Ten things you didn't know about Leopard

SimonW:

All these seem like good things -- with the notable exception of the addition of the preposterously named 'more' to the context menu. Having what's essentially a junk drawer, a 'miscellaneous' category, a place to put whatever commands doesn't appear elsewhere, is exceptionally poor user interface design, and Apple should know that. The solution to simplifying menus is *not* to take uncommonly used items and bundle them all together into a 'more' or 'advanced' category.

Microsoft *used* to be one of the worst offenders at this -- the 'advanced' tab in the Windows 98 'find' dialogue is a good example -- but in more recent versions, they have been getting much better at sensibly organizing things (although the hiding of the menubar by default in WMP11 is a disappointing step back, this is somewhat countered by the Office 2007 UI, which is a huge step forward in this regard, junking the 'tools' menu and organizing commands into sensible categories). Similarly, the Linux desktops used to be quite bad, but (especially GNOME) have gotten much better recently.

That's why it's so disappointing to find Apple suddenly seemingly adopting this terrible habit. I can only hope they reconsider this before releasing Leopard.

Next generation's menubar: "File", "Commands", "Stuff", "Advanced", "More", "Even more", "Misc", "Help"...?

n45800:

The 'More" menu wasn't really explained properly here.
The More menu is for Contextual Menu Items (plugins). Additional right-click items in the Finder (explorer for you Windows people). Quite a few apps add these, and the right click menu can be a bit bloated. In Leopard, there is a standard right-click menu in the Finder, and the additional plugins are filed under More. The Bluetooth, Automator, and Folder Actions items are not stored with the default Contextual Menu Items (plugins), and are therefore filed under the More group.

Information Central:

Microsoft is an offender with "advanced"? Apple buries tons of basic functions under "advanced", for no damned reason.

This article is absolute crap. Attention to detail? WHY CAN WE STILL NOT RESIZE WINDOWS FROM THEIR EDGES?

Why can we still not create a subdirectory in the right place in Finder? Why does Spotlight still not show PATHS of the items it "finds"? Why is there no "up to parent directory" button in Finder?

Why don't apps' windows restore when you cloverleaf-Tab to them? Why in hell do apps continue to run when you've closed all their windows?

Ugh, it almost never ends. The endless fawning over this blunder-riddled UI just turns the stomach.

The author is obviously not a real Mac user, or he wouldn't have overlooked the innumerable defects that have gone unfixed.

karold:

why don't you just go back to Windows and be done with it?

"cloverleaf"?

Computernerd:

most of what your saying is false, eg. you CAN resize windows from the corner, and apps DO restore with command + tab. but in reality its not so much that you dont know what your talking, as much as you just want the mac to be just like windows.

snordemann:

you can not resize windows from their edge because the apple philosophy is to have one place, the lower right hand corner to resize from.

you can not create a subdirectory in the right place, most likely because you are viewing in list view and expanding folders, it will create the new sub directory in the main emcompassing folder. if you happen to be in column view, then it is because you have not drilled far enough down, and it is creating the folder one level higher than you want.

spot light shows the paths, select item, look at bottom of window. there is the path

hit command [ and lo and behold, you go backwards, or alternately command click on the name of the window and see the entire path of the window you are in.

not sure what you mean by "apps restore" did you manually minimize them? if so, and it is the last remaining window, most apps do restore it. if you have other windows open, then it seems to assume you wanted that window minimized and leaves it so. otherwise, command (cloverleaf as you say) tabbing switches you to the app, and you can create a new app or do whatever.

as for your last complaint, the mac os is not windows. when you close the last window, it stays open, deal with it. there are exceptions. system prefs comes to mind immediately. this is a mac thing, it has been this way, it will not change. saying it is wrong is stupid, saying it is not what you are used to, understandable.

every one of your complaints seems to boil down to "OMFG it is not just like windows aaaaaaagh" deal, or go back to windows. whatever.

Bicc:

Are you using Leopard?

Because in Tiger Spotlight does not show the path.
If you do a search i finder the path is visible at the bottom, but not in spotlight.

Anonymous Coward:

Spotlight will show the path if you do a Spotlight search from the Finder (hit command+F in the finder). If you select one of the found items, the path is shown at the bottom of the window.

If you do a Spotlight search using the "floating" window (I hate this one to be honest), then you'll have to click on the info icon next to the item to reveal its path. But still no big deal.

buddhistMonkey:

((( This article is absolute crap. Attention to detail? WHY CAN WE STILL NOT RESIZE WINDOWS FROM THEIR EDGES? )))

You need to take a deep breath and relax, dude. If resizing windows is so all-fired important to you, try downloading WindowDragon from VersionTracker.com. It's been available for years, and lets you move and/or resize your windows by clicking anywhere inside in them. Simple, and free.
__________

((( Why can we still not create a subdirectory in the right place in Finder? )))

Who's this "we" you're talking about? I can create a subdirectory anywhere I want in the Finder, so I'm guessing that it must be user error on your part.
__________

((( Why does Spotlight still not show PATHS of the items it "finds"? )))

It does. Just click on the file's "info" icon (it looks like a little letter "i" inside a circle). If you want to see the paths for all of the found items, option-click any file's info icon.
__________

((( Why is there no "up to parent directory" button in Finder? )))

There are three ways to move up to the parent directory in OS X. First, there's the key combination Apple-up_arrow. Second, you can click a window's title bar with the Apple key held down to get a directory list, where you can navigate to the parent. (Note: this also works in Safari, Photoshop and Illustrator, among others.) Lastly, if you really need a button, you can add a path list button to your Finder windows by choosing "Customize Toolbar..." from the "View" menu.
__________

((( Why don't apps' windows restore when you cloverleaf-Tab to them? Why in hell do apps continue to run when you've closed all their windows? )))

Those sorts of window behaviors make sense in a Windows environment, because each application is relegated to its own window. When you close the last window, you're closing the program, because you're also closing the menu bar.

But the Mac isn't restricted that way. The windows from many different programs can be interleaved, and a program can be running with no windows open. It's a much more versatile environment, once you get used to it. For example, I can start iTunes playing a song, and then close its window and it will continue playing. If I click iTunes' icon in the dock, the window reappears. Simple. Another example is that I can leave Mail open in the background to notify me of new mail without having to hide the mail browser window. As I write this, I have 17 programs open on my Mac, but I only have 2 windows showing.
__________

((( The author is obviously not a real Mac user, or he wouldn't have overlooked the innumerable defects that have gone unfixed. )))

Sounds like you're the impostor. Those were all Windows features you were bemoaning. A real Mac user would have known everything I told you.

Ben Clark-Robinson:

dude, don't troll.

Lord Shank:

Let me guess. You bought a Mac because you thought they looked cool, realized you could not right click (because almost everyone buys a laptop starting out), and you just let the hate flow. There are key commands that will take care of most of those issues as well. Command(er, the one you call a "cloverleaf")+shift+H (in finder) for home directory, command+[ for back, as in previous directory. You get the path if you search in finder. As far as the advanced being buried comment, WTF? Have you not the time to click on one more tab, or look in system preferences? Give me a break. I don't want to hear anything about "advanced" until you can prove that you know what a bash command is, or have you never seen the terminal because it is "buried" under Macintosh_HD>Applications>Utilities. A real Mac user know his/her computer. Point is, if you don't like it, roll your own (OS) or shut up. Trolls suck, grow up and quit flaming.

Topcat:

Why dont you learn to use the UI everything you have mentioned is either already in the UI or it a feature.......

Why dont apps close when you close all the window ---- why do you have to have it minized? the fact that you can have mail open with cluttering your desktop is a feature in my eyes !

Everything else you said is the ravings of a idiot, Go back to windows

william:

You've clearly not worked with a mac very long. You'll understand the beauty of that later. Try F9 (expose) etc., much better as ALT-TAB.

Though i have to agree on the PATH in finder and spotlight (although spotlight has it, hidden onder APPLE). Showing the path in finder should really help when you want to do some file management.

Generic no name guy:

You can move up directories with apple-Up and down directories (ie open selected) with apple-Down. That's been standard Mac behavior for about 20 years now.

William:

Yes :)..

And try this while moving a file... won't work. Thus not such good behavior after all.
Should have path in finder :)

Anonymous Coward:

If I'm going to be moving files I command+3 to column view (thereby revealing a multilevel directory structure), move the file around to its new home, and then command+1 to go back to icon view. It makes the most sense.

Alternatively, if I'm performing many move operations to the same directory/directory tree, I drag a folder into the finder sidebar. Also makes sense

jackmon:

All of the criticisms here are valid and yet everyone jumps on this guy to defend their perfect OS.

"La la la [hands over ears] World's most advanced operating system... I'm not lhearing this ... la la la... "

There are lots of great things about OS X and lots of sloppy things... If you hit the mute button every time someone tries to point out the sloppy things, then those things are less likely to get fixed. Please Mac fans, let's stop letting our prejudices get in the way of objective reality.

m3talsmith:

I mean seriously. We "defend" our OS by knocking his invalid points down one at a time. We show him how to do what he wants to do, essentially helping him in his struggles, and get slammed by you. Nice.

I wasn't even going to comment on this because I've been doing this stuff for years. But then you had to speak up didn't you? Have fun with that.

Bob Loblaw:

Apple + click on the title bar of any Finder window to get a COMPLETE path/hierarchical menu tree. Now stop insulting Steve.

Nat:

Well done - an excellent example for me to use when someone asks me what trolling is.

Do you honestly think a post as stupid as that on a thread that is going to be read by 90%+ Mac users is going to be taken seriously?

I'm a former Windows user who has switched to the Mac and I've never had trouble with any of those things you listed, after the first couple of hours of getting used to the differences on the Mac.

If you weren't trolling, you're an idiot.

James:

-You CAN resize windows from the bottom right corner

- I have no problems creating subdirectories where ever I want in Finder

- Spotlight DOES show the path if you hover on the item.

- Apps windows DO restore when you apple-tab to them.

- Apps run until you QUIT them. Is this really such a hard concept to understand? I love that my browser doesn't quit when I close all the windows. Sometimes I don't need a browser window open, but if the app is still running, getting one open is much faster than if the app has to startup first.

Basically, your entire post was nonsense. I think you should go back to Windows where idiots belong.

msr:

Dude! Get a freaking Windows PC! Mac OS does not act like Windows, and it never will. The UI is better than anything out there, and it's getting better. I could go on to explain the millions of reasons, but it's been done before better than I could. If you want Windows use Windows, and don't complain about Mac OS working the way it has since 1984.

User of Both:

I hate it that windows resize from any edge on Windows. I'm always accidentally resizing when I want to move.

I have no problem creating subdirectories in the right place in os x. Don't know what you're talking about -- you must be doing something wrong.

I find Spotlight and Windows Search equally annoying to use, for various reasons.

I never noticed there's no up directory button in the finder. I've always used the keyboard shortcut, which in case you don't know it is Command-up-arrow. When on Windows I really miss column (browser) view. In os x it is what I use 95% of the time, as it is far more efficient, especially for doing everything with keyboard. Of course I'm still more likely than not to use a terminal for file management anyway.

I have no idea what you're talking about with app windows restoring. Can you clarify?

I would be really really angry if applications quit when all their windows closed on OS X. What a collosal waste of time it would be to have to constantly be restarting applications like on Windows instead of just leaving them running.

Of course on Windows you don't want to leave a lot of apps running because its virtual memory system sucks so badly, and having too many apps/windows open renders the taskbar completely useless.

Kit-N:

One of my biggest pet peeves is the fact that Windows quits the application when all the windows close.

Next time you need the app, you wait with your thumb up your posterior waiting for it to reload. On the Mac, you Command-tab and there it is ready to use!

I have used both Mac and Windows almost every workday since 1986.

I equate the experience as follows:

Mac = finesse

Windows = a rock in a tin can

Just my preference (from vast experience).

You like Windows, stick with it, but please don't suggest that Mac becomes more like Windows.

Peter Andreas:

Well put. I miss the same things over and over again.

Julius Ceasar:

In my view, Apple has the wrong priorities.

They are wasting time making rounded menus to impress 13year olds while some of us can't work with this kiddy stuff because the file system is a heap of crap. Most serious apps won't run except on HFS+. This FS is over two decades old, an old fossil from a time when personal computers came with a 50 MB hard drive and a floppy.

When I mount a few drives over the network using file sharing and the other Mac quits the network (reboots, goes home, shuts down, whatever), the machine I am using will hang until the other Mac boots from the same startup volume, because the file system and the OS are too dumb to handle this.

There are times when the Mac will pop up a tiny window allowing me to unmount the affected volumes, but for some strange reason this only happens once in a while. At most times, a forced shutdown of the other computer does not result in a timeout, particularly when I'm not even using the volumes. So here I am, waiting for some other guy on the network to start up again, wheel spinning, because this dumb system can't seem to be able to multitask this when I don't access the affected volumes. Now if that isn't silly, I don't know.

Besides, all of you Mac users so proud of a shiny apple we all dearly overpay for, Windows is no longer so inferior as it used to be. For the last few weeks, I've been using Vista Ultimate on my Mac Pro because Mac OS X has hit new dumbness levels and I just need to do my work.

If you ask me, they should put the ZFS (Zetta FS by Sun) in, as they had originally promised for Leopard, and finally support 64 bit not only in the Cocoa API but also in the Carbon API as they originally intended (many of the apps we use do heavily rely on it and will for some time). But no, Apple scrapped all the helpful features which would improve performance, and came up with rounded menus. Wow. Call it innovation. Awesome.

TheMacThinker:

Great coverage by the way. It always take a little bit of time for people to catch up with Apple. But I think that Leopard will be a great alternative to Vista and will offer not only a much better user interface but also much more security...

Macsforever:

Stop me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the said removed article called '10 things you DIDN'T know about Leopard'?

Tony:

I don't really have a major beef with what you're saying but here are some things that Apple should be looking at rather than such cosmetic issues:

1. WINE can port the Windows API to Linux so that Windows applications can run on Linux, so why we do we have to resort to Boot Camp or Parallels on OS X to run Windows Apps?

2. Why can't Safari run extensions or, better still, make Safari be able to run Firefox add-on extensions.

3. Why won't Apple let anyone build a PC of their own from the ground up and then install OS X on it? Is Apple worried that sales of their Mac hardware would be affected? Or is it more likely that Apple doesn't want to upset Microsoft by doing this?

4. Apple is an innovator, sure. Solid State Drives (SSDs) are now available. An OS drive only needs a maximum of 64GB. SSDs can do that now. So where are the Macs with an SSD main drive and a hybrid data drive option?

jason Maxwell:

The reason that Apple doesn't sell the OS independently (amongst others) is that they are a hardware company. There OS is not their major money maker. They make money from iPods and Computers. Selling the OS independent of their computers would call for an entirely new business plan and complete restructuring of how the company operates. Also, by making the OS inclusive to their hardware they have the distinct advantage of knowing hardware their OS will be running on. This eliminates the need for legacy drivers and support of millions of unique configurations, thus allowing them to spend more time on the creative side and making a sound OS for their hardware.

While it would be pretty slick to load up a home-built PC w/ OS X; I don't see it happening... ever. (that is unless Microsoft suddenly folds)

WryTerra:

To anyone who asks why OSX isn't available to purchase and install on a new machine, the answer's simple. Well, enough of it is simple that you don't need to get into the detail.

The much-touted reliability of the OSX platform comes not from its' UNIX origins but from its' platform homogeny.

What that means is that, by and large, Macs are Macs are Macs when it comes to hardware combinations.

In the same way that a games console's OS is stripped down and geared towards an extremely narrow range of hardware options, making it effecient and fast, OSX developers can rely on Macs having a predictable combination of hardware.

Hell, why don't they sell the XBox OS seperately? In terms of comparisan I reckon it's more stable than OSX. And the XBox was a PC, right?

Nevermind that when you code in drivers to account for the myriad combination of potential hardware that exists in the wild the size of the OS bloats and the complexity and potential conflicts increase exponentially.

Changing something as remote as the north or southbridge controllers on a motherboard can have a huge impact on stability depending on the quality of driver for that bridge and the interoperability between the driver and the OS.

Opening OSX to a wide market will turn it into Windows, if not in usability then in terms of bloat and reliability. And let's face it, is usability really your complaint with Windows? Or is it bloat and reliability? Do you want OSX to go that way?

McBanjo:

Touche, I can understand why you would prefer to install OSX on a Mac, but I'd buy OSX for PC.

Though Apple just loves to massively overcharge their customers on their hardware.

Just try to get an extra 1 GB of RAM on your iMac, and BANG (or boom) AU$270. Opposed to industry wholesale prices of around AU$70.

Now tell me Apple isn't a rip! For that price we should be getting SSDs as standard.

R3zonance:

Just go buy your RAM from someone else, and also of note. the RAM in an iMac is laptop memory, and therefore expensive than desktop RAM anyway.

Mattjumbo:

How about, now try hard to follow me here, you go buy the RAM from wherever it is cheapest *instead* of buying it from Apple?

Who the heck said you have to buy RAM from Apple?

bits45:

2 GB of RAM for iMac only cost me $100. (US)

Ron Hughes:

Here in the UK, Stevie boy wants £189 ($360) to upgrade from 1GB to 2GB in a MAC.

The same upgrade on a PC is only £50 / $100. Rip-off or what?

There is a world glut of RAN guys, 'cos all those Dramurai made the stuff expecting Vista to take off, but it sank.

Gabo:

Apple is hardly selling extremely expensive hardware anymore. If you do a little comparison shopping you will find that the prices of comparable computers at dell.com are about the same or more expensive than at apple.com.

Also, the reason why apple will not allow you to build your own pc is because they make most of their money selling hardware. Their OS is not locked with a serial number because of this. I prefer to keep it that way for that exact reason. I can reinstall the OS in any of my clients' computers without having to deal with Apple (as opposed to Microsoft, when you have to call them and, hopefully, be allowed to reinstall the software you purchased.

Finally, selling their own hardware allows apple to control the user experience to a much higher degree. They do not have to support innumerable hardware components in their OS, they only need to support the hardware they include in the machines they sell. This has given Apple (and probably will continue to give) a great advantage over Microsoft.

tin:

1. WINE would be simple to port (assuming it hasn't been) to the newer Macs since they are x86 anyway. Apple could even sponsor efforts to make it better.
Of course Apple probably don't want that since making it easy to run Windows apps sort of encourages people to not port them over properly.

2. No idea, but maybe because they want to keep it simple, stable and their own? Run Firefox if you want that stuff.

3. Agreed. I would love to run a legit copy of OSX on my desktop. Legally I can't. Not that I want it for my main OS, but it would be nice to have for occasions where I need to support Mac users.
I don't get why they don't sell it either.

4. SSDs are too expensive still probably. They can't have them in an already overpriced PC and still compete. I would expect them to become normal in 2008 though.

James:

1) It was ported as DARWINE long before the switch to X86. Codeweavers has since released a cleaner modification of WINE called Crossover that works fairly well. Though I agree Apple should lend a hand to make it work with more apps.

In addition Cedega exists in a form called Cider. Instead of the user installing it-Transgaming tweaks a version of Cider for each game it is used on and Cider becomes part of the program.

2) There are quite a few useful extensions for Safari on OS X. Still Firefox has many more and they're all free on Firefox which is one reason why I use Firefox as my main browser.

3) I don't think Apple is ever going to take the risk again. They tried it in the mid 90s and it killed Mac sales. Jobs axed the project when he returned.

4) You can already use SSDs on a Mac. But you are correct that they are expensive as shit at this point-running about $500 for a 60GB 2.5" drive. Apple will use them when it's cost effective.

crossover action:

Check out CrossOver. It uses the WINE libs to create a more mac experience, and runs a huge number of M$ apps.

http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxmac/

Anonymous1:

Why on earth should I care about any of these things?

Tom:

1. WINE currently can run on OSX, if Apple itself was to develop it they may run in to legal issues with microsoft.

2 Safari can run extensions (www.pimpmysafari.com). Firefox and Safari are very very different, trying to cross port the thousands of obscure add ons and extensions is by and large impossible for the seemless user expeierence Apple creates.

3. Apple has always been about the marriage of great software and hardware, Look at the iPhone. Allowing anyone into their software doesn't fit with their ethos... plus the money they make off hardware is very lucrative.

4. Yeah solid state drives would be cool, but its really just a little niceity as oppoased to a necessity.


Also, I would take issue with the opening introduction of the article as well: "Leopard didn't get a great reaction when Steve demoed it at WWDC."

I think in reality this is quite far from the truth, the response was due to the lack of product announcements as opposed to reaction to Leopard. I think Leopard has been recieved very very well.

Other than that nice article!

TC

DonD:

Tony, I share three of your four questions, namely 1, 2, and 4. About number 3, however, Apple believes VERY strongly that "people who really love software should make their own hardware", as Steve pointed out in his iPhone address. Their goal is to integrate the hardware and software seamlessly so that everything works without problems. When folks build their own machine, then driver issues and compatibility issues start, which invariably get blamed on the OS. Apple doesn't want to mess with this.

Making their own hardware also means that the hardware and software can share design cues, like when Panther sported the pinstripe design found on the monitor, or the brushed metal look shared by the aluminum case.

Basically, Apple wants the entire computing experience to be amazing: from pulling the machine out of the box, to using its software. Whether they achieve their goal is certainly subjective for each user.

I hear this question a lot and thought this to be a good opportunity to clarify (hopefully).

--D.

n45800:

"1. WINE can port the Windows API to Linux so that Windows applications can run on Linux, so why we do we have to resort to Boot Camp or Parallels on OS X to run Windows Apps?"
Because WINE cannot run about 95% of the applications I throw at it and it has been under development for almost 15 years now?
Also, if you could write a program for Windows, and have it run on OSX and Windows, or write a Mac app and have it run on only Macs, which would you choose? Also there is the interface-design problem. Many PC apps look like they were designed by 12 year olds who have had at least one too many bottles of Mountain Dew (The ATI and nVidia control centers for example). Most Mac apps (built on Mac, not built on PC and then ported to Mac) have much better interfaces than 98% of Windows applications. (arguably, some people may like the Windows style, but I can't seem to find one)

"2. Why can't Safari run extensions or, better still, make Safari be able to run Firefox add-on extensions."
Quality control, to put it simply. What happens if you add too many add-ons to Firefox? or when you download one which has a serious security or stability flaw in it? Most non-techie people would have no idea how to fix it, or would even know it is fixable. As it stands, there are unofficial add-ons to Safari using InputManager hacks (see http://pimpmysafari.com/ ), but these can cause stability problems.

"3. Why won't Apple let anyone build a PC of their own from the ground up and then install OS X on it? Is Apple worried that sales of their Mac hardware would be affected? Or is it more likely that Apple doesn't want to upset Microsoft by doing this?"
Same as above, quality control. That and having to deal with the infinite number of possible PC hardware configurations with cheap Taiwanese parts. If you buy a mac, the hardware it ships with is guaranteed to work, the Operating System is designed knowing what hardware is going to be used and how to optimize it., and the machine usually has no major problems. If you built a PC there is much more possibilities. You install OSX and suddenly your Matrox graphics card doesn't work, your Hauppauge card doesn't work, the PCI USB card is not written entirely to spec and has a bug that causes it to die every few minutes (which has happened to me before on a Linux/Windows PC which had the problems in Linux but not XP due to a manufacturing error), as well as various other hardware.
Don't you think Windows would crash less if you never had to worry about Drivers? Or wouldn't it be great if you re-installed the OS and all the hardware was recognized without having to setup a Firewire shared internet connection with your laptop to go online to download the Ethernet drivers for some company that went out of business about 2 years ago (and took their driver downloads with them)?

"4. Apple is an innovator, sure. Solid State Drives (SSDs) are now available. An OS drive only needs a maximum of 64GB. SSDs can do that now. So where are the Macs with an SSD main drive and a hybrid data drive option"
Where are the Macs with Holographic storage and Blu-ray/HD-DVD drives? Where are the Macs with fiber ethernet cards? Where are the macs with 3D-reality helmets. They exist, I saw one at some tech conference in the 90's. What about the Macs that drop IPv4 and go completely IPv6?
That is not to say they never will have solid state drives, but they don't have it now. As is the same with most PC manufacturers.
Also, Solid State Memory (in my experience) isn't as reliable as Magnetic drives. I have had about the same amount of people asking me for help with their USB drives dying as I had people asking me about their internal drives dying. And i'm pretty sure all the people who come to me for help with their computer have internal hard drives, but not all of them have USB Flash drives.

- Spaceman Spiff -:

I guess not too many people read the article about the controversy between the WINE project and Parallels because Parallels has WINE code in it and is refusing to release their modifications. So the whole idea of why WINE isn't used on OSX is ridiculous because it already is being used. Oh, and apple won't screw this up because parallels already has its software so well-made that if Apple were to attempt to recreate it, years would pass before it came out. By that time, Parallels would have the market.

n45800:

Last I checked, Parallels DID release the source, although it took them a bit longer than some people wanted.
http://parallelsvirtualization.blogspot.com/ has some more info.

Anonymous3456789:

1) Does WINE run all programs seamlessly on Linux? No. Well may be that is why Apple isn't supporting it. There are too many problems with it, but if you want it for OS X there is version you can download. It's runs for shit, of course.

2) Safari is a powerful browser made to be simple to use. But Safari 2 can run extensions, just not authorized ones by Apple. If you want extensions then just download Firefox.

3) Why would Apple care about upsetting MS? Yes, it's about Mac sales. Apple is as much a SW company as they are a HW company but their profits come from HW. Sure, they could license OS X and other vendors like Dell really wouldn't mind paying out the ass to get it. But Apple won't do because they'd have to daunting task of support a 100M drivers that will never get fully optimized.

Plus, and people don't seem to understand this, Apple doesn't care about the marketshare. Sure it's nice but only if you can keep your initial consumer base at the same time. Macs may be a small OS marketshare but in terms of their HW they are #1 in sales for higher-end machines.

4) How the hell am I going to store my 1TB of data on a 64GB SSD drive? External drives? Oh, so now I need to have slower cumbersome external drives hanging off my computers, which cost extra while I have a smll 64GB SSD which cost a lot extra.

Technologies CAN exist in unison to one another. SSD has their place but HHDs are reliable enough that the negative aspects of capacity and price do not outweigh the pros of speed and power consumption. Will SSD ever catch up to HHD, I don't know.

Intel's "Robson" hybrid drive options has been a complete failure so far. I had hoped that Apple current partnership with Intel would lead Intel to perfect Robson for Apple machines seeing as how Apple machines are for higher-end customers, anything Apple gets free PR for being Apple, and the number of drivers needing to be written is very small. But no go. For use on Windows it's a completely waste of money and can slow some processes down completely.

Jeremy:

1. At best something like WINE can't be much more than a game of cat and mouse with Microsoft. It'd cost Apple a lot of money to develop something that runs every Windows app and it'd only be a disincentive for developers to develop native applications for Mac OS X. This is not in Apple's interest.

2. This is actually a myth. Safari does have appear to have an architecture for extensions. Just look at PithHelmut, Inquisitor, Saft, etc. In fact there's a whole range of plugins listed at .

3. This could work out to be a costly move for Apple, if all it does is eat away at their hardware business. It's not so much that they don't want to upset Microsoft, however, this would put them head to head with Microsoft in a battle they can't win.

Dan Warne:

2. -- No, all of the above programs are unsupported hacks to Safari. There's a big difference between a supported extension framework with APIs and unsupported methods that third party developers have discovered. With the latter, Apple can (and does) change the way Safari works at any time, breaking compatibility with extensions completely. 

come, oh my brethren.:

IMHO: Nerds.

haaah! i just wanted to say something truly stupid
so that i could feel like a part of this discussion.