Paul Thurrott Reviews Tiger

[mac-er]

Window's fanboy, Paul Thorrott, has reviewed (http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/macosx_tiger.asp) OS 10.4 "Tiger".

Surprisingly, he gives it 4 out of 5 "Windows"/stars, and doesn't have too many negative things to say about it.

[Lacero]

Personally I give OSX Tiger 5 out of 5.

ps. Thurrott is an idiot.

[Fredstar]

"Apple Mac OS X 10.4 "Tiger" is the strongest OS X release yet and a worthy competitor to Windows XP"

LOL.

[edesignuk]

So many things to pick on in that article I don't even know where to start.

[Inspector Lee]

ps. Thurrott is an idiot.

Yeah, anybody who writes Windows is easier for beginners because when they turn it on the first time there is a "start" button whereas OS X hath no "start" button and is, henceforth, more difficult for computer neophytes to grasp...

... is an out-and-out moron who could really benefit from being defecated on.

[thequicksilver]

Honestly, I don't see what's so bad about his review. Do I agree with every word of it? No.

Are his criticisms fair though? I think so. Tiger is a minor upgrade. It's a tweaking of Panther, adding quite a few new features. But to quite a few people (himself included) OS 9 to OS X was a major upgrade, whereas the OS X point increases are minor ones. That's fair enough as far as I see it - it's an opinion. It's not as if he's saying it sucks or anything - he clearly states that it's the best version of X to date.

What's so wrong with that?

(I also must note that his criticisms about Quicktime 7 are especially pertinent - Apple list the new full screen mode in Quicktime as a "feature" of Tiger - despite the fact you have to purchase Quicktime 7 Pro to get it. That is especially poor, and also false advertising.)

[Gee]

So many things to pick on in that article I don't even know where to start.

I thought it was a reasonably well-balanced piece, considering it's on 'Windows Supersite'.

[Sun Baked]

So many things to pick on in that article I don't even know where to start.I'd tell him to do us all a favor and jump off a bridge...

But that would just polute the water he lands in. :(

[edesignuk]

I thought it was a reasonably well-balanced piece, considering it's on 'Windows Supersite'.Maybe. There are a few droplets of valid points, but they are awash in a sea of crap IMO.

[Mav451]

I'm kind of chuckling when he mentions Konfabulator and Widgets. We're talking about MS criticizing Apple for copying, LOL. Talk about a grand ol' conversation between the kettle and the pot.

[Lacero]

http://www3.telus.net/poojja/s/poop.gif <--- Paul Thurrott.

[dpclark]

So many things to pick on in that article I don't even know where to start.

heres one

"Apple Mac OS X 10.4 "Tiger" is the strongest OS X release yet and a worthy competitor to Windows XP"

what kind of mind altering substances is this guy doing? - a competitor? OS X has owned XP since its release.

[mac-er]

Hey if you guys (and gals) want to get really pissed off read...

XP vs OS X (http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/windowsxp_osx.asp), where he says OS X is copying Windows :rolleyes:

My favorite part:
In Windows XP, everything begins, appropriately enough, with the Start button, which launches a new Start Menu. This menu contains just about everything you need to get to work, your most commonly accessed applications, your most recently used documents, and a list of commonly accessed system locations. In Mac OS X, there is no equivalent to this. You are forced to hunt and peck for things. Let's say you want to change the resolution of the screen. How might you accomplish this in OS X? Holding down the mouse button on the desktop does no good. Choosing View from the Finder menu offers no clue. Choosing Finder Preferences lets you change icon sizes, but not the screen resolution. And so on. How about System Preferences? In System Preferences, the Mac equivalent of the Windows Control Panel, we see a set of icons much like that used in versions of Windows circa two years ago. Let's se... hmm.... Is it Displays, General, or Screen Saver?

Does he not realize the Apple logo at the top IS our "Start" button? (we just aren't stupid enough to have to spell, it out, literally)

And, frankly, our 'start' button is easier to use, includes everything he mentions, looks better because it doesn't cascade/animate or have icons all over it. Plus, it lists all your "shut down-options" without bringing up another dialog box. Moron.

[thequicksilver]

heres one

"Apple Mac OS X 10.4 "Tiger" is the strongest OS X release yet and a worthy competitor to Windows XP"

what kind of mind altering substances is this guy doing? - a competitor? OS X has owned XP since its release.

Given that his audience is Windows users, this may well be news to them. It's called "writing for your audience".

[clayj]

Are his criticisms fair though? I think so. Tiger is a minor upgrade. It's a tweaking of Panther, adding quite a few new features. But to quite a few people (himself included) OS 9 to OS X was a major upgrade, whereas the OS X point increases are minor ones. That's fair enough as far as I see it - it's an opinion.When what you change in the version number is to the right of a decimal point (e.g., 10.3 > 10.4), most people will view that as a minor upgrade (most present company excluded, apparently). If 10.4 was actually called OS XI, THEN it would be difficult to argue that it's not a major upgrade. But when the UI doesn't really change too much and you're adding just a few significant features and a LOT of bug fixes/tweaks, it's pretty much a minor upgrade.

Windows XP is still Windows XP 4 years later, but SP-2 is quite a bit better than base-level Windows XP. The same applies to OS X 10.4 compared to OS X 10.0 or 10.1. If you don't change the version number or the name too much, it's pretty much the same product.

[kugino]

he says about dashboard: "Um, right. Since PCs and Macs have had tiny utility applications since the early 1980's, it's unclear why Dashboard widgets can't simply work on the normal Mac desktop (which is how Konfabulator works, incidentally). Having to move into and out of the Dashboard to perform these tasks seems a bit unnecessary. Why segregate them like that?"

but one of our members here (can't find the thread at the moment) showed us how to do this...just press f12 or some key and you can use one widget on the desktop. this guy needs to do his homework before criticizing "absent" features, which are there if you play around with it enough

[Fukui]

Tiger is a minor upgrade.
Absolutely wrong.
From a developers' perspective, its a HUGE HUGE upgrade.
This one really pales in comparisson to even Panther in terms of
new API and features. CoreImage, Spotlight, And definitaly CoreData,
Coredata being the biggest thing I am thankful for. Not to mention acceleration of the Quartz 2D, not just the compositor, theres a lot there
to make applications really be not only fast to develop but shine.

[Daveway]

I didn't know iChat AV required a G5 or dual proc. to use video conferencing. Humm... I learned something from that article.

[kugino]

i also read a review by a mac guy that commented about how win XP was a marginally better than win 98, which elicited boos and hisses from the win people. XP was certainly a bigger update over 98 than tiger is to panther, but windows needed it, and it fixed a lot of things that were wrong in 98. but that's the problem with windows - updates are to fix problems with previous systems. for the mac, updates are to add new features and services. both updates are making things "better," but for far different reasons. big world of difference, IMO, and one reason i'm a mac guy.

[rendezvouscp]

I didn't know iChat AV required a G5 or dual proc. to use video conferencing. Humm... I learned something from that article.

I didn't catch that in the article, but that's wrong. It requires Dual 1 GHz G4 or better to start a chat with four people, and then other requirements for different situations. Read about it here: http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/ichat/
-Chase

[Nermal]

he says about dashboard: "Um, right. Since PCs and Macs have had tiny utility applications since the early 1980's, it's unclear why Dashboard widgets can't simply work on the normal Mac desktop (which is how Konfabulator works, incidentally). Having to move into and out of the Dashboard to perform these tasks seems a bit unnecessary. Why segregate them like that?"

I haven't used Konfabulator, but surely putting widgets on the desktop would still require a keypress, be it F11 to show the desktop, or manually minimising/hiding everything. So why not have a Dashboard key? (F12)

[Daveway]

I didn't catch that in the article, but that's wrong. It requires Dual 1 GHz G4 or better to start a chat with four people, and then other requirements for different situations. Read about it here: http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/ichat/
-Chase

Here it is. It was on the side.

[mac-er]

I didn't know that Tiger will not come with AppleWorks (and yet it still comes with Sherlock...).

Is this officially the end of AppleWorks?
Will you still be able to buy it in the stores?

[chris h 1997]

I'm speechless, what a tool!
:eek:

[rendezvouscp]

I didn't know that Tiger will not come with AppleWorks (and yet it still comes with Sherlock...).

Is this officially the end of AppleWorks?
Will you still be able to buy it in the stores?

AppleWorks only comes with consumer macs, not pro macs or with the OS. Yes, you can still purchase AppleWorks online and in stores.
-Chase

[rosalindavenue]

Thurott is a maddening guy. Read my sig to understand all you need to know about him. :D

[Loge]

I didn't know that Tiger will not come with AppleWorks (and yet it still comes with Sherlock...).

Is this officially the end of AppleWorks?
Will you still be able to buy it in the stores?

Well, Panther did not come with AppleWorks either, so I don't think that indicates anything.

[mac-er]

Well, Panther did not come with AppleWorks either, so I don't think that indicates anything.


That's right....I forgot.
Apple treats AppleWorks as premium software....

[stoid]

He's at about mediocre most of the way through, but once he hits the "So what's the big deal all about?" section, it's obvious that he's never used Tiger, and is just writing this review based on reading the feature list.

[starnox]

He's at about mediocre most of the way through, but once he hits the "So what's the big deal all about?" section, it's obvious that he's never used Tiger, and is just writing this review based on reading the feature list.

that and the fact that it isn't released yet :rolleyes:

[keysersoze]

<edited for brutal profanity directed at Paul Thurrott>

[Maedus]

Hey if you guys (and gals) want to get really pissed off read...

XP vs OS X (http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/windowsxp_osx.asp), where he says OS X is copying Windows :rolleyes:

My favorite part:
Let's say you want to change the resolution of the screen. How might you accomplish this in OS X? Holding down the mouse button on the desktop does no good. Choosing View from the Finder menu offers no clue. Choosing Finder Preferences lets you change icon sizes, but not the screen resolution. And so on. How about System Preferences? In System Preferences, the Mac equivalent of the Windows Control Panel, we see a set of icons much like that used in versions of Windows circa two years ago. Let's se... hmm.... Is it Displays, General, or Screen Saver?

Displays, General, or Screen Saver? You mean it's not the icon that looks like a mouse and is labeled mouse(well now a keyboard button and mouse that is labeled Keyboard & Mouse)!?!?!?!? :eek: Next you'll tell me that the icon that looks like a monitor and is labeled Display is the correct choice!

[iGary]

I think Paul is an assclown just to get traffic to his site.

He IS a horrible writer, all other things said, though.

[GFLPraxis]

heres one

"Apple Mac OS X 10.4 "Tiger" is the strongest OS X release yet and a worthy competitor to Windows XP"

what kind of mind altering substances is this guy doing? - a competitor? OS X has owned XP since its release.

I must disagree. XP owned OS X 10.0 :p No more than that! :D

[andiwm2003]

<edited for brutal profanity directed at Paul Thurrott>

<edited for not enough brutal profanity directed at Paul Thurrott. please try again.>

[GFLPraxis]

Displays, General, or Screen Saver? You mean it's not the icon that looks like a mouse and is labeled mouse(well now a keyboard button and mouse that is labeled Keyboard & Mouse)!?!?!?!? :eek: Next you'll tell me that the icon that looks like a monitor and is labeled Display is the correct choice!

Unbelievable article, eh?

"On the Mac, you get options for Displays, General, or Screensaver that could all be the one you're looking for! While on Windows XP, it's obviously Appearance and Themes1"

My...gosh.

Displays seems like the most logical choice when changing my DISPLAY RESOLUTION, don't you think?...

[GFLPraxis]

Absolutely wrong.
From a developers' perspective, its a HUGE HUGE upgrade.
This one really pales in comparisson to even Panther in terms of
new API and features. CoreImage, Spotlight, And definitaly CoreData,
Coredata being the biggest thing I am thankful for. Not to mention acceleration of the Quartz 2D, not just the compositor, theres a lot there
to make applications really be not only fast to develop but shine.

Yup. A minor upgrade is Windows XP SP 1. Or 10.3.1. Heck, a minor upgrade is Windows 98 to Windows 98SE (which Microsoft charged full price for, yet was nothing but a giant bug fix with internet connection sharing and a newer Windows Media Player added).

10.3 to 10.4 is NOT a minor upgrade when you have kernel updates, new API's, GUI changes, a completely different way of rendering the desktop, 3d effects in the GUI, CoreData, the ability to instantly search anywhere...etc.

Anyone who calls that a minor update needs to have his head examined. Paul Thurrot needs to have his head removed from the shoulders with a nice axe swing.

[GFLPraxis]

When what you change in the version number is to the right of a decimal point (e.g., 10.3 > 10.4), most people will view that as a minor upgrade (most present company excluded, apparently). If 10.4 was actually called OS XI, THEN it would be difficult to argue that it's not a major upgrade. But when the UI doesn't really change too much and you're adding just a few significant features and a LOT of bug fixes/tweaks, it's pretty much a minor upgrade.

Windows XP is still Windows XP 4 years later, but SP-2 is quite a bit better than base-level Windows XP. The same applies to OS X 10.4 compared to OS X 10.0 or 10.1. If you don't change the version number or the name too much, it's pretty much the same product.

Absolutely not. Windows XP SP-2 added new simple features that you could already download free (popup blocker, better firewall), and bug fixes.

Mac OS X Tiger has a newer kernel, new API, etc etc (see above post). Not even a good COMPARISON.


Mac OS X 10.4 vs Mac OS X 10.0 is like Windows XP vs Windows NT 1.0.

What, XP and NT are both based on the NT kernel and both have a similar GUI, the only difference are new features, bux fixes, and a bunch of under the hood enhancements, right? So technically, Windows XP is a 'minor upgrade' of Windows NT 1.0?

[PlaceofDis]

whenever i hear Paul Thurrott name my senses go : ZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZz

[solvs]

I'm kind of chuckling when he mentions Konfabulator and Widgets. We're talking about MS criticizing Apple for copying, LOL. Talk about a grand ol' conversation between the kettle and the pot.
I thought that too until I read http://daringfireball.net/2004/06/dashboard_vs_konfabulator and remembered that Arlo Rose used to work for Apple. Ever wonder why he never tried to get Konfab copywrited?

<off topic rant> I do hope Apple adds more RAM in the next update though. At least in the PowerMacs. I hear Tiger is faster, but I'm sure it would be better with 512MB. I get why the mini only has 256, but I'd rather not have to pay Apple $75 to upgrade to what it should come with. I'll probably just get more RAM at Newegg.com anyway, but it would be nice if I didn't have toss what comes with it. Who needs a couple of 128MB sticks of PC3200 DDR RAM? Especially if the low-end models have only 4 RAM slots. <off topic rant>

[rendezvouscp]

Displays seems like the most logical choice when changing my DISPLAY RESOLUTION, don't you think?...

Hell, Paul Thurrot is so stupid he probably didn't use the search in System Preferences.

It doesn't seem like he actually had Tiger to review. However, he supposedly had actual pictures late last week, but I seriously doubt that.
-Chase

[stoid]

The rant on changing screen resolution is a just classic! Because it's obviously more intuitive and straight forward to double-click on the desktop and select Properties to change the screen resolution than to click the System Preferences and Display. I started using Windows when I started college (now finishing my second year) and it wasn't until just a few weeks ago that I figured that one out by accident. I had always had to go through the Start>Control Panels>Displays...etc. major P.I.T.A.!

[GFLPraxis]

The rant on changing screen resolution is a just classic! Because it's obviously more intuitive and straight forward to double-click on the desktop and select Properties to change the screen resolution than to click the System Preferences and Display. I started using Windows when I started college (now finishing my second year) and it wasn't until just a few weeks ago that I figured that one out by accident. I had always had to go through the Start>Control Panels>Displays...etc. major P.I.T.A.!


There's multiple ways nowadays.

Right click on desktop, properties, appearance and settings.
Or
Start, control panel, Appearance and Themes, Display (SAME NAME! or you can click "Change the Resolution" which takes you to the same box).


Vs Mac:

Control Panel, Display.

Come on, can you HONESTLY say that
Start>CP>AaT>Display

is easier than

CP>Display

with a straight face?

[Fukui]

It doesn't seem like he actually had Tiger to review. However, he supposedly had actual pictures late last week, but I seriously doubt that.
-Chase
You'll notice that all the pictures on his "review" were 'courtesy of apple.'
If he really had it, he would most likely take his own screen grabs I would think...
Not only that, but why does he feel the need to proclaim he's such a mac lover in the beginning? What's up with that?

[HiRez]

Much as I dislike Thurrott in general, I think his review was quite fair and spot-on in most areas. It appears he genuinely likes OS X, and, unlike many reviews by Mac-centric sources, he doesn't blindly gush over it, pointing out nitpicks where appropriate.

He's right on the mark when he talks about Apple trouncing all over their own (previously-sacred) UI guidelines, something that's been bothering me for as long as OS X has been around; nothing wrong with evelving, but it's terribly inconsistent, with now quite a few different interfaces to be found within their own applications (we have Brushed Metal with the slightly-different QuickTime variant, 10.3 and earlier Aqua, 10.4 Aqua, Neutral Pro (FCP etc.), oddball hybrids like Garage Band and iPhoto, and now god-knows-what with Dashboard Widgets). It won't stop me from using OS X, but overall it's quite a mess. And sorry, but the Dock still sucks.

[Blue Velvet]

And sorry, but the Dock still sucks.

How so? I don't have a problem with it.

[Lacero]

I love the Dock. If you go back to OS9, a new user would find it even harder to use, and Macs are already known for their ease of use.

[Maedus]

I think the Dock is fantastic. And I love having it hidden on the right side of the monitor as opposed to visible and on the bottom. That way it doesn't interfere with the desktop icons and it especially doesn't interfere with Word and Firefox which take up all the space from top to bottom but not side to side. Plus it sure beats trying to quickly access commonly used apps via the Apple menu.

[GFLPraxis]

Personally, I love the dock. The taskbar in XP is superior in some circumstances, but inferior in others. For just running programs, the taskbar is great, but really, the dock combines the Start Menu, Quick Launch, Taskbar, and some of the desktop into one. It really is useful if you know how to use it.

BTW, make your own start menu; stick the Applications folder in the dock and right click on it to get a list of all programs.

[Maedus]

BTW, make your own start menu; stick the Applications folder in the dock and right click on it to get a list of all programs.

Indiana University has different folders of applications in the Dock. I can't remember the names, but their's one for web browsers, another for Office and Office type programs. Another for graphics programs as well as a folder for all the IU networking software. And each folder has a nifty icon. I really like how its set up. If my computer wasn't so slow, I'd do it myself, but clicking the Finder icon and selecting an app from the Applications folder is actually quicker than clicking on a folder on the Dock. *Shakes angry fist at G3 Beige.* I can't wait for an iMac update that comes preinstalled with Tiger!

BTW, you can just click and hold down to get the list of all the apps or contents in the folder. For those of us that kept the standard one button Apple mouse. ;)

[HiRez]

I'll tell you what I dislike about the Dock:

1. Magnification, while sexy, isn't really usable, because icons move around and resize, so it's very hard to target anything accurately. This is especially dangerous if you tend to drag & drop thousands of files at a time. I once accidentally dropped a few hundred files into the Dock. Faced with the prospect of dragging them off the Dock one at a time, I had to go edit XML in the prefs file to eliminate them all.

2. It's not big enough to accommodate many icons without them all becoming teeny-tiny (thereby reducing the usefulness of the icon-centric Dock). Even at the 1280x960 or 1280x854 that I normally use, the majority of my icons are on the Desktop because the Dock is full.

3. Icons aren't in predictable locations, since the Dock adds new icons as non-Dock apps are launched, and it re-centers itself. So again, hard to train your brain/hand to go to a specific place for something when it might be elsewhere. This also applies to the Trash, which cannot be optionally pinned to a corner, nor placed on the Desktop.

4. The thumbnails it makes for minimized documents are often not easy to identify visually. For images it works ok; for web pages, text, or Finder windows, not as well. Likewise, folders look identical and you must tediously mouse around and read labels to tell what's what. The color labels you can set for icons in the Finder are ignored by the Dock, showing up neither for the icon, nor their text label.

5. The Dock behavior is non-intuitive for new users. For example, click and drag an object onto the Desktop or into a Finder window and a copy of that object is made (unless it's on the same disk, another UI inconsistency). But click once and drag something onto the Dock and it creates something akin to an alias, but it's not an alias (does not have an alias icon). Normally, of course, you have to Command-Option-click and drag to create an alias. Then if you drag something off the Dock, it disappears in a puff of smoke. Oh dear, did I just delete After Effects? Having used OS X for years of course I know the answer, but I've seen plenty of new users become confused with the Dock's odd behaviors.

6. They still haven't fixed the bug where descenders are chopped off the bottom of text labels. Granted, that's minor, yet annoying and curious for a company that traditionally prides itself on details such as that.

[GFLPraxis]

Actually, you'll find that as you move your mouse to an icon in the dock with magnification on, that icon moves to the place that it would have been normally when you reach it.

[Demon Hunter]

Much as I dislike Thurrott in general, I think his review was quite fair and spot-on in most areas. It appears he genuinely likes OS X, and, unlike many reviews by Mac-centric sources, he doesn't blindly gush over it, pointing out nitpicks where appropriate.

He's right on the mark when he talks about Apple trouncing all over their own (previously-sacred) UI guidelines, something that's been bothering me for as long as OS X has been around; nothing wrong with evelving, but it's terribly inconsistent, with now quite a few different interfaces to be found within their own applications (we have Brushed Metal with the slightly-different QuickTime variant, 10.3 and earlier Aqua, 10.4 Aqua, Neutral Pro (FCP etc.), oddball hybrids like Garage Band and iPhoto, and now god-knows-what with Dashboard Widgets). It won't stop me from using OS X, but overall it's quite a mess. And sorry, but the Dock still sucks.

I completely agree...

The toolbar buttons, however, are bizarre looking and unlike the icons found in any other Mac OS X applications, another case of Apple trouncing all over its own user interface conventions. It's astonishing to me that Mac fanatics let the company get away with that.

I mean, I agree, but what does he expect us to do? Riot in Cupertino?

I wish Apple would be consistent with the brushed metal/stripes/plastic thing, or at least make it a user option! More distressing are the icons in Mail though... seriously, what the heck.

[Zaty]

I usually disagree with Thurott but he has a point when it comes to the start button/taskbar vs. the dock.

Let's imagine a first time computer user sits in front of a computer. What do they do in Windows first? Right they click on the start button where they will find all apps and systems settings. In OS X, how long does it take them to find an app that isn't in the Dock? I personally prefer the dock but I have to agree that the start button concept (also used by Linux desktop environments) is easier to understand than the dock for a newbie or computer illiterate. Yes, of course you can build your own start menu which is more flexible than the start menu in Windwows. However, a first time Mac user probably doesn't know this. And no, the apple menu is not Mac OS's start button anymore.

[mac-er]

And no, the apple menu is not Mac OS's start button anymore.

It is the thing that is most equivalent to the Windows start button, and it contains everything the Windows start button does, except for pinned applications (which the dock takes).

[Zaty]

It is the thing that is most equivalent to the Windows start button, and it contains everything the Windows start button does, except for pinned applications (which the dock takes).

Sure, but like you said yourself, it does not contain a menu to start apps. My point was that you have to start apps that are not in the dock from the finder which isn't really intuitive IMHO.

[thedoc1111]

I completely agree...



I mean, I agree, but what does he expect us to do? Riot in Cupertino?

I wish Apple would be consistent with the brushed metal/stripes/plastic thing, or at least make it a user option! More distressing are the icons in Mail though... seriously, what the heck.

Add another agreement to that. Amazingly, Thurrott is right on - who'd have thought?

[dolphin842]

Sure, but like you said yourself, it does not contain a menu to start apps. My point was that you have to start apps that are not in the dock from the finder which isn't really intuitive IMHO.

Indeed... when I switched last year, it was rather annoying searching through the finder for apps (I didn't know about cmd-shift-A either, so there was quite a bit of clicking involved). Now that I have Butler (or Quicksilver, or LaunchBar, etc), things are much more efficient than they were under Windows. But I, as w/ many other Mac switchers, had to find this out myself, and for a few months did things the hard way. For switchers that aren't 'power users,' they may never go to a forum or whatever to learn about these things. I think Apple should either improve their out-of-the-box support for finding apps, or at least educate and/or bundle apps that do help.

[p03]

I agree that the Dock needs improvements. I have 55 items in my Dock, and sometimes I spend a full minute finding one of them (yes, I do need them all). There's a saying by I don't know whom: "A word is worth a thousand pictures." Yep, if I knew that I can find "InDesign" at letter "I," I would have an easier time launching that app than hunting for it in the Dock.

Whenever I first train someone how to use Mac OS X, one of the first things I do is show them the Applications icon in the Finder sidebar, and drag that folder's icon in the Dock. They'll now have an alphabetical app launcher.

The Dock is great and intuitive for beginners who use maybe five apps, but power users outgrow it quickly. I hope Apple's working on a solution.

[aswitcher]

I agree that the Dock needs improvements. I have 55 items in my Dock, and sometimes I spend a full minute finding one of them (yes, I do need them all). There's a saying by I don't know whom: "A word is worth a thousand pictures." Yep, if I knew that I can find "InDesign" at letter "I," I would have an easier time launching that app than hunting for it in the Dock.




Try reducing the size of the magnifaction and logically ordering alike programs together.

[Nihaochan]

he says about dashboard: "Um, right. Since PCs and Macs have had tiny utility applications since the early 1980's, it's unclear why Dashboard widgets can't simply work on the normal Mac desktop (which is how Konfabulator works, incidentally). Having to move into and out of the Dashboard to perform these tasks seems a bit unnecessary. Why segregate them like that?"

but one of our members here (can't find the thread at the moment) showed us how to do this...just press f12 or some key and you can use one widget on the desktop. this guy needs to do his homework before criticizing "absent" features, which are there if you play around with it enough
Actually, what he's saying is that Konfabulator makes widgets basically icons - literally ON the desktop at all times. Tiger, correct me if I'm wrong 'cause I'm not totally sure, only allows your to view Widgets when pressing the f12 key.

This, obviously, poses a problem with getting in the way of desktop icons which is probably why Apple decided to do the f12 thing.

[Lacero]

You can place Widgets on the main desktop just like you can in Konfabulator.

It's an undocumented feature of Dashboard, or perhaps a bug. Who knows.

http://www3.telus.net/poojja/dashboard_2.gifhttp://www3.telus.net/poojja/dashboard_2b.gif

[dongmin]

1. Magnification, while sexy, isn't really usable, because icons move around and resize, so it's very hard to target anything accurately. This is especially dangerous if you tend to drag & drop thousands of files at a time. I once accidentally dropped a few hundred files into the Dock. Faced with the prospect of dragging them off the Dock one at a time, I had to go edit XML in the prefs file to eliminate them all.System Preference > Dock > deselect Magnification

2. It's not big enough to accommodate many icons without them all becoming teeny-tiny (thereby reducing the usefulness of the icon-centric Dock). Even at the 1280x960 or 1280x854 that I normally use, the majority of my icons are on the Desktop because the Dock is full.It's easy enough to create folders and drop them into the right side. Left-click on the folder, select desired app/file/folder/script. I leave only the 25 most-used apps in the dock; the rest i can find in the Applications and Utilities folders that I keep in the dock.

3. Icons aren't in predictable locations, since the Dock adds new icons as non-Dock apps are launched, and it re-centers itself. So again, hard to train your brain/hand to go to a specific place for something when it might be elsewhere. This also applies to the Trash, which cannot be optionally pinned to a corner, nor placed on the Desktop.While the icons aren't fixed, they stay pretty much where you'd expect. The trash will always be at the right end of the dock, the finder at the left end, etc. Even if you open non-dock apps, the icons will only shift a few pixels. If that's disorienting for you, well...

4. The thumbnails it makes for minimized documents are often not easy to identify visually. For images it works ok; for web pages, text, or Finder windows, not as well. Likewise, folders look identical and you must tediously mouse around and read labels to tell what's what. The color labels you can set for icons in the Finder are ignored by the Dock, showing up neither for the icon, nor their text label.I agree with you here that the minimized windows in the dock are pretty useless. But with Expose, I rarely feel the need to minimize windows, which I find inefficient anyways.

5. The Dock behavior is non-intuitive for new users. For example, click and drag an object onto the Desktop or into a Finder window and a copy of that object is made (unless it's on the same disk, another UI inconsistency). But click once and drag something onto the Dock and it creates something akin to an alias, but it's not an alias (does not have an alias icon). Normally, of course, you have to Command-Option-click and drag to create an alias. Then if you drag something off the Dock, it disappears in a puff of smoke. Oh dear, did I just delete After Effects? Having used OS X for years of course I know the answer, but I've seen plenty of new users become confused with the Dock's odd behaviors.I have to agree with you here too. But the Start menu in Windows does not operate in the same way as the desktop either. It's a 'launcher' as opposed to an extension of the desktop. But I can see where new users may have trouble distinguishing the two.

6. They still haven't fixed the bug where descenders are chopped off the bottom of text labels. Granted, that's minor, yet annoying and curious for a company that traditionally prides itself on details such as that.Wow, I never noticed this before, but you're right, the dock chops off a couple of pixels.

I agree that the Dock needs improvements. I have 55 items in my Dock, and sometimes I spend a full minute finding one of them (yes, I do need them all).See point #2.

Let's imagine a first time computer user sits in front of a computer. What do they do in Windows first? Right they click on the start button where they will find all apps and systems settings. In OS X, how long does it take them to find an app that isn't in the Dock? I personally prefer the dock but I have to agree that the start button concept (also used by Linux desktop environments) is easier to understand than the dock for a newbie or computer illiterate. Yes, of course you can build your own start menu which is more flexible than the start menu in Windwows. However, a first time Mac user probably doesn't know this. And no, the apple menu is not Mac OS's start button anymore.As far as I know, when you first start up a Mac, you're presented with a finder window, no? The sidebar in the finder is easier to find things than with the Start menu, IMO. Secondly, the first thing I'd do if I was presented with a blank desktop is to double-click on the Macintosh HD on the desktop which will open up a finder window.

[mac-er]

You can place Widgets on the main desktop just like you can in Konfabulator.

It's an undocumented feature of Dashboard, or perhaps a bug. Who knows.

http://www3.telus.net/poojja/dashboard_2.gifhttp://www3.telus.net/poojja/dashboard_2b.gif

I love how you caught the ripple! That is sweet.

How did you put the widgets on the desktop?

[Lacero]

If you have a lot of apps, I've found the fastest way to access them is by adding the Applications folder to the dock. Right-click the Apps icon in the Dock, and a list of all your apps gets listed. Type the first few letters of the app name and press enter. It'll launch the app. It may seem like a convoluted way to search for and open apps, but no, it is the fastest way with the least amount of mousing around or clutter.

For instance, to launch VLC, I just right click the app folder icon, type V-L and press Enter. VLC launches right away. Takes all but 1 second.

[GodBless]

You can place Widgets on the main desktop just like you can in Konfabulator.

It's an undocumented feature of Dashboard, or perhaps a bug. Who knows.

http://www3.telus.net/poojja/dashboard_2.gifhttp://www3.telus.net/poojja/dashboard_2b.gif
Sweet how did you do that?

[Nihaochan]

You can place Widgets on the main desktop just like you can in Konfabulator.

It's an undocumented feature of Dashboard, or perhaps a bug. Who knows.

Looks like Thurrott got another one wrong then... :p

[Demon Hunter]

Maybe Quicksilver will become the next... erm... "feature" of 10.5. :D

Apple is like the Borg, eh? Resistance is futile (we have more lawyers!) ;)

[Bradley W]

_

[7on]

There's multiple ways nowadays.

Right click on desktop, properties, appearance and settings.
Or
Start, control panel, Appearance and Themes, Display (SAME NAME! or you can click "Change the Resolution" which takes you to the same box).


Vs Mac:

Control Panel, Display.

Come on, can you HONESTLY say that
Start>CP>AaT>Display

is easier than

CP>Display

with a straight face?

Option+F14 (or Option+F1 for a laptop) will also open the display preference pane

And sorry, but the Dock still sucks.
It may suck, but I've seen more WinXP screens with a dock than I have OSX machines.

[HiRez]

It may suck, but I've seen more WinXP screens with a dock than I have OSX machines.Don't get me wrong: I love OS X and wouldn't trade one bit of it in for anything I've seen in Windoze...I just feel Apple started out with a few half-baked new (new for Mac anyway) ideas that could still use some polish.

[Fukui]

Don't get me wrong: I love OS X and wouldn't trade one bit of it in for anything I've seen in Windoze...I just feel Apple started out with a few half-baked new (new for Mac anyway) ideas that could still use some polish.
I agree, apple has been adding and experimenting too much.
The next release definitely needs to address consistency.

[Lacero]

I was hoping Tiger would address all the UI inconsistencies but sadly, doesn't seem to be the case. Mail definitely is the direction I think Apple should be heading, with a clean look and going away from drawers (which I've always hated).