Forums | MacLife

one of the things that I hate is that when in icon view I can't click on one item then shift click on another and it select all the files in between like it does when in list view.

how about consistency in the OS and in the applications

Donkey Butter wrote:

one of the things that I hate is that when in icon view I can't click on one item then shift click on another and it select all the files in between like it does when in list view.

how about consistency in the OS and in the applications

There are always consistency issues that I find and you're right those need to be fixed. I never noticed that issue with icon view before which is weird since its what I use. I guess that I just select all with the mouse and never realized it until now.

'More control with the keyboard' and 'a snappier Finder' are definitely desirable. I'd also like the keyboard and the mouse to be more responsive to what's on the screen. Backspacing (when typing) is more sluggish than in 'that other OS' and pointer movement is not precise enough. For the latter, maybe I'm being too picky, but I don't think I'm the only one:

http://db.tidbits.com/article/8893

http://fplanque.com/dev/mac/fixing-the- … on-mac-osx

http://osnews.com/comments/11558

and others. Some call it mouse acceleration; what ever it's called it's damnably annoying.

Anyway, the least they could do is give the user the option whether to display windows resizing or not.

Fatum wrote:

No files and folders
   Why not make it so that every application stores its own data? Instead of remembering where you saved something you only open up the application used? I can see issues with this since what happens when you want to try a new application? So maybe each type of document has its own database where it automatically gets saved? No matter what application you are using it points to the same place. Which brings me to my next thing.

This may have minor benefits for single user systems but it will have negative consequences to both single user and multiuser systems. How many users can an app efficiently store data for before the incidence of instability corruption increase? How do you fix corrupted preferences if they are part of the app without just trashing the app and all the good data with the bad? Uninstallers might be a better way to go here. Apple also couldn't make other companies put that information together some of them wont even put their information where Apple tells them too.

More open source used
   Get rid of proprietary information all together. Meaning that the word processor application no matter which one you use can open up anything text on your computer. Open Document Format is key I believe.

Apple is very open source and format. It admittedly could be better but there are more companies that are worse. That said much Open source software lacks a lot of fit and finish. That is quite important as well.

Easy syncing between computers on same network
   Many people have more than one computer, myself included. Why not make it so information can be synced up between the two when on the same network? A system preference for sharing including what to share with what computer. This way even without Internet access information can be synced.

Apple actually has done a lot off work along those line especially in Leopard. They are unfortunately far from finished especially when it comes to doing it with non Mac systems.

More control with keyboard
   I can control many things with just the keyboard in the system but not as much as I would like. Quicksilver like application that does just the menu options of the application that is currently at the front.

Ok, here I agree.

Built in Notification
   Growl is a great application for notifying users when something happens in the background. But without being built in to the OS there are many applications that don't have the ability to use it. If built in then would be easier to build in the system into all applications.

I agree the notification system sucks in many cases but in many of those cases a built in Growl like system would make no difference. The programmers wouldn't any add it for a built in one than they do for Growl.

Built in Anti-Virus
   Who better to know when something is in the system that shouldn't be than the maker of the system?

In theory, MS has some AntiSpyWare software which has (fairly and unfairly) been the subject of ridicule. OS X Server bundle the ClamAV backend. Not that Malware is a real issue on the Mac (only a hand of executable nasties exist in the wild but not one a virus) but bundling such software on the consumer OS especially since many people have more than one computer and it better not accidently transferring malware to a platform on your network where it is more of a concern.

Built in Applications
   Apple does a great job with the built in applications to a certain point. I buy a new computer and I have iLife that comes with it but then I have to upgrade that in a year. There is still not a usable word processor, spreadsheet, presentation tool or budgeting applicaiton that comes built in. Computers are used for many things but the basics come down to these

Word Processing (which should include built in bibliography)
Spreadsheet
Presentation
Internet access
Email
Calendar
Address book
Music
Movies
Budget tracking
Photos
Instant Messaging

I've use plenty of Word Processors over the years which have honestly had no more features than TextEdit. Them adding a Bibliography would be nice but not a deal breaker IMO. I can type out a bibliography almost as fast as I enter the same information into an inserted template.

Even without the whole iLife suite bundled (iTunes is also a standalone product), OS X has email, a web browser, calender, address book, music, movies, photo, & IM.

Actual web access they just cannot do, they couldn't setup the infrastructure adequately enough to even service a single country much mess all of them they market computer to. Not to mention some countries wouldn't allow it.

Online banking sorta killed the budget tracking software market.

Spreadsheet & Presentation would be nice but I'd honest find a database manager about a 100 times more useful.

Spotlight needs to be improved a lot. If they took what works from Tiger's Spotlight combined it with what works from Leopard's Spotlight, tweaked a few elements and improved the performance, it would be dramatically better.

ScifiterX wrote:

This may have minor benefits for single user systems but it will have negative consequences to both single user and multiuser systems. How many users can an app efficiently store data for before the incidence of instability corruption increase? How do you fix corrupted preferences if they are part of the app without just trashing the app and all the good data with the bad? Uninstallers might be a better way to go here. Apple also couldn't make other companies put that information together some of them wont even put their information where Apple tells them too.

Im not a programmer, yet, but for the multiuser system the database would be stored inside of the home folder for each user. Im looking at more of a one place storage for that user that is signed on at the moment. The apps live outside of the home folder right now but preferences inside each account dictate where things go. This would be no different. Not saying there would not be things that needed to be ironed out but its just a rough idea at the moment.

As for not being able to make other software companies use it. Make it a standard through the right channels. Consumers in the U.S. do not let their voices be heard. Im not a programmer or a computer scientist but thats what Im going for. With my only intention on making the OS of computers better for humans.

It has an assload of features I don't need and can't easily get rid of. One of the reasons I will always have a thing for XP.

Spotlight was neutered. And I am feeling less and less like Snow Leopard might bring it back to its former Tiger glory. And that scares me. But I've said this many times before and even emailed it to Steve himself.


I would be all for Growl being built-in. It's just so awesome. It basically brings back OS 9's old "unobtrusive notification windows", mates them with XP's balloons and makes them a million times better. I never use sticky ones. My favorite styles are Music Video which slides a notification up on screen for a few seconds then slides it off. I use it for BowTie's music changing status and email, and the Nano style which is new. I use that one for HardwareGrowler set to smallest style. That way the notifications slide down slow enough for me to notice them, dart my eyes to them, and read them then get them out of the way ASAP. XP makes you have to close all notifications yourself and notifies you of the stupidest things. Vista lets you turn certain ones off, but still it's not enough. This is perfect. I wouldn't mind Apple buying the software and making all apps use it. I heart Growl.

Well, we HAD that. In Tiger. We had everything in Tiger. What the hell did they do to the UI? Why did they feel they needed to CHANGE the UI? The UI was fine! It's the underpants that needed fixing. They shouldn't have even TOUCHED the UI.

Edit: Also, CoverFlow is a disappointment. It should have been a TOGGLE. Not a VIEW. I would have wanted CF in Icon view or even Columns view.

Also, I miss Categories view from Spotlight. It was so nice. Grouping everything by type with nice headers. Frankly, I think Icon view should have an option for these headers that separates each icon type by.. type. Or if sorted by other values, the headers could show other info, like the day created or the label. Like in iPhoto.

Last edited by Jasoco (2009-02-16 7:03 pm)

ScifiterX wrote:

Speaking a a user I hate when Apps store user data as a file/encapsulated library/database. It typically breaks or limits compatibility with other apps, it makes it more likely you lose all your apps saved data in one shot, and in the ones like the iPhoto Library manual extraction is a more labyrinthian affair that makes opening recent and saving it again while making sure to note the file path look easy.

I can fully understand that as a database there are other things to consider. Corruption the main problem. To my understanding formats like ZFS have built in capability to handle situations that you are speaking about. I could wrong but there are ways to combat the issues that could be associated with having a database structure. I know not everyone is a stickler for backup like myself, having a backup utility built in was a great addition to Leopard even though there are some needed improvements in the implementation of it.

I'd rather have the lost Tiger capabilities in Leopard's UI over Tiger's UI any given day of the year.

I'm defining the actual ability to do things as functionality (basically the what you can do) and the UI as the look and feel (basically the how you go about doing it).

Until I can sort my goshdarn searches by Size and other criteria, I will not be happy.