Apple's Mail and Haste - a bug report

Since my last entry in this log, a lot of things has happened: I have upgraded to 10.2. Many applications have changed there, and I will comment on my latest experience with Mail again, but this time in version 1.2 (v544/543).

The IMAP-error:
After successfully having my hosting partner open for IMAP, I turned to Mail in 10.2. My three accounts showed up almost nicely. Some of them showed me all of my online folders (a mailbox in Apple Mail and IMAP terminology), and some did not. After trying in several ways to get Mail to refresh its representation of my online folders, I did something very Mac unlike: I closed the Application and launched it again. This time, all my folders were there. I still have to do this from time to time.

Next, since my host had enabled IMAP, I wanted to move all my offline folders online. This way I could work on them at home, at work and from other computers around the house [Jacob has about 8 networked all over his house. -ed]. The operation of dragging the hierarchy from local storage to my online account seem to work. But the next time I launched Mail some of the online folders (or mailboxes) were empty!
Selecting the different folders revealed that one of them caused an IMAP error.

Being a a software developer, I guessed that the name had something to do with it - it was called "Blandet..." - namely the three dots. Since I was unable to get in contact with the hierarchy inside this folder I (once again) turned to Mail in Mozilla.

In Mozilla Mail, I set up the three new accounts and connected to the same IMAP server. My folder "Blandet..." turned up fine, including subfolders. No problem here!

Since I at that time still wanted to stick to Apple Mail (hmm, I guess now it is mostly the lack of layout details in Mozilla Mail that is preventing me), I removed the three dots from the name of the folder in Mozilla Mail. Back in Apple Mail, I could now see two folders, one name "Blandet..." and one named "Blandet", the last on was the renamed one with the subfolders.

To get Mail to delete all offline material, I simply removed that account, and made it again. To my surprise, the old "Blandet..." still showed up! If it is not online anymore, does that mean that removing the account and making a new one with the same settings uses some of the old offline content? (OK, so this might be the "Remove" and "Add Account" functions not working properly)

Now, when selecting the folder "Blandet..." I get an IMAP error, stating that the folder does not exist online, naturally. I don't remember what the original error message was, when selecting the folder with the three dots in the name. But I still have to quit Mail from time to time to get it to reflect all my online folders.

It is fair to say that this IMAP error could be caused by different interpretations of the IMAP protocol; thus, it could be that the IMAP server does not obey the protocol, that Apple Mail does, and Mozilla Mail doesn't care! But from the symptoms, I doubt it. For the record, the IMAP server is named Merak Mail Server version 4.10.040.


The attachment-error:
This is a simple but serious error, which happened like this: I simply typed a new mail message and dragged a small jpg-file into the message window, and then Apple Mail simply hung there, showing only a rotating cursor. I quickly took a screen dump, so I could reconstruct the mail message later on.

I let Mail sit there for quite a while, to see if I would gain back control. Since I was working on my TiBook, I stopped when the fan started; by then, my legs were getting toasted and the process viewer told me that Mail was consuming 25% off my 800MHz in order to make the cursor spin. When relaunching, I could easily reproduce the error. The picture was originally taken with my Canon IXUS v, downloaded to the TiBook and scaled in GraphicConverter to a size of 240 KB.

Mail had kept a drafts copy of my message, but had saved it when I was only half finished. This is a nice feature, though, which I am also used to from my Outlook on Windows 2000 at work :-)

Now, it appears that this particular picture can take down several different OSX programs, including Preview, and I never succeeded in mailing it from Mail. I even tried saving it in GraphicConverter without any resource branch. In the end, I opened Mozilla Mail and sent it from there. When I made Mozilla forward the mail to myself... you guessed it: every single time I attempt to open the mail in Mail, the program crashes. I have no idea what makes that particular picture crash programs - and I hope I am the only OSX user with this problem.

How to run MacOS on your September 2003 Mac

This is going to be a three-step piece. Before I get to the specifics of the headline, I want to say something about me and OSX (yes, yes, I know - quit being the teacher!), and then it'll be OSX as Hamlet... and THEN!

I find that OSX has great advantages and gives room for very many new possibilities that was almost impossible to add to MacOS (the pre-OSX versions). I have paid my share of money in order to get my hands on OSX. I am exciting by the speed with which new visions are incorporated into it. But in some areas the advantages are there far less than the promises or possibilities are.

MacOS was tired, I agree. Not so much the UI, but very much the underpinnings. Spaghetti code, I have heard it called by programmers "in the know". Not only was it increasingly difficult to add new features to, it was a hassle to analyze, let alone debug. What had started in a time when object coding was less than a gleam in someone's coffee cup, had evolved into something that could have been the inspiration for Foucault's idea about the Archaeology of Knowledge.

Since MacOS had come about at a time when memory and speed efficiency was an inevitable necessity, the coding for its basic I/O, memory management and graphical routines (the venerable Toolbox) was almost inseparable. But Apple was hard at work trying to update it, and most Mac devotees know by heart the litany of projects started to do so: "Pink, Taligent, Star Trek, Copland, Rhapsody, Gerschwin..." It's worth noting, however, that except for Copland, the other initiatives were more focused on creating the new paradigm for UIs than on renewing the basic machinery - as eloquently described by David K. Every.

My point is that while the OS underpinnings were badly in need of restructuring, very few people felt an urgent need to recast the UI - unless a new, and obviously superior, paradigm could be developed. By superior, I mean a new way of handling data management and production which made it easier and more intuitive.

NeXT had underpinnings that were superior, to MacOS at least. It could be argued fairly convincingly that other OS'es such as BeOS, AmigaOS and Acorn's RiscOS also had superior basics - although based on OS philosophies and priorities different from *nix. David K. Every's article, and the testimonies of several former Apple developers in reaction to the article, suggests that the kernel and API work done by Apple programmers as part of the Copland project also promised to be superior but was rejected for reasons such as management caused delays and less than full compatibility with the old foundation. On the other hand, using *nix as a basis is a good strategic decision since the technology is well known and respected in industry, academic and geek circles.

It is my contention that the NeXT UI was less developed and flexible from a user perspective (being younger, and having had feedback from fewer users). It is also my contention that a major reason for reworking the OSX UI was political - just as the whole NeXT project was based on a desire to differentiate itself from the Mac, OSX was to be equally different. There are PR advantages in this, of course, but it also has to do with the Jobsian desire to put his stamp on the new project and prove that he did have it in him to develop "one more great computer". There was no objective reason for changing the basic patterns of UI work found in MacOS, and none of the many knights of the OSX that chastice doubters with chants of "... and I never looked back" (may I never have to read that expression again, ever!) have been able to point out one single advantageous new interface improvement that is found in OSX but can not possibly be implemented in MacOS. Nearly ALL OSX' UI elements are found as shareware programs for MacOS - and often in better versions!

But pragmatically, MacOS work routines can likewise be established in OSX by adding third-party UI programs - it just takes more work to do so (especially at update times when clean installs seem to be the only way of getting an optimized OS). To hand out another coin (similarly tiring), OSX is the way forward.

Having said that, there are a number of unrefutable reasons why a continued ability to boot up in OS9 is essential to a good many readers. Many - MANY - pieces of hardware do not have drivers that enable them to work under OSX, and often age is not a reason: professional desktoppers, designers, video producers, sound engineers and illustrators have very expensive scanners, A-2 printers, digitizers, samplers and many other devices that are not, and probably will not be supported. It will take a long time before they have amortized these so that they can invest in new ones; Quark is a minor issue in that connection. Gamers, to take a very different group of users, need to boot up in OS9 to be able to play many of the best, classical games (even if many new games are OSX native). A large number of people using their Mac professionally in other ways have specialized software, perhaps not very expensive, which does not exist - and probably will not exist - in an OSX version.

That is why the "rage du jour" this week has focused on Apple's announcement that new Mac models introduced after January 2003 will not support booting in OS9. Again, the uproar goes two ways: one group cannot live without OS9 boot-up; the other group don't understand how anyone can live with OS9. However, as it has been pointed out in many Mac fora and Mac columns, it doesn not mean that all Macs sold after January 2003 will not be OS9-bootable; only the new models have that disadvantage. It is my guess that the last round of renewals will happen around June 2003, and that it will probably be the iMacs that have to wait until then. Also, it does not mean that future versions of OSX will block pre-2003 Macs from booting up in OS9 - Apple will just stop developing OS9 hardware drivers for the new models.

I will not get into the probable causes of this withdrawal of OS9 support, except to say that it was inevitable. Instead I will point out that it WILL be possible to run MacOS in all new Mac versions - and I'm not talking about Classic either. An enterprising group of open-source programmers have been developing a Mac-emulator named vMac since 1999, and source code and compilations for all the major operation systems, including Mac OS9 and OSX. It is an emulation of a MacPlus which means that you need a MacROM and a MacOS v6 or 7, something that is not difficult to get.

Before you begin unpacking your knife in order to point out that OS7 (even 7.5.5) is too old to run newer game and exotic pieces of hardware, let me just say this: the coding for running a MacPlus emulator in OSX is there! The enterprising open-source programmers are there! When the demand for (say) a G3 emulator running OS9 is there - as it undoubtedly will be sometime after the New Year - such a beast will be made! Given the similarities between a G3 and a G4, and given the microkernel structure of OS9, the project will be both possible and useful.

The Mac Xperience is not based on Apple, and certainly not on any hardware/software combination. The true Mac Xperience is the one continuously unfolding in the activities of inspired programmers of free-, share-, card- and beerware that mould the basic OS into precisely that which is needed by the users. The ones that mould the future - precisely into that.

The PowerMac of extension - a Mac Semiotics (3)

The use of plastics in this generation of Macintoshes is a basic semiotic gesture, rather than a mere choice of material. It is humanoid to the touch, conveying shared mutability rather than the delimitation of a foreign, painted metal machine. The semitransparence of the back of the bondi-blue iMac gives visual access to its digital interior, again signalling accessibility and openness. Rather than mere modernist Centre Pompidou expressionism, it is frankness and a little pride in the technical capabilities. Their opague parts are visually soft, morphable, osmotic and clean - the latter not in a toothpaste sense or texture, but rather that of the white key on a piano: “Come and play me”.

Not only does it convey tactile warmth, softness and smoothness, it also enables production of a device with postmodern dynamic curves rather than classic lines and circular arcs. The same retro-curvature which gives expression to the re-view of the Beetle, references the iMac as the present incarnation of the best of the past. Splined curvature, found in ‘fifties car- and a wealth of other progress-marked shapes, is a hybrid statement in traditional architecture. The Macs go beyond that - sketching the parabola and the hyperbola without adhering to them, hinting at the oval and the square, touching Piet Hein’s super egg and its inversion - while still remaining their own geometry. They are the past packed in present forms, the future anterior postmodernism of J.-P. Lyotard.

The new Powermac design, introduced by the B/W version, was different. Where the one handle on the iMac presents a secondary possibility, the four on the Powermac immediately show that geographical as well as internal mutability emerges as a primary consideration here. Its lines reach outward - concave or flat surfaces - and it fairly yells, "handle me; try and change me".

In the Powermac, the exterior reminds the onlooker of not only its new, wonderful access mechanism but also of the extensible interior. It embraces the approach of he who seeks to find connection. The sides loudly brag of the internal technical superiority - in other words, this unit is inverted and exteriorizes its capabilities in a fashion that foregrounds not the machine-man symbiosis but the possibilities of cooperative networking with other digital units. The interface with humans is primarily based on the premises of the machine, not those of the user.

So, in these new stationary versions of the Macintosh its various capabilities had been visually integrated. The technical possibilities and their human relevance here mirror each other in a way that signals where the unit belongs in the symbiotic, social relationships. The previous binary of software and hardware were no longer applicable; the Mac had gone digitally organic. The new principles of construction, grasped and applied by Apple in their germination, were all about a unified paradigm which contains an internal and an external side. How could it be transferred to the portable half of the product matrix? - that's for the next instalment.