Question:
I don't think anything in this operating system is well-conceived or resolved enough to be called commercial quality. With performance and usability issues at an all time high... supercomputer hardware power but with a romper-room interface, and Apple concentrating on adding more goofy interface features instead of fixing what's really broken, I've just gotta ask:

Is OS X still a public beta?

Choices:
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes

 

Well, the CUPS printer drivers seem to be officially beta. CUPS/Gimp-print 5 Beta 2, to be more precise. And it shows.

But hey, what's all the fuss about printing ? Enjoy some ripple effects ! Fire off some Dashbored widgets ! Who prints anything these days anyway ?

With performance and usability issues at an all time high... supercomputer hardware power but with a romper-room interface, and Apple concentrating on adding more goofy interface features instead of fixing what's really broken, I've just gotta ask:

I do agree with you, BT, that Apple seems intent on adding new stuff instead of fixing some fundamental stuff. Sure, I understand the marketing pressure to add features in order to sell upgrades. But according to a lot of people there are many, many long-standing and obvious bugs (and primitive feature sets) that need attention.

But I don’t think even with this state of affairs that it’s accurate to call OS X a public beta. Sure, rank on it for being full of enforced eye candy. Rank on it for not fixing many, many obvious bugs. Rank on it for having added crap like Dashboard when we still need basic improvements in the Finder. But it seems the operating system is too capable now to just impetuously dismiss it as a public beta.

quote:

But it seems the operating system is too capable now to just impetuously dismiss it as a public beta.

I'm afraid I don't agree. Not when it comes to the type of use you are talking about.

Pro use? Forget it. Beta. Casual use? Hmmmm, a bit more of a grey area. I think the capability we do see, is part of that directed, enforced nonsense. The computer part (unless you strip the gui and don't run commercial apps)... is really kind of opensource work-in-progress. I think it's capability is like an opera set. If you go to the opera and believe you are in Milan, fine. But you're not. That is not to say there isn't entertainment value, but you're not in Milan. I think the operating system is doing its best to look the part while hiding vast tracts of real beta-ness. And it's claiming to be a whole lot more than it is.

Every time I use it, it feels buggy and untested. Weird things always happen, it always misbehaves. I've dealt with so many betas in my day, that I can spot one a mile away.

I'm afraid I don't agree. Not when it comes to the type of use you are talking about.

Pro use? Forget it.

Well, you got me there. I don’t use OS X much professionally. And while I agree that OS X, much like Windows, is unnecessarily annoying and inefficient, it does allow one to get the job done. I assume that you’re not a Pro then because obviously you’ve been using it for some time.

The computer part (unless you strip the gui and don't run commercial apps)... is really kind of opensource work-in-progress.

Any piece of software, if it’s still being developed, is a "work in progress". Not good enough, BT.

Every time I use it, it feels buggy and untested. Weird things always happen, it always misbehaves. I've dealt with so many betas in my day, that I can spot one a mile away.

By that definition I think you have a point. OS X has joined Windows in that detail no longer seems to matter. Spit and polish is for marketing campaigns, not interfaces or feature sets. I feel your pain, brother thalo. That’s why I won’t subject myself (if I don’t absolutely have to) to such beta-ness (I think I just blew my argument). But there used to be a company that had an operating system that wasn’t technically as sophisticated, but the care they put into what they did have was extraordinary. Now we technically have a much better operating system but nobody seems to care – or they care about other things than obvious pride in workmanship.

quote:

Any piece of software, if it’s still being developed, is a "work in progress".

Yeah, but there's being developed, and being developed. Time was, when a piece of software was being developed, it would reach a point o stable release, where it was ready for market, and then it hit the shelves. But there were never big undeveloped parts of it that were touted as working features. The only people who could get away with "don't pay attention to this unfinished part, we're still working on it" was shareware developers.

Now, I'd argue that the whole bar for what constitutes a stable release, has been wicked lowered by Apple, and the big, gnarly unfinished parts are used to get you and me to fund the development, uh, provided we get excited enough about whatever the fuck "feature" they are touting.

But they never have to bring anything to resolution. They can charge just as much for an IDEA for a widget that sort of does something, as they can for working software.

I say leave things out until they work. Don't release half assed proposals for software, release software.

quote:

Yeah, but there's being developed, and being developed. Time was, when a piece of software was being developed, it would reach a point o stable release, where it was ready for market, and then it hit the shelves. But there were never big undeveloped parts of it that were touted as working features. The only people who could get away with "don't pay attention to this unfinished part, we're still working on it" was shareware developers.

Now, I'd argue that the whole bar for what constitutes a stable release, has been wicked lowered by Apple, and the big, gnarly unfinished parts are used to get you and me to fund the development, uh, provided we get excited enough about whatever the fuck "feature" they are touting.

I don’t disagree with this. I wish we had an honest, knowledgeable and outspoken developer at thalo.net. We need some inside scoop. We’re force to sort of black-box speculate on a lot of stuff. I think we’re usually right, but there’s just so many blank spaces not filled in.

As far as this lay person knows, operating systems have become more complex. But supposedly there are powerful developer’s tools that manage this complexity and, perhaps, make the job simpler now than it was ten or even five years ago. That is, the way I see it, if there really is this trend toward unfinished-ware (and I believe there itis) it is because of marketing or cost considerations, not technical considerations. Perhaps, brother thalo, it’s analogous to the tools they used to make back in the thirties or forties. Here in our print shop we’ve got a built-to-withstand-a-nuclear-holocaust old stapler that was probably built in the 50’s. It’s WAY overbuilt by today’s standards. This baby would make a good boat anchor for at least a modern cruiser or destroyer. But back then the sheer weight and cost of all that metal probably wasn’t as big a thing. Nowadays a company that produced something like that couldn’t survive. They’d be beaten out by somebody who can provide the same function for 1/3 the price. Granted, the tool isn’t going to last fifty years but, for better or for worse, the life cycles of most products have been decreased. We trade durability for cost.

I think this whole scenerio has been used to some extent in the software industry as a convenient excuse for shoddy work and getting people to pay for upgrades before their time. They’ve leached onto what is happening in other industries and made it their own. People expect short life cycles for more tangible objects, so it’s just a small matter to convince them that it’s the same thing for software as well. And yet few of us would put up with buying, say, a TV that had trouble tuning in all the odd-numbered channels. .But when it comes to software we have become, for whatever reason (and I’m sure you’ll tell us), a lot more tolerant of fault. That’s why when all is said and done, brother thalo, I’m very much in your corner for holding software developers to higher standards. Perhaps because of the ease and practicality of software updates we have learned to live with bugs. That was fine when minor updates were free. But now, as you’ve pointed out before, we’re living in the age where we pay just to have software companies fix the bugs they missed the first time around. The scam is when they throw in a few new features to make it appear like some new version and not just a bug fix.

But it’s usually some mix of all this. Software by nature is much more intangible a product than a TV. Apple surely has made some important fundamental changes in OS X and yet at the same time they refuse to fix obvious bugs and throw some junk in their like Dashboard and hale it as a major release. There’s a truth in that and a big lie in that as well.

quote:

Originally posted by BN:
[QUOTE] I think this whole scenerio has been used to some extent in the software industry as a convenient excuse for shoddy work and getting people to pay for upgrades before their time. .

You know, there used to be a software company with a brilliant business model: Deliver high-quality, thoroughly tested software that 'just works' and ask some more money for it than the competition.

Worked like a charm for them for 15 years.

What were they called again ? A... Ab... Abl...

quote:

brother thalo, I’m very much in your corner for holding software developers to higher standards. Perhaps because of the ease and practicality of software updates we have learned to live with bugs. That was fine when minor updates were free. But now, as you’ve pointed out before, we’re living in the age where we pay just to have software companies fix the bugs they missed the first time around. The scam is when they throw in a few new features to make it appear like some new version and not just a bug fix.

You know, there wouldn't even BE a thalo, if the development of OS X was all OpenSource/Geek Friendly/Developer inspiring but without ever claiming to be commercial quality. If Apple gave it away free to the public and charged geeks for the privilege to tinker and get in on the ground floor for this next great leap forward in the Mac OS... that would be OK with me. You'd better believe I object to paying for bug fix releases. I object to paying for anything that doesn't work, while being told it does.

From the start, the whole development has been one big con. It's more marketing strategy than development, actually. Much of the development was DONE at Nextstep, it merely got retreaded.

What's happening here, is that Apple is leveraging its position and mystique to get the public and developers to FUND its development without having the slightest check and/or balance against quality. There's a whole take-it-or-leave-it approach that subjugates and diminishes the end user. It's like drug companies who can charge anything they want to for certain life-saving drugs, if you don't like it, ga head and die. See if we care... oh, and we don't guarantee the drugs will work for you anyway.

Right now, there's nothing in any software agreement that protects or defends the little guy. We can be dependent on these products, but unless we really friggin' complain up a storm, we have no say in how GOOD THEY WORK. We have no oversight committees sitting around making sure anybody delivers on a promise, or if the claims they make hold uh, water.

I think Apple is playing a dangerous game here. They're trying to get away with shit, instead of trying to go above and beyond. They cobble together just enough casual use functionality to impress, but they tout the OS as the be all and end all. As a pro, I get my hands dirty with the thing every day, and I can tell you right now, it's most certainly not as good as I keep hearing from X-Men and Apple. I certainly WANT it to be, but the truth is, it ain't. As a businessman who depends on these computer tools for my very surival, when something is crappy, it's very immediately clear. And something needs to be done.

I mean let's look back. Compare the public beta to the release of Tiger. There are performance, usability, readability, and technical issues that are exactly the same now as there were then. There are bugs that have come and gone and come again. We get some performance enhancements, but we always seem to pay some other price somewhere else for them.

And then you look at the legacy. Perfect? Hell no. But an order of magnitude better conceived. Were there bugs? Of course. But the UI framework and internal logic of the interface made it clear how things OUGHT to work. If they didn't, you didn't go and blame YOUR-FRIGGIN-SELF for being a retard, you knew that something was wrong with your system, because the behavior of the technology didn't fit with the very logical and intuitive Human Interface Guidelines.

By making the interface less clear, more disorganized and superabundant, you build into it less internal logic. More likelihood that the user will never be able to understand what OUGHT to happen. When user choices are not governed by consistency or logic then the results cannot be as immediately predictable... and that doubt covers a lot of flaws in design and execution. That's why we have victim blaming.

Apple has given us yards of crap to weed through, and has said OK, you're on your own. Navigate these stormy seas, best of luck. Because so much CAN go wrong, when we hit a problem or obstacle or workflow stoppage, we often shrug our shoulders and go hey, it's OS X! It's not perfect, but at least....

and boom, you're a crap settler.

The legacy Mac, because that original UI was so tight, and so clearly governed by a pervasive metaphor... we KNEW what didn't make sense. How? Because if it didn't fit with the clear and established internal logic, it was an anomaly.

Now, the semiotic language has changed. All bets are off. There's not a small subset of controls with simple, predictable outcomes. The skillset of operating the interface is no longer small. The Mac used to be a minute to learn. People didn't have to even read the manual. Now, you go ahead and explain to a newbie (the people Apple is supposed to be after) the difference between the command-tab array, the nuances and eccentricities of finder toolbar, the dock, the dashboard dock, the left finder column, the left column of many apps, the system menu bar, the system preferences window, etc.

But in the legacy, there was just a much smaller number of visual cues that schematized the technological landscape and made it easier to wade through. Icons really MEANT something... you could always tell an App from a DA from a document. When something was in use, it was clearly marked. Windows all behaved in predictable ways... system alerts were always clear and attention-getting.

Now? Hey, it took almost four years for alerts to get BACK to the kind of compact simplicity they used to have. It's one of the most major improvements of Tiger, and it's something the legacy did first and did right.

Clarity is not OS X's strong suit. They used to talk as if it was... I mean they had things like sheets for application alerts (to distinguish them from system alerts)... they had dramatic default choice button highlighting animation. In theory, these things are good. But when it came to executing them, there has been no consistency.

Apple was more worried about the animation and transparency effects, than they were about having the things make sense.

That's why we have a junk drawer, instead of an organized and efficient system. If your house and office is a mess, and you can't find
anything, what do you do? Right, clean up. Organize. Spring cleaning. Throw out the old crap. We have to decide whether we want personal computers that are the college frathouse room, or mission control in Houston.

There are ways to show off, and there are ways to get work done.

Apple doesn't realize something that they used to... if you make it simple and minimal and clear, the personal computer can become a CANVAS for personal expression. Ga head and let people junk them up if they want. But also provide powerful tools to people who don't need all the happy horseshit. If you think people are chimps who need overstimulation, provide a goofed up romper-room mystery puzzle GoGurt MP3 fart lighting circus. If you think people are sophisticated pro users, create something lean and mean...slick and minimal and efficient.

Well guess what, there are many types of people. If you want more than nosepickers, you have to deliver performance and usability on the high end. Because I'm telling you right now, the last thing I need is for your eye candy to get in the way of my work. Aqua is an obstacle, not a facilitator. That's why I'm currently miserable using the Mac. And yet, I boot into the legacy, and it's like coming home. Orderly, intelligent, clear, unified design. A world where things make friggin' SENSE again. OS X is like walking into a Fellini movie, where you're not sure what is going to happen next. Platinum may have been simple and predictable... but the best thing about it was that it was simple and predictable. It was more worried about communicating WITH the user in its own visual, logical language.

OS X screams AT the user and buries them in crap... looks down at them, is always saying lookit me, lookit me, isn't this cool??? And that's why it's queer. It's like the Old Navy/Target ads of computer interfaces. Its campy quirky crap is supposed to be charming. Well, it's not. It's irritating.

And it's beta. So really the only thing it should be, is fucking FREE. Until it works. If there was the letter "b" in that version number, you could get AWAY with all this work-in-progress proposing and disposing. You could try to get people excited about the development, and have them participate... without FLEECING them.

But sell this OS as commercial grade, and you're not being honest. Not to pro users, not to buyers of the top of the line hardware. When you have to waste supercomputer power on crap that pros don't need or want, while not fixing the software for the way pros do work, then you are conning.

From the start, the whole development has been one big con. It's more marketing strategy than development, actually. Much of the development was DONE at Nextstep, it merely got retreaded.

So you’re saying that before they added Core Audio, Core Graphics and Core Video, they added Core Bullshit. If so, I don’t disagree. But that "retread" was probably a heck of a lot of real work.

Right now, there's nothing in any software agreement that protects or defends the little guy. We can be dependent on these products, but unless we really friggin' complain up a storm, we have no say in how GOOD THEY WORK.

I would, if I were in Congress right now, introduce some kind of "Dialog Box Contracts Simplification" bill. I think it trivializes law and the idea of law to have some big honkin’ multi-page agreement, which no mere mortal is ever going to be able to understand, show up on the screen while some poor slob is in the middle of installing some needed piece of software. Uh uh. No "Okay or Cancel," "Agree to Terms/Don’t Agree to Terms" buttons are enough nor are they fair. The fact is that NOBODY reads them nor can they be expected to read them. My law would say that any sort of agreement could not exceed fifty words and would have to be understandable at a sixth grade reading level. Either that, or force software companies to distribute all of their software for free, no strings attached, and then when doing the installation a little box pops up that says something like, "If you feel this software meets your needs and your expectations of quality then in thirty days a reminder will pop up asking you to enter your credit card information. At that time you can either purchase the software or hit the "No" button, in which case the software will cease to function in 30 days."

quote:

The fact is that NOBODY reads them

I read every word. Or rather, the first time I encounter one I read every word... as the years go by, I more or less skim them to see what changes with time because I'm fascinated by that. But I really read these things only because I love to eye roll. I love the douche-chills they give me. I love to see corporations weasel out of standing by ther products.

When you read a software license agreement, you get a sense of how what WE are to corporations has changed. On the one hand, we're the constant threat of lawsuits should anybody not dare to cover their asses... on the other hand, we're seen as so stupid and undemanding, that the company has to take no responsibility for providing any kind of quality whatsoever.

You learn a lot about what companies FEAR when you read the license agreement. Some of it is obvious, like copying. The rest is all about not holding Apple accountable for their stuff not working. Whereas most other companies will offer you a warranty against material defects, Software companies will pretty much warranty bum media... but if their programming is defective, if it contains mistakes that cost YOU money or loss, they are not responsible.

I think one of the reasons Apple doesn't test its software exhaustively before it hits the market is this: they don't HAVE to. There's nothing written anywhere that says what they release has to work or be good. They are tried only in the court of public opinion, and they've shown us how malleable and manipulable that is.

I read every word.

There’s always one.

Whereas most other companies will offer you a warranty against material defects, Software companies will pretty much warranty bum media... but if their programming is defective, if it contains mistakes that cost YOU money or loss, they are not responsible.


Come to think of it, is there any legitimate reason that software should not be held to the same liability standards as a more tangible object like an automobile? If a legitimately defective machine causes damage then you can sue. But the same doesn’t appear to be the case with software. AND YET, it would seem, at first glance, that software is much more easily perfectible than a physical object. And with the anecdote below in mind, it is also arguable that the environment in which software is used, and the ways in which it is used, is actually much more predictable than that of a physical object.

I recently read the book, Why Things Break. In it the author recounts an industrial incident where someone was inappropriately trying to pump water into some container in order to shorten some process and this caused an explosion (and also caused a very heavily-built pump to fracture). It was clearly a case of somebody taking, say, a wood saw and then suing when the teeth break off because they were trying to use it to cut through a steel pipe (the company tried to sue the manufacturer of the pump...after years of trials and, of course, lots of money, I think they lost). The author makes the great point that we are now living in a culture where we expect nothing to break and if it does that it is somebody’s fault. This is a high standard that also comes with quite a high price in terms of lawsuits and the cost of insurance premiums.

yeah, I hear that. But it's back to worst-case situations and victim blaming. We love to blame. And yeah, sometimes when stuff breaks, it IS somebody's fault. If you use a crosscut saw to try and cut through a steel pipe, you really don't have a leg to stand on. But if you tried to cut through a 2x4 and the same thing happened, you can pretty much assume the saw is a piece of crap.

Nowhere in the instructions of a Mac does it say "not for pro use." And yet, I am supremely dissatisfied with the performance and reliability of the operating system in a professional setting. Stuff that really shouldn't break, breaks frequently just with use. This is software I paid good money for, and it's simply not up to snuff. To really be worth spending the money on, and buying new Macs for, I'm pretty sure it needs to be a whole lot better and more capable.

But what recourse do customers have if an intellectual property product is crap? They can't sue Apple, they can't bring the issues before a tech tribunal. We only have our wallets and our free speech to fight with. When a crappy movie comes out, who gets their money back? Nobody.

When crappy software comes out, it's the same thing. We buy on faith, and hope and pray it's going to work. If it doesn't, oh well.

But the stakes with an operating system are so much higher. An OS is one of those things that needs to BE GOOD, BE EXCELLENT, or the platform fails. Apple isn't putting enough care into making a great platform. At least in no way that translates directly to users. Hey, maybe it's coming. I hope so. Tiger has a very slightly better sense of "touch" than Panther did. Maybe some of those under-the-hood things are for real. But there's still such a long way to go to even get to legacy-level operating efficiency. I mean, is it gonna take another three years?

If so, there's only one thing to do to make it so's guys like me don't start hanging ourselves. And that's think about the interface. Then fix the interface. That's job #1. If the interface was better, smarter, and leaner, then trust me, it would cover up a multitude of sins. But do what OS X does, and TRY to cover a multitude of sins with superabundant eye candy, and it doesn't work. And it just feels more dishonest.

If the DESIGN and function and philosophy of the Mac got somehow back on track, I feel like I could put up with anything. But as long as it's based on all that marketeering nonsense, there is just no way I'm going to settle for the bullshit.

I realize I'm like the Simon Cowell of the Mac World. I give a completely blunt and honest assessment of the situation, and people who are over emotional X-Men cry and boo. They are willing to crap-settle for off-key, crappy, half-assed lazy performance. I'm not. I know the industry, and I know what quality needs to be to compete. Apple can court digikids all it wants, but that doesn't mean the rest of its audience is going to suddenly lower their standards of what they need Apple computers to do.

But what recourse do customers have if an intellectual property product is crap? They can't sue Apple, they can't bring the issues before a tech tribunal. We only have our wallets and our free speech to fight with. When a crappy movie comes out, who gets their money back? Nobody.

Yeah, I suppose buying software can be like buying a movie ticket. You take your chance and if you don’t like it, too bad. No recourse. But should we really elevate software engineering to the same standards as art in this regard? That seems unrealistic and inappropriate. But in this case, if we do, we would certainly have grounds to sue. We thought we were purchasing a Mac OS and we got this kludgy, bloated Unix counterfeit.

In my case, because I am a longtime Mac customer, with a Mac infrastructure, I'm really in a tough spot. I HAVE to stick with them through this bullshit. My alternative is all new hardware and all new software. Switch to Windows. A platform with an interface that's also crap... though a bit better than Aqua. You can, however, take XP and customize it to the point where it's more Mac-ripoff like.

What I really miss, is the smooth, clear, intutive navigation of Platinum. I want everyone who's been using OS X for a while, to boot into the legacy (if you still have a dual boot machine laying around) and just revisit it. Notice the way things work, and how it's laid out visually. Check out how non-distracting and cohesive it is. How everything makes sense with its own AHIG-driven Mac logic. If you're a keyboard shortcut person, remember how you could fly through those open/saves from command-O and get to your work with a minimum of keystrokes.

One of the improvements in Tiger I'm most thrilled about, is the updating of files in the finder, whether from downloading or dragging. That's the ONE THING that feels more legacy-like to me. And yet, when you're actually back IN the legacy, things STILL feel less kludgy.

The more Mac-like Apple makes OS X, the better it is. I want every X-Man who is oohing and ahhing over the real improvements (not just the eye candy) to remember that that's what's occurring here. The under-the-hood stuff that's the real fixes, are still trying to address stuff that the legacy apparently had no trouble whatsoever with. All the legacy DIDN'T have, was a codebase that was pervasive in the geek world. Some of the casual use bells and whistles and passive spinning gears garbage that we're seeing now.

And one of the things we had was better interface customizability. After three years, we STILL have less control over interface fonts and appearance than we had back then.

And there's STILL spacing bullshit with type sizes that you set below the aa threshold. Sigh.

Finder's search field doesn't allow you to put the cursor at the beginning of the first word.

If you are looking for "cover letter" but you typed "over letter" you can't click in front of the "o" to insert a "c". (Set aside the fact that it'll probably find whatever you're looking for anyway).

Yes the arrow cursor works, but it should just be clickable.

So fucking lame.

HOLY CRAP. What the? How did that get through testing?

Command + Left arrow key works, thank god. So do all the other modifier + arrow key combinations for that situation. Plus the multiple click selects. But you best believe I went and checked them all after hearing about that bug.

You can, however, take XP and customize it to the point where it's more Mac-ripoff like.

You are correct, in theory. In practice you inherit all kinds of interface quirks that leave you not much better than where you started.

What I really miss, is the smooth, clear, intutive navigation of Platinum. I want everyone who's been using OS X for a while, to boot into the legacy (if you still have a dual boot machine laying around) and just revisit it.

Oh, we’ve become quite good friends, me and ol’ Platty. In fact, people are beginning to talk.

The more Mac-like Apple makes OS X, the better it is.

Yes. And what prevents that statement from being a tautology is the scientific or emperical-based nature of the original AHIG’s. as opposed to the Aqua HIG’s which contain after-the-fact justifications of their senseless eye candy.

Amen, Brother Br-- brother BN.

Here's what I think. Most controls need to be at the top. With maybe the exception of a few app palettes, scrollbars, and resize widgets.

I think controls that descend from above, and fold back up are the way to go. Wanna dock stuff? Great. Make the whole menubar area dockable. I don't mind left columns as dockable areas, but I think it might make more sense if they folded UP like menus when not in use. I think every dockable item should have a distinctive icon type, and have consistent behavior wherever it's used.

The Mac interface could be made up of totally configurable, dockable items. For example, a text menu could be seen as just an object dragged into the menubar. If you put an icon up there, it'll have its own behaviors, maybe its own dropdown menu too.

Everything should be poofable too.

Did you notice how there's no way to "poof" widgets? Dragging them out is the turd-splash install, which runs counterintuitive to the DOCK, where if you do that same thing, the object poofs and is gone from the dock.

How do you kill widgets? Say you downloaded a real dog, like VERSION TRACKER, and want it gone. Where's the easy way to do that? You have to go to the library and delete them, dontcha?

Amen, Brother Br-- brother BN.

It stands for "Buck Naked". I'm going to branch out a bit (no pun intended) from conservative talk, thus the more generic name.