Yet, that’s exactly what Gruber does in this, brilliant, spot on rant on Snow Leopard’s lack of Creator Code support [or any alternative thereof].

When OS X first made its appearance in 2001 and for many years afterwards, the performance of xnu, its kernel, and many of its subsystems was ridiculed as it was way slower than its competitors. Elitism, slower development cycle, closed source etc. aside, Apple has managed to make Mac OS X much faster than the leading linux distributions in the span of a couple of years, while at the same time the desktop linux projects and companies struggle with reinventing the wheel and fixing regressions. The situation on the desktop today for linux users is — comparatively — worse than it was a decade: traditional strongholds are gone [e.g. performance] while usability, stability and features are more or less unchanged for many years. Sad for Open Source, sad for competition.

Justin Frankel lists a few reasons why Apple’s developer resources suck. While OS X has some of the most modern, most powerful APIs around, much of their functionality is undocumented, forcing developers to spend countless hours reading header files or even reverse engineering while getting to know how to use them.

One of my main annoyances with OS X since 10.0 was Terminal.app. My UNIX background requires a decent terminal application and Terminal.app more or less traditionally embodied everything that can possibly be wrong with a terminal application. Up until Leopard, Apple had paid little attention to it and many people had forsaken it for applications such as iTerm. Sadly I never quite liked iTerm, I don’t fancy starting X11 up just for the terminal and so I ended up tolerating Terminal.app and hoping that Apple would fix it in the future. I couldn’t — and still can’t — understand how Gnome and KDE provide so much more powerful terminal applications and Apple, the goliath of usability and design, provides such a ridiculous terminal. Or can I?

In Mac OS X Leopard, Apple revamped its terminal application. Unfortunately the revamp is nothing but insulting to those people that are most probably going to be using it the most. One of the longstanding issues with the previous versions was the inability to set the ANSI colours so that coloured text could be legible under dark or light backgrounds. In 10.5 Apple has introduced several ‘themes’, including a number of dark themes provided by the company, (viz. ‘Pro’), that use dark backgrounds. Yet actually using those themes is practically impossible with the OS X default ANSI colours and there’s no way to change these colours: they are still hard-coded in the binary. The usual solutions are still there, using InputManagers, SIMBL etc. or giving up on Terminal.app and switching to another terminal application, yet so is my dislike for any of those solutions.

Given the work that Apple has clearly put in providing the ‘theming’ functionality — including a wholly new configuration system and theme inspector it’s quite perplexing why they ‘omitted’ providing support for setting the ANSI colours given that it’s been one of the most commented upon, criticised omissions of this application for the past six years. If anything it seems to me like Apple is taunting its users with such ridiculous ‘improvements’ and the completely needless attention to detail (e.g. ‘live’ thumbnails on the terminal inspector!), while it ignores real problems faced by those that make use of its software.

Apple likes showing off. In Leopard lots of things are improved, the UI is more consistent and polished. Yet there are a number of completely ridiculous aspects of it that go quite a long way towards demolishing Apple’s reputation as a leader in UI design. Take for example the new Dock, which besides completely pointless is also an ergonomic nightmare, heavy on resources and ugly. Did I mention pointless? (Thanks to the_unknown_Apple_dev for the no-glass option!).

The linked blog entry more or less sums up most of the things I found completely, utterly stupid while looking at Leopard images and videos online. I’ve got some more, such as the relatively dark gray ‘platinum’ look (I prefer the lighter gray of the ‘inactive’ windows), CoverFlow (mostly useless in the Finder if you ask me), the proliferation of etched text among others. [via daring fireball]

Update: As usual, a really good and thorough review of Leopard by John Siracusa, can be found at ArsTechnica.

A common joke amongst Mac developers is talking about the Apple HIG, or more specifically the subject of how Apple manages to flout every single principle in user interface design and especially its own in successive revisions of OS X. I’ve written about this, in one way or another, several times ever since Jaguar came out in August 2002 and the first signs of this disturbing trend became obvious. New UI widgets, new styles and disregard to the HIG continued over the years with Panther, Tiger and now Leopard — each revision bringing its own flavour of user interface widgets, colour themes and designs, each proving that Apple has no idea what ‘consistency’ means and that contrary to what they may tell you you should write your own custom widgets or you’re probably screwed if you don’t (Apple probably writes and uses more undocumented and custom widgets and controls than anyone).

With Aqua so close to becoming part of UI history and Leopard just around the corner, bringing with it yet another completely different UI theme to OS X, it should probably not be surprising when Apple’s own Developer Connection web site sports such an inconsistent look. The UI ghosts of yesteryear are still around!