[jmincey]

Quote:

---

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.

---

This is the key point. So long as the optional settings are well implemented, I see no grounds for any opposition to it, (and I've yet to hear any in this thread).

[doh123]

Quote:

---

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.

---

what?
In Finder, yes I cant find a way to easily change the fonts in the sidebar. In iTunes and iPhoto, you cant change the font type, and you dont a have much options, but you do have a single option of small or large font (default is small). Now I'm surprised you mentioned Mail in there though, Mail has good font control, including the sidebar, which you can change to any font and any size you want... i even stuck it at a 288 pt font and it was pretty tough to read it was so big :-P

[griffman]

Sorry, you are correct. Mail shouldn't be on the list.
-rob.

[jmincey]

I just want to say I marvel at how humans can be invested in opposing something even where it has no effect on them whatsoever. Apple could implement all of Rob's features and yet tuck them away in a clean, well-organized, easy-to-navigate dialog box. The naysayers would never need even know it's there if they didn't want to pursue it. So what, then, is their need to come out in opposition to it?
The only explanation is merely that it represents a change. Or it doesn't carry the imprimatur of that which they worship -- namely Apple.
Why not just accept an idea on its own merits, no matter who the author may be? A good idea is a good idea whether it comes from Steve Jobs or Rob Griffman or, for that matter, even Jeff Mincey.
Gasp!

[griffman]

Or even Rob Griffiths /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif (Griffman is merely my identity here...)
-rob.

[jmincey]

Ha -- how stupid of me. I have known this for a number of years and just slipped a cog. I've seen your byline many times. But, hey, it just goes to show that even a poor, hapless, fictional character with a pseudonym like Griffman should have his ideas taken on their own merit. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Neil_Anderson]

Apple Remote Desktop.

[jmincey]

What of it?

[Tut]

Quote:

---

"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.
-rob.

---

I changed my system to use double arrows years ago and have never had to redo that, not even when switching to Leopard. It was so long ago I don't even remember how I did it.
What I wish Rob had included in his wish list is not so much of the cosmetic stuff (as double arrows), but the really bad stuff. Why has no one asked for a complete rewrite of the Finder? From the ground up!
The Finder is now the oldest software on the Mac (compare it with iMovie, that got rewritten). I quit it most of the time, though I love QuickView. It lists the contents of large folders very slowly, it crashes or freezes (try clicking on an .avi file in column view - then watch a beach ball for minutes).
In desperation with the Finder I have XFile running instead, though XFile is very basic and is rather geeky, but it is stable and FAST. XFile uses the underlying Unix to the best of its ability (the programmers had to slow it down artificially so the System could keep up!). Why can't Apple give us a new Finder that does the same?
What we get with every new MacOS is more and more animation and gadgets. It is like they are running out of new ideas that can attract buyers, so they have left it in the hands of the marketing guys.
And don't get me started at Apple's slow response to bug reports. Some go on for years without getting fixed.

[griffman]

Well, in general I wasn't writing about broken stuff in OS X; the list was targeted at things I'd like control over. The Finder in 10.5, though, pretty much is all new, and I've yet to see a spinning beachball when opening a folder with lots of files in it, or looking at an AVI movie preview in column view mode.
-rob.

[jmincey]

Quote:

---

What I wish Rob had included in his wish list is not so much of the cosmetic stuff (as double arrows), but the really bad stuff.

---

I don't mean to nitpick semantics, but merely because you can see something does not make it cosmetic. To have double arrows on both ends of the scroll bar is a navigation aid and it reduces mouse motion. This translates into ease of use. In contrast, a purely cosmetic change would be the color of the arrows.
No one knows more than "Mr Mac OS X Hints" Rob that OS X has a number of default settings which can be tweaked via the command line of a UNIX shell. But that's hardly a reasonable alternative to a simple check box or radio button or the like. It's a GUI age. The command line has a place but I see no compelling reason not to present the features Rob calls for in a GUI.

[jeffharris]

When and IF any of the Mac OS Xmas List items were ever folded into OS X is up for grabs.
A second consumer version of Mac OS X would be ridiculous.
Charging extra for it would be worse.
Apple would NEVER do it. Besides, a lot of what's on the list is possible and doable NOW.
Apple keeps the Finder experience as lean as possible. It's the same philosophy that still shipped a one-button mouse up until a few years ago.
The basic SIMPLICITY of the Mac OS is one of it's greatest appeals and selling points!
Users, like myself, who are interested in tweaking or customizing the interface have always relied or third-party solutions to overcome, what some of us consider, shortcomings of the Mac OS. And YES, there have nearly ALWAYS been ways to tweak the Finder, whether creating or customizing icons and Finder and application menus in ResEdit, or running things like Now Utilities, or Unsanity's haxies, or Default Folder or using Cocktail or Tinker Tool to activate or deactivate Finder features under Mac OS X.
When the G4 processor was stuck at 500mhz for 18 months or so, Apple was forced to find new and clever ways to speed up and/or optimize system performance. That's why Apple shifted much of the interface rendering to the GPUs of the grossly under utilized video cards that every Mac has.
So, what we got is that EVERY version of Mac OS X, from the Public Beta to Leopard, has been FASTER than it's predecessor.

[jmincey]

"Apple keeps the Finder experience as lean as possible."
I know of no advocate of optional settings who would have it any other way.
You and others seem to think this is an either-or proposition. Either keep the Finder lean (or minimalist) or clutter it with endless features. Except that you yourself go on to acknowledge that some of these functions are already available through the Terminal and the CLI. Why then do you not trust that Apple (of all companies) would have the ability to make these (and other) configurable features available in a discrete and cleanly navigable way?
Those who wish to have the Finder operate exactly as it does now would continue to do so. The mere existence of features does not mandate their use nor violate the lean aesthetic Apple has established for its UI. You raise a false argument.
"It's the same philosophy that still shipped a one-button mouse up until a few years ago."
There was no philosophy that kept Apple hidebound to an arbitrary decision in its corporate infancy. Rather it was its own dogmatism about the UI of its products. This idea that a two-button mouse would violate the law of simplicity is preposterous. Millions upon millions of people use a two-button mouse. Quantum physics it is not.
The second mouse button simply adds functionality and makes it a click away. It's an enhancement to the user experience which Apple refused to make available because it allowed its UI guidelines to become an end in itself rather than a means to an end.
The end of any UI should always be whatever strikes the best balance between power and ease of use for the consumer. If a different approach can reduce mouse clicks, reduce mouse motion, and present commands in a more accessible way, why would Apple NOT do it?

The functions Rob calls for are best woven directly into the OS interface itself. Relying on third-parties is far from the optimal solution.

[wuming]

Rob, if you want that kind of customization, and worse, if you think that kind of customization is a welcome thing, then you want Linux, not Mac OS X.