[theshizknit]

I am a bit shocked to see a few of the comments from users who applied the 10.5.2 upgrade saying that there was no problems. I, and a few other co-workers, recently applied the update and have seen a few more problems than before the update and I think that's ridiculous.

Granted I'm not using every aspect of the update but the basics you expect from the system to work (Airport connection, startup) are practically failing for us now. It took one co-worker about 20 minutes for his MacBook Pro to re-boot and it was still trying. I've had issues connecting to my companies Wireless where I did not have issues before the update. I hope Apple is keeping an eye on these comments and will address update issues soon. I have some people who are threatening to revert back to Tiger.

[tallscot]

>Does it hurt if one person lets their dog crap in the park? No. The problem is when everyone's dog craps in the park.

I disagree with the analogy that an option or feature is feces. Most times, a missing option or feature is feces. You rarely see people complain about new features being added, but you always hear someone complain about a missing feature.

Implementation of the option or feature is key. I agree that poorly implemented options and features is feces. That is what's wrong with Microsoft. They throw in the options and features without taking a lot of time on the implementation. Just look at Vista's control panels as a great example and try to quickly find where you change the refresh rate of your monitor or check to see what your IP address is.

A great example of a missing feature being feces - I liked iCal in Tiger with the contextual panel on the right. That was a great feature. When I created a new event, the time and date and alarm would appear automatically on the right, ready for me to change. Apple decided that this was feces, I guess, so they ripped it out and now it takes me more steps to do a simple thing like set the alarm of a new event I create in Leopard's iCal. I have to double-click on it to bring up that silly pop-up window...

[RichardHallas]

I was really looking forward to the 10.5.2 update because I made enormous use of Dock folder menus under previous versions of Mac OS X, and hated the new stacks. Everyone was saying how List view would both bring back the old behaviour and improve on it with new sorting options.

Well, great. It's fine as far as it goes, and it definitely restores some of the useful old functionality. (At last we can have folder icons again, rather than the horrible visual mess that represents any stack, which is a massive improvement - or, at least, a restoration of functionality from a huge misstep.)

However, the assertion that this new list view improves on Tiger is just nonsense; it's nowhere near as good as it was. Why? Because aliases and links are no longer resolved. For the list view to work properly and be useful, it's essential to be able to resolve aliases. Without that ability, the functionality is simply crippled.

For example, I have a 'nerve centre' icon in my Dock, which has been there ever since OS X 10.1. It's just a folder containing a whole load of other folder aliases, so that I can get to lots of useful places on my various hard drives, quickly and easily, from a single Dock icon. On all versions of Mac OS X prior to Leopard, it was massively useful. And now it's utterly useless, even with the new List view in 10.5.2.

Please, Apple, finish off the implementation and make the Dock resolve aliases again! OS features are supposed to make users lives' easier and allow them to work in the way they want; not to hamper them and force them to work in a way that doesn't suit them.

For the moment, I've got HierarchicalDock installed. It's a really useful piece of freeware, and brings back the behaviour I want. However, it's not entirely seamless in operation, and native performance from the Dock is better, so I'd hoped that I wouldn't have to continue using it after I'd installed 10.5.2; but it seems that I will.

I'm really disappointed that the new List implementation isn't better, frankly. I was expecting it to bring back the exact same functionality that exists in Tiger, and enhance it with new sorting options. That would be both the obvious answer and the perfect thing to do. But sadly it's still crippled because aliases don't work any more, and aliases are really important.

I'm personally not that bothered about the new sorting options and don't expect to use them much; but I want to follow aliases all the time, and aliases are a fundamental part of the filing system; how can Apple possibly have thought it would be a good idea to disable them?

I agree with others that adding things like QuickLook to these Dock menus (something else that HierarchicalDock does, by the way) could be a nice enhancement... but please, let's just get the basic functionality there first! At present it's only half a job.

As a footnote, I can't quite see why Apple felt the need to include the 'Options' and 'Open in Finder' options at the foot of every Dock menu, since these are options that you're only likely to want to fiddle with very occasionally, and that's the whole point of the contextual menu associated with each Dock folder, where they're duplicated. It seems to me that the extra bit of menu below the divider is all about redundant duplication and nothing about usefulness. If only Apple would bring back the exact same basic presentation and functionality as was present in Tiger, which was perfect. I thought that's what they were supposed to be doing, but it's still basically cocked up. I thought it was only Microsoft that specialised in ruining things that previously worked really well.

[tallscot]

One thing that I noticed that isn't fixed is Quick Look presents me some JPEGs and GIFs at larger than 100% size. This is annoying. I end up using Preview because of this bug in Leopard since Quick Look has no "100%" feature, only full screen.

[Schneb]

Spotlight search result behavior.

1) Initial search defaults to "This Mac" and not current folder like in Tiger.
2) Default search criteria being "content", not "file name".
3) Column view results limited to Name, Kind, and Last Opened- useless.

Automator 2

Though Renamer Action has been fixed with latest upgrade, Add Spotlight Comments is still dead.

Finder

Window back button still does not recognize Folder View settings. (example: drill down folders all in List View until you get to an Icon View folder. Now use Back Button, and you are still in Icon View. Extremely irritating!

Does Apple listen to its users? Just look at iMovie 08. The answer is a resounding "NO".

[trip1ex]

tallscot said:

>Does it hurt if one person lets their dog crap in the park? No. The problem is when everyone's dog craps in the park.

I disagree with the analogy that an option or feature is feces. Most times, a missing option or feature is feces. You rarely see people complain about new features being added, but you always hear someone complain about a missing feature.

Implementation of the option or feature is key. I agree that poorly implemented options and features is feces. That is what's wrong with Microsoft. They throw in the options and features without taking a lot of time on the implementation. Just look at Vista's control panels as a great example and try to quickly find where you change the refresh rate of your monitor or check to see what your IP address is.

A great example of a missing feature being feces - I liked iCal in Tiger with the contextual panel on the right. That was a great feature. When I created a new event, the time and date and alarm would appear automatically on the right, ready for me to change. Apple decided that this was feces, I guess, so they ripped it out and now it takes me more steps to do a simple thing like set the alarm of a new event I create in Leopard's iCal. I have to double-click on it to bring up that silly pop-up window...

Well I agree that the option ain't feces, but that wasn't the point.

The point is adding a feature, in and of itself, isn't much of a problem. It's when you start adding features for every little thing that it becomes a problem. Then you start to create a beast that is too unwieldy and that starts to short circuit the reasons why you wanted to add options in the first place.

People do complain about features being added. IT's called bloat. Sometimes less is more.

Also there's the matter of focus and finite resources. Do you want Apple focused on making everything about the O/S 'adjustable' or do you want them to focus on trying to improve the core concepts of the O/S? Obviously they do some of both, but I think they are more focused on bringing you bigger improvements than on giving you 100 different ways to configure your desktop. And it seems like the 'geek' crowd that want this stuff finds it from 3rd parties.

Also more choice brings more potential bugs.

Anyway I actually think it would be nice to have a translucency adjustment. I just think that too many choices/options/features isn't necessarily a good thing. Look at video cards on the pc side. I have 300 models to choose from and all I end up is confused (and I know my hardware.) I can't imagine how the layperson feels.

IT's the same with software. Compare iWork to MS Office. Is MSOffice necessarily better because it has more options/features? Is a Swiss Army knife better than a knife?

So there's definitely a tradeoff to having more choice.

[ibeetle]

What evidence?

What about Macworld (print and internet) writing articles, and how-to tips on how to increase the translucency of GUI such as the menu bar and the Dock with information on how to find and use applications such as Leopaque, Transparentdock and Cleardock. If nobody wants it why would there people taking the time and trouble to develop software? Then there are the forum post on Apples own support site on how to get it back? As well as forum post on MacRumors wanting to know the same thing.

What about in Tiger? We had reduced translucency and opaqueness compared to Panther. Why not the out cry when Tiger was released?

Macworld praises individuals making donationware and freeware that makes the dock translucent to the point that only the icons are visible by publishing information/reviews about their applications. Then Macworld rakes Apple over the coals for essentially doing the same thing. Apple saw software being published that made parts of the UI translucent. They saw Microsoft doing the same thing. Even if you do not believe it was part of their grand scheme they were at the very least following suit.
Evidence? Software to increase transparency and opaqueness, Apple Corps. user support message board, third party websites such as MacRumors and Macworld.

In the end this all just eye candy and nothing more than subjective art... oh well C'est La Vie

By the way, now that I have your attention. Why does MacWorld UK get a CD-Rom and we don't?

[Dan Frakes]

LRCarter said:

The FolderBrander solution only works as long as the folder you add to the dock does not contain folders. Otherwise, a new icon is generated for the dock that looks like a set of folders and the FolderBrander folder is lost. As long as there is a sub-folder in the folder, you get this new icon. If you remove the folder, the FolderBrander folder icon comes back.

No, you just have to choose the Display As Folder option; this forces the stack to use the custom folder icon, even if there are subfolders inside.

[Dan Frakes]

ibeetle said:

Macworld praises individuals making donationware and freeware that makes the dock translucent to the point that only the icons are visible by publishing information/reviews about their applications. Then Macworld rakes Apple over the coals for essentially doing the same thing.

Of course, you're ignoring the fact that there's a dramatic difference in appearance and usability between a transparent Dock and a transparent menu bar. The former displays large icons whereas the latter displays small text -- they're very different contexts that aren't comparable, and it's reasonable for someone to like transparency in the Dock but dislike it for the menu bar.

But you're dancing around my point here, which is that there was widespread criticism -- at all levels, not just from "bloggers" -- of the semi-transparent menu bar. You claim such complaints came from a small minority, but I don't see any evidence showing most users preferred transparency -- at least not the extreme transparency of Leopard's initial release.

Quote

By the way, now that I have your attention. Why does MacWorld UK get a CD-Rom and we don't?

Although I have nothing to do with subscriptions, my guess is that it's because Macworld costs only $20 for 12 issues, whereas Macworld UK costs 50# to 120# ($98 to $235 at current exchange rates), depending on where in the world you live.

[tallscot]

Quote

Well I agree that the option ain't feces, but that wasn't the point. The point is adding a feature, in and of itself, isn't much of a problem. It's when you start adding features for every little thing that it becomes a problem.

No, the point I made was having the option to turn a feature on/off is good. Choice is good. I still think that's the case.

Quote

People do complain about features being added. IT's called bloat.

Again, that's implementation of the new features.

Quote

I think they are more focused on bringing you bigger improvements than on giving you 100 different ways to configure your desktop. And it seems like the 'geek' crowd that want this stuff finds it from 3rd parties.

I want the ability to turn a new feature on/off, in the case of things like Dock magnification and a transparent menu bar, because I find them annoying.

Being able to customize the behavior of your software isn't geek. It's very typical, common. Your OS and your applications have preferences for these behaviors.

Leopard's Appearance system preference, for example, gives me two colors for buttons - blue and graphite. Apple could add more colors there and it wouldn't make the OS more difficult to use, nor do I think it would take away all of Apple's engineers to implement it.

Quote

Anyway I actually think it would be nice to have a translucency adjustment. I just think that too many choices/options/features isn't necessarily a good thing.

Well, my original comment that you replied to was about having an on/off for new behaviors and features. I still think having the choice is best.

>Compare iWork to MS Office. Is MSOffice necessarily better because it has more options/features?

Again, it's about the implementation of the features that's critical. Final Cut Pro and Cinema 4D have many, many features. Are they crap and bloat automatically because of the number of features? No, they aren't. They have really good user interfaces and the implementation of the features is really good.

[trip1ex]

tallscot said:

> Well I agree that the option ain't feces, but that wasn't the point. The point is adding a feature, in and of itself, isn't much of a problem. It's when you start adding features for every little thing that it becomes a problem.

No, the point I made was having the option to turn a feature on/off is good. Choice is good. I still think that's the case.

> People do complain about features being added. IT's called bloat.

Again, that's implementation of the new features.

> I think they are more focused on bringing you bigger improvements than on giving you 100 different ways to configure your desktop. And it seems like the 'geek' crowd that want this stuff finds it from 3rd parties.

I want the ability to turn a new feature on/off, in the case of things like Dock magnification and a transparent menu bar, because I find them annoying.

Being able to customize the behavior of your software isn't geek. It's very typical, common. Your OS and your applications have preferences for these behaviors.

Leopard's Appearance system preference, for example, gives me two colors for buttons - blue and graphite. Apple could add more colors there and it wouldn't make the OS more difficult to use, nor do I think it would take away all of Apple's engineers to implement it.

> Anyway I actually think it would be nice to have a translucency adjustment. I just think that too many choices/options/features isn't necessarily a good thing.

Well, my original comment that you replied to was about having an on/off for new behaviors and features. I still think having the choice is best.

>Compare iWork to MS Office. Is MSOffice necessarily better because it has more options/features?

Again, it's about the implementation of the features that's critical. Final Cut Pro and Cinema 4D have many, many features. Are they crap and bloat automatically because of the number of features? No, they aren't. They have really good user interfaces and the implementation of the features is really good.

You said choice is always good and I just disagreed with that and listed many examples where more choice isn't necessarily good. And noted that one option by itself isn't a bad thing really, but that the accumulation of many can certainly be. Also I noted that there's tradeoffs involved in any option or feature that is implemented in a program.

Anyway we've gone in a circle.

[fibercut]

I still see the forgotten feature that has been left out of Leopard, video playing in the Dock. The video file paying (in any video format/player) the video will freeze when minimized into the Dock but the audio of the playing video will still be playing.

This was not a problem from OS X beta till 10.4.11. Only in 10.5.x has this been a problem. So Apple has NOT listened to my bug reports.

[tallscot]

Quote

You said choice is always good and I just disagreed with that and listed many examples where more choice isn't necessarily good

The problem with that is you are ignoring the context.

Quote

montgomery_burns wrote:

>What happened to the Apple defenders who dismissed the criticisms and called those people whiners?

I said:
>Choice is always good. I don't have a clue why anyone would not want the choice to turn a feature on/off. Some people argue that they themselves don't mind the new behavior, and that's fine. But telling someone who hates the new behavior to shut up is ridiculous.

The context is that when Mac users complain about a new behavior of OS X, some Mac users call them whiners. My point was I don't see why you would tell someone who doesn't like the new feature/behavior to shut up. As long as we have choice, as long as we can turn the new behavior/feature off, everyone should be happy. That's the context.

In no way was I arguing that it would be good for Apple to create 50 different views of the Finder, for example, and scatter them each as a separate button across the Finder. That would be a red herring.

The context is the article this thread belongs to, in which Dan talks about the transparent menu bar and the Stacks. We aren't talking about 100 different Desktop configurations. Red herring.

So I understand that your point is Apple could ruin the user interface by adding 10,000 features to the Dock. That's pretty much stating the obvious and hyperbole.

So, again, my whole point was about being able to turn a feature on/off.

[peetz]

Apple listens to trivial things like transparent menu bars which, ultimately, are preferences which -- but on major things, like removing the option of matte-screen iMacs, and forcing us to look at glossy screens -- they refuse to listen. Online surveys show that between 30% and 80% of people, depending on which survey, prefer matte screens. And yet Apple has the effrontery to delete matte screens from their iMac inventory. Is this issue long forgotten, or are there people out there who are still seething about this. Please don't give us the one that Apple listens. Apple are like a benevolent dictator, listening on some things, but arrogant on others.