New Finder in 10.3

[brandons of mass destruction]

Very new finder aka radical freaking change if a user can't click
through files and folders like before

check it out:

[url]http://www.apple.com/macosx/panther/finder.html[/url]

[jemmy ducks]

In article <230620032232158565%mcojob-nospam@yahoo.com>, Rick Harrison
<mcojob-nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The Panther Finder looks hideous. Talk about trying to "dumb down" the
> population! If memory serves, it also resembles the Windows XP
> whatever they call their Finder thingie (sorry, haven't turned on my XP
> laptop in more than 6 months). Oh well, hopefully independent
> programmers are already working on Finder replacements for 10.3 that
> will resemble 9.2 or 10.2 Finders.

10.3 does not strike me as a major upgrade. "Expose" is cute, but a
control click on any open app in the dock already gives me access to
any window. iChat AV could be useful some day in business and
education, but it's certainly not a must have item for me at the
moment. You can already fax from any app by using Cocoa eFax (best $5 I
ever spent). As for the Finder, it looks like a Windows explorer window
with the "folders" option enabled (I personally like that about
Windows), but I can get the close to the same utility from my
"Favorites" folder.

The one thing that I really like is instant switching bewteen user
accounts. But that's not worth $129. If I were a developer, however,
the new developer tools might be worth price of the upgrade.

[Wouter]

What an excellent solution. After starting to use a Mac and OS X just
over a year ago I never could get used to the mess of opened finder
windows and not having all volumes in one window. This was definitely
something Windows was better at.

Wouter

Rick Harrison <mcojob-nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<230620032232158565%mcojob-nospam@yahoo.com>...

> The Panther Finder looks hideous. Talk about trying to "dumb down" the
> population! If memory serves, it also resembles the Windows XP
> whatever they call their Finder thingie (sorry, haven't turned on my XP
> laptop in more than 6 months). Oh well, hopefully independent
> programmers are already working on Finder replacements for 10.3 that
> will resemble 9.2 or 10.2 Finders.

[Kevin McMurtrie]

In article
<nomadicink-7568D5.21181623062003@news.comcast.giganews.com>,
brandons of mass destruction <nomadicink@comcast.ner> wrote:

>Very new finder aka radical freaking change if a user can't click
>through files and folders like before
>
>check it out:
>
>[url]http://www.apple.com/macosx/panther/finder.html[/url]

I hope the brushed metal look can be disposed of in the new Finder.
I've been seeing that look for a long time and I still think that
QuickTime Player and Safari look like old crapware every time I see
them. iTunes is the only app that it seems to work for. It has complex
window divisions that benefit from dark borders.

[Seebs]

In article <mcmurtri-EDB8BA.00384924062003@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@sonic.net> wrote:

>I hope the brushed metal look can be disposed of in the new Finder.
>I've been seeing that look for a long time and I still think that
>QuickTime Player and Safari look like old crapware every time I see
>them.

The cool part is that there's more than one *different* brushed metal look.
Look very closely at iSync and QuickTime Player; they have different window
decorations.

And to think, Apple used to champion standardized and consistent user
interfaces.

-s
--
Copyright 2003, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / [email]seebs@plethora.net[/email]
[url]http://www.seebs.net/log/[/url] - YA blog. [url]http://www.seebs.net/[/url] - homepage.
C/Unix wizard, pro-commerce radical, spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting, computers, web hosting, and shell access: [url]http://www.plethora.net/[/url]

[Lawrence D¹Oliveiro]

In article
<nomadicink-7568D5.21181623062003@news.comcast.giganews.com>,
brandons of mass destruction <nomadicink@comcast.ner> wrote:

>Very new finder aka radical freaking change...

Definitely more Windows-like...

[Lawrence D¹Oliveiro]

In article <3ef80b73$0$1097$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net>,
[email]seebs@plethora.net[/email] (Seebs) wrote:

>And to think, Apple used to champion standardized and consistent user
>interfaces.

Yeah, these days they're just copying Microsoft's new ideas.

[Steven Fisher]

Jonathan Goodish wrote:

> Well, I consider a Safari window with a web page to be a "document"
> window, yet Safari uses the brushed-metal, which seems out-of-place on a
> web browser. It's especially odd when you choose "Print" and the dialog
> descends from a title bar that really isn't there (i.e. isn't defined
> apart from the rest of the window.)

Well, my thinking on it is more like this:
Is it something I open, work with, then close and am asked to save when
closing?

If not, it isn't a traditional document-based application. And Safari's
about as far from it as you can get.

I was actually kind of expecting a metalicized Mail as well. However, it
doesn't surprise me that Mail is the last to change.

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article <Co%Ja.300025$Vi5.7979283@news1.calgary.shaw.ca> ,
Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote:

> Well, my thinking on it is more like this:
> Is it something I open, work with, then close and am asked to save when
> closing?
>
> If not, it isn't a traditional document-based application. And Safari's
> about as far from it as you can get.

I don't see how. With a browser, you open the application, then open
the document (whether it's local or remote), and optionally save or
print the document. Not much different from a word processor or
spreadsheet application. In fact, browser-delivered applications
already exist, and it wouldn't surprise me if productivity programs
utliized parts of Safari in the future for delivery.


JKG

[Lee Phillips]

I don't mind the metal appearance much, but the behavior of windows
is different when they use the metal texture, in a way that I
find very annoying. I enjoy hitting the close widget in a
background window to close the window with no side effect; that's
one of the ways in which I find the OS X interface far superior
to the classic one. But do this to a window in a metal application
and it comes to the foreground with another one of its open
windows in your face. I don't know what sense this is supposed to
make, but fortunately you can turn off the metal texture (and this
annoying behavior) in any cocoa application by opening the
relevant nib file in Interface Builder and unchecking one box.

[Larry Kilgallen]

I saw the WWDC keynote broadcast at a local Apple Store,
and I did not understand the Finder part. I have never used
System X, and under System 7/8/9 I can click through my
directories on the desktop. Is that no longer possible under
System X ?

[Neill Massello]

Lee Phillips <lee@leeHYPHENphillips.org.invalid> wrote:

> I don't mind the metal appearance much, but the behavior of windows
> is different when they use the metal texture, in a way that I
> find very annoying. I enjoy hitting the close widget in a
> background window to close the window with no side effect; that's
> one of the ways in which I find the OS X interface far superior
> to the classic one. But do this to a window in a metal application
> and it comes to the foreground with another one of its open
> windows in your face.

Not all brushed metal applications behave this way. QuickTime Player
does, but iTunes doesn't.

[Christopher Masi]

In article <tWh4T0NPs1rz@eisner.encompasserve.org>,
[email]Kilgallen@SpamCop.net[/email] (Larry Kilgallen) wrote:

> I saw the WWDC keynote broadcast at a local Apple Store,
> and I did not understand the Finder part. I have never used
> System X, and under System 7/8/9 I can click through my
> directories on the desktop. Is that no longer possible under
> System X ?

No, you can click through (if you mean double click a folder watch it
open, double click a folder, watch it open, repeat..) in OS X 10.1 and
10.2. I hope that this isn't going away in 10.3. When I heard about the
metalic Safari-like finder browser in 10.3 I thought, "gee I hope you
can turn that off."

I do understand though how it might be more welcoming to Windows
switchers.

Chris

[Steven Fisher]

In article <jgoodish-936B9D.23001824062003@netnews.attbi.com>,
Jonathan Goodish <jgoodish@attbi.com> wrote:

> "Export" and "Save" are basically synonyms in this environment. And
> yes, I work with web pages all the time where I modify data on the page
> and then print or "export" the results, or simply print the results as I
> would a traditional PDF file. Same difference. My other point was that
> I think we will see traditional applications move to a web-centric
> format in the future.

This isn't true, Jonathan. You cannot make changes to a web page within
Safari. That makes it not a document-based editing application. The Save
command is *supposed* to save back to the current document; I don't
think Save As is the right metaphor for downloading the page from a
server to your hard disk.

> Look, I realize that for some of you, Apple is the greatest thing in the
> world and no matter what they do they are never wrong and no one ever

Whatever. I'm not saying that Apple can do no wrong, because I think the
metal look needs to be revamped. It's ugly right now.

But the concept behind it -- different appearances for applications not
based on a file/document metaphor where you need to be prompted to save
changes on closing -- is as overdue to graphical operating systems as
the dirty blip is on documents.

[Dave Seaman]

On 24 Jun 2003 16:50:36 -0500, Larry Kilgallen wrote:

> I saw the WWDC keynote broadcast at a local Apple Store,
> and I did not understand the Finder part. I have never used
> System X, and under System 7/8/9 I can click through my
> directories on the desktop. Is that no longer possible under
> System X ?

It doesn't work that way in any version of Mac OS. Although you can drag
a folder to the desktop, double-clicking on that folder does not open
another folder on the desktop. It opens a Finder window instead.

Exactly the same is true in OS X.


--
Dave Seaman
Judge Yohn's mistakes revealed in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling.
<http://www.commoncouragepress.com/index.cfm?action=book&bookid=228>

[Christopher Masi]

In article <Pine.OSX.4.56.0306250552570.8805@teraqny.sevanohy nk.bet>,
robert delius royar <royar@nospam.adelphia.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 about 20:33 -0400 UTC Christopher Masi wrote:
>

> > When I heard about the
> > metalic Safari-like finder browser in 10.3 I thought, "gee I hope you
> > can turn that off."
> >
> > I do understand though how it might be more welcoming to Windows
> > switchers.

>
> I don't like the metal look either, but I have noticed that, at least on my
> LCD, fonts rendered with smoothing turned on against the metal background
> render better than do fonts on the transparency-enabled, striped-aqua
> background. I especially noticed that narrow letters (such as 'i' and 'l')
> render with less distortion and that bleed on the edges is less prominent,
> which I assume is just an optical illusion caused by the presence/absence of
> the aqua lines.

You can get rid of the lines if your use a theme switcher like Duality
to switch to a stripeless theme like SmoothStripes. On caveat though,
Iafter using Duality to switch to SmoothStripes and then back to Aqua,
many of my "metal" applications lost their window buttons. The Close,
hide, and zoom buttons still worked, but they were hidden. I don't know
if it was Duality or something else.

Chris

[Jerry Gardner]

jemmy ducks wrote:

> 10.3 does not strike me as a major upgrade.

I wonder how much support for 64-bit processors will be implemented in
10.3? Will it be fully 64-bit native, or will it be like when the first PPC
Macs came out, but most of MacOS was still 68K code for years and years?

Anyone know Apple's position on this?

--
Jerry Gardner
[email]jg2-usenet@gardnerclan.net[/email]

[Steven Fisher]

In article <Xns93A58032C3FC6jg2gclannet@127.0.0.1>,
Jerry Gardner <jg2-usenet@gardnerclan.net> wrote:

> I wonder how much support for 64-bit processors will be implemented in
> 10.3? Will it be fully 64-bit native, or will it be like when the first PPC
> Macs came out, but most of MacOS was still 68K code for years and years?

It won't ever really matter, as long as the kernel and other critical
components are updated. The G5 supports both 32 and 64 bit code
natively, as long as enough the OS itself is 64 bit.

I doubt we'll ever see (for instance) a 64-bit recompile of things such
as the Address Book, since there'd be no advantage to it and it would
double the executables Apple needs to support.

I think the only advantage of 64 bit executables is how much memory one
can access. The other advantages to recompiling can probably be reaped
without going 64 bit.

[Jerry Gardner]

>>I wonder how much support for 64-bit processors will be implemented in

>>10.3? Will it be fully 64-bit native, or will it be like when the
>>first PPC Macs came out, but most of MacOS was still 68K code for
>>years and years?

>
> It doesn't matter. The PPC supports 64 and 32 bit code natively.

It bloody well matters. Will MacOS X, assuming it's still all 32-bit code,
support a virtual memory space larger than 4GB? I doubt it.

--
Jerry Gardner
[email]jg2-usenet@gardnerclan.net[/email]

[John Heaney]

In article <sdfisher-C53CD7.15082925062003@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote:

>In article <Xns93A58032C3FC6jg2gclannet@127.0.0.1>,
> Jerry Gardner <jg2-usenet@gardnerclan.net> wrote:
>

>> I wonder how much support for 64-bit processors will be implemented in
>> 10.3? Will it be fully 64-bit native, or will it be like when the first PPC
>> Macs came out, but most of MacOS was still 68K code for years and years?

>
>It won't ever really matter, as long as the kernel and other critical
>components are updated. The G5 supports both 32 and 64 bit code
>natively, as long as enough the OS itself is 64 bit.
>
>I doubt we'll ever see (for instance) a 64-bit recompile of things such
>as the Address Book, since there'd be no advantage to it and it would
>double the executables Apple needs to support.
>
>I think the only advantage of 64 bit executables is how much memory one
>can access. The other advantages to recompiling can probably be reaped
>without going 64 bit.

Well, all that begs the question of what happens when you run 64-bit
compiled code on a G4. Anyone know what the backward compatibility
situation is?

----
John S. Heaney
voice & fax (401) 438-4288
I don't train in Aikido to protect myself from the world, but to protect the world from me.