.................................
To leave Commie, hyper to
http://commie.oy.com/commie_leaving.html
.................................
> > > laadukkaampia kuin muilla alustoilla (koska ne ovat Windows-natiiveja).
> First, define the term "good quality"...
The primary difference between eg. IE5 for Windows and IE5 for Mac is,
apart from the user interface, that IE5 for Mac has buggy DHTML
implementation and poor CSS implementation (compared to the Windoze
version of IE, that is, Netscape's CSS implementation is just as bad on
Windows as IE's on Mac).
I don't know about XML and Java but I'd imagine they are neither
supported as well as in the Windows version. And the integration of the
browser to the system (in Win2k) is a nice feature, really. Enables a
lot of things you simply can't (yet) do on a Mac. Anyway, because
Windows is the default platform for web browsing (some 95% of hits to
the mainstream sites I usually work with are generated by Windows
browsers), the pages are designed for a Windows browser and they look
different on Mac (eg. forms..) although both ways of doing the thing are
as much "the right way" as the another.
Netscape for Mac is to my experience also less stable than the Windows
version. And older versions of both browsers were terribly buggy on Mac.
> BTW, talking about browsers for other platforms, IE for Macintosh is
> a very good browser, for example. I don't have too much to complain
> in the general quality of the browsers for Mac, either. The only
> annoying things are slow Java and JavaScript (= ECMAScript). The
> latter has too much compatibility problems, too. But I'm not exactly
> sure, is the fault in non-standard code on the pages or in bad
> ECMAScript intepreter in the browsers...
Well, no matter how non-stardard or buggy the code, a browser shoudn't
crash when executing it! (This is a problem on Windows' Netscape, too..
But I haven't had a _single_ crash with IE5 on Windows, ever.)
> And it's not really a problem... For me, at least. Usually the pages
> that have a lot of JavaScript errors, don't have too much to offer.
> The JS errors _are_ the content in those cases... ;)
Okay, that's bad web design, but the fact that Mac browsers (and
Netscape, and older browser of course) suck compared to Win IE5 makes
our, the web designers', life a lot harder. If everything worked fine at
once and you could use all the features of IE5 (eg. CSS2 and fully
dynamic CSS, VBScript, full-featured DOM implementation ..) web
designing be a) would lot more fun and b) could create better value for
the users/customers.
But true enough, few web designers/programmers even stop to think about
whether their output works on other browsers than their own. (Unlike
myself, I use about ten different browsers to test compability.. and I'm
not even a coder. =)
> > > Lis�ksi, koska se on niin
> > > yleinen, k�ytt�apua, ohjeita ym. on helposti saatavilla
> And being a typical Windows-user, you really _need_ all that help,
> instructions, expensive "How to use Word" -courses, nerd-friends,
> consultants, etc... because compared to the original model of the
> Windows user interface - Apple Macintosh - Windows is really
> cumbersome and illogical. A Mac-newbie can universalize the interface
> logic of the operating system to the first application he/she uses.
> After getting used to the first program, he/she can universalize the
> basic operational logic to the next program, etc...
I don't agree. (And that's besides which was the original GUI, to my
knowledge Mac owes its UI to Xerox who originally came up with the idea
of GUI, and before Windows there were other more or less widespread GUIs
as well, GEM and the Amiga GUI spring to mind first..)
First of all, I don't think the Mac UI is superior to the Windows one
(now that would be a comparison between MacOS VIII-X and Windows
98/2000/Me, the new editions - I can agree that the old 16-bit Windows
UI was shitty but so was the case with good ole' "linnunp�ntt�"-Macs (I
used a Mac first in 1989 I think)..) - they're different but I don't see
a key feature that would make one or another better.
If we break this down, what comes to mind first is:
MacOS VIII (that's what I've used most and what I have on my desktop as
a test unit) vs. Windows 2000 (ok, that's not necessarily a fair
comparison, but the basics are more or less the same - and some of these
points might be just because I'm not so experienced with Mac..):
- Why do you have to drag a disk to the trashcan to get it out of the
drive in Mac?
- Changing between programs using Alt-Tab or clicking on the icon on
taskbar in Windoez is IMO easier than using the Finder to change
proggies in Mac.
- Using right-click to kill or minimise tasks in Windows is a nice
feature.
- It's kinda stupid that Shutdown is under Start in Windows. On the
other hand, I like the fact that there's only one, branching menu (like
the apple menu in MacOS) and not the File, Edit, View etc. menus that
MacOS has, that get confused all the time with the programs' commands.
Anyway I like the Start menu more, it's a lot simpler IMO than the Mac
way of launching programs (I always have hard time with locating them)
- Windows UI (taskbar especially) is somewhat more customizable than
MacOS UI.
- Recent Applications and Recent Servers are nice features on MacOS.
- Browsing the HD is IMO easier with Windows, if you want to change the
view (list, detailed list, icons etc.) it's just right-clicking and not
using any top level menus..
- Mac desktop is more flexible than in Windows.
- Windows 2000 has a bunch of niceties that really help the user's
life, but I won't go to detail here now.
On the matter of consistent UI in programs by third party vendors, Mac
and Windows are equal, there are just fewer program manufacturers on the
Mac scene and they seem to comply better with Apple's UI guidelines (I
think it has to do with the fact that because Mac was originally created
for desktop publishing, the companies making software for Mac are
genrally speaking more aware of visual and graphic things than the more
technology-oriented Windows suppliers). Microsoft has published a couple
of excellent guidebooks on how Windows program _should_ be designed (I'm
currently reading the MS "UI Bible", called "Microsoft Windows User
Experience", a good book indeed) but it's sad how few companies fully
comply with them. Of course one _could_ force third parties to use
certain limited set of widgets and interface elements, but I don't think
Mac is any better in this (and Linux/Unix X-UIs certainly aren't). What
MS should do, is that the OS should take more control over installing
programs and such (protecting system files, DLLs and registry better and
stuff), Win2000 is a good step in that direction but not good enough. I
don't know how good MacOS is in this sense.
> Let's say that you're a Windows newbie and you're taking your first
> steps with Word. After writing and printing something, you try out
> WinAmp. Your first question is: "How do I open an MP3 file?". You
> don't see the same kind of "Open" button as in Word. There's no
> File-menu, either. After asking some nerd-friend of yours, he tells
> you that in WinAmp, the logic is to right-click on the WinAmp
> window... First the newbie will right-click on a wrong place, but
> eventually he/she will learn that WinAmp and Word use different
> logics for the exactly same actions...
As said above, this has little to do with Windows itself. It's just
that third party program vendors aren't as concerned with consistent UI
and usability as the makers of the OS.
> After the newbie has listened to some MP3 files he/she wants to burn
> them on a cd. "Where are my files?" he/she asks. Depending on who
> she/he asks, he/she'll get a different answer. "Double-click on the
> My Computer icon", says the first. "Open Windows Explorer from the
> submenu of Start menu", says the other. Both ways work and both have
> different logic. "How do I move this file, now?", he/she asks after
> finding the MP3. The first advisor says: "Right-click on it, select
> copy from the contextual menu and paste it the same way into
> different folder". "Drag and drop it elsewhere", says the second
> advisor... "With left or right mouse button?" asks the newbie... It
> will take a lot of time before he/she'll learn some general
> principles of doing things in Windows... ("Right-clicking gives you
> optional commands in most cases, but not in WinAmp where it gives you
> the main commands.", "You can move files by dragging and dropping,
> unless it's a program. In that case, dragging and dropping makes an
> alias to the program instead of moving it", etc...) He/she can only
> universalize the interface logic of Microsoft programs, but not the
> logic of _all_ programs...
First, I don't think it's bad that you can do the same thing in several
different ways, as long as they all are available on constant basis.
Power users can access UI via hotkeys, command prompts, right-clicking
etc. and the "muffin" level users can do things the slow and sure way by
choosing Copy form Edit menu and then Paste from the same menu and so
on.
Winamp UI sucks in the sense that it isn't very Windows-like. In
Windows (esp. in 2000), you can drag&drop almost anything, resize almost
any window or part of a window. The right mouse button adds a great deal
of flexibility and is much loved by us power users or just slightly
advanced users, and the logic of a left and right click (and a
doubleclick) is to me pretty clear: left click selects and activates
buttons, double-click launches applications and opens files and right
click brings up additional information or options.
Now, if you're used to Mac, this may seem difficult, but as I'm used to
Windows, I am not comfortable with Mac. One who starts off from zero
can, IMO, learn either one in about the same time. Their fundamental
logic differs a bit but I woudn't say this or that was better. It isn't
obvious from day one that you can drag&drop things, as it isn't that
right click opens a contextual menu. But when you've learned the basic
logic, it is consistent, both in MacOS and in Windows.
> Compare all this to the same situation on a Mac. You can open files
> in _all_ Mac applications by selecting "open" from the "file" menu.
> There are buttons and other different methods for opening files, but
> the File-menu is always there, in every application (Hell, the
> File-menu is even in calculator, but without the option to open
> anything). There's only one file management system. You can configure
> it to look a bit different (list view, buttons, etc...), but you get
> to the contents of your hard disk always the same way. You can
Same is with Windows, it's just that some developers insist on building
their own file control system, which is idiotic. I think this is
possible with Mac, too.
> _always_ move something with drag'n'drop. In fact, in Mac, try
> dragging and dropping _first_, and if that doesn't work, think
> something else. You need about the half of the information needed to
You can drag&drop everything in Windows, too. In Win2k especially.
> use Windows to operate Mac in the same level. You need half the
> mouseclicks, you get to the menus five times faster (and the menu bar
> is always in the same place which easens finding it - not to mention
> that it is in the edge of the screen, which makes really fast to
> achieve, because you don't have to slow down the speed of the mouse),
> you don't have to dig through tens of sub-pages of a control panel to
> get into some important preference of your machine (TCP/IP). Etc,
> etc...
The average user doesn't need to alter the TCP/IP setting but very
rarely. I don't agree with your arguments. Nested menus are anyway
easier to comprehend, since recent studies show that people usually can
grasp 3-4 items at a time (not the "magic 7" people often refer to, that
was a study made in 1958 and it's proven wrong many times since). For
the inexperienced user, it's better to have a deep nested menu with a
few choices per level than a shallow one with many choices per level.
Power users can use the keyboard shortcuts.. And the menubar is by
default in the same place in Windows, too.
> One friend of mine has used Windows for about three years now (for
> reading email, mainly), and he _still_ doesn't remember, when to
> doubleclick, when to right-click and when to just click... There's
> nothing wrong with his brain, though. Another friend of mine looked
> me loading MP3's to a playlist of a Mac MP3 player. "How do you do
> it?" he asked. "You just throw them there?" He had never noticed,
> that you can do it in Windows too... If he'd learned that (like in
> Mac) drag'n'drop is the basic way to operate anything, he'd learned
> the way in Windows. But because Windows is just a huge pile of
> unorganized information overload, this piece of information had
> bypassed his brain.
Well, you don't need to right click ever if you don't want to. You can
buy a single button Mac mouse and use it, if you're afraid of clicking
the wrong button. The same stuff is usually available in a separate menu
or behind a kbd shortcut. If a program complies with Microsoft UI
standards, it should be 100% keyboard accessible.
I know people who've used Mac for years and still aren't that
comfortable with them (myself included, tho I don't use it on a daily
basis). I know people who grasped Windows UI very quickly with no help.
What does this prove? Nothing. People are different.
> >MS on integroinut
> >> Office-paketin softat aika hyvin niin ett� ne pelaavat yhteen aika
> > > n�tisti.
> In Mac, _all_ (*) the software play together well in Office-like
> logic. Drag the picture in Internet Explorer and drop it to Eudora.
> Voil�! You just made a file attachment to your mail. Notice that
> Eudora and IE are developed by different software houses.
That works in Windows, too! What I mean with integration, is that you
can insert a Excel spreadsheet into a Word document that you can push to
PowerPoint to make a slide show and so on, with very little difficulty.
> Don't get me wrong, though: I don't have anything against Microsoft
> (except that law suit, of course ;). But in my experience, Windows
> just is a poor Polish carbon replica of Mac. You're free to
> disagree... ;) Only BeOS has gotten even close of the Mac
> ease-of-use. (Actually, some things are made even better in Be...)
Oh, our point of view is quite different then. I don't like MS because
of their "divide et impera" policies and because they're just simply too
powerful a company, but I like a few of their products a lot (Win2000
and IE5).
And of course there are other GUIs. I've heard many a good thing about
BeOS (for example, the installation of the system is probably the
easiest ther is), got to look closer when I get the time..
> (*) Of course there are exceptions... Like Netscape, which is very
> un-Mac-like. And most of the Macromedia products have strange
> non-universalizeable interface logic.
Ha! Can you see? It's just a matter of third party vendors' policies,
not of the GUI itself..
--
"Betwixt decks there can hardlie a man catch his breath by
reason there ariseth such a funke in the night..."
- W. Capps, 1623
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
legal notice: http://www.nutempo.com/message_legal.html
