Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
WWDC Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) Videos
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
In my opinion, most changes made to Mac OS X are not made for the sake of changing, but rather for the ease of use. It may look difficult to understand why an aesthethic change has anything to do with this, but it does. I believe many decisions made by Jobs and those up there (and not so up) follow the basis of "What feels easier, what looks easier, what is simpler for my mind and the human mind to understand when i click here or hit this button".
In my opinion, that's why little changes that don't make much sense are done, to make things simpler and easier, even if it's just psychological, some things just feel "more right" than others when interacting with our computers.
It's also easier to move a mouse upward with a slight curve than it is to move it straight vertically, due to the anatomy of the human wrist and hand.
People are just picking random differences and griping over the them. These things usually have more depth to them than people realise.
The new UI is far too dark and I really hope they don't remove the shiny Aqua lights that mark the scroll bars. We need several shades lighter in the grey for the toolbars and softer corners. I'm not liking where this is going one bit.
On the other hand, the new dock is beautiful and functional and the new menu bar works very well with the transparency not being a problem like many fear. The addition of the rounded corners to menus is also nice.
I agree with you that it shouldn't be changed just to have something new. But the 3D scroll bars look out of place on the 2D appearance of the windows in Leopard. I think the iTunes scroll bars aren't bad overall (though they do seem a bit off...), and simply think that those scroll bars are the most likely ones for Apple to implement, as they have already been using them in iTunes for awhile, and the flat window look was itself taken from iTunes.
Well maybe it's time for Apple to rewrite their apps to actually use standard UI elements. I never understood why so many apple apps include their own custom UI elements, especially when a lot of the time the custom elements they are including are exactly the same as the system provided elements. Why the redundency? Why slow down the app by having to draw custom windows and widgets when the custom ones you are drawing are the same as what the system would provide? It just never made sense to me.
Woot
Thanks for the link.
It's an awesome site.
Been hoping someone would that picture. My desktop is complete now!
Thanks for the link.
It's an awesome site.
Been hoping someone would that picture. My desktop is complete now!
Don't know if it was the video itself, but the new speech voice still sounded awful. It's better than than the other voices, but still sounded kinda bad.
I've seen the new CoverFlow Finder and it looks really great for browsing "documents." But if you're browsing folders, you can't drill down into them. If you double-click on a folder in CoverFlow the folder opens in icon view. I'd prefer that it stay in CoverFlow and show me the contents of the newly-opened folder.
Better still, I wish CoverFlow would act as a preview window in the top pane, while the bottom pane could be in column view. Restricting the bottom pane to list view seems too restrictive.
Better still, I wish CoverFlow would act as a preview window in the top pane, while the bottom pane could be in column view. Restricting the bottom pane to list view seems too restrictive.
You're kidding, right? Leopard better be an improvement in this regard or the Macs' days will likely be numbered where I work. Despite Apple's claims, OS X is still not as Windows network-friendly as they would have us believe and when you have an IS director who is actively working to remove Macs from a company, it becomes a challenge to make the case on behalf of people who want to continue working on Macs. Beyond the issues I already mentioned, I'm still looking for a way to gets the Macs to see DFS shares. So far, that's been a total bust.
First of all, I've seen that note and that doesn't address the ._ files I mentioned. The .DS_Store files are not the issue. I don't think you understand what I'm talking about. And anyway, that KB note is not realistic. If you're overseeing 2 Macs then maybe you have time to issue terminal commands for every new person logging in, but not for a multitude of machines. If you've done this kind of work, you'd know how unrealistic that is. That KB note is a kludge.
Secondly, when you have a folder full of 1000+ files (which is not unexpected in a professional environment) the ._ files slow the Macs way down. The PCs ignore them, but the Macs have to deal with them. The Macs are already taking a small-ish speed hit for being on a Windows network, but then to have the machines slow to a crawl because they have to deal with the ._ files as well is downright embarrassing (especially when you're trying to make a case to your IS director as to why the Macs should stay.)
See, here's the problem. When it comes to this, the Windows machines "just work" and the Macs should too. There's no reason we should jump through hoops when Appple could (and should) address it. Are we paying them $130 for Leopard for pretty screen savers and a GUI that glides around? I hope that's not the extent of their improvements. I hope they went deeper than that with Leopard.
Anyway, I've done a lot of research online and elsewhere and every source I've found says Mail and Address Book won't synch to Exchange servers, and I've gone the LDAP route. It doesn't work very well (in fact, it pretty consistently sent my Mac into spinning beach ball land when I tried syncing it.) But if you have some specific suggestions you'd like to offer, I'd all ears. I see a lot of bluster in your tone but little info so I'm not counting on it.
That was one of apple's huge blunders that they are admitting to and should be changing with leopard.
I have used it and it's obviously a form over function thing.
- There's zero advantage in having a transparent menu bar. The argument that you can concentrate more on your work is laughable at best. The menu bar is part of the application, not like other application windows, the desktop, or the dock for example. Those should interfere as little as possible.
- The reflective dock is pure distraction. It changes when your window changes. Why? And the glowing ball that indicates open applications is also useless. Although I think one might get used to it on solid background and without reflection. I don't mind if the dock stays 3d though, it's neither better nor worse IMO.
Steve Jobs would disagree. Now any user can create any number of widgets right from their favorite websites. Which means users can easily end up with a considerable number of widgets, basically several for each of their interests, which can mean A LOT.
Wrong, I can find an image in a fraction of the time in an iPhoto-style browser.
Coverflow is a nice idea, but it is too much based on the real world, with its advantages, but more importantly limitations. I own about 500 CDs, what do you think is faster when I need to find a particular CD or song (assuming I know the cover), flipping through the stacks physically or searching them by artist or song name in iTunes? Coverflow allows me to do the former, which is mostly useless. It is nice when you need some inspiration as to what to hear next, but that's about it. It is also more emotional. But it is not a particularly good retrieval tool. Personally, I think that Jobs had to show this to all the reluctant music exec types and artists who were arguing that people would never want to own digital songs, but real vinyl, err CDs, covers and stuff. So he showed them just how cool and real Coverflow is. At some point he started to believe it himself.
Now as far as Coverflow and the Finder are concerned, it is even less useful. It is ok for photos, because what is shown in Coverflow can easily be linked by your brain to the photo (because it is the same). But the problems start with word documents, people don't necessarily have the front page layout in mind, the page layout isn't any more useful than displaying the document name itself, except that it constantly moves and is harder to recognize. Even worse are Excel sheets or txt pages: there are usually no immediate visual cues. Conveniently, if apple don't know the app, they only show an icon. They could at least determine if it is ascii and show this, XML: not supported. Videos: The first frame is hardly useful. Keynote: If you do a presentation a year, it's probably ok. Songs: Completely useless. Code: useless. Pages: Apple don't even support their own application yet. I'm sure they will, come October. Folders: Apple, being hardcore about innovation, shows you a big beautifully rendered folder icon, very nice, and totally useless. etc.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think that visual cues are bad, but they are not the end to all retrieval problems. And Coverflow is not a particularly good implementation either. But it certainly also doesn't hurt.
Let's hope that they can improve integration as Coverflow doesn't seem to support spotlight categories and is now actually a step back.
I will.
It's by far the best included voice ever, and it's nice to see Apple finally doing something about it. But it is certainly not miles ahead of other tts solutions. And I guess Apple won't include/support other languages, but I might be wrong.
Dont worry, I am an arrogant prick too.
And people might copy whole folders to the network drive or send zipped folders to other employees, or forget to add .DS_Store to their .cvsignore and check it into version control, etc.
you make a very good point with the issue of much larger and more widgets with the web clipping widgets. in the sample vids that started this thread look at the sample web clipping widget the guy made, it's giant. and that's a good indicator of what a normally sized usable section of a site that you would want to webclip would be.
even a simple 1-2-3-4 button somewhere on the dashboard screen to switch between views would be helpful and exponentially faster than without it. think about it, if you have more than 5-6 web clip widgets, the weather and say stocks, that will make for a pretty full single screen dashboard.
the only alternative now is to close out certain widgets and completely recreate them each time. that obviously goes against the point of using the dashboard for 'quick and easy access'. while a 1-2-3-4 type of separate screens would make for 1 more click, it's far faster than having to go and recreate the web clip each time which i assume would be even having to go to the original website and remaking the clipping since it isn't stored in the bottom widget-bin as far as i know. so you'd already have looked at the site.
I don't understand, you are looking for an option to turn it off. The KB article gives you one? The problem being? (apart from not targeting ._ files)
I guess that if you had 1000 Macs there, you would hardly be in the defensive position you are describing. And if there aren't too many, you should be able to make users adjust their settings, no? Also, it should be possible to write a little script that runs on the Mac(s) and scans mounted SMB volumes and removes files that start with ._ and bytes 0005 1607 0002 0000 from time to time. I'm not trying to defend Apple here, but I guess you sure can come up with a pretty easy kludgy solution, or even a good one without waiting for 10.7.
Why can't the mac faithful accept that Leopard seems to be a letdown? I am getting tired of newly registered posters telling all the doubters that we are incompetent and/or stupid just because we aren't willing to drink the kool-aid.
10.5 is for developers
"Why can't the mac faithful accept that Leopard seems to be a letdown?"
It's a developer build. Apple is setting up for the future, and addressing some longstanding UI issues. It's not unusual. I myself skipped 10.3 entirely because there was nothing there for me. Expose was the only thing that looked even slightly useful. When I did upgrade to Tiger, I discovered Expose wasn't very useful for my workstyle after all.
The only killer feature I've seen in leopard is the resolution independence. I want to run my display at higher than 1024 X 768, AND read the 10 point text. The only way that is going to happen is to cast off the 72 dpi standard display settings. It will also make the text a lot clearer. As much as I hate to admit it, Windows boxes have better text display, not least because they get more pixels to work with. The Mac's anti-aliasing just makes it looks blurry.
Spaces looks useful too, as it might let me do what I wanted to do with fast user switching, but I was foiled by the need to continuously reenter passwords.
I'll get Leopard solely because I need (OK, want http://images.macrumors.com/vb/images/smilies/wink.gif) a new Mac anyway. Otherwise this is looking like a sit it out upgrade. No one is forcing you to upgrade, so if there is nothing in Leopard you want, skip it.
"Why can't the mac faithful accept that Leopard seems to be a letdown?"
It's a developer build. Apple is setting up for the future, and addressing some longstanding UI issues. It's not unusual. I myself skipped 10.3 entirely because there was nothing there for me. Expose was the only thing that looked even slightly useful. When I did upgrade to Tiger, I discovered Expose wasn't very useful for my workstyle after all.
The only killer feature I've seen in leopard is the resolution independence. I want to run my display at higher than 1024 X 768, AND read the 10 point text. The only way that is going to happen is to cast off the 72 dpi standard display settings. It will also make the text a lot clearer. As much as I hate to admit it, Windows boxes have better text display, not least because they get more pixels to work with. The Mac's anti-aliasing just makes it looks blurry.
Spaces looks useful too, as it might let me do what I wanted to do with fast user switching, but I was foiled by the need to continuously reenter passwords.
I'll get Leopard solely because I need (OK, want http://images.macrumors.com/vb/images/smilies/wink.gif) a new Mac anyway. Otherwise this is looking like a sit it out upgrade. No one is forcing you to upgrade, so if there is nothing in Leopard you want, skip it.
Expose should work in the Dashboard. It would help a lot in this respect. As would Spaces.
What do you mean by Spotlight categories? Because Steve Jobs was showing in his keynote Spotlight searches working WITH Cover Flow - he pressed the default searches on the left and the contents of Cover Flow changed, and I think he even typed in something to search for and the contents changed. In fact, I think he even typed in something to search for on a network drive and the results showed live in Cover Flow. And Finder didn't stall or give the spinning beach ball of doom, so I was quite impressed right there.
And, if you want to look at things in an iPhoto style, I think Quick Look does that (though I'm not certain). I think you select several items and press the spacebar, and all will be shown in a grid. In addition, Leopard shows thumbnails for most files now, so just by using the grid view you should be able to see all items in a grid. The only feature missing would be iPhoto's resize slider. (That would be a nice feature for them to add.)
I'm less interested in the developer features (though I expect I will fiddle with Core Animation) and more interested in how much better the Mac (supposedly) will run. Not to mention, the little things. I'd say no one feature in Tiger was worth upgrading from Panther for. I use Dashboard and Spotlight sparingly - I hardly use any Tiger-specific features. However, when I try to use Panther again, I wonder how I ever lived without Tiger, even though I can't quite put my finger on what exactly has changed. Apple improves much more in the core of the OS than anywhere else between releases, in my opinion, and that is why I'll upgrade to Leopard soon after it is released.
Exactly. Matthew's insistence that the technote answers this is sort of amusing. He's clearly not got a lot of experience. You just can't do a client-by-client approach. It's too labor-intensive and open to mistakes. Apple should give admins a way to admin it. There should be a way to throw the switch (so to speak) and make the Macs operate in network-friendly mode where none of the invisible . files are used or copied. Period.
There are so many things wrong with Apple's suggestion on this that it makes me wonder if they even care that it's a problem.
Apple's approach is just not connected to reality. The fact is that network admins can't go around from machine-to-machine and make user-specific changes. If you have machines bound to active directory, that means anyone can log in at any time (which is great) but then that also means an admin must rush in and run a command. That's a kludge and not acceptable and it means more hand-holding for the Macs that the Windows PCs do not require.
On principle, Apple needs to acknowledge that Macs don't behave well on networks and fix it. And when you have a client machine cluttering the network with unnecessary files (many of which don't get removed so you have a massive amount of build-up over time) then reasonably an IS dept. won't be too fond of it and might think in terms of getting rid of the machines (which is happening where I work--half the Macs have been replaced by PCs in the last year.) I have written a shell script that crawls the directory tree and removes these files, but again... that's a kludge. It just needs to work right to begin with.
And anyway, the number of Macs is irrelevant. You could have 5 Macs, but if you have various people logging in to it around the clock and people trading machines or logging in to someone else's (which does happen in a busy environment) then you have all those instances where an admin has to run in and babysit. That's not going to cut it.
Like I said, I hope like hell Apple has pushed the compatibility with Windows networks further in Leopard. That's a real deal breaker for a lot of IS depts. and I have a hard time arguing against it, as much as I'd like to help those depts. that prefer Macs to stay on them.
Messages, Contacts, Bookmarks, Todo-Items...
You enter something in Spotlight, the familiar 10.4 result window pops up. When you select "Show All", they had the glorious idea to switch to Finder file search in CoverFlow mode (which is without custom searches inferior to the old categorized search, you know the 4th browsing mode in 10.4 that is only there when you do a search).
This means that you no longer have the results automatically grouped, instead you have to narrow things down with your own search criteria that you can store on the left in order to get more or less Tiger functionality. BUT: you can never get the same groups and results as the initial Spotlight window showed you, e.g. you can't find messages at all or any other type of information that is not file based, e.g. contacts.
The whole thing is in fact a major design flaw. They thought that they could emulate a (not necessarily file-based) Spotlight search with a file search. It is simple, and it is somewhat elegant, and it doesn't work.
I hope that this will be fixed.
No, it opens a slide show.
That feature is in fact there. And that's why CoverFlow itself is rather pointless. You get everything that CoverFlow offers in other views, only with more visual information at any time, and precise controls. At the expense of a black background, floor reflection of your documents, and imprecise (but fun) flipping behavior. But CoverFlow mode also offers a list view that is kept in sync. And this is an advantage.
I don't know whether it will be possible to go into "compatibility mode", but I guess not. It's not so much compatibility with Windows networks as it is incompatibility of foreign file systems with Mac OS concepts. If someone tries to put a label on a file on a Windows share, OS X stores this information in the ._ file. It has to do it somewhere, otherwise other users wouldn't be able to see it. So, what you are saying is that OS X shouldn't allow users to assign programs with which a document is opend and other such things to network files... or don't make such changes visible to other users (meta information would then be stored on the user's Mac). I don't think that they will do that any time soon, even though it would be preferable in many situations.
Yup
I totally agree. Is there really no way to do that in Tiger or Leopard??? I have been wondering!
I totally agree. Is there really no way to do that in Tiger or Leopard??? I have been wondering!