Learning to live with Mac OS X Epson went down in my estimation this past weekend for not posting OS X printer drivers on its Web site. They're all there on the Mac OS X 10.0.0. CD for you, warbles the cheery Read Me page, to make installation easier for you.
Oh no it doesn't. The OS X 10.0.0 CD won't let you install the printer drivers without also installing the OS. Just go to the Customise Installation panel and see what I mean - the base Mac OS X system checkbox is disabled. Now, Apple may have written the new OS X software installer to detect that I'm running OS X 10.0.4 and so not overwrite any essential files with the older, potentially incompatible 10.0.0 versions that it knows about, but I don't want to risk it. I've zapped too many systems in the past by making that mistake.
TinkerTool is a freeware application for macOS that allows the user to customise the system by exposing hidden preferences to a graphical user interface. It is developed by German developer Marcel Bresink Software-Systeme. Its latest release is version 7.4.2, which is optimised for macOS Catalina and many features that came with it.
To be fair, the fault here is really Apple's for preventing you from running the OS X installer at a later date to add printer drivers or the OS' BSD sub-system that you didn't think you needed first time round.
I can easily imagine Apple's response to that: just install the drivers anyway, since you never know when you're going to need them.
Sorry, but that argument is akin to that old claim that it doesn't matter how big your operating system and applications code is, since hard disks have more capacity than you'll ever need. Apple used to grumble enough about Microsoft using that line, so there's really no excuse for using itself now. However capacious my hard drive, I don't want it filled up with files I don't need - even if I might do one day.
Which is why I look to the printer manufacturer's Web site - just as I would if I were looking for driver updates. There's no reason whatsoever Epson shouldn't offer existing drivers for download apart from ducking the responsibility for support. Either way, it's pretty lame behaviour.
Epson's excuse: 'By providing the printer drivers in the CD-ROM we made sure that only the latest drivers are available to our customers.'
Hang on a minute, Epson, isn't that THE WHOLE POINT OF WEB DOWNLOADS?
Still, Epson isn't alone here: Canon doesn't offer downloads either.
Hewlett-Packard is the very honourable exception, providing not only driver downloads of existing but a notification service that promises to email you when updated software is posted.
So how, then, can you install a new Epson printer on an existing, updated OS X system? Actually, it's quite easy. I used Marcel Bresink's excellent TinkerTool, which among other Finder and Dock enhancements, will also force Finder to display hidden system files. Then, it's just a matter of locating and launching the appropriate .pkg file off the CD, doing the driver install, and plugging in your printer.
The files are in System/Installation/Packages directory on the Mac OS X Install CD.
Incidentally, the installer also installs lots of Hewlett-Packard and Canon printer drivers. They all end up in Library/Printers/ where they can be dragged to the trash and removed.
I moved another step closer to running an OS X-only system this weekend having figured out how to synchronise my Palm Vx without having to reboot into OS 9.
I'd been dreading trying this out after the number of problems other users seem to have had, according to old MacFixIt postings, at any rate. In the end it proved a fairly straightforward process - not as simple as OS 9, but by no means complicated either.
Run Classic, keeping your extensions on. Next, run Conduit Manager (the version that comes with Palm Desktop 2.6.1 - the upgrade is on the Mac OS 9.1 CD) then press the Hotsync button on the Palm cradle. Your data will be synchronised and backed up, and any apps earmarked for installation on your Palm will be. Don't just hit the Hotsync button - it'll activate Conduit Manager but the two will drop the connection before the sync is complete.
OK, I admit it, I was wrong when I said you can't drag apps, AppleScripts and folders into the Finder's toolbar - you can. I'd tried to do so while running the Customise Finder Toolbar command, which only lets you drag tools from the palette provided. As a number of Register readers pointed out, though, you can drag files into the toolbar when you're viewing a regular Finder window.
Both methods make sense, but they really should be better integrated. Two separate approaches - one for standard toolbar elements, another for adding other elements - is just plain confusing, as my own error shows.
I got some complaints for my suggestion that Aqua's green 'traffic light' button should expand windows to fill the entire screen as per Windows' Maximise button. I damned the green button for only growing windows to some 'arbitrary' size.
Back in your box, laddie, said my more irate correspondents. The new window size isn't arbitrary. Click on the button and windows expand as much as they need to show as much of the contents as they can.
A fair point, perhaps, if the green button's behaviour were consistent. It isn't. Sometimes apps remain hidden, and it always fails to deal with toolbars that are wider than a window maximised to show all the icons (having to click on little arrows to get the missing toolbar buttons is just so Windows). And few programs - including many of Apple's own - take into account the Dock when maximising their windows, making it difficult to access Dock-blocked widgets and content.
I suggest a compromise: Option-Click for full-screen expansion, mouse-only for tradition Mac OS 'maximisation'. All we have to do now is figure out how to persuade Apple to add the compromise to its human interface design regulations.
Certainly Apple seems more on my side on this one. Says Inside Mac OS X: System Overview: 'Mac OS X eliminates the problem of proliferating windows by focusing the activities of an application in a single window.' In other words, it's all about eliminating screen clutter, which is exactly why I'd like to see full-screen Window maximisation. Each to his or her own, and Aqua should be capable of working with everyone's preferred modus operandi.
Finder needs Carbon?
Now here's a thing. Apple's Mac OS X documentation states that when the Finder copies a UFS [ie. native Unix] file to an HFS or HFS+ [ie. native Mac OS] volume, it ensures the integrity of the Mac file's resource information.
Essentially, HFS/HFS+ stores file information such as icons, pictures and data - in a separate unit called a 'fork'. Unix doesn't support forks, so when you copy a Mac OS file to a UFS-formatted disk, Finder creates a separate file to hold that data. Copy the file back and Finder reintegrates the two files into a single one containing two forks.
Now here's the really interesting bit from Inside Mac OS X: System Overview: 'Note that the Finder accomplishes these operations through the Carbon APIs on which it is based'.
Is this the reason Finder was coded in Carbon not Cocoa? Does Cocoa not support forked files, since it expects application resources to be bundled up as discrete files in a folder?
I think we should be told...
To be continued...
You can download TinkerTool 1.32b here
Epson and Canon
4. Mac OS X's Finder: Cocoa rewrite not the answer
3. Windows XP hits where Apple's Aqua misses?
2. Mac OS X crashes: Radeon not guilty
1. Mac OS X: Reg box stable - at last...
Sponsored: How to Build Your Digital Experience Portfolio
Learning to live with Mac OS X I'm going to get a lot of stick for this, but it has to be said: Mac OS X's Aqua user interface isn't the revolutionary leap forward Apple thinks it is.
Believe me, I like Aqua. I didn't think I would, but it has grown on me. My initial concerns that ten years in the classic Mac OS groove would make the jump to Dock and Finder too far a leap quickly proved unfounded. To tell the truth, I even prefer it to Mac OS 9's Platinum look and feel now.
Aqua is cleaner and crisper than its predecessor. Its 32-bit colour and big, photorealistic icons are gorgeous, and its use of alpha channels to produce smooth drop shadows, translucent menus and inactive windows is impressive. You can't help but like the smooth, glassy buttons and widgets.
But that's the trouble, all Aqua does it tart up a fundamentally unchanged UI. It's like Quake and the Quake III Arena - id's latest looks phenomenally better than the first in the series but it doesn't really play any better.
Aqua does offer some improvements over Platinum. Attaching Save dialogs to the documents they apply to was a smart move, for example. Grouping OS X's equivalent of Control Panels into a single, extensible application was good, too. I particulary like Finder's new column view, which makes copying files from one folder into another a much quicker task. I also like being able to minimise windows into the Dock - much better than dragging them off the screen a la OS 9's Window Tabs feature or its Window Shade option - and hide applications at the push of a button. Docklings make a good alternative to OS 9's Control Strip. Personally, I hate the Dock's magnification gizmo, but I can see how some people would like it.
Then again, there are some backward steps. Getting rid of the application menu, for a start. Fortunately, Frank Vercruesse's fine utility, ASM, fills the gap very nicely, and I'd recommend it to anyone who keeps finding themselves moving the cursor to the top right of the screen to switch applications.
Marcel Bresink's TinkerTool is also an essential download for anyone who wants to make the most of the Dock. It activates some options Apple has mysteriously hidden away, including a blue triangle to show whichever application is in front and - best of all - makes hidden apps transparent. It also allows you to choose your own system fonts, providing a feature OS 9 users take for granted but oddly missing (until now) from OS X.
The window 'traffic light' buttons look cute, but they aren't as intuitive as Apple believes, and for any Windows user making the move to OS X, they're on the wrong side of the window. And why the heck doesn't maximise mean maximise? Putting a dot in the close button to signal that you've changed the document since you last saved sounds good, but since you're going to get an 'Are you sure?' dialog, is it really necessary? Actually, it is, but since it's not immediately obvious what the dot means, its questionable whether it's any use. Clicking on the green button should expand the window to fill the entire screen, allowing room for the Dock, and not some totally arbitrary window size. There's no point having it otherwise.
The point is, though, that Apple hasn't fundamentally rethought the 1980s' graphical user interface, it has just redesigned it. Under the hood, OS X is a giant leap ahead of the classic Mac OS, but Aqua is just one small step forward. A scroll bar is a scroll bar, no matter how cool it looks. Arguably, Microsoft did more to move its operting system's user interface between Windows 3 and Windows 95 than Apple has done between Platinum and Aqua.
Now here's the point at which I really piss off die-hard Mac fans: Aqua may look the bee's knees, but frankly, it isn't as innovative as Microsoft's upcoming Windows XP interface.
Before the flames begin, let me just clarify that statement. I'm just talking about the user interface, not the technology that underpins it. OS X's Unix foundation is way ahead here (CNET agrees with me on this one, here). Aesthetically, too, Aqua wins hands down too. XP's Luna UI is just plain ugly. Microsoft has clearly been influenced by Aqua (heck, some elements look like they've been torn straight out of OS X) and its cool blue colour scheme, and such imitation is, after all, the sincerest form of flattery. But the result is rather like what you'd get if you told a colourblind guy to copy a Monet: it's all loud, vivid colours. And, apart from some curver corners and alpha blending on menus and information panels, it's really just a colourised version of Windows 98's user interface.
So why do I think XP is more innovative than Aqua? It's not the way it looks, it's what it does to make the user's life easier. The XP user interface has evolved from being simply a graphical, visual way of issuing commands to a computer into a facilitator for many of the more complex tasks that users want to perform.
A case in point: XP's My Pictures folder, the equivalent of Photos in OS X's Documents folder, not only displays all the images as thumbnails, but provides a slideshow feature and various ways to preview the images the folder contains. Contrast that with Finder's simple one-file-only preview in its column view. My Pictures also contains its own list of picture-related tasks users can select with the click of a mouse, such as emailing them to someone and even compressing the image so the message doesn't take an age to send. All this without Photoshop and a knowledge of how how resolution and image size can change how big a picture file is.
File searches are integrated right there at the folder level, as are other tasks like renaming, duplicating or trashing files. Sure, you can do all these through menu bars and even contextual menus - XP is simply providing an alternative method that makes it more obvious what you as a user can do.
Microsoft has even integrated its Office Assistants into the XP user interface. Sure, they piss purists like me off, but I can see consumers really digging having Tamagochi-esque cartoon cats and dogs running around their desktops. If you don't believe me, just remember how popular After Dark's Bad Dog screen saver was five or six years ago.
Now, I'll be the first to admit that I haven't spent weeks fiddling with the Windows XP beta release the way I have with OS X, and (before some smart-alec suggests I do) that I have not interest in migrating to Wintel. There may be plenty of inconsistencies and features that are just plain dumb in XP's UI, and there are some very disturbing issues emerging over how the new OS governs what you can and can't download or browse. What I'm saying is that, at some simple level at least, Microsoft has gone further than Apple to provide tools to make users, particularly inexperienced ones, get the most out of their operating system.
Now, is it just me, or do other people think that that's Apple's job?
Finder provides a perfect platform for Apple to make Aqua something more than a visual tool for moving files around. And I hope that, come this summer's Mac OS X coming out party, we'll not only get a much faster - Cocoa, please - Finder, but one that's radically more innovative than the prettily coloured file viewer it is right now. The Software Update Preferences Panels is definitely as step in the right direction - why should you find and retrieve updates when your system can do it for you? The customisable Finder button bar is a start, too, but it doesn't go far enough. Why can't we add aliases? Why can't we add AppleScripts? Why can't we add HTML pages as the backdrop to make dynamic folder views?
When Microsoft released Windows 95, all but the most blinkered of Mac fans realised Apple didn't have the monopoly on good user interface design. Please, Apple, don't let Microsoft convince the world it's got a better UI this time. You can kiss your consumer sales goodbye, if you do. ®
To be continued...
You can find Frank Vercruesse's ASM 1.1 here
Marcel Bresink's TinkerTool 1.32a can be downloaded from here
For those of you looking for a powerful alternative to the Dock, James Thomson's shareware utility, Dragthing 4.0.2, available here, is worth taking for a spin round the block
1. Mac OS X: Reg box stable - at last...
2. Mac OS X crashes: Radeon not guilty
Sponsored: How to Build Your Digital Experience Portfolio