mac.column.ted: Tiger and the (r)evolution of Mac OS X
[Posted July 6th]
Ted Landau
July 2004
This another two-topic column. The first part covers some thoughts on Apple's preview of Tiger, the next update to Mac OS X, and other WWDC announcements. The second part deals with my personal experience with the darker side of Amazon.
Tiger and the (r)evolution of Mac OS X
When Steve Jobs announced (at the WWDC Keynote last week) that the next version of Mac OS X (code-named Tiger) would not be out until "the first half of 2005," I breathed a sigh of relief. I was relieved that I would not need to immediately start work on updating my Mac OS X book (having just finished the current edition). As Apple had previously indicated, it was indeed slowing down its frenetic pace of annual major upgrades to the OS.
Still, it was great to have a chance to see what's coming around the bend. And I welcomed the chance to see which changes may specifically affect the troubleshooting issues that remain the focus of much of my writing. In this regard, it's admittedly hard to make accurate generalizations as yet. Apple has only revealed about a dozen of the more than 150 promised new features. Plus, there are certain to be numerous "under the hood" changes that, while potentially significant for troubleshooting, will not be included in the 150 list that Apple provides.
But on the assumption that the preview provides a look at the most noteworthy of Tiger's new features, and that these features are typical of the general "tone" of the upgrade, Tiger shapes up to be more of an OS evolution than a revolution. Actually, based on a comparison of new features in Tiger vs. Microsoft's forthcoming Longhorn, as well as on the Tiger banners on display at the WWDC (e.g., "Welcome to Longhorn"), out-Longhorning Redmond appears to be one of the primary goals of what's new in Tiger. I don't mean any of this as criticism; in fact, I welcome it. But it does represent a shift from the nature of previous Mac OS X upgrades.
In Panther, changes were more of the "let's tear down this building and start over" variety than the "let's add on an addition or do some remodeling" variety. For starters, there was the redesign of Finder windows (with the new sidebar, Action menu, and "brushed metal" appearance). In addition, Panther featured new Open and Save dialogs, a new Network Browser, Fast User Switching, the ability to install and remove fonts via the new Font Book utility, FileVault, Exposé, journaling, desktop printers, and much more. It seemed that no aspect of the OS was too big or too small for Apple to bypass when it came to making changes in Panther.
Such a major overhaul is understandable, even expected, when an OS is young and Apple is still trying to figure out the best way to handle tasks. As an OS matures, however, it is reasonable to expect a lesser degree of change with each upgrade, especially in the core features of the OS. To paraphrase an old saying, once you get it right, you don't need to keep fixing it.
Tiger appears to be the first version of Mac OS X that has achieved this level of maturity. For example, although features such as H.264/AVC compression and Core Image will improve image quality and flexibility, they will not have an immediate impact on a user's perception of what has changed in the OS. Similarly, RSS support in Safari and audio-video conferencing support in iChat AV, while significantly enhancing these applications, will have little effect on the overall working of the OS itself. In general, it appears that there will be less need to "unlearn" what you already know when you move up to Tiger than was the case when you moved up to Panther.
How changes in Tiger will specifically affect troubleshooting is more difficult to assess.
For example, Apple may move or rename a cache file that is critical for solving certain problems. This will require updating the instructions for how you solve these problems. Such a change is typically considered so minor that Apple often does not even mention it, even after the upgrade is released.
Still, Steve did provide a few hints about what Tiger may hold in store for troubleshooters. For one thing, you can expect that Tiger's "enhanced Unix support" will impact how you troubleshoot Mac OS X. For starters, the addition of Access Control Lists (ACLs) means that you will be able to assign separate permissions to a file for each local user, rather than being limited to the single group assignment that Panther allows. Expect to see changes to the Ownership & Permissions section of the Finder's Get Info windows to accommodate ACLs. While this may mean that a Unix neophyte will find it more difficult to learn how to manipulate permissions, ACL lists should make it easier overall to solve permissions-related hassles.
Automator is another component of Tiger that should have a significant effect on troubleshooting. By providing AppleScript-like functionality via a visual layout that can easily be mastered by users who do not wish to learn a full scripting language, many more users will now be able to create their own scripts (referred to as "Automator Workflows"). Whenever automating a repetitive task would save time, Automator will be the first place to turn.
Spotlight, Tiger's enhanced search architecture, is the feature that I expect will most alter troubleshooting Mac OS X. This promises to be the preferred and most powerful way to locate difficult-to-find files on your drive. Popular third-party search alternatives, such as Locator and LaunchBar, will still have a role (especially for system files and hidden Unix directories), but it will be a lessened one.
Speaking of Tiger's effect on third-party utilities, the most controversial feature of Tiger is Dashboard. It is essentially an Apple-implementation of Konfabulator. This represents the second time in recent years that Apple has co-opted a popular shareware program (the previous occasion was when Sherlock adopted features first seen in Watson) without even a nod of credit to the developer. While there is nothing illegal about what Apple has done, it is not the way to reward the small third-party developers that Apple claims to court (as when Steve brought the developer of the Orbit satellite tracking application to the stage during the WWDC keynote).
That issue aside, Tiger promises to be a worthy successor to Panther. In the WWDC keynote, Steve Jobs reported that approximately half of the Mac installed base was already using Panther! This is a very, very impressive rate of adoption. Users may not find the need to move up to Tiger as compelling as it was for Panther, but I expect that most Panther users will have made the shift to Tiger before 2005 draws to a close.
Apple 30" Cinema HD. The other big announcement at the WWDC was Apple's new line of displays -- especially the huge 30" Cinema HD. While it was hard not to be impressed with the jaw-dropping massiveness of the unit, I am not eager to get one (even if I could afford it). I currently own a 23" Cinema HD and, although there are many times that I have made good use of its generous real estate, its size is already almost too big. It took some time to get used to having something that big staring me right in the face. Just keeping the entire screen in my field of view requires more constant motion of my head and eyes than is the case for smaller displays. I can't imagine having to deal with a 30" unit. Plus, with the additional cost of the NVIDIA graphics card required for the 30" display, you could get two 23" displays for about the same price as one 30" unit. I am sure there are some professionals (maybe those who work on putting movies together) who will still want the 30" monster. But I don't see it becoming a fixture on home or office desktops -- even among those who do have the dough to buy one.
On the other hand, the new aluminum design (with the optional mount to put the display on a wall!), the addition of FireWire ports, the upgrade of the USB ports to 2.0, and the shift to an industry-standard DVI connector (although you now have to use a power brick), are all moves in the right direction -- and are featured in all three of the new displays.
The dark side of Amazon
The next part of this month's column is a bit of a rant. If that's not your cup o' tea, feel free to skip it.
When it comes to making purchases online, there is hardly any site I would rather use than Amazon.com. It has competitive prices, a wide selection of products, useful online reviews, and an easy-to-navigate user interface. Plus, they are reliable: Everything I have ever ordered at Amazon shipped when promised (or sooner) and arrived when promised (or sooner). Overall, an unqualified positive experience.
Unfortunately, dealing with Amazon from the "other side" -- having a product (in this case, a book I authored) sold on Amazon -- is an entirely different, and too often a more negative, experience.
When my latest book, Mac OS X Help Line, was first listed on Amazon, there were numerous errors in the listing, including getting the title wrong. I don't entirely blame Amazon for these errors; without boring you with the details, I will just say that the errors (which were initially also found on other book sites, not just Amazon) were partially the result of a change made to the book's title several months prior to publication. The problem was not that the errors were made. The problem was that, for the longest time, Amazon proved unwilling or incapable of fixing the errors.
As it turns out, Amazon-generated errors are hardly unique to my book. Other authors have complained about similar hassles (see Jim Heid's Web site for one example).
In my case, I first requested that the listing be fixed about two months prior to the book's publication date. My publisher (Peachpit) made similar requests and submitted corrected copy. When our requests did not produce results, we sent them again. Despite repeated attempts to get this fixed, the changes were not made until three months after our initial request (a month after the book was published!). At one point, Amazon claimed that they were in the process of fixing bugs in their software that were at the root of the problem. But even after the bugs were supposedly fixed, the errors remained. Only after I started bugging them on a daily basis did they finally reply and make the requested changes.
Even after this listing hassle was over, there was still one infuriating error related to the book that Amazon did not fix and steadfastly refused to do so. Amazon maintains Top Sellers lists for a variety of categories. For example, to see a list of Macintosh book Top Sellers, you can go to this page. If you go there, you will not find Mac OS X Help Line listed anywhere (at least it was not in the top 250 books when I just checked). However, a few weeks ago, the book was listed as #3. It stayed there for several days. Despite the fact that its sales continued to be just as high or higher (as evidenced by the book's Sales Rank), the book literally vanished from the Top Sellers list in an instant. One morning, I loaded the list and the book was there at #3; I then reloaded the page an hour or so later (yes, it's easy to become obsessed with tracking your book's ranking!), and the book was gone. Not simply lower in the list, but gone entirely! It was gone even though Amazon says the list is based on the previous 30 days' worth of sales (which should thus make a rapid large drop virtually impossible). My older books, such as Sad Macs, with obviously much lower sales ranks, could be found in the top 250. An out-of-print book was in the top 250. Books with an individual sales ranking 100 times lower than Help Line were in the top 250. But not Help Line. The only reasonable conclusion was that an error had been made in Amazon's listing software. Yet Amazon not only refused to fix this error, they refused to even admit that there might be an error. Instead, they replied with boilerplate text indicating that small discrepancies between a book's ranking and its place on Top Sellers lists is normal and does not imply a problem. When I pointed out that what happened to Help Line was not merely a small "discrepancy," they just repeated their previous reply.
I admit that I was probably wasting too much time on a relatively minor issue. But it can potentially affect sales. And it's just plain irritating to get confronted with Amazon's indifference or incompetence.
Bottom line: If you suspect that there is something wrong with a listing of a particular item on Amazon, that's probably because there is. It happens all the time.
Addendum. After completing this column, but before posting it online, Help Line suddenly reappeared on the Top Sellers list (debuting at #6 as I write this). Amazon never acknowledged that the book's prior absence was due to any error, but at least the problem got fixed -- assuming that the book does not vanish from the list again tomorrow. I decided to run my original text despite this latest development, as the description of Amazon's behavior remains valid.
Bonus topic: The iMac situation
I could not close out this month's column without a brief mention of an event without precedent in Apple's history. Apple has announced, on the iMac page of the Apple Store, that it has stopped taking orders for the the current iMac as they transition to a new iMac line in September. Apple's stated reason for this more than two month gap between the end of one iMac line and the introduction of another is: "less than perfect" planning. I'll say. This is certain to have a negative impact on Apple's sales for the current quarter. As far as I can recall, this is also the first time that Apple has announced a hardware product months in advance without giving even the slightest hint as to what the product's specs will be. We can only hope that that the new iMac will be so spectacular as to erase all memory of this marketing bungle.
This is the latest in a series of monthly mac.column.ted articles by Ted Landau. To see a list of previous columns, click here. To send comments regarding this column directly to Ted, click here.
Resources
evolution%20of%20Mac%20OS%20X%20%7C%20MacFixIt%20-%20CNET%20Reviews&srcUrl=http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13727_7-10333074-263.html){kind=small}
First, read this:
http://daringfireball.net/2004/06/dashboard_vs_konfabulator
Then read this:
http://daringfireball.net/2004/07/konfab_confab
I agree with the Daring Fireball comments - up to a point. In fact, while I was
sitting in the audience of the keynote, I leaned over to the person next to me
during the description of Dashboard and said, a bit facetiously, "Mac OS X re-
introduces desk accessories from System 1.0."
I was also careful in my column not to say that Apple "ripped off"
Konfabulator - or that Apple should have felt obliged to buy the rights to
Konfabulator. What Apple did was on the "up-and-up" - legally and ethically
- and it need do no more.
That said, I still feel that what Apple did is a big dis-incentive to the
independent third party developers that Apple purports to what to encourage.
It says: "if you come up with a great idea and make it a success, we may just
do our own version of it and put you out of business." I think Apple should
have rewarded Konfabulator in some way, even non-monetarily, so as to
prevent this impression. I mean, even though Dashboard is similar in concept
to Desk Accessories, it does not mean that Apple would have thought of
doing Dashboard if Konfabulator had not been around. I understand that
what I am suggesting may be complicated from a legal point of view (i.e, how
to give credit without saying you are legally obligated to give credit), but I
would have liked to see Apple give it a try.
You may want to check out http://www.xpthemes.com/forums.asp?MID=19&CMID=19&AID=4472
Konfabulator for windows, before there was a konfabulator :)
If the developers of Konfabulator had done more than port the app to mac, then I'd feel a lot more for them. As it is, they ported it to Mac, and seemingly don't give any credit to DesktopX, seems they're getting what they gave. Note, I say seemingly, as I've not seen them give credit, if they have then alright, I just haven't seen it yet.
I don't see how Apple owed any compensation whatsoever to the
Konfabulator developers. As the Daring Fireball article pointed out, 1) the
idea is not new, so Apple owes nothing to the Konfab developers for that.
However, on top of that, the implementation of Konfabulator was such that it
was nothing of value for Apple, and Dashboard is a completely different
implementation of a similar concept. Again, according to the Daring Fireball
article, the memory overhead for many of the Konfabulator widgets is more
than a small-ish Mac OS X application! If you want to have multiple widgets
active as in Dashboard, you'd have to use up a bunch of memory!
As such, I don't see why Apple even owes a nod to the Konfab developers.
They evolved the desk accessory idea in a natural way and implemented it in
a aesthetically pleasing way, much as Apple would have done it. That Apple
decided to evolve the same idea in a similar manner (even though the
implementation seems to be very different, and then there's the CRITICAL
difference of Dashboard widgets NOT being present all the time) is
inconsequential.
The same goes for Watson/Sherlock 3, and LiteSwitch X/Panther. The
LiteSwitch thing really infuriates me, though, because it's such an OBVIOUS
feature that it's ridiculous to claim that Apple produced a "near-pixel"
duplication of LiteSwitch X. It's like saying that a gardener "stole" someone
else's invention in botany simply because two flowers look similar and
because they have similar growth cycles.
To "co-opt", as defined by dictionary.com, is "[t]o take or assume for one's
own use". So I'd still say that the wording in your Tiger article is loaded -- it
still implies that Apple did something wrong. On the contrary, Apple did not
take or assume the idea for their own use, they simply used an idea they had
previously developed!
No one, certainly not me, is saying that Apple implemented Dashboard in the
same way, from a code perspective, as Konfabulator. The differences in the
amount of resources the two programs use as well as differences in how
"widgets" are written - is all relevant and important.
But to me, it also misses an important point. I believe that Apple, as the
"mother ship," needs to be especially sensitive about producing a product
that, even if just from a "look and feel" perspective, clearly means it is likely
putting a competing product out of business. Especially so if the product is a
relatively unique program that has carved out a new niche for itself in the Mac
OS X world. And especially so if it appears that the idea for Apple's product is
based on Apple taking notice of the competitor and imitating it in some
sense. And especially so if the competitor is a small
independent developer.
Beyond that, I certainly concede there is room for legitimate differences of
opinion on this matter. Given that my comments on this matter in the article
were all in one paragraph and hardly the main point of the piece - and yet
generated the majority of replies - I am almost sorry I even brought it up. Oh
well. :)
- Ted
On another note, the Daring Fireball article reminded me of a third example
of this "controversy" - that I had forgotten: Apple's implementation of a
"LiteSwitch"-like feature in Panther.
Again, I see no problem with Apple doing this. Indeed, LiteSwitch already had
several competitors among other shareware developers (although their
interface was not a similar as Apple's). Still, as a developer, I
would find these trio of examples discouraging.
I do recall that Apple hired the author of SoundJam to work on iTunes -
although I was unaware that a similar offer had been made to the author of
Watson. This would certainly be the sort of thing that would be a sufficient
response from Apple, at least in my view.
- Ted
Ted, I agree with you completely and that is more or less how I argued for Konfabulator. The Watson developer was offered a job to work for Sherlock 3 but he declined because he was not alone to develop Watson and he didn't think it was right compensation for Watson as usually you get paid for work you perform and not for work you have done before you got the job. The Konfabulator team was not contacted by Apple in any way before the WWDC keynote and probably not afterwards either at least that is what I have read from all the articles about the konfabulor vs. dashboard.
//Rob
It seems to be forgotten that Watson, with all of it's improvements, was a rip-
off of Sherlock itself. After all, Apple could have told him to stop producing it,
but didn't.
When a company follows Apple's interface guidelines, and then adds
somewhat obvious features, should Apple not then be allowed to use their
own guidelines to add the same obvious features, even if it does then look
like the other product?
It's a chicken and the egg problem. He didn't refuse the job because there
were other authors. He was the principal author. He refused because he
considered the offer insufficient. He wanted to be bought out, as SoundJam
was. Perhaps then he would have accepted the job. Perhaps that was asking
too much for an idea that was based on Apple's in the first place.
I think that Apple gave him a nod by offering the job. They essentially said
that they acknowledged his good work in improving THEIR program, and
wanted him there to continue that work. Not so bad, esp. when you consider
the current position the founder of SoundJam has with Apple now.
With Konfabulator (Kf), the situation is somewhat different. Kf does NOT
follow Apple's guidelines in any way that I can see. It clutters up the screen,
uses a lot of real and virtual memory, and uses lots of resources when
running. None of this is Apple's way. I have several small programs that
individually do what Kf does that work much better.
Again, it's back to Apple's ideas. Perhaps Apple deliberately put them on
notice when they came out with the garish gadgets in Dashboard. Apple has
put a good deal more thought into Dashboard than was put into Kf. It's a
much better product in every way. and might have been in development for
some time.
Apple has stepped on the toes of a very few developers over the years. With
everyone clamoring for Apple to add this or that it will happen at times.
These are not those times.
is a wonderful idea to increase this capability, it is also clearly aimed at
increasing .mac revenue. That's also a great thing because it provides another
healthy revenue stream for Apple. A healthy apple = more development.
However, they wil obviously need to re-examine certain features of this with
the proliferation of inexpensive/free large storage email sites. They need to
increase the quality of Backup -- things such as allowing backups of multiple
computers. Services such as spymac's wheel, which provides some (but not
all) of the features of .mac certainly cause one to pause when shelling out
$99.
Anyway...I hope that Apple provides more value in the future.....
that the free/shareware that provided them became ubiquitous. (by this
argument, i'm kind of surprised, thinking back, that Eyeballs and Oscar the
Grouch didn't get added!) i did not follow tech news as closely back then, but
i don't know if Apple acknowledged in any way the creators of SuperClock
and BeHierarchic other than the fact that those features became part of the
OS.
i have only heard of Konfabulator, not ever seen or used it. However, i
investigated the preview of Dashboard, and i want it *now* for Panther. ! i
hate having to hunt up the Calculator every time i want to tot something up
quickly, and have it obscure the figures i'm trying to play with, having to
move it around the display so i can see under it . . . and having to open either
AW or TextEdit when i just want to take a quick note to remember something.
i can see Dashboard becoming used as automatically as Exposé has become
for me.
i've never been tempted by Konfabulator, like i've not been tempted by the
various utilities that allow one to muck about with the appearance (cursors,
etc.): i don't want anything extra confusing the system. Perhaps that's a left-
over from OS6, 7, 8, & 9, especially the first two, when folks were discovering
the fun of the Mac and 'skinning' utilities abounded. There were plenty of
times when crashes and other problems were solved simply by removing said
utilities. i'm trying to remember the name(s) of the popular one(s) now, and
can't -- ah. Kaleidescope.
i would much rather wait until Apple sees fit to include such flexibility native
to the OS. More stable that way.
That was version 7.5 of the "System," IIRC. That was known at the time as the
"shareware OS." Besides SuperClock, there were other apps, like Antler Notes
(aka Stickies), that ended up in the OS proper.
SuperClock was charity-ware, with the author not getting a dime from that
app. Even so, Apple did buy rights to the source code just to help pull it from
circulation online. As for BeHierarchic, Apple bought a
commerical implementation of the utility called "HAM." Most critics thought
this odd, since HAM was inferior to BH in many ways, but I think Apple was
more comfortable dealing with a commercial entity than a shareware
developer in this case.
Apple gave Superclock prominent credit in the lower left corner of the Clock Options window of the Date & Time control panel: "based on SuperClock!, by Steve Christensen". However, I'd have put it in the Date & Time control panel's main window myself.
And so much time has gone by, yet this completely wrong statement is still standing as is.
Now I'm seeing developers quoting it as fact. 12 million Panther users. Right... a heartfelt thanks from all of us that can't afford the Mac OS $$$ treadmill; now we'll have more and more updates to apps we depend on being made dependant on 10.3.x.
Actually he was saying that half of the already migrated to os x users have
upgraded to 10.3 (panther) from 10.1 and 10.2 etc.
You wrote:
> Right... a heartfelt thanks from all of us that can't afford the Mac OS $$$
treadmill; now we'll have more and more updates to apps we depend on
being made dependant on 10.3.x
And in a little while, it'll be 10.4. Then it'll be 10.4.1, and then 10.4.2... see,
it goes up numerically. As the hardware and software 'progress', so too must
the users who wish to take advantage of the new technology. No real
surprise here. Who are you angry with?
And you'd think people would be happy that the upgrades actually appear
over a reasonable period of time. But no. (And of course then there's the
group that'll complain about how long before tiger ships).
The main poster should be at least happy that he doesn't have to get on the
treadmill for another 9 months, at the earliest.
My notes, which I took while attending the Keynote, indicate that Steve said
"Twelve million OS X users use Panther. 50% of the installed base."
I agree that this did surprise me. I would have assumed that maybe it was
that 50% of all Mac OS X users had moved up to Panther, rather than 50% of
all Mac users. But that's not what my notes indicated.
Did Steve actually say something different - perhaps worded in a way that
caused me to misinterpret what was said? Yes, that's possible. I guess I would
need to go back and listen to the Keynote again to see exactly what was said.
- Ted
Okay. Thinking out loud here. My notes say "12 million Mac OS X users use
Panther" not "12 million Mac users." Is this difference significant? Maybe.
But even if 12 million is 50% of the installed Mac OS X base, that means that
24 million Mac users are using Mac OS X, with the remainder using Mac OS 9
or earlier.
If this is the correct interpretation, it is still an impressive statistic.
- Ted
Ted, here's my reasonaing... I think it fair to say that the total mac installed base to be between 22-24 million users. I'm pretty sure that the keynote (which I DID listen to) said 12 million X users, 50% of the installed base. This all sounds and seems correct.
I agree that he very cleverly wove together statements that gave this impression; but again very cleverly avoided saying "Panther" when he talked about the installed X base.
I figure 10.3 this way... in the first quarter of it's life, I'd expect the highest individual sales. According to Apple, that amounted to 600,000 copies. How many Macs with it installed shipped during that time? I believe under a million. Add in 2 million for the next 2 quarters (their second and third quarters). Add in another 800,000 for direct sales (a figure I think is way high... I'd bet if they were doing that well, they'd say so). I figure that to be around 25-30% of that X installed base. And frankly, I find that very generous.
Honestly, I find this far more "troubling" than Redmond tying things to their OS... it seems this is an extension that strategy, but tying to a specific version of the OS (witness webcore and Java).
- by John Sawyer July 7, 2004 10:23 AM PDT
- <class="merchant"><span>>></span><div class="datestamp"><i>This is a reply to a previous comment by ted1--2008</i></div></class><br />
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (23 Comments)I can see how it might be difficult to interpret what Jobs meant--at first, I was convinced the only interpretation of his statement, which Ted quotes as "Twelve million OS X users use Panther, 50% of the installed base", was that "the installed base" had to refer to OS X users, not all Mac OS users, or else Jobs would have said so, instead of qualifying it with the term "OS X users". The term "the installed base" isn't a formal dictionary term with a single meaning (even though in the past Apple has usually meant it to refer to all Mac users), so what precedes it in a sentence would tend to define what the speaker intends it to mean. But the more I read the statement, the more I see how Jobs might not have realized that there are actually two possible interpretations. The easiest way to determine what he meant would be to call Apple customer relations and ask how many OS X users, and how many Mac users total, Apple says there are, and see if the figures make sense when considering Job's statement. I don't have the time or inclination to find out how many Mac and/or OS X users Apple thinks there are, having already spent too much time trying to interpret Jobs's little conundrum statement, but I'm sure Apple would be happy to give the figures to anyone who calls them. I personally don?t care which way the figures point, though obviously the actual figures do indicate the acceptance level of OS X, but either way, the statistics are impressive.