.................................
To leave Commie, hyper to
http://commie.oy.com/commie_leaving.html
.................................
Hmmm... finally replying to this...
> > 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).
You're right... although I haven't eperienced CSS problems with
Mac-IE 5... But there seems to be annoying amounts of problems with
Mac-IE DHTML (/JavaScript/ECMAScript or whatever do you call it...).
> I don't know about XML and Java but I'd imagine they are neither
>supported as well as in the Windows version.
IE uses Apple's own Java machine, which is ssssllloooowwww.... at the moment.
> And the integration of the
>browser to the system (in Win2k) is a nice feature, really.
I've never understood, why... I think mixing up external network and
internal hard disk is really strange...
> Enables a
>lot of things you simply can't (yet) do on a Mac.
Like what?
> 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.
Hmmm.... yep, true... IE5 for Mac has finally fixed the annoying
"fonts are sometimes unreadable small on Mac" -problem... which was
caused originally by the different screen resolutions (72 dpi on Mac
and 96 dpi on pc).
> 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.
I have had more crashes with IE than with Netscape on Mac, lately.
Remember, that on Mac's (poor) memory handling, the application
stability depends on what extensions you have on your system.
> 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..)
Apple adopted dumped Xerox project in early eighties. The first
computer to use it (on Apple) was Lisa.
> - Why do you have to drag a disk to the trashcan to get it out of the
>drive in Mac?
A funny detail. You can find similar strange things in Windows too.
BTW, you can eject the disk by selecting "Eject" from the "Special"
menu too, if you feel that more logical. The keyboard shortcut is
apple+E.
> - 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.
You can change between programs in the same way in mac.
> - Using right-click to kill or minimise tasks in Windows is a nice
>feature.
You can hide applications in Mac from the Finder menu (or
option-clicking on the application switcher).
>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)
You can put your applications to Apple menu - like I do. Just drag
aliases to its folder (in System folder). Unlike in Windows, Apple
menu is more flexible: you can go to the submenu folders directly
(select "Control Panels" without selecting any control panel, and you
go to the control panels folder.
> - Windows UI (taskbar especially) is somewhat more customizable than
>MacOS UI.
I think it's not important... More important is to make so good
design that you don't have to put all the possibilities in the final
product.
> - 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..
You can use right-clicking for that in Mac too (control-click with
one-button mouse).
> 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.
Yes and no. Why do Mac proggies follow the guidelines so well? I was
trying to say that UI's in Mac proggies are a lot more "in line".
> First, I don't think it's bad that you can do the same thing in several
>different ways,
It's a bad thing that the designers didn't have a clue, which way is
the best. Seems that they didn't do any research at all (like Apple
interface designers did). If you need additional ways for doing
things, get some third party file manager. There are several
available for Mac.
>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.
Right-click logic is not clear, when you add third party software there.
> 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.
I disagree with the arguments and examples I already said.
> 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.
No, it's not consistent in Windows.
> 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.
It's possible, but it's really rare. In Windows, it's very usual.
> You can drag&drop everything in Windows, too. In Win2k especially.
... especially in full screen mode? Where would you drag what?
>it's better to have a deep nested menu with a
>few choices per level than a shallow one with many choices per level.
Nested menus are a lot slower to use.
>Power users can use the keyboard shortcuts.. And the menubar is by
>default in the same place in Windows, too.
No, it's not in the same place, because its depends on where your
window is. Although you'd use it in full-screen (like you usually do
in Windows), the menu bar isn't on the edge of the screen.
> 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.
You are talking aout options, not the default machine you get from the store.
> 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.
... and you need all these proggies in the other end too to make it work...
> Ha! Can you see? It's just a matter of third party vendors' policies,
>not of the GUI itself..
Macromedia is an exception... Adobe and Microsoft software follow
very strictly the "Apple Human Interface" guideline.
The difference between Mac and Windows is that in Mac the programmers
really follow the guideline. In Windows, they don't. A good example
on Mac-side is a little freeware newsreader proggy "MT-Newswatcher".
--
---> jab | commie
commie radio:
listen at http://166.90.148.110:6136,
set up at http://commie.oy.com/radio.html
