I have a lot of music in my library. More than 60 GB. And so, I can’t really keep track of what kind of music is what all the time, and Genius does that for me. I recently discovered a new Canadian folk duo, Dala, and decided to hear more music in their vein. I popped one of their songs into the Genius Mix, and was surprised to see, despite their relative obscurity, that I had a nice 50 song list to listen to. And listen to it I did. I heard some Leonard Cohen, some Rufus Wainwright, some New Pornographers, some Sarah McLachlan… I suddenly realized something. Musical genre aside, every performer or band I had heard so far was Canadian. I looked through the rest of the list, and, sure enough, 42 out of the 50 suggested songs were by Canadian artists. Did iTunes think Canada was a genre?

I was at once confused and impressed. How did the program even know the provenance of the band? There isn’t, as far as I’m aware, a “Country of Origin” blank in the mp3 metadata. Assuming that the information is gotten from the iTunes music store, then why would it choose a country over the mood, or the genre? This got me to wondering whether this was intentional or not. Perhaps, apart from being Canadian, all Canadian bands have similar styles. I had to admit that the mix was flowing pretty well.

But what I think I’d like to see here is something like what Pandora does. “We’re playing this song because it shares THIS with your chosen song.” Whether the shared feature is mellow guitar, close harmony, or Canadian citizenship, I’d like to know. It doesn’t simply choose the stated genre (with some exceptions, my brother once had a playlist of poems after selecting a Led Zeppelin song mistakenly labeled as “Spoken Word”), so I’d be interested in knowing its algorithm. iTunes could be much more interesting if it gave a little bit more away about its Genius. After all, you never know when you might actively want to listen to a playlist of purely Scottish bands.

After looking at the changelogs both the shiny publicized one as well as the more technical support one I realized that the primary changes that I had issue with were all covered under the phrase “an improved look and feel.” With respect to the geniuses at Apple, this is a terrible way of doing things. The largest way a typical user interacts with a program like iTunes, whether or not it has Home Sharing, Genius Mixes, and the like, is through its UI. We get very used to these interfaces. And yet, there are never any specifics given as to what the changes to the UI actually are. This itself must change.

I’m not saying that the old iTunes interface was perfect, but it was something we were all used to. To suddenly change things around in an interface that makes sense just confuses everyone. Take the new column view, for instance. It is useless to me to have a list of all my artists, and then a small window for the songs. I preferred the old way, when I could have albums, artists, and genres all along the top, while still being able to see the song list below. This doesn’t necessarily mean it shouldn’t have to be changed, but Apple should at least tell us how to make it look the old way. I only found the options for reverting the view by wandering around in the menus for some time.

The playlist and other icons were changed in the sidebar as well. I, personally, don’t really care about this one way or another, but again it brings up the question of why Apple would do this when the old ones worked perfectly well. Is an off-center note more trendy than one in the middle? Is a cut-off gear nicer than a complete one?

About fifteen minutes after upgrading, I had reverted most changes, and made my peace with the new changes that I couldn’t fix. Satisfied with my life, I clicked the green button to minimize the window into the Mini Player I always keep in the corner of my screen. The window simply jumped slightly. Huh. I must have pressed the wrong thing. I clicked again. And again. And again. My world exploded once again. That was the most useful feature of iTunes to have the display become small and unobtrusive. Had Apple actually gotten rid of this? Luckily, this was not the case; I eventually discovered that you could bring up the Mini Player by pressing Shift+Apple+M. Although this made it possible, it still seems like a stupid idea on Apple’s part. Why make this so much more difficult to do? I’m all for keyboard shortcuts, but if my hand is on the mouse, it would be nice to click. At least, tell me how to make it appear, rather than, once again, making me hunt through menus.

So, I’m not against change. Many of the new features of iTunes are great (I love the new Genius Mixes, among other aspects), but just, tell us about them, okay? An “improved look” is not nearly descriptive enough for me. Make sure that I and people with less patience for scanning menus know how to make a program do what it had always done in the past. Progress should not come at the cost of information. We’ll like the updates more if you tell us what’s in them, I swear.

The upgrade process is, in the spirit of most Apple products, incredibly easy to figure out. I popped the install DVD into my computer after taking it out of the packaging. The packaging itself I was less than impressed by, for other than the snow leopards scattered around, there was little else specific to this release. True, there were pages in the booklet extolling the features of the operating system, but most were ones that could be found in 10.5 as well. Nevertheless, this did not stop me from continuing with the installation. The DVD’s minimalist window showed up on my screen, with three choices. Two were folders, and the only one I was interested in was the installer itself.

I double-clicked on the icon, and was presented simply with the choice to install or not. I continued through a few windows, and input my password. And that was pretty much it. Unlike some other installers, this didn’t even have to restart before initiating the install. It quit all my programs, and then I was left with nothing to do. It also took, all in all, a surprisingly short time. It estimated an hour, and it took a little bit longer, maybe an hour and fifteen minutes. Now, I chose to upgrade, rather than to wipe my hard drive and do a clean install. I don’t know how the timing of this would be different.

The waiting was the worst part, however. I was constantly watching for any sign of the petrifying greyed-out screen that signifies a kernel panic. Or even worse, a black screen (or perhaps even worse than that, the smell of burning plastic). But none of these appeared, and my trusty Macbook went through the process unscathed. The computer restarted itself and I was greeted with the same orientation video I saw a few years back when Leopard came out (still cool, but I could have done with something newer).

And then came the other fear: Did my computer still work? Did all my programs and more importantly the system still do what they were supposed to? The answer to this, actually, for the first few minutes, was no. My menubar was, for lack of a better word, twitching. Spotlight kept appearing and disappearing, and I couldn’t see the date, or any of the apple icons. However, with some quick Google searching I discovered that the issue was iStat menus, a very handy little program, but one that has yet to be upgraded for Snow Leopard. The only other big problem for me was that I noticed that, for some reason, I was doing everything much more slowly than usual. I then realized that my application launcher Quicksilver was no longer working, and so I was doing everything by hand. This upset me greatly, but once again Google saved the day. There were a few other necessary tweaks, but in the end it was a very painless process.

So far, I’m very glad to have updated. At least as of now, it’s the little changes that I didn’t know about that I find most useful. Exposé is tweaked to be more helpful. The Dock pop-up menus are on grey instead of white, and so fit better with the aesthetic. The menu bar can finally show the date. The list goes on, but needless to say, updating was the highlight of my day. Oh yes, one more thing. There are many desktop pictures of snow leopards. And none of them are angry.

First of all, you have to hand it to Apple that it is, indeed, thinking different. Instead of a simple, confusable, numerical system, there is something that is easier to take a hold of and understand. Especially compared to its main competitor, who at least up to Vista pretty much just named their operating systems after the years they came out. Even Linux, with even more separate versions of its OS, does not have any particular system for naming them. I have had, in the past, some confusion between Jaguar, Tiger, and so on, but it’s easier than thinking “Oh, was that 10.3 or 10.4?”

A comparison can also be drawn between the ideal features of an operating system and these cats that are their namesakes. A computer should be fast, sleek, and powerful, just like a jaguar, or a tiger. Maybe a computer could do without the meat-eating nature, or the jaws and claws, but the basic features should be pretty much the same. This was probably one of the big aspects of the cats that led Apple to use them for marketing. But the system also raises some questions. Is Apple alienating some of the cat-lovers of the world by designating a strict hierarchy? Are leopards from this point on consistently better than tigers? Are snow leopards better than normal leopards? (I agree wholeheartedly with the latter, but the former I’m not so sure about…)

Snow Leopard itself seems to be milking the system for all it’s worth, more so than its predecessors. It comes preloaded with many desktop wallpapers including some lovely pictures of snow leopards in nature (including the one shown above). At least for Leopard, and I believe the other earlier systems, the only cat connection they had was the name, not any images. There is also the fact, which I think is remarkably clever, that the new update is just significant tweaks to the OS, not a whole different animal. Therefore, it’s just another kind of leopard, rather than a different family of cat.

The system seems to be good for Apple, or at least not bad. It gives people easily remembered titles, and a lot of brand recognition. It differentiates Apple from its competitors, and the names show the ideal traits of the systems themselves. But I do sort of wonder how far this is going to go. Lynx and Cougar are the two predators that are supposedly already trademarked by Apple, but that would only get us up to 10.8. In theory, there would be at least one more model, if they’re using a full decimal system. As much as I love Apple, and am always happy to buy their new systems Snow Leopard is on order as we speak I still think I would hesitate at least for a few minutes when presented with Mac OS X 10.9: Snagglepuss, even!

For many years now, the Get A Mac ad campaign, other campaigns, and general experience have led the typical Mac consumer to think that their computer is unreachable by anything bad, and that, especially compared to Windows, there are no real threats and using a Mac is safe and secure as ever. By including a program that appears at least from the screen shot above to scan downloads for potential security risks, Apple is admitting that there are in fact viruses that can infect Macs, and that its users are not as safe as they might think, at least not currently.

However, by creating this app, they are also, of course, making their computers safer. The theory is, many Mac enthusiasts think, that this is less to address a current, ongoing problem of Mac malware, and rather to keep people’s systems safe for the future. It is still certainly true that there are many fewer viruses and so on made for Macs than there are for PCs, most likely because the market share remains small and it’s just not worth it for the hackers. So, the inclusion of this feature should still be a selling point for the Snow Leopard upgrade which comes out this Friday.

Apple has yet to respond to comments on this feature, which seems to be working against the company. If they discussed the utility, its limitations and features, they might well get people more excited about Snow Leopard, happy to be safe, and so on. If not, as they are doing, it seems as if they are trying to pretend that viruses just don’t exist, which in the end will hurt the company.

Apple also wrote that no discussion with AT&T about the application had taken place, and that all the concerns that had been raised were from Apple’s side and not from the phone company. As had been suspected before, the application was not immediately approved because it was seen to duplicate features already on the iPhone. However, these were described more specifically: the Google Voice application would replace the phone button on the iPhone, and voicemails would no longer be stored on the iPhone itself but on Google’s servers. The same concerns were raised about the SMS section of the application. Apple was also concerned about the safety of the contacts imported from the iPhone to Google, and the company’s subsequent use of those contacts.

AT&T and Google also wrote letters to the FCC as part of the investigation. AT&T confirmed that Apple had not consulted them about the application, and defended its position on internet calling programs by stating that they needed to be sure that enabling VoIP on iPhones would not reduce revenues for the company. Google, always trying to gain the upper hand, stated in its letter that it did not, unlike Apple, screen any applications for its phone operating system (Android), with the exception of pornographic and potentially offensive material. These letters are part of a larger investigation by the FCC into internet calling on smart phones initiated by complaints from Skype. The investigation is expected to continue to discern the rights of wireless networks to screen applications, and whether or not it would make the system more amenable to a monopoly.

The current thinking is that Apple will begin shipping Snow Leopard as early as August 28th, a week or so before the launch window would supposedly open mid-September was the previous estimate. In addition to the revelation that they are indeed ready to ship and sell the operating system (shown by the mistaken appearance of the Mac Box Set), supposed photos of the packaging emerged over the weekend. Also, the most recent version of the OS appearing on the web was most likely the “Golden Master” version, the one that becomes the commercial product.

The error on the Apple Store was discovered when a potential customer called Apple Customer Service to ask if the typical 24-hour shipping also applied to the new operating system packaged with the Box Set. Unfortunately for all of us, the answer was of course no. It’s unknown what caused the product to appear as being immediately available, but the operating system is still available for pre-order at Amazon.com, with a single-user license starting at $29.99.

I have received comments on both of my recent software reviews about the responsiveness and friendliness of the two developers involved. One was writing that their manner was just adding to an already wonderful app, and the other was improving on a program that was less than perfect, taking suggestions for fixes and features. And this got me to thinking. When I have loved a product, whether it was a game or a utility, what was it that really drew me into paying money, into supporting the app? And, in most cases, it was my communication with the writer of the program.

There have been many times when I’ve had questions about a program before buying it. And in most of these cases, I’ve emailed the company asking those questions. This of course only works with smaller companies, but in a way that makes it better. I felt so honored when I emailed Delicious Monster, the makers of Delicious Library, and got an answer back not only promptly but also from the Major-domo of the program himself. The personal connection just made me want to buy the program even more. On another occasion I had an issue with a certain backup tool. I emailed the developer, and got a quick, correct response telling me what I should do to resolve the problem. While it was written in a manner that my father describes as “friendly but with an edge of ‘you should know this already,’” it answered my question and made me more dedicated to use the tool over and instead of the built-in Time Machine.

An argument can be raised, of course, that if an app is truly perfect, a user wouldn’t need to talk to the developer. No problems would ever arise, and so no communication or troubleshooting would ever be necessary. But there are two counter arguments to this. First, a program could hardly ever be this perfect. Second, one might want to contact the developers simply to thank them on delivering such a wonderful product, and encourage them to keep on going. I have done this myself many times. In my opinion, there is never a reason not to contact a developer, and in return, rarely a reason for them not to contact you. Being a friendly person, and even just a person and not a faceless company, is a wonderful way to promote an app, get people’s interest, and keep them coming back.

My personal favorite kind of trial is the latter one, the feature-limited demo, but only in specific situations. Since the applications I tend to test out are games and not utilities or other programs, feature-limited trials are much less frustrating. Too many times I have been playing a demo, and gotten to the point right before a final boss, or a final move of a section, and the window shuts with the message “Thanks for playing! Your 60 minutes are up!” I much prefer games that allow you to play the whole first level or section completely, but nothing else. This occasionally translates into a shorter gameplay experience, less than an hour, but it’s much more satisfying.

However, feature-limited trials too can be incredibly frustrating. For utilities, such as system cleaners, video players, and so on, if a trial is feature-limited, then you can’t really get a good sense of what the application is like. Even if you know, in theory, all the great things it will be able to do when you buy it, you still don’t really know if it’ll work as well as they say, or whether it’s something you’ll actually use. For apps like these, it’s much better to have a trial you can use for a week, or ten days, or even just a few hours.

Compromises have, of course, been reached. There are many programs which allow you to do a certain function a certain number of times, for example fixing metadata of iTunes music, or removing duplicate files. This is not feature-limited, but also not a strict time limit, so the frustration and stress is lessened considerably. These are perhaps the nicest trials.

There is another aspect to this debate that must be brought up. Perhaps the developers do not want a trial to be perfect. My game experience, for example. When I’m cut off in the middle of a level, I want to (and often do) go right out and buy the game so I can continue immediately. And, for time-limited utilities, if it’s something like cleaning your iTunes library, maybe you can do it all within the seven-day trial and so won’t actually need to buy the application. Software trials are supposed to help the product as well as the consumer, and if the consumer can be satisfied without paying money, then that does nothing for the product. So trials are not perfect. But I don’t think they’re meant to be. They keep us on the edge, and just hooked (or angry) enough to go out and buy the full application. The developer’s know exactly what we want, and, through trials, they show us that they have it.

USAA, a company whose largest customer base is the armed forces, is no stranger to new and inventive ways to bank. Because their customers are scattered all around the world, not just around their one branch in San Antonio, Texas, they have previously released a service where a scanned check can be deposited, so the iPhone application is not a far leap. However, compared to many other online banking services offered by other banks, it is a huge step forward. While many banks, such as Bank of America, have dedicated iPhone applications, they are used primarily for checking balances, making transfers, and all in all dealing with the money already in an account. To be able to deposit money without having to visit a brick-and-mortar bank is a fascinating innovation. The customers using this application don’t need to mail in the check later, they can void the check as soon as they “deposit” it and forget about it.

iPhones are being used increasingly to deal with financial transactions, say the most popular banks in America. A cell phone is almost always on one’s person, and so is the most convenient way to bank. Perhaps other banks will soon pick up on the trend started by USAA, and we will be able to deposit and handle our money without ever setting foot in a real bank.

The way I see it, there are really three different types of desktops. One has the background picture as the focus, one has files as the focus, and one has data. My desktop has gone through all three of these stages over the years. Currently, it only has three icons my hard drive, a single folder, and my backup drive. Anything that shows up is automatically moved into that single folder through the magic of Hazel. The primary purpose of my desktop is to see my background picture (a shot from the Musée dOrsay in Paris). I also have a few tidbits of data put up in Geektool, which prints text directly on your desktop, such as what is playing on my iTunes, my battery charge, and IP address. Now, this is the set-up that works for me. I’m a messy person by nature, so I had to find a way to force myself to keep things clean. I used to have files all around, but now, with my increasing use of Spotlight or Quicksilver, I no longer have to see things to open them.

There is, of course, too much of a good thing. Using Geektool, in addition to what I have already mentioned, I also had five separate to-do lists, weather, and all manner of other interesting but unnecessary system statistics. This was great from a standpoint of being informed, but my desktop picture was completely obscured and this depressed me.

Other people I know integrate their desktop backgrounds with the data on them, hiding stats in graffiti, or subway message boards. Others go the complete opposite direction and have countless files that they find by knowing their relations to other files. Many productivity experts say that you should always have a clean desktop nothing to distract you, a clean slate to start from but I know for a fact that this doesn’t work for everyone; here’s an example from a tech support company in Norway:

The answer to the question I asked earlier is really trial and error, at least in my experience. There are countless tools available to make your deskop as customized as you want it to be extra wallpaper, built-in clocks, and so on. See how you work with no files. See how you work with a plain background, or if you really want to see places you’ve been, people you’ve met, then stick a photo or two up there. Data is helpful, but don’t go overboard. Try things out. Play around. After all, it’s a great way to procrastinate. Your desktop may end up being completely different than mine, but I can hope that I at least made you think about it, and set you on your road to your perfect screen.

The official reason for the rejection was that the application would duplicate features that were already available on the iPhone. This is, to a certain extent, true. Google Voice is a service that routes all calls to any number of phones, and has cheap or free international calls. In addition, you can text message and call using your computer, very similar to what Skype offers. In effect, it is a phone completely on a computer, which of course is effectively what the iPhone is as well. However, general speculation is that the pressure for the rejection came less from Apple and potential conflicts with the iPhone software and more from AT&T and conflicts with their cell phone service.

Because Google Voice uses the phone line rather than the data connection, it can, in theory, replace AT&T’s actual plan. This is perhaps the main difference between the proposed application and others that came before. Whereas applications that use the Skype protocol are numerous in the App Store, they are programmed only to be used at Wifi hotspots, and not over the actual data line. Since Google Voice does not present this option, it is more difficult to regulate, from the perspective of Apple and AT&T. In addition to rejecting the official Google application, Apple also pulled some programs previously available that used aspects of the Google Voice service.

In the end, this rejection could hurt Apple. A possible effect of this decision besides many disappointed iPhone users is an increase in other smartphone sales. If, for example, the Palm Pre, which already has a rivalry with the iPhone, allows users access to Google Voice through its much more limited application pool, then potential buyers might prefer that option. Whatever the result, which remains to be seen, Google and Apple join Yahoo and Microsoft as two tech companies making big news this week, with a more belligerent connection.

1Password is an incredible application. Once installed, it automatically installs a plug-in into every browser. Any time a new password is entered, it gives you the option of saving it in 1Password. This seems similar to the password managers built in to many browsers, such as Firefox and Safari, until you realize that the passwords saved are available from any browser. Switching back and forth between multiple browsers, a common occurrence especially when testing out new websites that may not be complete, is made super easy with 1Password.

The application stores all passwords, as well as credit card information, license codes for software, pretty much anything that a user might need but would prefer to keep hidden. This is all accessible through an easy to use interface (primarily the aforementioned browser plug-ins), once a master password is entered. This password only has to be entered once per session, and then a keyboard shortcut is used after that to enter any password or login. 1Password gives you the option of creating new, super-secure passwords for any new web services that would be impossible to remember, but because of how the program works, it is not necessary to remember them.

One of the best things about 1Password is how easy it is, once a password is saved, to put it into a form. The user simply has to press a keyboard shortcut, and it automatically enters the login info into the provided boxes. This is not only easier than remembering your various usernames and passwords, it is also incredibly fast. 1Password also has the option of auto-submitting the information, so you don’t even have to click a button. This is true not only for login information, but also for billing addresses, credit card numbers, and so on.

1Password is not a perfect app. There were a few sites (although not the majority) that it didn’t notice when I was entering in a new password, and so didn’t take it up into its memory. Also, it is extremely difficult to enter a new login from the application itself, rather than from one of your browsers. Oddly, one of the reasons it is so difficult is that the program keeps reminding you that it is easier from a browser. 1Password consistently warns you about things that may compromise your security (using Apples built-in keychain software instead of the Agile Keychain), which is helpful, but can get annoying when it stops you from doing something you know you want to do.

The user interface of the application itself could be more aesthetic, like AllSecures, for example (a similar program). But, since most interaction is done through a browser, this is only a minor detail. Another issue I had, which is more an issue of usage than the actual program, is the suggested password. If a generated password, 16 random characters long, is used for an online banking site, that is fine when it is being accessed from the users computer, but it is impossible to get in from another computer, since the user does not actually know the password.

However, despite these flaws, 1Password is a great tool to streamline the internet especially shopping and banking. It is available for $39.95 (with a money-back guarantee) from the Agile Web Solutions website.

Many software review sites, including this one, now have a significant amount of articles on iPhone applications. This is of course because there are new iPhone applications popping up every day. Racing games, arcade games, even new games that create their own genre. But fewer and fewer articles, at least those about gaming, mention a platform other than the iPhone. I have nothing against new programs, and I think as I’m sure the developers do too that the iPhone is an exciting new way to think about applications, and has such great potential as a platform. What I think is happening, however, is that the developers are so interested and so obsessed with the new possibilities of a small touch screen interface that they are abandoning what can be done with a mouse and a keyboard.

Back in the day, the Mac was revolutionary. Games like Myst or Riven, for example, took the world by storm, and were fully Apple-centric created on, and originally for, only Macs. But now, just as the Mac begins to gain market share, and games are developed and released simultaneously on both Macs and Windows (instead of having to wait through interminable periods of jealousy, watching your PC-loving friends play the ones that you couldn’t), it seems that Apple has created the agent of its gaming downfall. No longer are games on a computer screen the forefront of exciting new ways to play.

iPhone games are now where the revolution is taking place. The touch screen, the motion and tilt sensors, all of the little pieces and features of the gadget make it a wonderful tool to use for game input. But countless times now, I have looked through the web, eagerly read news on upcoming games, and then discovered the link to the iTunes music store at the bottom of the article, crushing my dreams of ever playing it. Now, I know that a huge amount of people have iPhones, and this is a market as eager as myself, but I also know that I am not the only person without one. The Mac is still an amazing computer, capable of doing amazing things more so now than ever, with Core Image graphics, all the other features of Leopard, and so on , but it’s not getting the attention it deserves.

The iPhone is certainly a wonderful piece of technology. But developers have to remember that it is not the only piece of technology. Bring back new, exciting Mac games! Become forerunners of innovation, creativity, and, most of all, fun! Remember that gamers have more fingers than just their two thumbs! Either that, or someone buy me an iPhone.

VLC can play almost any type of media file you can throw at it video, audio, streaming, even recording. It is a cross-platform application, and even proprietary filetypes such as Real, Quicktime, or Windows Media pose no problem at all. It can play DVDs from any region of the world, without having to use up one of the five times you are allowed to switch the region of the DVD Player application.

The newly official release of VLC 1.0 brings with it many new and updated features from the program’s past. There is increased support for skins. The display can be made to look like pretty much anything you can dream of, and there are many skins already uploaded at the VLC site to peruse and download. If you want it to look like Quicktime, or Winamp, or even the computer screens from Star Trek, you can. This allows the program to suitably fit with whatever your desktop background or system set-up happens to be at the time.

The new version also allows you to customize the interface on a more basic level. If there is a button you need, you can add it. If you never use rewind, you can take it out of the controller. The goal of the application is to be a perfect tool for you, the viewer, and it does everything it can to be one.

VLC 1.0 also has sophisticated recording technology, both from internal sources as well as the external microphone and camera built in to most Macs. It also improves upon playback, with better control of fast-forward and rewind, instant pausing, and new compatibility with HD formats, other applications’ playlists, streaming audio, and so on.

VLC can be downloaded for free from its website. Try it out. You may never go back to Quicktime.

Often, throughout the life of a computer, the hard drive slowly fills with all manner of things: music, movies, preferences, support files, and so on. At a certain point this gets to be too much, and a user must clean house. But in order to do so, she must first discover which are the files that are taking up the most unnecessary space, and where they are. This is where disk visualizers like DaisyDisk come in. While it is nothing special, DaisyDisk is a perfectly competent and very aesthetic application for dealing with this problem.

This application is by no means the only visualizer out there. The problem of finding space on your Mac has been around for almost as long as the computers themselves have. DaisyDisk is, however, one of the best-looking visualizers on the market. Instead of showing files as simple rectangles, or even as a list, DaisyDisk shows all files as radiating outwards from the parent folder (marked with the full size of the folder, in the middle). This is where the name DaisyDisk presumably comes from, as the end result vaguely resembles a flower, although it is more similar to a pie chart, with the size of each file’s wedge based on how large it is.

The application presents its data in a format that is incredibly easy to understand. Once it is opened, it presents the user with a list of the various hard drives on the computer, with a bar displaying how full or empty the drive is (which changes color from green to red as more space is filled) Once a hard drive is picked, the disk is scanned (remarkably quickly compared to other visualizers), and navigation through the results, for the most part, is also very user-friendly. One simply clicks on the folder they want to explore either in the list or in the graphic and that folder slides into the center with a nice animation. This can be done indefinitely, drilling down (or outward, as the case may be) into smaller and smaller folders until the space-hogging culprit can be found. The path to the current folder is displayed at the top of the window, and if the center is clicked on, the parent folder opens, allowing easy access backwards. This can also be accomplished by a keyboard shortcut.

This app offers little more than a pretty interface. There are literally no preferences, no options to customize color, layout, even canceling the transparent background which can be a little annoying at times. It also fails to allow for what can often be the most useful tool in any visualizer a delete option. For the most part, people use this kind of application to find files they can remove to free up space. However, with DaisyDisk, once you find the file, you must right-click on it to open it in the finder, and then delete it manually. DaisyDisk does have a few features that beat out the competition the most useful being integration with Apple’s Quick Look. Once a file is clicked on, a user simply presses space bar to hear the audio, see the video or text, which is a great way to see if you really need a file or what it is. But again, if you decide it is unnecessary, you still have to go to the Finder to delete it.

There is also no help available in the application. While it is a very simple program, it is not simple enough  to warrant no aid at all. The Quick Look integration, for example, I found out by accident. There is one option in the menu to scan as a Super-User, presumably to find invisible and hidden files, but this is not explained anywhere. The “Back” button next to the file path also does not function as one might think: instead of moving up a file path, it moves to the last view you were at, acting more like a web browser than a file browser. Despite being a fully released product, it is clear that this is still a work in progress. Besides these omissions and flaws, one of the few menu options that does exist is to submit Feedback to the developers. Hopefully they will quickly respond and change the options that need changing.

DaisyDisk is not a necessary application, nor is it a perfect one. However, for a visually appealing way of discovering the files on your hard drive, a user needs to look no further. While not necessarily the most useful visualizer, DaisyDisk is fun to play with and look at, as the animations are smooth, the colors varied, and the interface simple. DaisyDisk retails for the slightly expensive price of $19.95, and you can download a free 15-day trial from its website.

One of the most useful things about the Dock is that it tells you with a quick glance what programs are open. I can see that I have, for example, four different browsers running, and that’s probably what’s making my computer slow. Or, the reason I can’t find that window is not because I accidentally moved it but rather that the application quit itself. I can also easily see if there are files in a folder, using the Stacks. When this feature first came out, I was one of the people who were a little suspicious of its utility, but I have since been converted. I have a Temporary folder where I put things I have to deal with, and I can tell quickly whether or not there’s anything in there. I can also see whether I have to empty the Trash (a task that is much less arduous than its real-life counterpart, but still one I often forget to do). All of these tasks are very difficult to do with Quicksilver.

Now, you can move files through Quicksilver. You just have to find the file, usually by browsing through a directory, then tab over to the action panel, type in “move to,” and then tab again, and find the final resting place. But, with a few folders in the Dock, you can just drag the file straight in. I find this a lot easier, and a lot less time consuming. Although I might save time by using Quicksilver, I still open up the folders afterwards and make sure that the file was actually moved. That is one big problem with anything done through Quicksilver opening applications, moving files, and so on there’s no feedback. When you click on or drag something to the Dock, it bounces, or fades, or slides. You know something has happened. With Quicksilver, you just have to trust it.

But the biggest reason I keep my Dock around is for the sake of art. There are many programs out there, like Dock Library, SuperDocker, and so on, that allow you to customize the way your Dock looks. I can always be content that my Dock matches my Stack icons and the style of my computer by being “wooden.” You can customize Quicksilver too, but that’s only up for as long as you’re using it. With the Dock, you can also admire the well-designed icons of the world.

I wouldn’t want to compute without the Dock. It may not be my go-to application for launching applications, but it serves so many other purposes that it’s still worthwhile to keep around. Sure, there are scripts, programs, and hacks floating around the internet that allow you to do away with it, but I’m standing by my old friend. A launcher like Quicksilver is the easiest way to be quick, but the Dock adds style and utility to a desktop.