• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

Mac OS X Lion Developer Preview 4 changes

Recommended Posts

PyX    140

Because that's the easiest way to shut down the Safari plugin process. Adobe took the easy way out. Microsoft actually takes advantage of the separate Safari plugin process with Silverlight and doesn't do this asinine "Please quit this application to continue" junk.

But the thing that bugs me is, between killing Safari programmatically and killing Flash programmatically, there's no difference. The only difference actually is that they had to program an extra screen that lists the applications that shouldn't be opened during the installation and a shut down button that kills the app. They're just being retards on that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.Neo    1,834

Personally I just circumvent the custom Adobe Flash installer by opening its package contents and click the .pkg file directly.

Drag lock is now in the accessibility options under "trackpad".

You are a hero!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quillz    1,011

It's great to use my Magic Trackpad on Lion the way I was using it on Snow Leopard.

It seems it be better for Apple to duplicate the trackpad options under Accessibility to Trackpad as well, though. If it wasn't for this topic, I probably never would have found drag lock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.Neo    1,834
Why on Earth would they move the setting in the first place? It makes far more sense to have it under the generic Trackpad settings.

I just booted into Mac OS X Lion and you're right it really doesn't make much sense to put this stuff down in Universal Access. As if only people with an impairment would find these preferences useful. :/ Good to see though we still have easy access to all these options without resorting to using Terminal I guess.

One major gripe that would have made upgrading to Mac OS X Lion a pain for me just ceased to exist. :laugh:

post-128385-0-93185800-1308406547.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quillz    1,011

Speaking of Universal Access, the vector cursors are still buggy, even on DP4 + update. Hopefully it gets addressed by the GM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Richard C.    288

Have they fixed the fact that in SL when resizing Windows the <-> cursor sometimes appears and sometimes doesn't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.Neo    1,834

Haven't noticed that bug in Mac OS X Lion as of yet.

Speaking of Universal Access, the vector cursors are still buggy, even on DP4 + update. Hopefully it gets addressed by the GM.

I just noticed the same thing. When it comes to stuff like this I have very little hope it will get fixed before GM. Same goes for the inconsistent window animations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Elliott    235

Have they fixed the fact that in SL when resizing Windows the <-> cursor sometimes appears and sometimes doesn't?

All windows in SL are resized from the bottom right corner and don't show a different cursor to do it as far as I've seen. When are you seeing a <-> drag cursor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Richard C.    288

Almost always in java based applications such as OOO, and intermittently in Chrome pop-ups when I hover over the diagonal resize point, I also occasionally see this cursor cursor_mac_wait.png for a few seconds during heavy operations that would usually show a beach ball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Elliott    235

Almost always in java based applications such as OOO, and intermittently in Chrome pop-ups when I hover over the diagonal resize point, I also occasionally see this cursor cursor_mac_wait.png for a few seconds during heavy operations that would usually show a beach ball

Yea, that's not OS X's fault. :p Those applications have custom UIs, so it's solely up to them what happens at certain interactions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.Neo    1,834

With Mac OS X Lion it's becoming increasingly hard for developers to maintain their custom interfaces: The gap between them and Mac OS X' native interface is growing larger and larger. Personally I think Google, Microsoft, Mozilla, Adobe etc. should just give up trying to make their applications look native (as far as they're even trying to begin with) and go with a truly native interface.

I'm amazed to see how much time and effort Mozilla wastes on trying to mimic Aqua in Firefox the best they can, yet they're always left with a subpar experience. At some point one would think it's easier to rewrite the thing and just use native APIs. Instead of spending ages on coding the new Firefox 4 theme Mac OS X could have provided most of it out-of-the-box.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PyX    140

With Mac OS X Lion it's becoming increasingly hard for developers to maintain their custom interfaces: The gap between them and Mac OS X' native interface is growing larger and larger. Personally I think Google, Microsoft, Mozilla, Adobe etc. should just give up trying to make their applications look native

Ohhhh don't worry, these companies are huge and if they want to go on with the custom interfaces, they will continue to deploy the people needed to do so. The problem really relies in the fact that there're too many people working on an application, and they don't seem to know what to do. If they were short in terms of man-hours, they wouldn't waste hundreds of hours trying to make a custom interface from the ground up in their applications. They would make the simplest interface possible by using the native Aqua or Sarai UI elements. As long as these big ass companies remain the leaders, this won't change.

Maybe the 2 men Pixelmator team will make Adobe go another route with their Photoshop in OS X, who knows. But so far, I'm not getting my hopes up...

However, the good news is, a lot of these huge companies have started migrating their code to Xcode and Cocoa a few years back, and now they're ready to use a fully native UI, deploy 64-bits, and use very specific and advanced APIs included in the latest versions of OS X. But when you take a look at Google Chrome for example, chances are it has been developed entirely in Xcode, Cocoa, Objective-C, etc. yet it features an awful interface in terms of OS X standards.

--

On another note, Resume is an incredibly well-implemented feature. It even need to "launch" the applications. When you log in, you wait no more than 2-3 seconds and you're connected on the WiFi and ready to go with all your apps opened where you left them. I don't know how they managed to do that, but it's very surprising to say the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Richard C.    288

But when you take a look at Google Chrome for example, chances are it has been developed entirely in Xcode, Cocoa, Objective-C, etc. yet it features an awful interface in terms of OS X standards.

What is wrong with Chrome's interface?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
instant.human    45

What is wrong with Chrome's interface?

Some people don't like the placement of the Traffic Lights, for example. Or that there is no TitleBar in that sense.

I like it, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Frank B.    7,151

What is wrong with Chrome's interface?

It's not using native UI elements for the most part, which annoys some people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Richard C.    288

well many applications, including iTunes, steam, most java-based apps, pretty much every browser don't use the native interface, infact the only applications that do use the native interface that I can think of (minus bundled applications) are Adium, Max and iAntivirus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
instant.human    45

well many applications, including iTunes, steam, most java-based apps, pretty much every browser don't use the native interface, infact the only applications that do use the native interface that I can think of (minus bundled applications) are Adium, Max and iAntivirus

Which is the problem. To some people. I don't care, to be honest. The thing is, that even though some Apps may not use native interface elements, they still look like Mac Apps and not a pile of crap. Most of the time. I mean sure, Safari looks way better than Chrome but then again I couldn't live without the Omnibar.

But take a look at Reeder for example. Or Twitter. Or Sparrow. Great looking, well designed Apps that look as refined as native Apps but with their own touch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.Neo    1,834

Some of you don't seem to realize that the real issue isn't the usage of non-standard graphics, it extends well beyond that. Chrome, Firefox, Microsoft Office etc. all use custom APIs which means they don't draw on Mac OS X' build-in services. For example the Dictionary pop-up that gained more fame in Mac OS X Lion (but has been available since Tiger) simply isn't available in these applications. Same goes for native spell and grammar check, native smooth scrolling among other things. What you see a lot with these applications is that they tend to have difficulties adapting to new system-wide features in general as well.

The applications instant.human mentioned (Reader, Twitter and Sparrow) do in fact use Mac OS X' build-in APIs so they have nothing to do with what I was talking about earlier. In those cases it's purely a matter of taste.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quillz    1,011

I really wish Safari 5.5 or 6.0 or w/e the next major version after 5.1 is adds a Chrome-like omnibar. I, too, prefer Safari for its integration with Mac OS X but still find Chrome more useful.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
instant.human    45

Some of you don't seem to realize that the real issue isn't the usage of non-standard graphics, it extends well beyond that. Chrome, Firefox, Microsoft Office etc. all use custom APIs which means they don't draw on Mac OS X' build-in services. For example the Dictionary pop-up that gained more fame in Mac OS X Lion (but has been available since Tiger) simply isn't available in these applications. Same goes for native spell and grammar check, native smooth scrolling among other things. What you see a lot with these applications is that they tend to have difficulties adapting to new system-wide features in general as well.

The applications instant.human mentioned (Reader, Twitter and Sparrow) do in fact use Mac OS X' build-in APIs so they have nothing to do with what I was talking about earlier. In those cases it's purely a matter of taste.

Oh yeah you are right with that. Maybe because I never made use of the built-in Dictionary I didn't think about that. Spell and grammar check are turned off by me aswell. So yeah, you are right, that indeed is a problem for the large majority of users. The ones that use and like those features.

And sure Reeder, Twitter and Sparrow use native APIs... they are available in the App Store, after all, and heavily featured. Sorry! :) My bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.Neo    1,834

I really wish Safari 5.5 or 6.0 or w/e the next major version after 5.1 is adds a Chrome-like omnibar. I, too, prefer Safari for its integration with Mac OS X but still find Chrome more useful.

Beyond Google searching, what does the Chrome "omnibar" do that the Safari address bar doesn't already?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
instant.human    45

Beyond Google searching, what does the Chrome "omnibar" do that the Safari address bar doesn't already?

It's just that. And that is what makes it better. :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PyX    140

It's just that. And that is what makes it better. :p

+1. we need it in iOS also, because the search field next to the adress bar on the iPhone is ugly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.Neo    1,834

It's just that. And that is what makes it better. :p

Why? Does it search any better than the search field in Safari? :/

For the sake of system-wide consistency alone I can understand that Apple wants to keep the Address Bar and Search separated. You don't use the Spotlight search field to fill in a file path either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quillz    1,011

Beyond Google searching, what does the Chrome "omnibar" do that the Safari address bar doesn't already?

Nothing extra, really, I just like having a single bar instead of two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.