Another Day, Another Panther Build (7B59)

[NicoMan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What about Classic?

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Classic is absolutely essential to the migration process. Probably better then half of the Mac owners I know are still stuck in OS9.

I agree that it is absolutely essential to the migration process. But I don't think that Apple are going to commit a lot of resources to improve the way Classic works or look. Sure it is still going to be around in Panther and the next few releases of OSX (whatever their name might be) and it's still going to be quite capable of running OS9 apps, but as time goes by Apple are going to put less and less importance in Classic. I know Apple computers have always had a very long life span, but how many more years till It's impossible to buy OS9 apps and most Mac owners will have upgraded to a OSX-with-Classic running machine? That's why, IMHO, I don't think changes to the way Classic works or looks are likely.

My £0.02.

 

[TylerL]

Re: Question about Multiple Users

Originally posted by SeaFox
My question is, how does Panther handle multiple users working on one machine? Does it even have the option to require the password again when changing to another account? If so does it have a better way of dealing with possibly unsaved work?

Panther will bring up a window explaining that their are other users on with unsaved work, blah blah, and will require an administrator's password.

 

[airmac]

Re: Classic? Not for me!

Originally posted by Code101
I'm hoping for the classic side of mac OS to just stop! Mac OS Classic is why I never used a Mac in the first place. Mac OS 8 & 9 is no better than Windows 98 and ME. Since the release of OS-X, I have loved the MAC. I wish they would just disable classic support in Panther all around. It's time to get out of the classic days for the Mac and time to get out of the DOS days for the PC! UNIX and NT is the way to go.

I guess you're not familiar with os 9 which didn't crash on me once in a year! Os 9 is still a lot snappier than os 10 and yes i'm aware of preemptive multi tasking and symmetric multiprocessing BUT if you're using one single application, like photoshop, than i suddenly find myself in a much more friendly environment... But hay didn't Steve sad we like options? But comparing os 9 with Windows 98 and ME is like comparing a monkey and a donkey.
Yeah, we came from a monkey

 

[Jeff Harrell]

Re: Panther question

Originally posted by inkswamp
One would expect that child would be the "current" folder since you just created it and are currently naming it.

One would? One shouldn't. The selected folder is the highlighted one. When you create a new folder in column view, it doesn't become selected until you finish giving it a name.

I wiped out some very important files at work due to this bug several times

Simply by moving them to the trash? That seems unlikely.

I would like to hear that Panther finally fixes this.

Panther doesn't "fix" it because it isn't a bug. It's correct behavior.

 

[Jeff Harrell]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What about Classic?

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Classic is absolutely essential to the migration process.

For some people, sure. But not for most. The vast majority of classic Mac applications have Mac OS X versions, or Mac OS X equivalents. There are, of course, some exceptions, but the thing about those is that they are exceptions.

If they're forced to dump their entire investment in Classic applications at once in order to complete an OSX buy-in, they might as well get a Windows box -- which is what a lot of them will do if faced with that choice.

That's fine. People switch from the Mac to Windows every day. Many of them are very happy after having done so. Many of them regret it, and switch back. It's a matter of personal choice.

If Apple executed a Chinese fire drill every time somebody said the magic words "I might as well get a Windows box," they'd be stuck constantly playing catch-up. That's not their business plan.

The thing about Mac OS X is this: it's better than the classic Mac OS, and it's better than Windows. This is true in large part because it is not "bug for bug" compatible with either.

There comes a point where you have to make a decision about how to allocate engineering resources. Should Apple continue to tweak and twiddle with technology that has been end-of-lifed, or should they spend that time and energy improving their core products instead?

The correct answer is "B".

Classic, as it exists now, is more than sufficient for the vast majority of Mac OS X users. Apple should not, and I predict will not, do much with it in the future.

 

[Jeff Harrell]

Re: Question about Multiple Users

Originally posted by SeaFox
My question is, how does Panther handle multiple users working on one machine?

The same way, more or less. If an account has a password, you have to enter it with you switch to that user. If there's no password for that account, you're prompted the first time you log in as that user--at which point you leave the password box blank and just hit enter--but not after that.

If more than one user is logged in and you try to restart, the system prompts you for an admin username and password, along with a warning that unsaved changes in other environments will be lost.

There's really no other way to handle this.

 

[JGowan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What about Classic?

Originally posted by Jeff Harrell The thing to remember is that Classic is effectively dead.

Classic's dead and buried. Move on.

CLASSIC is NOT dead.

OS 9 is Dead. We ALL saw the Keynote address (Big tombstone, Jobs saying OS9 is dead, etc.)

However, Classic will remain in the OS for quite a long, long time... OS11, OS12, OS13... a loooongg time. People have thousands of apps that they need to run, many of which will never be rewritten to run in the actual OS, Apple will have to give them a virtual world to live in. Period. And if, along the way, Apple is able to make improvements that makes Classic more like OS9.2.? then, I'm sure they will.

People happy with performance will continue to buy new computers. People needing to run thousands of SW aps and can't because of an OS change, will keep said people running old machines and NOT BUYING new machines, no matter how fast they are.

Apple can't afford to kill CLASSIC. 'Nuf said.

 

[chabig]

Simply by moving them to the trash? That seems unlikely.

I too lost some files this way. What you're forgetting (we all do) is that when you delete files on a server, they are gone. They don't go to the trash, but are deleted immediately.

Chris

 

[airmac]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What about Classic?

Originally posted by JGowan
CLASSIC is NOT dead.

OS 9 is Dead. We ALL saw the Keynote address (Big tombstone, Jobs saying OS9 is dead, etc.)

However, Classic will remain in the OS for quite a long, long time... OS11, OS12, OS13... a loooongg time. People have thousands of apps that they need to run, many of which will never be rewritten to run in the actual OS, Apple will have to give them a virtual world to live in. Period. And if, along the way, Apple is able to make improvements that makes Classic more like OS9.2.? then, I'm sure they will.

People happy with performance will continue to buy new computers. People needing to run thousands of SW aps and can't because of an OS change, will keep said people running old machines and NOT BUYING new machines, no matter how fast they are.

Apple can't afford to kill CLASSIC. 'Nuf said.

Well said.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What about Classic?

Originally posted by JGowan
CLASSIC is NOT dead.

OS 9 is Dead. We ALL saw the Keynote address (Big tombstone, Jobs saying OS9 is dead, etc.)

However, Classic will remain in the OS for quite a long, long time... OS11, OS12, OS13... a loooongg time. People have thousands of apps that they need to run, many of which will never be rewritten to run in the actual OS, Apple will have to give them a virtual world to live in. Period. And if, along the way, Apple is able to make improvements that makes Classic more like OS9.2.? then, I'm sure they will.

People happy with performance will continue to buy new computers. People needing to run thousands of SW aps and can't because of an OS change, will keep said people running old machines and NOT BUYING new machines, no matter how fast they are.

Apple can't afford to kill CLASSIC. 'Nuf said.

Quite right, and it would be smart for Apple to improve Classic's integration within OSX if it's going to be around for as long as most of us predict. It's about easing the transition and protecting nearly 20 years of legacy applications, and doing it in the way Apple is capable of doing (eg, not a kludgy). Maybe some of us can afford to be OSX snobs, but Apple can't.

 

[NicoMan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What about Classic?

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Quite right, and it would be smart for Apple to improve Classic's integration within OSX if it's going to be around for as long as most of us predict.

True it is going to be around for a while, but I don't think it is in Apple's interest to work on improving Classic's integration within OSX, IMHO. I think that when people buy a new Mac (coming from a OS9 machine) and start running OSX and within Classic all their legacy apps, Apple will want those people to see the differences between Classic and (Carbon and Cocoa) OSX apps. You have to make people want to be part of OSX. That's why improving Classic looks to give it a Aqua look and feel will never happen. Just my opinion, though.

 

[airmac]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What about Classic?

Originally posted by NicoMan
True it is going to be around for a while, but I don't think it is in Apple's interest to work on improving Classic's integration within OSX, IMHO. I think that when people buy a new Mac (coming from a OS9 machine) and start running OSX and within Classic all their legacy apps, Apple will want those people to see the differences between Classic and (Carbon and Cocoa) OSX apps. You have to make people want to be part of OSX. That's why improving Classic looks to give it a Aqua look and feel will never happen. Just my opinion, though.

Hm so why apple is still selling laptops and dekstops that boots into OS 9? In our country Slovenia (only 2 million people live there) 90% dtp studios still use os 9, surprised? Mainly cause of the font and character issues especially when old archive stuff is ported on OS X. Believe me, it is a slow and painful process. But we're a small market so who cares ha?!
And no, I don't want Classic to give a Aqua look and feel, I expect the same environment.
BTW, I still work in OS 9 and for now I don't have ANY need for OS 10.
Just my opinion too.

 

[VicMacs]

agree, question?

ive installed osx alone in some machines but classic does not work, my question is: can it work? i mean, is classic really an app or a gateway to a pre-installed os 9? i know it may seem like a silly question but ive seen the litte apple wait-watch instead of the rainbow spinning wheel in my osx-only machines and ive come to wonder...

mac lords, answer please...

I agree in that mac os 9 (what I grew up in, is not and will not be out of my life for a while... You can choose to have it or not but apple will not take away the option of haveing it.. it costs them practically nothing!

 

[merges]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What about Classic?

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I'm not suggesting a major re-engineering effort. In working with people who are relatively new to the Mac, I find they react to the different OSX and Classic presentations as being jarring and confusing. Much of this is cosmetic and can be fixed, probably without a tremendous amount of effort. The number of people still using Classic applications is not small, and I'd suggest that these boards are not a good representative sample of what Mac owners are doing. If you want the OS9 holdouts to migrate, then Classic is essential, and better Classic looks and feels, the more likely they are to move.

I see your point, but to be fair, what you describe is the antithesis of Classic. In fact, what you suggest would be a huge engineering effort, and is exactly what Apple specifically avoided when it implemented Classic.

The problem still lies with developers. If Classic were "upgraded" as you suggest (which would be a huge engineering effort), in many cases developers would likely see little incentive to bring their apps to Mac OS X as native. The effort here is to move *all* applications to native Mac OS X platforms and technologies, which will end up raising desktop computing to another level. That's what brings *new* customers, who, in the world of Mac OS X, are equally as or more important than people who are too afraid to switch from Mac OS 9 or earlier.

New customers buy new hardware, buy new apps, etc., and that's what Apple needs.

 

[merges]

Re: agree, question?

Originally posted by VicMacs
ive installed osx alone in some machines but classic does not work, my question is: can it work? i mean, is classic really an app or a gateway to a pre-installed os 9? i know it may seem like a silly question but ive seen the litte apple wait-watch instead of the rainbow spinning wheel in my osx-only machines and ive come to wonder...

Essentially, Classic is a "program" that boots up an already-installed Mac OS 9 System Folder. Classic is kind of like VirtualPC in that way, except that it is better-integrated with Mac OS and the older apps don't have to run in a single window or anything; they behave pretty much like the way they used to.

So, you need to have Mac OS 9 installed in order to "run" Classic. And Classic is "run" automatically when you start up an old program.

Which brings up another important point; sure Classic may stick in the OS for a couple more years, but how long do you think Apple will be supporting Mac OS 9 installations? Or including them on every Mac sold? I wouldn't be at all susprised if at some point they just cut it off entirely, and I think that would be a wise move, actually.

 

[WM.]

Re: Re: Question about Multiple Users

Hey Jeff:

Any idea why that Restart button (in the screenshot) is so wide? Do you think it's just a bug, or could it be intentional?

TIA
WM

 

[Jeff Harrell]

Re: Re: Re: Question about Multiple Users

Originally posted by WM.
Hey Jeff:

Any idea why that Restart button (in the screenshot) is so wide? Do you think it's just a bug, or could it be intentional?

TIA
WM

To be honest, I didn't even notice it until you pointed it out. I'm not sure what the deal is there.

In retrospect, I'm pretty sure I did a bad, bad thing by posting that screen shot. NDA and all that. I wasn't really thinking when I posted it. Oooooops.

 

[SeaFox]

Re: Re: Question about Multiple Users

Originally posted by Jeff Harrell
The same way, more or less. If an account has a password, you have to enter it with you switch to that user. If there's no password for that account, you're prompted the first time you log in as that user--at which point you leave the password box blank and just hit enter--but not after that.

So in the fast user switching of the demo of Panther at WWDC, the user accounts were all password-free? Does it still do the spinning cube effect if you have to enter a passoword to access the other account?

If more than one user is logged in and you try to restart, the system prompts you for an admin username and password, along with a warning that unsaved changes in other environments will be lost.

Hmmm, interesting. Since I'm the admin on the WinXP box I have never tried to shutdown from another user account. I wonder if it would even allow me to shutdown the machine.

There's really no other way to handle this.

If the MacOS supported hibernation it could freeze the other users' environments. The documents on disk would not be changed, but the changes would still be there on the working copies when the user logs in again. I doubt WIndows does this even though it has hibernation available.

 

[IJ Reilly]

What about Classic?

Originally posted by merges
I see your point, but to be fair, what you describe is the antithesis of Classic. In fact, what you suggest would be a huge engineering effort, and is exactly what Apple specifically avoided when it implemented Classic.

The problem still lies with developers. If Classic were "upgraded" as you suggest (which would be a huge engineering effort), in many cases developers would likely see little incentive to bring their apps to Mac OS X as native. The effort here is to move *all* applications to native Mac OS X platforms and technologies, which will end up raising desktop computing to another level. That's what brings *new* customers, who, in the world of Mac OS X, are equally as or more important than people who are too afraid to switch from Mac OS 9 or earlier.

New customers buy new hardware, buy new apps, etc., and that's what Apple needs.

I don't understand why improving the behaviors of Classic would be such a "huge engineering effort." Apple has apparently already handled the display issue, which was a big one on my list (and I suspect, also one of the more difficult to solve). This also suggests that Apple is interested in improving the Classic user experience. I also don't get the objections to making the Classic Environment less obtrusive and clumsy, especially if it's destined to be around for a while. That's just so... un-Mac like.

Customers buying new hardware isn't really the solution to the need for Classic. I've moved up many times over the years, and I've never had any need or reason to leave my applications behind. Gradually the need for Classic will diminish, but we're not going to wake up one day and suddenly realize that it's a vestigial appendage.

 

[WM.]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Question about Multiple Users

Originally posted by Jeff Harrell
To be honest, I didn't even notice it until you pointed it out. I'm not sure what the deal is there.

Maybe Restart is the right width, but Cancel is narrow--look at the buttons when you go to Apple menu--->Restart... . They're both the same width (talking about Jaguar here). OTOH, if you look in the Print dialog, the Cancel button there is the same width as the one in your screenshot.

Aaagh!

WM

 

[WM.]

Re: Re: Re: Question about Multiple Users

Originally posted by SeaFox
So in the fast user switching of the demo of Panther at WWDC, the user accounts were all password-free? Does it still do the spinning cube effect if you have to enter a passoword to access the other account?

Yes and yes, from what I understand. (I don't have Panther, but I've read about it a lot...)

HTH
WM

edit: Jeff's right. I don't specifically remember SJ typing in a password, but that was three months ago. And of course you'll only ever get the spinning cube if your machine supports QE.

 

[Jeff Harrell]

Re: Re: Re: Question about Multiple Users

Originally posted by SeaFox
So in the fast user switching of the demo of Panther at WWDC, the user accounts were all password-free?

No, one of the accounts shown had a password.

Does it still do the spinning cube effect if you have to enter a passoword to access the other account?

Only on machines that support Quartz Extreme.

 

[inkswamp]

Re: Re: Panther question

Originally posted by Jeff Harrell
One would? One shouldn't. The selected folder is the highlighted one. When you create a new folder in column view, it doesn't become selected until you finish giving it a name.

If you're currently naming a folder, it stands to reason that any keyboard action would apply to that folder. The user reasonably assumes that said folder is the "selected" folder. It has always worked that way before on the Mac. It works that way in icon and list view in both OS 9 and X. Why should column view behave differently?

Simply by moving them to the trash? That seems unlikely.

If I don't realize that it's been moved there because I rightly thought that the child folder was the one being trashed, not the parent folder, then when I empty the trash, it's gone. I lost several folders of stuff due to this bug and couldn't figure out what was going on until I noticed one of the folders sitting there once before I emptied the trash. Bear in mind that this was happening when I first started using OS X and was new to column view. I would notice this immediately now (especially since I've been bitten by it) as I'm more accustomed to how column view functions and its particular quirks.

Panther doesn't "fix" it because it isn't a bug. It's correct behavior.

Apple themselves beg to differ with you as they issued a technote not a week after I sent this to them indicating that this behavior was inadvertent and would be addressed at a later time. Your opinion is that it is correct behavior. You're entitled to think that way, however, Apple has stated that it was not supposed to function that way.

Anyway, thanks for not answering the question.

 

[inkswamp]

Re: Panther question

I'm already guessing that I'll be challenged on this. Here is the technote that Apple issued after I sent this problem to them.

Apple technote about column view problem.

Notice that they say "inadvertently" in the description of this problem and "Wrong Folder Moved to Trash" in the topic. This is not the intended behavior of column view.

Sorry to carry on like this but I don't take well to people implying that I'm lying.

 

[Bluefusion]

Re: Re: Re: Question about Multiple Users

Originally posted by SeaFox
So in the fast user switching of the demo of Panther at WWDC, the user accounts were all password-free? Does it still do the spinning cube effect if you have to enter a passoword to access the other account?

You can make accounts password-free... if you have passwords (some accounts might have one, and some may not), a login window comes up on your screen, where you can type in the authentication... THEN it spins the cube.

I'm not sure if I remember this correctly, but does typing in an authentication from the standard startup login panel cause the cube to rotate to the user account from the bottom up? (Keynote's Cube effect, where the animation comes from, has a "bottom up" version) Cause it should, if it doesn't... that would look cool