OS X users: Is Quicksilver Dead?

[blessingx]

Since so many here have mentioned they use Quicksilver, I thought I'd link to this interview. Possible sad news, though it's open source. I use the been around longer, but more ignored Launchbar, which I can easily recommend as being faster and less bloated, though it's not free.

[Wodgy]

The Lifehacker "editors" sure have a weird spin on things. He's basically saying it's feature complete for him, and he uses it regularly so it will be updated for future OS versions, but if other people have features they want to add they should add them.

I have no doubt usage has really dropped since Leopard. Most people were using Quicksilver as a glorified launcher, not as the subject/verb file/data munger it was really created as. Now that Spotlight is wicked fast and also has separate, especially fast indexing for applications, there isn't really a reason to use it for the majority of people.

[infinitesymphony]

I really like OSX, but it's strange how many applications either break when the OS is updated, or are updated only to be compatible with the newest OS. Just an observation, though...

It also seems that many more developers want to be paid for their work, since there is significantly less open-source software for OSX. I guess when open-source Linux guys want to get rich, they create OSX applications, because anyone who can afford a Mac is rich, right?

Just kidding. There's some open-source stuff for the Mac that I really wish would make it over to PC. For example, sound editing tools like MacCsound (which is much better than the PC variation) and Soundhack.

</rant>

[Wodgy]

Originally Posted by infinitesymphony

I really like OSX, but it's strange how many applications either break when the OS is updated, or are updated only to be compatible with the newest OS. Just an observation, though...

This happens on all OSes. I am seriously bummed that Ecco no longer runs on 64-bit Vista (and of course it will never be updated since NetManage killed it). Don't even get me started on Linux and changes in glibc....

[infinitesymphony]

I guess that most Unix/Linux distributions have similar issues with updates. I just meant that some authors write programs that are only compatible with the latest versions seemingly for no reason. My only problem with Apple's updates is that they're essentially charging a little over $100 every few years for a service pack, a visual update that could be better or worse than the current scheme, a new number (OSX 10.[n+1]), and some small new applications or functionality. With Linux (and Windows to a certain extent), it's basically all free.

In other words, I envy people who can afford killer Mac rigs.

[Wodgy]

Originally Posted by infinitesymphony

My only problem with Apple's updates is that they're essentially charging a little over $100 every few years for a service pack, a visual update that could be better or worse than the current scheme, a new number (OSX 10.[n+1]), and some small new applications or functionality.

You're just trolling if you claim Leopard is a "service pack." Pick any area and there are massive improvements... systemwide grammar checking, LLVM, shared PIM datastore, application recording, DTrace, Core Animation, on and on. A list (not even a full list) is here:
Apple - Mac OS X Leopard - Features - 300+ New Features
Just because Apple advertises a handful of core features doesn't mean there haven't been massive changes. You never see something like the shared PIM datastore until you have a program that uses it, but once you do, there's no going back. And yes, that means applications may have to drop compatibility for old OS versions. Big deal. My billable hours application, for instance, TimeLog 4 now uses the shared datastore and the improvement in usability is dramatic over the previous version.

The reason people are sticking with XP is because many of the innovative features were cut from Vista so there is less reason to upgrade if you don't need DirectX 10. Until Windows 7 rolls around in 2010, XP will for the most part be what Microsoft has to show for this whole decade. It's sad really. The computer world evolves like none other, and they've been sitting still.

Leopard on the other hand introduces a huge number of very desirable new features, and it's great that applications are moving swiftly to take advantage of them.

[krmathis]

I use and very much enjoy Quicksilver.
Hopefully its not dead...

[infinitesymphony]

Originally Posted by Wodgy

Just because Apple advertises a handful of core features doesn't mean there haven't been massive changes. You never see something like the shared PIM datastore until you have a program that uses it, but once you do, there's no going back.

I guess that makes sense, and I'm probably wrong about open-source developers' motivations. It sounds like Apple's updates are mostly behind-the-scenes but affect system-wide functionality, which is a good thing.

Originally Posted by Wodgy

The reason people are sticking with XP is because many of the innovative features were cut from Vista so there is less reason to upgrade if you don't need DirectX 10. Until Windows 7 rolls around in 2010, XP will for the most part be what Microsoft has to show for this whole decade.

That's probably true, and IMO, it's a bad marketing strategy to announce a new product before the current one has been adopted. This is where Apple has the advantage, since developers probably have good reasons for incorporating new features that force an update.