.................................
To leave Commie, hyper to
http://commie.oy.com/commie_leaving.html
.................................
I have to stress that I do _not_ agree with most of the points brought
up in the "Why PC is Better.." etc. list. And I don't think Windows is
any better than MacOS, as speaking of UIs, but I don't think it's any
worse either. (Of course this depends on individual needs of the user.)
> I'm the last guy to argue that Mac would be superiour
> _technically_... Multitasking is poor, networking is poor... But the
> user interface rules. If I'd want technical superiority, I'd use some
> UNIX variant or BeOS - not Windows, which doesn't follow any
> standards.
Well, Windows *is* a de facto standard. =) I mean, Windows has 87,5%
market share (1999) on clients, and it's the biggest single platform for
servers, too (38%). They can be arrogant about standards if they want.
(I don't mean it's a good thing but form the Windows end user
perspective, it's hardly a problem.) Windows isn't superior technically,
obviously. I have been told by nerdie frends that FreeBSD or something
is the top dog but I don't know about that so much. Windows and Mac are
good enough technically, and that's way enough since they are both
superior on the UI side to all viable competitors, as for the time being
(BeOS is not viable =).
> different approach. (The more important question in this "keyboard
> shortcuts or mouse" case is, "Why use keyboard shortcuts in Mac,
> because you can use mouse five times faster than in Windows?")
Well, for many reasons. I argue that it's always faster to use a
keyboard shortcut than select something from a pulldown menu, whether
mouse usage be 5x or 10x or 20x faster than on the rival OS. Laptop
users especially will be happy if everything is kbd accessible, since
you can't always use a regular mouse when you're on the move, and those
trackballs and little sticks and stuff are just so lame.
(That's no excuse for the stupid taskbar gap you're referring to, tho,
but I think this is one example of what Windows has done better than
MacOS.)
> rather provocative. The guy even introduces some Windows limitations
> as "features"...
But then again, in UI matters, less is often more. (Not always, of
course.)
> Like: "Also, when new files are added to an open folder, they are
> automatically placed at the end of the list." If you click the "date
> modified" field's title bar on a Mac folder window, the new files on
> the window will show up _on_ _the_ _top_ of the window, which is far
> more intuitive: you don't have to scroll down the window every time
Well, Windows will autoscroll to the position (end of list) where the
item is, so I don't think that's such a big deal.
> you add something to it. In addition, you can reorganize the contents
> of the window by name, by kind or by size with one click. You can
> reverse the order, too...
Well, you can do that in Windows, too. No problem. (I'm talking about
NT and 2000 but I see no reason why it wouldn't be possible with 9x too,
dunno since I've used the 9x-series very little.)
> But that's just the beginning. Mac uses file system that remembers
> the locations of your files in _every_ window - not just on the
> desktop. You can visually group the icons and they're exactly there
> where you previously left them, the next time when you start working
Optionally that is possible in Windows too (Win2k at least). By
default, files are organized folders first, then documents, both in
alphabetical order. I think this is rather logical and makes it easy to
find a file if you're in an unknown directory (eg. on network disk or
somebody elses computer).
> with your computer again. You can give colors for your icons (without
> changing the icons). For a decade, you've been able to put comments
> on your files (Microsoft just announced comments as a revolutionary
> new feature of Windows 2000). You can easily change icons of your
> files - including folders (you can't change the icons of the folders
> in Windows, because Windows file system can't handle information this
> sophisticated). Not to mention that changing those icons is as simple
> as copy&paste.
In Windows 2000 you can right-click the icon, select "Properties",
click "Change Icon" on the appearing menu and get a list of available
icons. Tho this only works with shortcuts, I think. Otherwise the icon
shows the file association, which can be also altered easily. (I think
you can change files' and folders' icons somewhere too, but dunno where
and how. I suppose it's rather complicated.) But then again, what does
the average user need to be changing icons anyway? I think it's good
that changing icons is not *too* easy, because it would be really
confusing if every icon was different and didn't indicate at all whether
this or that file was a program file, document or a folder.
> What's more sophisticated in Mac is that the files remember which
> application created them - regardless of their file type. You can
> select twenty GIF files, double-click them and they all open to the
> program that created them. In Windows, they open to the program that
> has registered GIF file format.
OK, that's one thing that MacOS does better. But then again, since many
OSs (not only Windows) don't recognize file types using metadata in the
file, it's reallys stupid that Mac doesn't automatically include the
file extension when saving files. This stupidity results in many a
difficulty when transferring data from platform to another..
> The most ridiculous statement was this: "File manipulation in Mac-OS
> is limited to dragging and dropping." ... like dragging and dropping
> was some kind of limitation. To put it simple, Mac is "drag and drop
> all the time". Windows is "ehm... let's see... copy and paste maybe?
> no... try second mouse button... or should you hold shift down at the
> same time... i dunno...".
You can do everything you can do in Mac by drag and drop the same way
in Windows too, if the program follows Microsoft's UI guidelines. This
is a third-party problem, not a Windows problem. And great many programs
work just as expected by drag&dropping.
> that? In Mac, you can drag anything on the desktop and the mounted
> harddisks are visible directly on the desktop, one step closer to
> you. Not to mention that they mount automatically (not only cd-roms,
I think this is purely a matter of opinion. One can have, say, six
mounted harddisks, a floppy drive, a CD-ROM drive, a DVD drive, a Zip
drive, a couple of virtually mounted network directories etc. If they
were all visible on the desktop, it could be messy. I like the fact that
they're all nicely tucked away under one folder. You can always make a
shortcut if you want.
> In Windows, you see unmounted cd-roms on the My Computer window (not
> to mention that you should first know where to go to find them (not
> to mention that there are two different ways to browse the contents
> of your computer)). Why is it visible, if it's not there?
Because the drive exists even if there's no media innit. But I can see
your point. I think the best way would be to show drives as disabled
when there's no mounted disk. I don't like the fact that I have to
insert a disk to see if a drive is properly connected! (OK, this is a
rare case but believe me, I've had my share of rare cases with Macs.. =)
> Unlike in Windows, in Mac you really use the desktop for the purpose
> it name implies it's there for. It's the visual TEMP folder, in
> practice. You drag files to it for temporaly storage and later you
> drag them to other application... In Windows, you usually don't even
No reason why you can't use it in Windows that way too.
> see the desktop - it's behind ten fullscreen applications. In Mac,
> you use desktop all the time (unless you go to the General Controls
> and explicitely turn the desktop visibility off).
Nobody tells you to run all applications fullscreen. By default, very
few programs open fullscreen (at least in Win2k). I for one have often
to maximize the view because I'm accustomed to the old Windows 3.x way
of working with fullscreen windows, but that's just *my* handicap.
> The worst thing in Windows is that you can't use drag'n'drop
> effectively, because there's nothing you can drag to in full-screen
> mode (which is the usual way to run Windows apps)! If you run the
But you can drag and drop in fullscreen mode! (In Windows 2000 at
least.) OK, I admit it's bugged out that you can't drag straight to the
taskbar, but if you start the drag, move the cursor over a taskbar item
and wait for a second or so, the window is opened and you can drop the
dragged item into the "new" window.
> Photosop runs inside a huge window. If you make it smaller, you also
> lose your effective work space, because all the working windows are
> inside that huge window. Usually those windows you need the most are
> lost somewhere beyound the edge of the huge "mother" window.
I think this is some strange idea of Adobe engineers, since eg.
PageMaker on the other hand works just like in Mac, with a transparent
parent window. (I could be wrong about this since it's some time since
I've last used PageMaker, but anyway there are programs that do it that
way - it's possible, it's not just used so often. I for one don't like
it and am very happy that it doesn't most often work that way. I like
the "internal desktop" idea of the big parent window.)
> In Mac, you have the whole screen all the time in use. You can
> drag'n'drop between applications, which is a lot faster than
> copy&paste.
Sure thing is, but as said, you can do it on Windows too. It's just
that many of us Windows users are so accustomed with the old Windows 3.x
way of working that we don't know how to take advantage of the new UI.
> responding: again you lose the drag'n'drop. You can't drag anything
> on the minimized taskbar windows, like on Mac's popup windows (on the
> bottom of the screen). You can only _open_ the Windows taskbar
> windows.
Agreed, this is stupid.
> In Windows, you can use effectively taskbar windows only as long as
> there are about four or five of them - after that the window title
> names start to truncate and you won't see what do the windows contain
> with one glance. You can't select which windows are selected to be on
> the taskbar. In Mac, you can put just those windows on the bottom of
> the screen you _want_ there. (Again, just drag and drop.) What's more
Well, if you need to see more nontruncated window names on the taskbar,
you can resize it. The taskbar can take up 50% of the screen at maximum.
In Windows 2000 there is a feature that enables you to drag&drop
shortcuts on a special section of the taskbar, is this what you mean or
something else?
> important, applications and windows are not mixed in Mac. You can see
> the open applications on the application switcher, which can float
> over the windows or can be a popupmenu on the Apple menubar.
OK, this is a nice feature but personally I am not happy with the
switcher interface. It's very confusing. If this hierarchical organizing
of programs and documents could be accomplished on Windows taskbar style
way, I'd be very happy with it.
BTW, on the matter of switching between programs, I think it's really a
pain in the ass on the Mac that you cannot switch between windows using
a keyboard shortcut like on Windows (Alt-Tab).
> And, Mac popup windows are _on_ _the_ _edge_ of the screen, which
> again makes a lot bigger target (infinite height). In Windows,
> taskbar buttons are one pixel off the screen edge. In Mac, you can
> just throw the mouse down and it always hits the target. In Windows,
> you have to slow down your mouse which is about five times slower
> (this is not an estimation, but a researched fact. It's not a
> coincidence that Mac menubar and the popup windows are on the edges
> of the screen.
OK, this is true. It should have been done better on Windows too. But,
how critical is this, really? Do people click on the taskbar all the
time? No, because they can use keyboard shortcuts. And anyway the
frequency of the need to change between programs is not so great as to
make the difference of 0.5 seconds or 2.5 seconds (or something of the
like) very important. I am a bit sceptic about that 5x bit anyway. I
would believe it takes 2-3 times longer to hit the button on Windows,
but how quick it simply can be on Mac, since for me it usually takes
around 1 s to change to another window using the taskbar?
> "With Mac-OS, there is a single menu bar shared by every application
> in the system. Though it does save a small amount of space, it makes
> it difficult to determine which application's menu you are viewing."
> Well well well... This is the classical one. I don't say anything, I
> let the Mac interface designer say it.
I think this is a good point! I don't think the article you are
referring to gives a satisfactory answer to this..
> http://www.asktog.com/columns/022DesignedToGiveFitts.html
..but it a great article anyhow. A few points:
- Ok, according to the quiz I am not an interaction designer (I scored
about 6/10, depends how you count). Good thing it didn't say anything
about user interface designers.. =)
- On the answer to the second question ("You have a palette of tools in
a graphics application that consists of a matrix of 16x16-pixel icons
laid out as a 2x8 array that lies along the left-hand edge of the
screen. Without moving the array from the left-hand side of the screen
or changing the size of the icons, what steps can you take to decrease
the time necessary to access the average tool?") the author forgets
about the answer he himself gave to the first question: "When the icons
are spread apart, users have a 'buffer zone' between icons, where an
incorrect acquisition will result in no action." Otherwise OK.
- The question 3 *was* a trick question IMO, I mean I at least thought
the original question was referring to a fixed point on the screen.
Obviously the point where the cursor is, is impossible to miss, but
what's the point?
- More answers to Q4: The hidden taskbar is inefficient because 1) it
takes time for it to open, 2) user doesn't necessarily know where it is
(it can be on any of the four edges) and 3) user doesn't immediately
know where on the bar the desired icon is, since he/she doesn't see the
bar. But the original answer A on the page is not valid with Windows
2000 with the possibility to add shortcuts to taskbar. And there have
been Start menu and system tray even before, so I don't agree 100%.
- Q5, the "extra credit" part: "The other 'advantage' usually ascribed
to a menu bar at the top of each window is that they user always knows
where to look for the items pertaining to the task they are carrying
out. This is silly. Users may do various tasks within a given window,
and the menu items may change." So what? I'm not getting the guy's
point. It is an advantage to know which menu is related to which
program!
- Q6: I think Win2k works a bit this way, I am not sure though.
- Q7: What is this circular menu thingie? I thought it was something
like the font selection pulldown menu on Mac, but the answer implies
something else. Can't comment on that since I don't understand what
we're talking about.. =)
- Q8: Great idea, but does Mac work that way?
But otherwise good points. It just overemphasizes the need for speed in
changing between windows, lest only using mouse. I don't think that is
such a key issue. It doesn't mean that Windows shouldn't work that out
better, but it just isn't the most important issue there is.
--
"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
