet, it doesn't mean that it isn't more likely. You can have a string of 500 tails when you flip a coin, and that doesn't change the fact that the odds of getting a head on the next flip is 50%.

---

Apparently your mind is capable of accepting as reasonable that the flip of a coin could yield the same result in 500 consecutive instances without your then calling into question whether indeed the odds are 50-50 for a given result on each flip. That's really quite extraordinary. For me, after the same results for 20 consecutive flips, I would begin to question the integrity of the coin or the surface upon which it is tossed.
Of course, in regard to the question of Apple policy we are dealing with humans rather than with objects, and where humans are concerned, the demonstration of a sustained resolve over time does indeed increase the odds with each successive year that the policy currently in place will continue. It doesn't disallow change but only increases the odds against it inasmuch as the less a policy is founded upon a core conviction, the more likely it will be revised or cast aside at some point.

Quote:

---

...I think you're being disingenuous. I don't think you really want Apple to create separate versions.

---

You've made this point -- now give it a rest. Let's just say Rob was using a rhetorical device to make a point, and that he has so resigned himself to Apple's policy on the UI that he figures an optional second OS X edition would be better than nothing at all. Maybe it's a way to make a point or maybe it's not. At the end of the day, what does it matter either way. The actual features Rob proposes are far more interesting (and on topic) than your side point about his sincerity.

[kennethben]

I understand why Apple, at least in the past, wanted to enforce a consistent experience. But it is time that it started recognizing that its users are grownups, and capable of making choices such as the ones that you suggest. I'd certainly pay for them (and did, in pre OSX days), whether produced by Apple or a third party.

[derkathon]

I think in either case it's impossible to attach a probability to something like this without being privy to information inside of Apple. I sincerely doubt that they are flipping coins in Cupertino in order to decide on whether or not to implement Rob Griffith's desired features.
And really, I don't think anyone wants an additional version of OS X. While some might not object to Apple's inclusion of these features, or might find them neat or marginally helpful, I think Rob's point here is that he finds these features compelling enough to warrant spending extra, despite the fact that Apple will most likely never implement them, or an additional version of OS X. I didn't really view this editorial as a call for an additional os version; rather I saw it as his way of describing the value these features hold for him.
Anyhow, as my requested tweaks: I would have to agree with all of those mentioned in the editorial. Particularly the one regarding themes outside of "Blue" and "Graphite." I'd love to have a color chooser and pick the color scheme that way. As an aside, I always did find it odd that the "Blue" theme had traffic-light window buttons... I also would like to see a cut command, since I find it much easier than dragging through spring-loaded folders. I'd also like to be able to choose separate desktop backgrounds for separate spaces to visually distinguish between them.

[simX]

Quote:

---

Apparently your mind is capable of accepting as reasonable that the flip of a coin could yield the same result in 500 consecutive instances without your then calling into question whether indeed the odds are 50-50 for a given result on each flip. That's really quite extraordinary. For me, after the same results for 20 consecutive flips, I would begin to question the integrity of the coin or the surface upon which it is tossed.

---

Of course you should question that the coin is biased in one orientation if it gives the same result 500 times in a row. But that still doesn't change the fact that IF a FAIR coin DOES give the same result 500 times in a row, there's STILL a 50% chance of it coming up heads or tails on the next toss.
So it's false to say that either option is more likely simply based on past history.

Quote:

---

Of course, in regard to the question of Apple policy we are dealing with humans rather than with objects, and where humans are concerned, the demonstration of a sustained resolve over time does indeed increase the odds with each successive year that the policy currently in place will continue. It doesn't disallow change but only increases the odds against it inasmuch as the less a policy is founded upon a core conviction, the more likely it will be revised or cast aside at some point.

---

Very true. But as neither option has yet come to pass, it doesn't allow us to assess the likelihood of either option at the present point in time. What does is Apple's current statements regarding either of the options, and in one case Apple is clearly against that option.

Quote:

---

The actual features Rob proposes are far more interesting (and on topic) than your side point about his sincerity.

---

The features Rob proposes are indeed more interesting than the ridiculous notion of "OS X Choice". But in fact, a lot of them can already be done via hidden preferences or third-party tools. Tinkertool allows you to change system-wide font settings. Quay allows you to get hierarchical stacks back in the Dock. ShapeShifter allows you to theme menus and windows as much as you want. The translucent floating clock from 10.4 can be brought over without any problems to 10.5. Hidden options exist to turn off the 3D Dock, position the Dock at the top of the screen, and place both arrows at both ends of scroll bars. A significant portion of the changes that Rob wants can already be done.
Furthermore, what's the point of relegating the naming of spaces or wireless iPhone synching to "OS X Choice"? Spaces is not even two months old -- does Rob already think that Apple is resistant to adding this to the existing version of Leopard? The iPhone is not even 6 months old. Does Rob also think that Apple is resistant to adding this to the iPhone for reasons other than battery life, which requires better hardware?

Quote:

---

I didn't really view this editorial as a call for an additional os version; rather I saw it as his way of describing the value these features hold for him.

---

Even if this were so, why mask this perceived value with silly ideas? Why not just come right out and say: "Hey Apple! Integrate these features into OS X! It's annoying that you haven't done so already! They're cool and it would make some Mac users really happy!"

[griffman]

As noted, I'm done talking about why I wrote this editorial, but I will respond to points about the actual discussion at hand, so...
"Tinkertool allows you to change system-wide font settings."
Sort of. Some applications ignore the settings, and results when I've tested it have been less than ideal in many apps. Also, changes made only take effect after relaunching apps in question -- including the Finder, so if you make changes, you'll be relaunching the Finder to see the results. Also, you can't set the fonts (face or size) for the things that most annoy me: the tiny fonts used in the sidebar of the Finder, Mail, iTunes, and iPhoto.
"Quay allows you to get hierarchical stacks back in the Dock."
With some extra steps, yes. You have to drag each folder you wish to use into the Quay folder first, then place it into the dock -- every time you want to make a new hierarchical folder. Even then, it's not a true hierarchical folder; the menu doesn't actually come from the docked folder, but pops into existence very close. I find it a bit visually distracting. It's also a beta; hierarchical folders were built-in and working fine as of 10.4, then vanished for no good reason in 10.5.
"ShapeShifter allows you to theme menus and windows as much as you want."
ShapeShifter won't work in 10.5, and it requires Unsanity's APE, which I would prefer not to install on my system (it's a potential source of troubles, given the way it allows running programs to be modified). It's also $20.
"The translucent floating clock from 10.4 can be brought over without any problems to 10.5."
Yes, it can. But why should I have to do so? What possible benefit did Apple gain by removing the option?
"Hidden options exist to turn off the 3D Dock"
Yes.
"position the Dock at the top of the screen"
Not in 10.5; they removed that capability (due to the 3D effects, I would guess).
"and place both arrows at both ends of scroll bars. A significant portion of the changes that Rob wants can already be done."
With third party apps and/or Terminal hacks. Hence, every time I upgrade, they must be re-done. Every time Apple releases an update, some number of the hacks break. Every time Apple decides to change some wording in the binary, the Terminal hacks stop working. It's a far from ideal solution.
"Furthermore, what's the point of relegating the naming of spaces or wireless iPhone synching to "OS X Choice"?"
Just to list them as options that would be something I'd be willing to pay extra to get.
"Does Rob also think that Apple is resistant to adding this to the iPhone for reasons other than battery life, which requires better hardware?"
Wireless syncing would have a trivial impact on battery life -- unless you're doing the first 8GB sync on wireless, you're typically only transmitting a few MB of data, at the most (excluding movie purchases).
In short, what's wrong with today's fixes? They break with updates, they must be individually reinstalled after an update, they rely on extensions that I'd rather not install on my machine, and none can function as well as could something written by Apple as part of the core OS.
I don't understand why anyone argues against providing choices to the end user -- if you don't want to change the defaults, don't do so. But if there's no option to change them, those of us that dislike them are stuck.
-rob.