My brothers, I am looking forward to the release of Quark for OS X with a mixture of dread and despair. It's a program that has come through for me time and again in OS 9 (and to some degree Classic)... it's a very IMPORTANT application in my industry, if not the most important one in the print side of the design biz.

I own and use all the major OS X design apps, and I've got to say that Aqua helped none of them. Photoshop works, it's probably the best of the bunch. Flash works. GoLive works. We're at the point where most of them function nominally. But do any of them work spectacularly well? I say nyet. I say I have not met the X app that blows away its OS9 counterpart for usability, speed, and functionality. I'm talking about stuff I find essential. When it comes to iApps, different story, iTunes and iPhoto seem to work really well in a way that takes the best advantage of OS X. Too bad all the best X apps are all casual use apps.

The problem for me is, Aqua is wrecking everything. I see all that nonsense and visual superabundance, and I always say the same thing... no no no no no oh god please no. It just gets in the way. Takes perfectly good apps and goofifies them.

My favorite example of all time is Quickeys. That's a program that went from my right hand utility, to total garbage because it got seduced by Aqua's BS. They are FINALLY starting to come around now, but look at the first two or so releases. Un-frikkin'-believable. A program that was easy to use and simple and powerful became completely impossible to use thanks to Aqua. Thanks to the OSX half-assed way of doing things. Drawers? Please, they are the worst thing ever.

And if you want a laugh, install AOL for OS X. Compare it to AOL 5.0 for OS 9, and you tell me if the eye candy thing is all in my head.

Excuse me for putting forth a radical idea here when it comes to software, but isn't the interface supposed to make it EASIER to use? Isn't kind of the idea with software finding the BEST POSSIBLE workflows? If the graphical complexity of the appearance of an application's interface causes workflow problems, and the OS 9 versions which had a simpler more functional aspect had fewer problems...doesn't that say something?

For big design packages, screen real estate is always an issue. What with the plethora of palettes and such. Answer me truthfully now: have stripes and crystal buttons and over-rendered icons done a tinker's damn to help any of it? To improve app 1 of the Mac milieu? Is simple better than complicated or is it not?

My brothers, the second that Apple and developers wake up to the fact that less is more, we're golden.

Will I upgrade to Quark when it comes out? Sure. Will it function better than Quark does in OS 9? No. What will be the biggest problem with it? Aqua. An application IS it's interface. Crappy interface, crappy app. There's no dodging that.

Will it function better than Quark does in OS 9? No.

Obviously not.
I could only name Real One as the app that works much better in X than in 9. Of course we don't have a 9 version to compare...

Regarding X-Press I sometimes laugh when others blame Quark for the poor-to-nonexistent pro adoption rate of OS X.

“It's the interface, stupid.”

quote:

---

Originally posted by mAxximo:
Regarding X-Press I sometimes laugh when others blame Quark for the poor-to-nonexistent pro adoption rate of OS X.

“It's the interface, stupid.”

---

Exactly. You know what Quark on Aqua is gonna be? InDesign. No, seriously, it's going to be a pro feature set in a newbie interface that makes it harder to get at the features. Same as every other damn program.

The best apps in X are the ones that most deny Aqua. And the only ones suited to Aqua are the ones I don't really care about or need. Can I live with candy buttons and Mind Metal on iTunes? Sure, because I could take or leave what iTunes does for me. But for things that count, like Quark, seeing it Aquafied is going to hurt me, the way seeing all my other most important apps hurt me. I get get by with them. I'd just prefer to do more than get by.

There is nothing Aqua does, as an interface, that will make Quark use any better or easier or faster to use. All it's gonna do is bollox up workflow, same as it did everything else. And hey, it's not that I don't want protected memory, and multitasking and stability and all the stuff OS X promises, but so far I have yet to see anything but empty promises. Half-baked sort-of functionality, slowness and kludginess.

Apple has Quark featured at apple.com where you can now "Start the presses"

I guess Apple thinks the main obstacle to OS X adoption is, at long last, gone and the flood gates are now open. I don't think so! The problem with OS X is OS X. What is Apple saying? That OS X needs a savior and Quark at $900 a pop is it? Dream on!

If Apple is looking for reasons for OS X's slow adoption rate I suggest they look at OS X.

quote:

---

If Apple is looking for reasons for OS X's slow adoption rate I suggest they look at OS X.

---

Which is why this upcoming WWDC is so very important.
It's going to tell us how deep into the root of the problem —OS X— Jobs and Tevanian have been willing to dig and how much attention they've been paying to the pro community in these last two years of poor decisions and bad ideas.

Kind of their last chance to let us know they give a care about us.

Kind of their last chance to let us know they give a care about us.

What mAx, the last two and one half years hasn't clued you in yet? I don't think a couple of sentences about how they feel your pain is going change the situation a whole lot. There's always the chance that no matter what they say on the subject they may not tell the whole truth. I know that is hard to believe, but there is that slim chance.

Let's see, they now have this computer interface where users need to speak directly into the clown's nose and the interface carries the order to the real OS where users are supposed to stay away except in the company of a UNIX approved guide. Seems different than the Mac doesn't it?

So, you want to hear what Jobs, a guy who held a Satanic Ritual over the carcass of the Macintosh platform he had just killed, has to say about how he cares for you? Good luck! I think you may have to get out the secret decoder ring for this. Maybe you can use the same one that's needed to actually talk to the OS using the Terminal program. You may be able to rent one of those UNIX approved guides to tell you what it means. They all have secret decoder rings, don't they?

quote:

---

Let's see, they now have this computer interface where users need to speak directly into the clown's nose and the interface carries the order to the real OS where users are supposed to stay away except in the company of a UNIX approved guide. Seems different than the Mac doesn't it?

---

Oh, yeah, real different. Why, with the "Mac," it was a simple matter to access the real OS: a few thousand calls to Toolbox routines, a few thousand lines of Pascal, and you've got your Finder windows behaving simply and intuitively.

What's that? You dispute the validity of the comparison? It's the same damn structure as always: a GUI through which the stuff under the hood's manipulated. You might feel patronized by the GUI in OS X, and you might feel squeamish about the geek bleed-through of the Unix, which after all isn't hidden away like the legacy gears and levers were, but don't be claiming that the separation between interface and "real" OS is new!

Hey, but here's a thought: how about a Theme in which each GUI action is accompanied by the actual system calls scrolling up the screen at blazing speed in reams of transparent code?

We could call it the Visible OS.

but don't be claiming that the separation between interface and "real" OS is new!

Actually, isn't that the case, at least as far as the Mac is concerned? Isn't this just Aqua and Quartz layered on top of a 1960's core? I guess you can conceptualize an OS any way you want as long as it works. But when it has a trash that won't empty, preferences that don't stick, windows that are blank until you manually refresh them, then the conception I have of this OS is Aqua and Quartz saying "pretty please" to the Unix underpinnings and often, but now always, getting an immediate answer – not always in the affirmative. The original Mac OS did not have preemptive multitasking built in at the ground floor but apparently it did have built-in support for graphics primitives and such. It was built with what it was proposing to do in mind. This OS X thing seems cobbled together. They should have had the guts to stick with Copland. They didn't. Too bad.

Faster hardware will improve some of this stuff but I have the distinct impression that the hassles of Unix will remain and the Macness of the OS is simply skin deep (and an ugly skin it is at the moment).

What's that? You dispute the validity of the comparison?

I did?


....but don't be claiming that the separation between interface and "real" OS is new!

Okay. I didn't, sir.


Hey, but here's a thought: how about a Theme in which each GUI action is accompanied by the actual system calls scrolling up the screen at blazing speed in reams of transparent code?

I don't know anything about writing code. Will that work? It's nothing I ever thought of, but if a guy like you can dream it up I guess it deserves consideration. No?


It's the same damn structure as always: a GUI through which the stuff under the hood's manipulated.

I guess all of these operating systems are pretty much the same and it has always been so. They are all built about the same and there is nothing particularly special about any of them and never was. There isn't a lot of difference between OSs now and that's the way it's always been. Always. It's impossible to remember that things were different in the past because it never happened. Things have always been just as they are now. I understand.

War is Peace, Slavery is Freedom, Ignorance is Strength. and Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia. It's never been any different. That's the way it is now and that's the way it's always been. Always. It's impossible to remember that things were different in the past because it never happened. Things have always been just as they are now. I understand.

I only said that it SEEMED different to me. Now that I have you as my guide I can see where even mentioning the idea that it may have seem different, even if only different to me, was wrong. There is no difference and there never was. It is the same and things have always been the way they are now. I understand.

I'm sorry sir for my lack of Strength. If I may be permitted to whisper one utterance, sir:

BULLSHIT!

Actually, isn't that the case, at least as far as the Mac is concerned? Isn't this just Aqua and Quartz layered on top of a 1960's core? I guess you can conceptualize an OS any way you want as long as it works.


In the original Mac OS there was nothing you could actually call a working OS without the GUI. It was said many times that in the Macintosh "the GUI is the operating system." There were what you could term lower level routines, but that's all they were, and to refer to them as THE operating system is just so much hot air. They did nothing without the GUI. Nothing worked without the GUI. It was so far integrated into the operating system that it was the operating system. To say there was an operating system without it is just playing with words.

But this stuff is a red herring as far as I'm concerned. The Macintosh platform had a very different look and feel than other OSs. Even when Microsoft tried to copy the look (badly) it still had a very different feel. This NeXT OS that is now the Mac OS looks and feels very different than any Mac OS. To me it feels more like Windows than Macintosh. The reason for that is the status of the end user has changed. In the original Mac OS it was assumed the end user was the computer operator and needed to be in control of the behavior of the device. The status of the end user in the new Mac OS is different. The end user is now assumed to be a consumer with little need or desire to be in control of anything. That control is now passed to specialists who must study the intricacies of the UNIX operating system to gain any measure of control. In this it is very much like the Microsoft stuff. You can always try reinstalling the system or you can call someone who has put in many hours studying the ins and outs of the system to come in and spend many more hours screwing it up because now the system is so needlessly complex, not complicated, complex, that like the Microsoft stuff, no one knows it all; not even Microsoft.

This new Mac OS is built upon a different paradigm. To me it only took a glance to see Apple has changed its idea of its customers. This new view of the customer as a passive consumer is designed right into the OS. In many ways the OS is even a marketing device the way Microsoft's OSs are.

95 is 100% right when he says it's now just a GUI sitting on top and very far away from the real OS. And that's why thalo is wrong, very basically wrong. in thinking if only he could get Apple to get rid of the stripes or blurry fonts, or whatever, that this OS will give him the feeling of mastery that the former OS did. It can never happen. Under the GUI there is still the basic design of the OS that forces him into the passive consumer mode. The GUI could only change so much in any case. Further change would require the real OS be changed in fundamental ways. In order to return end users to their former status Apple would need to change the assumptions and the basic paradigm that lie behind the design along with the business plan its been implementing for over two years now. In other words, they would need to start at the beginning. Ain't gonna happen. They will sell the company first.

To me it feels more like Windows than Macintosh.

That's an insult, HH. Let me say that my experience with XP does not jibe with the facts, myths and legends surrounding Windows that are so much a part of Mac lore. This isn't Windows 95. No crashes to speak of (other than a few weird-ass games). No font problems. No install or uninstall problems. No permissions problems. Very, very few hardware problems (oh wait – that was Linux). The GUI isn't perfect but the 10% of the things that I use for 90% of what I do are well done. When I'm in Illustrator or Photoshop it feels like Illustrator or Photoshop. The programs and GUI are solid and responsive. Fonts are crisp. Windows Explorer actually has a ton of useful ways to view and organize your stuff. I wish it had labels. I wish some of the preferences were better organized. There are little GUI things here and there that are screaming for improvement but as a whole it works and works reliably. As far as the "ownership" feel is concerned, it's much better than OS X. I'm not typing a frickin' passwords every five minutes. There is ONE fonts folder. I have a trash can on the desktop (actually name "Trash"). No stutters or stalls when I go to do something. It's responsive. It feels (hee hee) like "My" computer.

that control is now passed to specialists who must study the intricacies of the UNIX operating system to gain any measure of control.

What control are you talking about? I can say that I have been using OSX to do pretty much what I please, in the same vein I did in OS9, without studying "the intricacies of the UNIX operating system". You will have to be more specific so that I can understand what you mean. I would hate to put words into your mouth or read your mind.

[This message was edited by mithradites on Mon June 16 2003 at 11:57 PM.]

quote:

---

I would hate to put words into your mouth or read your mind.

---

Yeah...don't be making that mistake!

That's an insult, HH. Let me say that my experience with XP does not jibe with the facts, myths and legends surrounding Windows that are so much a part of Mac lore.

I'm not going much on Mac lore. Remember, my company runs entirely on Windows and Microsoft stuff. All of the software we design and the hardware all depend on Windows. We write nothing for the Macintosh platform and never have. I am not a casual Windows user.

I was talking more about the feel of each system rather than the way it works. I'll stipulate right now that I agree with you. I think XP works pretty well. It's the feel that I was talking about. I wouldn't really want to try to explain to someone what this "feel" is, but hell, it must mean something, after all Apple and Microsoft fought a multimillion lawsuit over it. Mac users used to know what it means even if they couldn't really explain it.

Now I did say that OS X feels more like Windows than it does like a Macintosh. And it does. Purely on subjective grounds I would say that OS X feels a bit better than XP, at least it does to me. There is something a little bit Mac-like about it to me. The problem is that it isn't enough better to mean much. Certainly it won't be much of a factor in my next home computer purchase decision.

My original post here was about the new Quark. I was very much interested in what you graphic designer types thought of it. Has anyone bought it or seen it? Anyone use it yet? Is it the salvation of OS X the way it's billed? People have been playing it up as a big deal for over two years now. Is it really that big of a deal?

quote:

---

Originally posted by HighHopes:
My original post here was about the new Quark.

---

It doesn't matter. The zealotry has simply moved to InDesign.

Hey Brad,

Since, as I'm typing this, you've personally accounted for 501 of the 1445 posts in these forums to date (35%)...

...shouldn't this place be called Brad_Nelson.net?

95 is 100% right when he says it's now just a GUI sitting on top and very far away from the real OS.

Just as the early versions of Windows were just GUI shells sitting on top of DOS.

Do only Mac lemmings go to these big Mac shows? How come nobody ever stands up and gets in Jobs' face about what he's done to the Mac?

Markle

...shouldn't this place be called Brad_Nelson.net?

Only 35%? But what about word count? There's no way I could possibly keep up with thalo.

An aside (meaning it's slightly on-topic): In some quarters Quark is seen as the final piece of the puzzle, the thing that will put OS X over the top. But I thought us designers, artists and traditional graphics and publishing people weren't important? I thought we could be easily jettisoned and not missed? I thought the command line and Aqua would bring hordes of nerds and mainstream consumers?

Guess again.

Right, Brad. They said the X-native Photoshop would save X's ass. Market share kept going down. Now they're saying it about Quark.

Anyone who thinks any single application (or two) is going to save X's bacon is living in a dream world.

Markle

Let's put away this ignorant notion that the beloved warm and fuzzy Mac OS (pre-Mac OS X) was so clean and simple under the hood.

Inside Macintosh May 1992, THE reference books used by the programmers of any Mac app you ever used, clearly states that the interface is a seperate layer altogether from the operating system. You click, then shitloads of Pascal runs, then the magic happens.

quote:

---

The routines available for use in Macintosh programs are divided according to function, into what are in most cases called “managers” of the feature that they support. As shown in Figure 1, most are part of either the Operating System or the User Interface Toolbox and are in the Macintosh ROM.

The Operating System is at the lowest level; it does basic tasks such as input and output, memory management, and interrupt handling. The User Interface Toolbox is a level above the Operating System; it helps you implement the standard Macintosh user interface in your application. The Toolbox calls the Operating System to do low-level operations, and you’ll also call the Operating System directly yourself.

---

[This message was edited by the mighty johnq on Sun June 22 2003 at 05:02 AM.]