[wuming]

Quote:

---

Just because you don't want options, why does that mean that nobody wants options?
-rob.

---

It doesn't mean your favorite options are the only ones though.
Maybe some of us find your options silly? Useless?

[jmincey]

Some people in this thread just don't get it. It's not about whether you find every single option useful to you personally. The whole reason for making a setting optional is the recognition that no individual will find them ALL useful. One percentage of people will find one set of options useful while another percentage will find another set useful.
It's amazing to me how some people feel that unless they personally like an option, it has no place in software -- even when it is made available in an unobtrusive way. The user, wuming, finds an option silly; well, say no more -- out it goes.
I myself don't care much for the icon view in Finder windows. But I certainly don't object to its existence as an option because I know it has value to some people in certain situations. I myself prefer different views in different contexts, so I'm glad the options are there.
By the way, WHICH features and settings in Rob's article do you find silly or useless?

[griffman]

"It doesn't mean your favorite options are the only ones though."
No, it certainly doesn't. Which is exactly why I asked, "But how about you? What user-controllable features would you like to see added to OS X Choice?" near the end of my article. But don't let something like the actual content of the article sway your posting. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
"Maybe some of us find your options silly? Useless?"
Indeed. I find some of them silly or useless myself -- the cut option, in particular, I have no need for. But that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be available to those who wish to use it, does it?
-rob.

[griffman]

"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."
I most certainly do not want Linux. I want OS X, with a method to customize those things I'd like to change. There's a HUGE difference between wanting to add a few tweaks to an amazingly nice operating system, and throwing out the entire OS to take a huge step backward (in my opinion) in terms of overall feature set, cohesiveness, user interface design, and techie knowledge level required to make the move to Linux.
I like OS X, a lot -- it's been my livelihood for three years, and my avocation for four years before that. This isn't about disliking OS X, it's about offering more options that would help it appeal, perhaps, to even more users -- maybe even some of the Linux users.
-rob.

[Charles_Martel]

Dumb idea.
Windows as multiple versions. Do we want OS X to be like Windows?

[707av8or]

I might be willing to pay a little more -- only about $20 -- but it would need to be for a lot of added customization AND the addition of Classic support. Though a separate Classic add-on or Plug-In would do just as nicely and keep the base price of 10.5.x the same with some added toggled customization. But I dont agree that we should be forced to wait a year or more (as suggested to 10.5.6) to have these improvements.
It is a shame that Apple programmers havent realized that many of us have files of immeasurable utility and value (and many hours, even days and weeks, of time invested) under OS 9 applications (data bases, graphic files, Clip Art, scanned record documents, tax records, etc.) that cannot readily or efficiently be converted to OS-X formats. This one deficiency alone will prevent me from upgrading to OS 10.5 (and any new MACs until I am absolutely forced to by the elimination of application support for certain OS-X applications.