A Windows “Feature” I Wish Apple Hadn’t Copied For Snow Leopard

In Microsoft Windows (all versions), I always found it annoying and disconcerting to see generic icons in Windows Explorer one moment replaced by official/pretty icons the next when starting up or first opening an Explorer window.  It just enforced the “lipstick on a pig” feeling you sometimes got in Windows.

Well, Snow Leopard 10.6.0 is doing it now.  And does it a lot.  At first I thought it was a caching issue but it’s not. And in the screenshot accompanying this post two of the icons never switched over (Address Book.app and Airfoil.app) until I went to a different directory and came back to /Applications.  This must be a side affect of rewriting the Finder.  It’s sloppy and doesn’t give me a “rock solid” feel like 10.5.x (and before) where you never saw this happen.

Icon Redraw in Snow Leaopard

Snow Leopard Changes Preview’s “Combine PDF” Behavior

One of the great features of Preview Version 4.2 (469.5) in Mac OS X 10.5.x was the ability to create one PDF out of many.  Here’s how the feature worked (using single page PDFs – this is important as I’ll discuss in a minute).

  1. Open a PDF.
  2. Expose the Sidebar.
  3. Drag the PDFs you want to include in the Sidebar area.
    Note A: Each of the PDFs become page 2, page 3, and so on.
  4. Save or Save As the PDF.  Voilà – one PDF.

For Snow Leopard 10.6.0, Apple changed the way this feature works in Preview Version 5.0 (501) and made it more cumbersome.  Here’s how it’s done in Snow Leopard:

  1. Open a PDF.
  2. Expose the Sidebar.
  3. Drag the PDFs you want to include in the Sidebar area.
    Note B: The PDFs all retain their name in the Sidebar (contrast with Note A)
  4. Select all but one of the PDFs in the Sidebar.
  5. Drag and drop the selection into the unselected PDF recipient.
    Note C: You only get one chance at this or you’ll need to start over.  You can only drop one set of PDFs onto the recipient.
    Note D: After doing so, the recipient icon changes to include a Binding Comb on the left edge.  Moving the arrow cursor over the combined PDF exposes a circle-left-turn arrow on the right edge.
  6. Save or Save As the PDF.  Voilà – one PDF.

Digging Deeper

Examining the problem further I’ve realized Apple has changed the Sidebar behavior even more.  If you open a multi-page PDF, the first page has the Binding Comb with a clear cover page opened and a circle-right-turn arrow with all the subsequent pages on display below.  Clicking the circle-right-turn arrow rolls up all the pages and closes the clear cover in a nice animation.  It appears they’re trying out a bookshelf metaphor and I’m not sure why.

Other observations:

  • My Note C is a little disingenuous.  When a mutli-page PDF is open you can drag and drop more pages into it.  But why didn’t they automatically expand it when I did it earlier?  That might have given me a clue as to what was going on.  Especially since I was used to the old behavior.
  • When a book is open, there is nothing visually tying the pages together.  There is no indentation.  There is no gray rectangle around all the pages.  You only get that sense if you more pages around or add a PDF not in the document.
  • You can change the order in the Sidebar of books/pages (files) but I don’t understand why – you can’t save this view of the Sidebar.

Update 12/9 This procedure will not work if the creator of the PDF has password protected the document.

    Don’t Forget to Change the Sample Code

    Windows 7 has the USB-to-Serial driver for my never-released development board.  Hmmm.  I’m good, but I’m not that good.

    We’re using the Atmel AT91SAM 32-Bit ARM7 chip on a development board.  Apparently so is Wonde Proud because Windows 7 thinks my development board is their GPS Camera Detect.  Wonde Proud forgot to change the USB Vendor ID and Product ID from the sample code provided to them (and me) from Atmel.  A classic mistake.  I just wish they had done the same for 64-bit Windows 7 so I could use my hardware over on that platform – it would save me some time.

    Windows 7 in Fusion: The 64/32-Bit Question

    I created a Windows 7 Enterprise 32-bit VM and a 64-bit VM.  I wanted to see which provides better performance.  Since VMware Tools aren’t ready I treaded lightly with my tests.  Other caveats:  VMware Fusion does not support Windows 7 yet.  These are PassMark tests and not real world tests.  I didn’t run endless tests – just a handful.  Your milage may vary (greatly!).  The performance is based on Win7 32-bit (32/32).  The results are:

    Win7 64-bit Running PassMark 65-bit (64/64)

    29% faster on CPU
    178% faster on 2D graphics
    36% faster on Memory
    19% slower on disk operations

    Win7 64-bit Running PassMark 32-bit (64/32)

    11% faster on CPU
    13% faster on 2D graphics
    11% faster on Memory
    35% faster on disk operations

    I was perplexed on the 64/64 disk performance being slower than the baseline and re-ran the test a handful of times and got similar results.  64/64 2D graphic results were impressive but not a driving factor for me.  For CPU and Memory 64/64 showed a nice bump over 32/32 and even 64/32.  In the end, the issue of whether to move to 64-bit Windows 7 is moot for me – the driver I need is only available in 32-bit so I’ll be running 32/32.

    Here are all the versions used in the testing:

    VMware Fusion Version 2.0.5 (173382)
    Microsoft Windows 7 Enterprise [Version 6.1.7600]
    VMware Tools for Windows Version 7.9.6. build-173382
    PassMark PerformanceTest 6.1 (1010) WIN32
    PassMark PerformanceTest 6.1 (1018) WIN64

    Word Processing: Structure vs. Formatting

    The state of word processing in 2009 is atrocious. Microsoft Word has all but won the race but what a bad tool it is. For years we’ve upgraded Word and exchanged one set of problems with another. Working with large documents invariably leads to a big bag of hurt. OpenOffice (NeoOffice) isn’t much better – they’ve chosen to implement a poor substitute for Word without stepping back and saying, “How can we get compatibility but also improve the user experience as well?” What we need is to get back to basic word processing and grow from there.

    The Problem

    Working with technical specifications in Word feels like working with a ticking time bomb. As the document gets larger and more complex you live in fear of the day in which the document’s formatting gets corrupted. Maybe it’s because you’ve pasted a section from another document. Or maybe it’s because you’ve moved a section and somehow the numbering is now inexplicably corrupted. In the worst case scenario you give up; export the document as plain text; and then reformat the document from scratch. If only Word would let you see all the formatting. Back in the day WordPerfect had “Reveal Codes” which gave you a chance to root out your problem and delete it. Instead Word hides behind a curtain of “I know what’s best for you. Let me do it.” only to be left at the alter yet again as you try in vain to figure out how to fix something broken in your document.

    A Solution?

    For engineering documents the biggest problem is separating formatting from structure. When I bring a section of text into my existing document I care about the numbering and structure but I don’t care about the display (font, size, tabs, rulers). In Word “Style and Formatting” are so intertwined that you’re relegated to pasting your section as plain text and then manually reformatting the pasted section. If you don’t, you run the risk of corrupting the formatting of your document.

    My colleagues have expressed an interest in moving to LaTeX. LaTeX provides the control we’re looking for. It uses a Markup Language that allows you to specify the structure of the document in a separate step from the display of the document. Unfortunately this is a very un-WYSIWYG process. And worse, it severely limits what other people (marketing) can do both within the organization and outside it (partners).

    Another solution?

    This post was prompted by John Gruber’s mention of Pagehand. While Pagehand doesn’t seem to address the structure vs. display question, maybe a group taking a fresh look at the word processor can figure out how to solve this challenge.