From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system


I had some opportunity to do some personal Panther evaluating last
night. Some observations and subjective commentary follows. This is
strictly from memory so there are no doubt some omissions, and even
perhaps some errors here.

Although the feature-set of Panther is fairly well documented on
Apple's site, being able to experience it first hand is particularly enlightening.

What follows are some random notes:

[For the short attention spanned -- In a nutshell, particularly
considering the pre-release nature, I came away mostly impressed.]

* We installed Panther on an older iMac - G3/450. Installation
includes two disks, one with the OS and one with add'l apps. We opted
for the archive and install option and this went forward without
incident. Installation of the OS was surprisingly fast. We did not have
time for the second disk so perhaps I'll follow-up later with notes on
that when time allows

*A third-party app that was problematic was ASM. It appears to have
muted the sound system entirely. Removal and rebooting fixed that. All
other apps on the system, that I tried, appeared to work just fine.

* I cannot comment on the speed of Panther as the iMac is not mine and
I have no baseline to compare.

* Evidently the metallic look of many of the iApps bothers some, it has
never bothered me, but the Panther finder windows, which are heavy on
the metallic look, are not attractive. Indeed, I disliked them
intensely. Although the metal is in, the ability to resize the header
icons is a welcome addition. As is the ability to put even more useful buttons, i.e., eject on top.

*Labels are back (yeah) and so too is the ability to set timed shut
downs and restarts (yeah). Exposé seems interesting but either it isn't
yet working as intended or we didn't fully grok it. System prefs are consolidated and better organized.

* Selecting icons results in a blue square around said icon. Didn't
impress me much, but it may make the active icon more apparent to new
users.

* Fax sending and receiving is now integrated into Panther. How well it
works I cannot say yet, but it looks very promising and well thought
out. It's designed to set-up one machine on a network that could serve
as a fax server with email notification of fax arrivals. Neat!

* The new Apple Font Book app is simple but looks effective.

* Playing QT movies via Safari from Apple's site evidenced some audio
problems. Occasional bursts of what sounded like feedback and what
appeared to be some visual artifacting on some QT enabled pages. Might
have been related to setting and peripherals on this box.

* The Finder sports an overall new look. Subtle but to my mind less
cluttered looking and cleaner.

* Integrated language sets and keyboard mappings appear much more
polished and complete. Panther appears to be more world-ready.

* Cannot comment on the File Vault as time did not permit.

* Fast user switching is fast and has some neat tricks.

* Print to PDF now provides a suggested title instead of ``.pdf'' --
thank goodness for that!

* Did not get a chance to examine networking changes, improvements,
problems, but here's to hoping some still extant Jag issues are
resolved or will be.

More but that's all I have time for now.

Executive summary:

Will Panther be worth the upgrade cost? I wouldn't call it a paradigm
shift to get back labels and auto starts and shut downs, and overall it
did not blow me away. Still it's pre-release, has a worthwhile
collection of new features -- I think the faxing element, if it works
as intended, is going to delight a lot of folks -- and I came away
mostly liking what I saw.

Overall the changes that I noted were more subtle than *I* anticipated,
but the sum is very interesting. No crashes and/or system freezes
during our ``testing''. Only question I have is why doesn't Apple make
the Panther pre-release available for ~$29.95 to allow for some more
extensive beta testing?

Will I buy Panther when finished and released? Yep, no doubt about it.
It's a cool cat even with what I might characterize as a slight dumbing
down of the Finder and an OD of the metal interface elements.

I note with some sadness that C&G is shuttering their doors today. I
suspect with some of Panthers new feature set other 3rd party
developers and projects will also wither on the vine. I guess the
price of progress is that there are some inevitable casualties. Apple
appears to be intent on subsuming many of the 3rd part apps. This is
good for Panther buyers, and probably wortwhile overall, still, it does
make me a little wistful.

--
-John Steinberg
email: not@thistime.invalid

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Tom Harrington wrote:

I discussed this with some other developers at WWDC. We weren't sure
there was enough there to make people want to spend what experience
suggests will be $129.

At this stage of development, and with what *I* know, I suspect the
whine and cheese crowd are going to make this an even tougher sale than
Jaguar. The state of the economy, the anticipation of the 64-bit ready
OS X, may also weigh heavily on the Mac consumers thinking.

I'm a junkie, so there's no chance I'll pass, but I tend to agree with
your above assessment even absent other factors.

However, I have reason to think there will be a number of interesting
and innovative new applications, from Apple and others, that will
require Panther in order to work. That may be enough to pull people
along. More I cannot say. :-)

You little Mac-tease. I hate you! <g>

--
-John Steinberg
email: not@thistime.invalid

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <tph-A95461.09542703072003@localhost>,
Tom Harrington <tph@pcisys.no.spam.dammit.net> wrote:

In article <030720030829442054%seesig@bottom.invalid>,
John Steinberg <seesig@bottom.invalid> wrote:

Will Panther be worth the upgrade cost? I wouldn't call it a paradigm
shift to get back labels and auto starts and shut downs, and overall it
did not blow me away. Still it's pre-release, has a worthwhile
collection of new features -- I think the faxing element, if it works
as intended, is going to delight a lot of folks -- and I came away
mostly liking what I saw.

I discussed this with some other developers at WWDC. We weren't sure
there was enough there to make people want to spend what experience
suggests will be $129.

However, I have reason to think there will be a number of interesting
and innovative new applications, from Apple and others, that will
require Panther in order to work. That may be enough to pull people
along. More I cannot say. :-)

By then we will be to "Lepoard", "Lion", "Ocelot" etc and G-6 chips and
128 bit computers.

There is no end to this. A new OS every six months at 130.00 and need a
new machine to realize all the "benefits"!

If what you have works for you, keep it. Being able to have iMovie3 and
all its problems is not worth the effort nor cash.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <3f04d53e$0$1096$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net>,
seebs@plethora.net (Seebs) wrote:

3. "need a new machine to realize all the benefits": The alternative is
to never upgrade the hardware, isn't it?

No, the alternative is to have many benefits quite usable on hardware one or two years old.

Which benefits of Jaguar am I missing on my three-year-old dual 450 G4? Quartz Extreme? I could buy an upgraded video card if I really wanted
that.

--
Larry Fransson
Aviation software for Mac OS X!
http://www.subcritical.com
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <3f05bbb6$0$96347$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net>, seebs@plethora.net (Seebs)
wrote:

In article <be3ehm$p9sd$2@ID-151657.news.dfncis.de>,
Thom White <thom@softhome.net> wrote:

Seebs wrote:

It's just like Windows, only the upgrades are $130 instead of $99.

And you don't think that OS X is $31 better than Windows.

This comparison is entirely confused, and does not address the relevant issues.

A more informative comparison would be to compare, say, a machine running Windows 98 to a machine running Windows XP, and then compare a machine running
OS X 10.1 to a machine running OS X 10.2. Are the changes between sub-versions of OS X as major?

Going from Windows 95 to Windows 98 for $99 made a HUGE difference in the stability of the machine. It provided USB support. It did lots of things. The computer was unequivocally $99 better.

Going from OS X 10.1 to OS X 10.2 provided me with the ability to use
custom
paper sizes, only they don't actually work, and made it impossible to get useful kernel panic messages, because the kernel panic stuff is no longer displayed, and you can't tell the machine to display it, and my machine doesn't *have* a reset button, so it gets power cycled and the message is lost. They also fixed a very annoying bug in the rendering of monospaced fonts. Whatever else has changed isn't affecting me much, but it's certainly
not an upgrade of the sort that 95-98 was, or that 98-XP was.

The *UPGRADE* is not better.

If one were to buy OS's for standard hardware, and we were to grant the
$200
full-version Windows price as a "reasonable" price, then I would happily grant
that OS X would probably be worth close to the $500 or so more that I currently pay for reasonably-comparable hardware.

Note the real point of the comparison: If you had to buy a full version of Windows every time you wanted to upgrade, it would be much harder to justify.
However, they always have upgrades from previous versions.

Note also that the big upgrades were '95, '98, and XP (which was around 2002).
Even if we include ME (in 2000), Windows is coming out with a new version every two years. So, even if we *DO* pay full price for new versions,
we're
spending $200 on Windows and $260 on MacOS... and Microsoft actually offers upgrade pricing.

Apple's currently closer to a subscription-based OS than Microsoft is, although Microsoft may make the leap to full subscription-based service sooner than Apple will.

The test of the value is whether (and how many, how often) people will pay for it. I know
I will, and I'm a tightwad.

You have to pay me to use Windows, however (and I am paid to do that), and Wintel
"upgrades" won't ever come from my own pocket.

Rog
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <email-FA6F7E.17064004072003@news.mindspring.com>, Roger <email@domain.com> wrote:

The test of the value is whether (and how many, how often) people will pay for it. I know
I will, and I'm a tightwad.

You have to pay me to use Windows, however (and I am paid to do that), and Wintel
"upgrades" won't ever come from my own pocket.

By your own definition, however, Windows is far far more "valuable"
than OS X. And if flies participated in the money economy, just think
how "valuable" shit would be!
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

I'd like to know if the Panther interface really gets rid of the desktop
as it appears to do on the Apple site. It looks like a Windows Explorer window - surely that's not what we're going to have to use?

I've been sprinkling documents, aliases, applications, etc. around on my desktops since 1985 and would like to continue to do so. This is a particularly useful thing to do with two monitors and if I can't do that,
I'm going to be with OS X for a long, long time.

--
Hal http://www.tude.com/
Looking for strong opinion pieces,
"Got Tude?" T-shirt honorarium if accepted
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <20030705075350397-0700@news.charter.net>, <can@spam.com>
wrote:

I'd like to know if the Panther interface really gets rid of the desktop
as it appears to do on the Apple site. It looks like a Windows Explorer window - surely that's not what we're going to have to use?

The desktop is still there. Indeed, one of the advantages of the new
"exposé" feature is that it makes the desktop easier to use by hiding
all windows.

I've been sprinkling documents, aliases, applications, etc. around on my desktops since 1985 and would like to continue to do so. This is a particularly useful thing to do with two monitors and if I can't do that, I'm going to be with OS X for a long, long time.

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

David J Richardson <davidj@richardson.name> wrote:

You don't *have* to use anything. Click the clear button, and it's
(pretty much) System 7-9.

I like the new Finder a lot.

Dynamic network browsing seems a bit buggered to me at the moment.
Sometimes it works, most times it doesn't. Ho hum, work in progress.

Jim
--
jim@magrathea.plus.com AIM/iChat:JCAndrew2 GreyArea@mac.com
"We deal in the moral equivalent of black holes, where the normal
laws of right and wrong break down; beyond those metaphysical
event horizons there exist ... special circumstances" - Use Of Weapons
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <3f05bbb6$0$96347$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net>,
seebs@plethora.net (Seebs) wrote:

In article <be3ehm$p9sd$2@ID-151657.news.dfncis.de>,
Thom White <thom@softhome.net> wrote:

Seebs wrote:

It's just like Windows, only the upgrades are $130 instead of $99.

And you don't think that OS X is $31 better than Windows.

This comparison is entirely confused, and does not address the relevant issues.

A more informative comparison would be to compare, say, a machine running Windows 98 to a machine running Windows XP, and then compare a machine running
OS X 10.1 to a machine running OS X 10.2. Are the changes between sub-versions of OS X as major?

Going from Windows 95 to Windows 98 for $99 made a HUGE difference in the stability of the machine. It provided USB support. It did lots of things. The computer was unequivocally $99 better.

Microsoft's releases are less frequent. You can achieve the same thing
on the Mac by just purchasing every third release.

[snip]

Note also that the big upgrades were '95, '98, and XP (which was around 2002).
Even if we include ME (in 2000), Windows is coming out with a new version every two years. So, even if we *DO* pay full price for new versions, we're spending $200 on Windows and $260 on MacOS... and Microsoft actually offers upgrade pricing.

This "upgrade pricing" thing drives me nuts. $130 is not full price for
Mac OS. Do you really think Apple's full price for OS X would be lower
than Microsoft's full price for XP Home, despite the fact that Microsoft
has 20 times the volume, and the OS X's feature set is closer to XP
Pro's?

It's true that Apple doesn't make you jump through silly hoops like
inserting old CDs, but that's only because it isn't necessary -- when
you buy a Mac, you pay for a non-upgrade version of Mac OS as part of
its purchase price. And though there's no way to know for sure, I bet it
costs you more than $130.

Apple's currently closer to a subscription-based OS than Microsoft is, although Microsoft may make the leap to full subscription-based service sooner than Apple will.

--
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just
because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
-- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. on May 19, 2003 --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

05 Jul 2003 02:50 PM jemmy ducks wrote:

Indeed, one of the advantages of the new
"exposé" feature is that it makes the desktop easier to use by hiding
all windows.

Is that similar to the ASM thing I'm using in OS X? http://www.vercruesse.de/software

I have it set to "single application mode" so that only one application
is visible at a time. When I click on the desktop, the application disappears, too, and all I see is the desktop. It can also be set to a "Classic window mode".

--
Hal http://www.tude.com/
Looking for strong opinion pieces,
"Got Tude?" T-shirt honorarium if accepted
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <20030706101230693-0700@news.charter.net>, <surf@ctant>
wrote:

Is that similar to the ASM thing I'm using in OS X?

Not really. Expose is not an app switcher. It's a "window manager". See
http://www.apple.com/macosx/panther/expose.html
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 11:21:48 -0400, ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:

In article <3f05bbb6$0$96347$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net>,
seebs@plethora.net (Seebs) wrote:

In article <be3ehm$p9sd$2@ID-151657.news.dfncis.de>,
Thom White <thom@softhome.net> wrote:

Seebs wrote:

It's just like Windows, only the upgrades are $130 instead of $99.

And you don't think that OS X is $31 better than Windows.

This comparison is entirely confused, and does not address the relevant
issues.

A more informative comparison would be to compare, say, a machine running
Windows 98 to a machine running Windows XP, and then compare a machine running
OS X 10.1 to a machine running OS X 10.2. Are the changes between
sub-versions of OS X as major?

Going from Windows 95 to Windows 98 for $99 made a HUGE difference in the
stability of the machine. It provided USB support. It did lots of things. >> The computer was unequivocally $99 better.

Microsoft's releases are less frequent. You can achieve the same thing
on the Mac by just purchasing every third release.

...except you lose software support by not buying Apple's latest
releases. I can still run Office XP on WinNT 4 from 1996. Many of
Apple's products, even just today, *require* 10.2.

[snip]

Note also that the big upgrades were '95, '98, and XP (which was around 2002).
Even if we include ME (in 2000), Windows is coming out with a new version
every two years. So, even if we *DO* pay full price for new versions, we're >> spending $200 on Windows and $260 on MacOS... and Microsoft actually offers >> upgrade pricing.

This "upgrade pricing" thing drives me nuts. $130 is not full price for
Mac OS. Do you really think Apple's full price for OS X would be lower
than Microsoft's full price for XP Home, despite the fact that Microsoft
has 20 times the volume, and the OS X's feature set is closer to XP
Pro's?

It's true that Apple doesn't make you jump through silly hoops like >inserting old CDs, but that's only because it isn't necessary -- when
you buy a Mac, you pay for a non-upgrade version of Mac OS as part of
its purchase price. And though there's no way to know for sure, I bet it >costs you more than $130.

Apple's currently closer to a subscription-based OS than Microsoft is,
although Microsoft may make the leap to full subscription-based service
sooner than Apple will.

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <030720030829442054%seesig@bottom.invalid>,
John Steinberg <seesig@bottom.invalid> wrote:

Will Panther be worth the upgrade cost? I wouldn't call it a paradigm
shift to get back labels and auto starts and shut downs, and overall it
did not blow me away. Still it's pre-release, has a worthwhile
collection of new features -- I think the faxing element, if it works
as intended, is going to delight a lot of folks -- and I came away
mostly liking what I saw.

Exposé is really nice and the multiple GUI users might have some
interesting implications, but Panther needs a lot more new functionality before it gets close to being worth $130 over an existing Jaguar
installation.

--
...Paul McGrane
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <pmcgrane-3C1AD9.00593007072003@news.comcast.giganews.com>,
Paul McGrane <pmcgrane@mac.com.NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:

In article <030720030829442054%seesig@bottom.invalid>,
John Steinberg <seesig@bottom.invalid> wrote:

Will Panther be worth the upgrade cost? I wouldn't call it a paradigm
shift to get back labels and auto starts and shut downs, and overall it
did not blow me away. Still it's pre-release, has a worthwhile
collection of new features -- I think the faxing element, if it works
as intended, is going to delight a lot of folks -- and I came away
mostly liking what I saw.

Exposé is really nice and the multiple GUI users might have some
interesting implications, but Panther needs a lot more new functionality >before it gets close to being worth $130 over an existing Jaguar >installation.

And as I asked in another thread, how buggy is it going to be? Is it
going to be like the previous versions where key features aren't working before Panther obsolete and unsupported? For $130 I expect it to be
more than new eye candy and the reappearance of long lost OS 9 features.
I want speed, I want common tasks to work as expected, and I want the
bloat trimmed so VM isn't thrashing on every mouse click.

The only feature I'm really looking forward to is the new development environment. For every day tasks, I imagine Panther will be just like
Jaguar.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <1fxoe3k.16ibgbqy2lfnkN%jim@magrathea.plus.com>,
jim@magrathea.plus.com (Jim) wrote:

I like the new Finder a lot.

Dynamic network browsing seems a bit buggered to me at the moment.
Sometimes it works, most times it doesn't. Ho hum, work in progress.

Hmm, maybe I should re-phrase my statement to "I like the new(ish)
Finder a lot (more)". Buggy (but I'm sure that will be fixed before
release) and still not very multi-threaded (not so sure!)

--
David J Richardson -- davidj@richardson.name
http://davidj.richardson.name/ -- Dr Who articles/interviews/reviews http://www.boomerang.org.au/ -- Boomerang Association of Australia
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

06 Jul 2003 02:38 PM jemmy ducks wrote:

In article <20030706101230693-0700@news.charter.net>, <surf@ctant>
wrote:

Is that similar to the ASM thing I'm using in OS X?

Not really. Expose is not an app switcher. It's a "window manager".
See http://www.apple.com/macosx/panther/expose.html

Checked it out, and I can already tile all my PhotoShop windows in
PhotoShop. Expose "fades" the other windows, but with ASM they don't
need to be faded as they're already invisible.

The page also says:

"Type the F9 key, and Exposé instantly tiles all of your open windows ?
scales them down and neatly arranges them, so you can see what?s in
every single one. ... When you find the window you need, just click on
it. Magically, every window will return to full size ... Impressed?"

And I'm not impressed at all.

Using the ASM application switcher, if I want to find a window an open
it (magically) at full size, I just click on the application name in the toolbar. In the meantime, the other applications and windows don't
clutter things up in the first place.

I'm afraid that in spite of the copywriter's hype, Expose hardly rises
to the level of sliced bread.

And it's certainly not compelling in any way.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 12:18:54 -0400, surf@ctant wrote
(in message <20030707091853811-0700@news.charter.net>):

I'm afraid that in spite of the copywriter's hype, Expose hardly rises
to the level of sliced bread.

And it's certainly not compelling in any way.

Every user interface has its fans.

For example, I was never a fan of the application switching menu from
the days of OS 9. So to me ASM has zero value. In the OS 9 days I had a launcher/switcher at the bottom left of the screen to do these things
and now it was simply replaced with the Dock and I couldn't be happier.

On the other hand, due to the way that I work (lots of windows open at
the same time and heavy use of drag and drop between windows), Expose is
a marvelous way to work and I AM impressed.

Every interface change/development has benefits for some people and
drawbacks for others.

Personally, I find the new Finder to be an excellent thing. It's as if
the designers asked on how I would do it and set out to implement my
ideas. I'm really looking forward to using it.

I'm sure that some people already hate the new Finder and will not find anything good to say about the new Open/Save dialogue boxes; I find the improvement great and I couldn't be happier.

--
J Brady

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

07 Jul 2003 12:02 PM Jonathan Brady wrote:

For example, I was never a fan of the application switching menu from
the days of OS 9.

All minority viewpoints welcomed :-)
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

David J Richardson <davidj@richardson.name> wrote:

Dynamic network browsing seems a bit buggered to me at the moment. Sometimes it works, most times it doesn't. Ho hum, work in progress.

Hmm, maybe I should re-phrase my statement to "I like the new(ish)
Finder a lot (more)". Buggy (but I'm sure that will be fixed before
release) and still not very multi-threaded (not so sure!)

But that doesn't roll off the tongue as well :-)

Jim
--
jim@magrathea.plus.com AIM/iChat:JCAndrew2 GreyArea@mac.com
"We deal in the moral equivalent of black holes, where the normal
laws of right and wrong break down; beyond those metaphysical
event horizons there exist ... special circumstances" - Use Of Weapons
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <0001HW.BB2F3BF100562E58F0386600@enews.newsguy.com>,
Jonathan Brady <jbrady@removethisspamkiller.myfmail.com> wrote:

On the other hand, due to the way that I work (lots of windows open at
the same time and heavy use of drag and drop between windows), Expose is
a marvelous way to work and I AM impressed.

Unfortunately when there are many open windows, Expose shrinks them to
whatever size will fit them all on the screen, which makes drag and
drop between them almost impossible since you can't read file names.

Stan
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 20:24:06 -0400, Stan The Man wrote
(in message <080720030024063534%macho@mac.com>):

Unfortunately when there are many open windows, Expose shrinks them to whatever size will fit them all on the screen, which makes drag and
drop between them almost impossible since you can't read file names.

Have you actually seen it in action?

--
J Brady

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <0001HW.BB2F3BF100562E58F0386600@enews.newsguy.com>,
Jonathan Brady <jbrady@removethisspamkiller.myfmail.com> wrote:

I'm sure that some people already hate the new Finder and will not find anything good to say about the new Open/Save dialogue boxes; I find the improvement great and I couldn't be happier.

The new open/save dialog is wonderful. IMO, the worst thing about
Jaguar is the open/save dialog.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In <070720032101417996%jd@invalid.invalid>, jemmy ducks wrote:

In article <080720030024063534%macho@mac.com>, Stan The Man
<macho@mac.com> wrote:

Unfortunately when there are many open windows, Expose shrinks them to
whatever size will fit them all on the screen, which makes drag and
drop between them almost impossible since you can't read file names.

When you mouse over a window that has been reduced its name appears in
large type.

A brief poke at the WWDC preview suggests that drag-and-drop doesn't
work in the F9 Expose view. Which is fair enough -- it's a way to
select a window to bring to the foreground, not a fully-functioning
desktop.

However, it does appear to be fully functional with just the keyboard,
which is nice, and performance seems quite usable on an 867MHz G4 --
so while it may not be great on a first-rev iMac, it won't need a shiny
new G5 either.

Matt
(can Expose be controlled by Applescript, and thus allow an iTunes
visualizer where it swaps modes based on beats in music?)

--
More than a mere hindrance. It's a whole new barrier!
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

jemmy ducks <jd@invalid.invalid> writes:

The new open/save dialog is wonderful. IMO, the worst thing about
Jaguar is the open/save dialog.

I'm not sure it's the _worst_, though I'm hard pressed to
come up with other things which are worse (maybe the lack
of the ability to switch users without logging out - but,
then, that's fixed in Panther, too). But the open/save
dialog boxes have been horrendous.

--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:48:46 GMT, Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net>
wrote:

foo wrote:

...except you lose software support by not buying Apple's latest
releases. I can still run Office XP on WinNT 4 from 1996. Many of
Apple's products, even just today, *require* 10.2.

Right, sure. Good luck with IE 7.

Kinda like Safari - won't run in OS X 10.1 or earlier - folks who want
to use it must buy 10.2. Thanks for proving my point - MS allows NT4
users (from 1996) to continue to use the latest currently available
web browser (IE6) with just a simple download. Apple won't even allow
people using an OS it shipped in 2002 (10.1) to work with Safari....

A *big* difference in the support model there!
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113