Mike Blonder: Thoughts on Technology, and the Web

Apple's Automator is a curious effort to spread the good word about scripts and task automation to a non programming audience. Apple is to be commended for taking the step, but the tangible effort, itself, is not worth much. What cripples Automator is the entirely counter intuitive manner in which it works. Apparently, though targeted to a non programming audience, the familiar problem is that a programming crew put together the operation of the product and, thereby, left the audience behind.

Let's look at the following: the example workflows work for wierd tasks; for example, resizing images, speeding up yet another itunes task, etc. Real requirements for business types who are using a Mac, like backing up, should have example workflows, but don't.

Without a schematic of how steps are intended to work together to result in hands free and useful actions by the computer, the non programmer can't follow the process and folds. Here we go again, another Dashboard (I will write on this other solution without a problem feature in a later post).

If Automator offers a view of the applescript, or javascript behind the Workflow, I can't find it. The debugger bombs erroneous routines, but doesn't provide a clear indicator of where the problem may be.

I would welcome a useful Automator. Mac OS X is a great operating system that gets a lot of my attention. Much of what I do with Mac OS X is repetitive and certainly a good candidate for a useful Automator, but I need something more useful than today's package. Hint to Apple: make it better in yet the next version of Mac OS X.

© Mike Blonder, 2007, All Rights Reserved

For my work for my page publishing business daily routines include equal doses of image manipulation, text file management and shell scripting. The Mac was the perfect platform given the underlying operating systems (Mac OS X, child of Free BSD) and the long standing relationship with Adobe®. I bought my first Mac, a Powerbook G4 in 2003 and, in the ensuing years have purchased a second Powerbook G4, and, last year a Mac Mini powered by an Intel Processor.

The Mac Mini has, until now, been a disappointment. To cut to the heart of the matter, I am sitting here with several proprietary applications that were written specifically for a Mac powered by a PowerPC chip. Those applications include Adobe® CS2® and Microsoft' Office for the Mac (2003). The Mac Mini performs terribly with both of these packages.

While I find Apple's Mac & PC television ad campaign to be cute, a better word might be "charming" with an emphasis on the verb "to charm." Having purchased a Mac Mini "before its time," I can attest to having been charmed by something devilish. After all, I now sit here post purchase of Adobe® CS3® (out an additional $600.00), when I would have been fine with a machine running Windows (and at least $600.00 richer) had I known that what I had as far as shrink wrap software wouldn't work on the Mac Mini.

Live and learn. Hopefully not the hard way.

© Mike Blonder, 2007, All Rights Reserved