Tiger's Finder
For the most part, Finder's appearance hasn't changed with Tiger. The Apple menu in the top left hand corner sports a new brighter blue color, as does the Spotlight button in the opposing corner. All highlight colors are now that same shade of blue, which is a nice, but a very small change.
| Mac OS X Tiger |
Mac OS X Panther |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Earlier betas did have some differences with how Finder worked, but thankfully, the decision was made to keep things relatively static from Panther to Tiger.
The biggest functional change to Finder is the support for Smart Folders. I will discuss the technology behind Smart Folders in greater depth when I talk about Tiger's Spotlight search engine, but know that Smart Folders are dynamic entities that behave as a folder would, but aren't actual folders.
A Smart Folder is essentially a pointer to the results of a search of all files on your hard drive (or whatever locations you choose). For example, I can create a Smart Folder containing all documents that will appear to have every single document on my hard drive, regardless of where I've stored it. The power of Smart Folders is huge. It effectively removes the need for you to worry about where you download and save files. There's no limit to the number of Smart Folders that you can create, and they look and work just like regular folders. If at any time you should decide that you no longer want that Smart Folder, you can delete it without affecting any of its contents; remember, a Smart Folder doesn't actually store any files, but is rather just a pointer to a search designed to look and work like a regular folder. You can also modify the rules of the Smart Folder by hitting the edit button that exists in every Smart Folder.
Although Smart Folders have been one of the least used features of Tiger for me, I think down the road, they will be very commonplace in my normal usage patterns. With the incredible searching capabilities of Tiger, many have assumed that organization is being cast aside in favor of just using a search bar for everything. However, Smart Folders are just as important as the ability to perform system-wide searches as they do improve organization.
You can also now create Burnable Folders that are folders of items that can easily be burned to a CD/DVD. You just drag whatever you want to the Folder and then hit burn to burn the files.
The Dock has a few changes in Tiger. Most notably is that now when you right-click on any item in the Dock, you have the ability to select Open at Login, which will launch the application whenever you login to Tiger. It's a nice option to be able to have those applications that you always open upon startup to be open automatically at Login (e.g. for me, that would be Mail, iChat, Adium X and Safari).
The Dock in Tiger does have one very reproducible and annoying bug if you have dock magnification enabled:
The Dock remains magnified even when our window focus is elsewhere.
If you right-click on any icon in the dock and then, instead of selecting any option from the contextual menu you instead click elsewhere, the dock will remain magnified even while your mouse is over another window. The only solution is to hover your mouse over the dock again and it will behave as normal again. It's a very annoying bug in Tiger that isn't present in Panther, but it is visible enough that hopefully, it will not take long for Apple to address it. Although not huge, there are a number of bugs in Tiger that are of the magnitude of this Dock bug.
My final complaint about the Finder in Tiger is the way deleted folders are handled if a window showing the folder's contents is still visible. For example, in Panther, if I had a folder called Useless Stuff open and I decided to delete the folder, doing so would cause the open Useless Stuff window to disappear as it had now been dragged into the Trash. In Tiger, the Useless Stuff window will still remain open, although its path will have changed as it is now in the Trash. To me, that doesn't seem particularly intuitive and it's something that does bug me a lot in Tiger.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
55 Comments
View All Comments
msva124 - Sunday, May 1, 2005 - link
>"Oh we have to support this obscure motherboard as well as this..Can you give an example?
downtowncb - Sunday, May 1, 2005 - link
I would say that Apple's software and hardware exist to further each other, not just the software selling the hardware.Apple creates hardware, and then develops software to run on it.
Apple develops software, and then creates hardware to run it.
Software is easier to write, less buggy, and faster if you know exactly which hardware it runs on. No "Oh we have to support this obscure motherboard as well as this...," etc. In that way, the software is #1 and the hardware is simply built to support it. You can sell computers without software, but Apple probably wouldn't survive if everyone had to install Linux on their machines themselves in order to do anything.
IMHO, the hardware and software support each other.
michael2k - Sunday, May 1, 2005 - link
WaltC:"While being winners in terms of Apple's short-term survival as company, Jobs' strategies have also resulted in Apple's reduction to merely a negligible status today in terms of computer market share percentages world wide. Indeed, look how much of Apple's present profit and revenue derives from the iPod, for instance, which is not a computer of any type. "
Um, you do know from 1985 until 1996 Steve Jobs had no presence at Apple? That he had his own companies, NeXT and Pixar to deal with? His strategies, if you want, were the following:
Release a simple, affordable, powerful, computer in 1984: Original Mac, which became a strong model of the computing industry for the next 21 years.
Release a powerful, modern, OS and computer in 1989: NeXTStep, which is now the foundation for Mac OS X and is now Tiger, and is AGAIN a strong model for the computer industry (Longhorn, Linux)
Create the world's most popular mp3 player, the iPod, in 2001: It's a computer in every sense of the word, with a display, input, storage, and output functionality. It's 'revolutionary' status is because it was the first, smallest, fastest, highest capacity (all at once) device, though there were smaller, with smaller capacities, or larger, with larger capacities, and none with faster upload or UI in 2001.
Again, as for why compare Longhorn to Tiger?
Because everything Longhorn WANTS to do, Tiger does.
Longhorn wants a DBFS, called WinFS, not due until next year. Tiger achieves 90% of that now, and by next year will be even better.
Longhorn wants better search, to be achieved with WinFS, not due until next year, when Tiger has Spotlight now.
Longhorn wants a 3d accelerated display layer, and is not due until next year. OS X has achieved that since 10.2 in 2002 (a small step with hardware accelerated compositing), now more fully implemented since 10.3 and 10.4 with 3d and 2d acceleration, and with even more to come by the time Tiger comes out.
Longhorn wants a 'modern' UI, which is not due until next year, where OS X has had it since 2001, with each year bringing out more usability and functionality to the UI (Dock, transparency, animation, Expose, Dashboard, etc).
Longhorn wants better security, again not due until next year, while OS X has it now, and since 2001
Longhorn wants a shell and CLI, again next year, while OS X has had it since 2001
You ask why we compare: I think it's stupid NOT to compare. Longhorn wants to be a 'next generation' OS, and it's prototype and model 'next generation' OS is available now, and has been for four years, in Mac OS X.
We're not the only ones comparing. As I said before, Allchin of Microsoft has made direct comparisons, to Microsoft's detriment.
WaltC - Sunday, May 1, 2005 - link
#25 "But what you forget is that every Mac that sells takes away a sale of a copy of Windows from MS."Conversely, every Windows PC sold, along with SUN boxes and various Linux boxes of all types, etc., takes away a Mac sale from Apple...;) Heh...;) Sort of sobering to think about it like that, isn't it? Kind of clarifies Apple's <3% world-wide market share, doesn't it?
#25 "Apple will sell more that a million more computers this year than they sold last year. That's over a million fewer copies of Windows sold. As well as less copies of windows software by MS and others. It also means more copies of MS Office for the Mac sold."
Oddly enough, again, your vision is distinctly tunnel. I would hope it is not your contention that Apple alone of all the PC makers is growing...because by your reasoning every sale they make takes an equal bite out of the Apple, doesn't it?...;) Every sale they make is not an Apple sale, is it?
#25 "It's just dumb talking about "balls". This is a business. Maybe you like to play chicken, but companies that like to stay in business don't."
Heh...;) Tell that to AMD--or any number of successful companies today...;) In 1998 almost every "analyst" alive was writing off AMD and declaring that AMD was all but finished. Intel was considered an unbeatable juggernaut. The past six years at AMD have put the lie to that sentiment convincingly, I think...;)
Launching the K7 at AMD took every bit as much balls as it did brains (after all, what good is a great idea if you lack the courage to follow it through?). AMD proved the prevailing wisdom that said Intel was unassailable dead wrong, and is living long and propsering as a result. Launching the K7 and following through with everything since that AMD has done took guts and confidence out of the yin-yang...;)
So what's the only thing stopping Apple from actually competing directly with MS on the OS front? Why, it's nothing more than the firm belief that if it does it will fail. And there you have it completely...
WaltC - Sunday, May 1, 2005 - link
#22 "The fact, "Jack", is that this is marketing and Apple does make nice hardware and a great OS for some people. And I do agree with some of your salient points. But for a company that "is not a direct competitor to MS", some of you guys sure seem to worry a lot about them."So the fact that it is "marketing" is supposed to make up for the fact that Apple likes to fantasize that it's "ahead" by comparing its shipping OSes with MS's future, unreleased, unfinished, non-shipping OSes? That's bizarre, since Longhorn isn't close to shipping, let alone close to being finished, and so what's there to compare? Seems like shadow boxing to me, but, well, that's just Apple for you.
Yes, I worry--but probably not for the reasons you suspect. I worry that Apple seems congenitally unable to understand that *most people* see right through this kind of delusional "marketing" and get turned off to Apple in the process. But they don't call Jobs the King of the RDF for nothing, do they?...;) I suppose that if the RDF was ever dismantled and discarded in favor of something real that Apple's market share just might rise precipitously. I worry that Apple itself doesn't appear to understand this to any degree whatever.
I mean--Jobs has known for decades that unlike Apple, MS is not a hardware company. Yet he seems constantly confused about precisely *who* his actual competitors really are (he also occasionally seems to see clearly enough to spot Dell and other companies)--and the result is that mostly under Jobs tutelage in the last decade Apple itself has survived at the expense of approximately 80% of the market share in the worldwide consumer computer markets that it held in 1995 and earlier (down from 10% to about 2%.)
While being winners in terms of Apple's short-term survival as company, Jobs' strategies have also resulted in Apple's reduction to merely a negligible status today in terms of computer market share percentages world wide. Indeed, look how much of Apple's present profit and revenue derives from the iPod, for instance, which is not a computer of any type. Subtract Apple's iPod revenue and profit from Apple's bottom line and you'll see the true picture of Apple as a computer company today. Seems to me there's plenty to "worry" about in that sense. But, then, the RDF has never afflicted me so I guess I "think different" in that sense...;)
WaltC - Sunday, May 1, 2005 - link
#23 "Uh... I should point out that the Apple Mac OS X pages don't have a single reference to Longhorn anywhere, AFAIK."As well they shouldn't...;) You tell me, then--why are so many others comparing a shipping OS from Apple with an unfinished, unreleased, non-shipping OS from MS? Sure beats me...;)
chennhui - Sunday, May 1, 2005 - link
#20 michael2k, It is true that gaming is not all, but a important part of computer experience. If you don't game, a P3 or G4 will probably does a good job overall.Most applications available for Mac is available for PC. In fact, I feel MS Office is faster in PC compared to Mac (thank to Bill). So obvious Mac or PC is just a matter a taste (and may be you game or not).
Jbog - Sunday, May 1, 2005 - link
To say every Mac and OS X sale takes away Windows sales, is like saying the number of illegal mp3 download equals to the lost revenue for record companies. One should consider the possibility that some buyers are not even interested in buying Windows machines and vice versa.The Slashdot article thread was amusing. The legal dispute between Apple and TigerDirect reminds me of the time when Spike Lee sued Spike Channel. He argued that people would think of him when they see Spike Channel. I think they eventually settled out of court.
mircea - Sunday, May 1, 2005 - link
#25 said:"But what you forget is that every Mac that sells takes away a sale of a copy of Windows from MS. Apple will sell more that a million more computers this year than they sold last year. That's over a million fewer copies of Windows sold."
I think your judgement is a little off. Every Mac sold will mean a x86 based PC not sold. And on all these PC's it might be that if they were sold it would have been equiped with a Linux OS or something proprietary just as well as an Windows OS.
If there is to talk about comparison then it would be about how Apple, a hardware company is able to create an OS that can compete on functionality with a company that works almost exclusively with software. So if something is unjust on this comparison is that Microsoft is unable to stand out head and shoulders above a company that solds primarly hardware.
P.S. I never owned or currently own a Mac. Only used it at school on a music score editing software (Finale 2005) that I own on PC as well.
msva124 - Sunday, May 1, 2005 - link
>But what you forget is that every Mac that sells takes away a sale of a copy of Windows from MS.Perhaps there are dual users who purchase macs in addition to, rather than in place of, their windows computers.