.................................
To leave Commie, hyper to
http://commie.oy.com/commie_leaving.html
.................................
> Bloody bloody, how am I supposed to get my work done today, arguing
>with you blokes all the time.. =)
Haha... Because I'm on my period of notice (switching to new job next
month and nothing left to do here), I have the whole day to rant
about Mac and Windows... ;)
> I've seen icon sets for Windows too but I don't know how these things
>work since I've never really wanted to change my icons. I think you can
>change the icon on shortcuts, program files and other non-associated
>files and the icon for _all_ associated files of a kind. But dunno fer
>sure.
Yep, shortcuts and program files. But not folders, individual files,
disk partitions, etc... Mac saves icons to the resource fork of the
file. Every item in Mac file system has a separate resource fork.
Therefore it's possible to put custom icons for partitions, folders
and files.
> Well, Freehand doesn't (even in Windows!), that's one example I come up
>with immediately.
A Macromedia product...
> I dunno what programs all the Mac graphicians use I
>have had the pleasure of working with, but it has been more of a rule
>than an excuse that there are some problems with the file extensions
>when receiving files from Mac users.
Same thing here in Kuulalaakeri. Those damn arrogant advertising
agency folks _just_ _don't_ _get_ it... (nothing personal, Heikki...
;) I mean, i've said it nicely and I've ranted about it: "We have
hundred pc's here and one Mac - am I supposed to be some kind of file
converter here? ..."
I've worked with Windows and Mac - about fifty/fifty - so file
extensions are not some kind of magic to me... I use suffixes always,
if the material is possibly going to a pc in the future...
> True, true. But this is _not a fault of the OS_, it's just that people
>are used to doing otherwise. I suppose these same people (like myself
>often) are very confused using a Mac when they cannot use the familiar
>fullscreen mode..
Hmmm... yeah, you're right... ;) Now after you said it, I can
remember several occasions when I've said to a windows-veteran who
uses Mac for the first time that "No, you can't enlarge anything but
games to full-screen... But you can hide other programs here..."
> > You mentioned the magic words "wait for a second or so".... A second
>> or so is a very long time in interface logic.
>
> Well go and see it for yourself! It is not a very long time. It takes
>longer to drag it down there.
.... because the tab is not on the edge of the screen... So, you have
_two_ slow steps in a row.
I make multimedia for work: sound, picture, animation, text...
(hmm... have I forgotten something?) often simultaneously... So, I
often use several applications at the same time... For me the speed
of transferring data from one proggy to another is important.
> The delay is only to prevent accidental
>triggering of a wrong program when you're moving over it.
Hmmm... Why? Oh, because the window will open in fullscreen mode and
you'll be confused, where are you... Another point for
non-full-screen working...
> Okay, then it wasn't PageMaker but some other Mac-oriented software..
>(Might have been a previous version (3.0 or so) of PhotoShop? Dunno..)
Hmmm... No, (maybe I explained this somehow blurry...) I meant that
you have one huge window and the floating tool windows in
PageMaker... There _is_ the mother window, but it's the working
window at the same time. So, it won't get lost easily...
> Yes, well it has it's advantages too when you get used to it. You can
>have a sort of "desktop inside a program" where you can organize your
>documents. It is very confusing when you see all the stuff that's
>"below" the current window.
Hmmm... In Mac, either choose "hide others" from the Finder menu or
keep option (= alt) key down while changing to another program. That
way the previous program will hide itself when the next one comes to
front. Works with Finder windows too (keep alt key down while
double-clicking a folder).
> Nahh, it's not that bad. You're just not used to it the Windows way.
However you want to say it... I'd say that "It's difficult to get
Windows behave as smoothly as Mac" ;)
> > > Well, if you need to see more nontruncated window names
>on the taskbar,
>> >you can resize it.
>> ... while you lost more the valuable screen size. I forgot to
>> mention, that in Mac the interface isn't in your way all the time...
>
> Well you can hide it if you want! There isn't just one way of doing
>things.
If you hide the taskbar, you lose the whole point to use it in the
first place... After it's hidden, it comes even more slower to use
it... When I'm on Windows, I keep the taskbar open all the time. If
the screen is big and the resolution is big, I drag the taskbar to
two rows high to avoid the window title names to become truncated.
>it isn't much different working in Freehand or
>PhotoShop on Mac or working with them on Windows.
You're right (especially about non-any-guideline-compatible
Freehand), but working with several programs at the same time is
different. I like the Mac-way. It's balanced better.
> You can minimize all windows on Windows by right-clicking on taskbar
>and choosing "Minimize all windows".
I know...
> And there you have the desktop.
But in Mac you have the desktop there all the time, even if you hide
other applications (unless you switch the desktop visibility off from
the General Controls panel). To me, the desktop is one of the most
essential parts of the GUI. I usually try to use Windows the same
way, but because of those full screen obsessions in Windows software,
it doesn't work that well.
But I have to admit that I like full screen mode in browsing the net
(well, it depends, but when I'm just surfing and not testing a web
page, it gives better feel of "being there" ;). And of course games
should run in full-screen mode.
> I can agree that Windows doesn't utilize the desktop to the max, but
>then again, Mac doesn't utilize the keyboard as much as it could.
>Personally (probably because I'm an experienced Windows user), I value
>more the kood keyboard support than using the desktop. Someone might
>think otherwise.
I do... :)
> > Try apple key + tab ... but because you usually see all the open
>
> Gotta try to remember that. =)
... now that I think of it, this was probably introduced in 8.5... If
you have 8, it won't work... But there are some freeware extensions
available - for example Switch-It,
http://home.worldnet.fr/~mmariani/mikaeru/switch_it.html
> > proggies on Mac, you can just click their windows to get them on the
>> front.
>
> You don't always.
Hmmm... why not? As far as I know, it does work always... Oh, yeah,
one exception: If you have a file dialog open, you can't do anything
else... This is probably because of the poor memory handling of Mac.
It'll finally be fixed in Mac OS X...
> And for a oldskool Windows user it's painful to have
>to try to keep all the windows in view at once.. =)
Hmmm... Well... maybe... I like it... I guess this is basically a
matter of .... taste. :) I don't know... But as I said, you can hide
other proggies in Mac by just selecting "hide others" from the Finder
menu (the rightmost menu on the Apple menu bar - in the upper right
corner of the screen).
> OK, now that I am beginning to see what you're ranting all about =) I
>can see you point. In Windows when you right-click taskbar items, they
>show the window controls (minimize, maximize, close etc.) and you can
>drag stuff on them if you wait for the second or so for them to expand.
>But obviously this could be done better.
In, 2000, I guess?... In the versions of Windows I've been using, you
can't drag anything on the taskbar tabs. However, you _can_ drag
things on the shortcuts on the taskbar. That's another
illogicalness... In which version of Windows this was fixed?
> It isn't quite that easy. When you have a couple of programs with no
>parent window and a few set of menus floating around (like in Photoshop)
>over the screen, it's _very_ confusing trying to know, which one of them
>happens to be active.
The passive windows are dim. And you can see the active program in
the program switcher (see the attachment). Buuutttt... I have to
admit, that this could be done better in Mac. But the location of the
menues isn't the case, necessarily.
> Well, the taskbar seemed to be his prime enemy, and taskbar is
>essentially for switching between windows. OK, maybe it wasn't the main
>point but still I think the need for speed was overemphasized in
>general, since most of the tasks mentioned aren't really repeated at
>such frequencies (several times a minute would be different) that it
>would be justified to sacrifice intiuitivity of the UI to speed.
Taskbar tries to do too many things at the same time. The end-result
is that every duty is done so-and-so... When I look the pictures (and
Quicktime movies -
http://www.apple.com/macosx/theater/dock_movie.html) of the upcoming
Mac OS X Dock, I fear that they're trying to bring something like
taskbar to Mac. I hope they make it better... There are some good
points in Dock already: 1) It's transparent, so it can float above
windows and be very big without taking too much from the effective
work space 2) It doesn't mix up applications and files (as far as
I've understood - files are on the right and applications are on the
left).
The drawbacks: 1) It's _too_ visual... The name of the program or the
name of the file is more important for me than the picture of it,
IMHO, 2) although animations look good, I'm sure I'd switch them off
immediately...
> If you go back the thread, the original point _was_ about Office. I
>said, that people buy Office for several reasons, including the fact
>that they are well-integrated into one package. You replied that
>everything is in Mac. I replied, that I didn't mean that, but that how
>easily you can convert or embed documents from one Office program to
>another. You replied that then you need the Office programs to view
>these files (which obviously is the case pretty much with all programs
>that have their own file format, BTW). I replied with the above. Now it
>seems that you're confusing things a bit.
Hmmm... hmm... yeah... yep... But the _big_ question is, what was my
point back then? ;)
Ah, yeah, I was thinking of something that the ideal situation is
where you can make the vector picture in Freehand, and then drag it
to - hmmm - an open Photoshop (with automatic conversion behind the
scenes) window to continue the work. (BTW, this doesn't work to the
opposite direction... damn Macromedia... spoils my every good
argument... ;)
Hmmm... yeah, we were talking about a bit different things.
But what you talked about Office products are true on Mac-side too...
In case you've bought Office...
> I wouldn't agree with that 100%. It might be true that some things are
>much clearer with Mac, but are these essential to the regular office
>worker who only reads emails, writes memos, does some spreadsheets and
>surfs the net?
Why he/she has an expensive computer in the first place... A pda
could do all this.
> If one works with media, be that print, multimedia, sound, moving
>picture or whatever (except for web, which is a different story since
>most of the end users also use Windows and in my opinion web sites in
>general should thus be Windows-accessible first, or just text that can
>be processed on any sort of machine), Mac has lots of great features
>that makes it better for those users.
Eeeh.... Who are we to decide what a user should do with his/her
computer? Before you say anything, I _do_ think that interface
designer should have balls to decide, which interaction method is the
best instead of dumping every half-ready idea to the final
product.... But I _don't_ think that some company should decide that
you need your computer only for this and this and therefore you don't
have to know how to move files on your hard disk.
I think that an iMac is a good solution for someone who _mainly_
wants to read email and write documents, but _maybe_ later wants to
do something else too... The possibility is there and the user
doesn't need to add anything external to the machine (except some
software) to transfer it to a - hmmm - good music machine. You need
better hardware only if you're turning to a serious professional -
the basic Mac sound chip can carry you surprising far (I haven't any
special audio hardware in this Mac and still I do sound for
multimedia presentations...).
Mac UI encourages you to discover things. I've learned to use option
key (alt) in the Finder level mainly by universalizing its behaviour
from Photoshop (or was it vice versa)... "Hmmm... just dragging the
thing moves it... How about if I hold the option key down? Whoa! It
copies..." Works in Photoshop, in Finder and in any application that
has something to drag.
> If one is a programmer, security expert or such, Linux/FreeBSD or
>something of the like is probably the best. Very secure, stable and
>efficient. The difficult UI is no problem since we're talking about
>expert users.
Yup, but the times, they are a-changin'... Linux is coming more
user-friendly. (Not to mention BSD-based OS X...)
> > The Mac ships with _one_ file manager. If you don't like it, get
>> another from third party supplier. But the machine you get from the
>> store has a very clear and simple way to do things.
>
> How many typical end users have enough technical knowledge to do this?
>I don't think many.
You won't want to change it (being a typical end user), because the
default interface is made so well. I'm a power user, and _I_ don't
want replacements... Mac Finder is more visual than any other file
browsing system. It also grows with your needs. Therefore...
> BTW, Windows 2000 has the Mac-style file-browsing as a clear primary
>alternative, the Explorer and Command Prompt can only be launched from
>the "Run" menu (like regedit). And even previously for the inexperienced
>user, this has been the default choice, since it's on the desktop and
>thus easy to access.
... there's no need for three different file management systems in
Mac. And why they're located in three different places in Windows to
make it as illogical as possible to get to them? Why do they have
different _names_ for them? And why is the browser called Explorer to
mix up it with Windows Explorer, which isn't the same thing you open
by double-clicking "My Computer" icon? Maybe Windows Explorer,
Internet Explorer and "My Computer" windows aer technically the same
thing, but it really makes the logic messy...
In Mac you can turn any Finder window to list mode to see the
hierarchy of the hard disk. (Control-click or select "View
options..." from the view menu.) If you close the window and open it
next time a week later, it's still in the view you've set it to. So,
you can specify, which parts of your hard disk need which type of
browsing views.
You can use list view, when you have hundreds of files and icon view
when you have only tens of them. You don't have to switch between two
different programs to get two different approaches. Instead you
switch the mode of the window, the very window that is open already.
Clear, ain't it? In Windows you _can_ switch from list view to icon
view in the folder windows, but you can use only the small icons view
or the list view for anything useful. That's because the whole "My
Computer" -approach is lacking the very reason, why there should be
any big icons in the first place. Windows icons don't remember, where
they were visually located in a folder window after you close the
window. The only purpose in Windows for big icons is... well.. to
look good on the desktop, I suppose. Everywhere else you use small
icons or list view.
In Mac's icon view, you can "organize" your icons to sort of "piles"
in the windows.... You can decide that "this corner of the window is
for shit" - and color all those icons there brown. You see the
meaning of files with one look. In Windows, you're more dependant on
folder hierarchy and accurate naming to get the grip of the contents
of your hard disk. In Mac, you can use your visual memory for
organizing files.
In Mac's list view, you don't see the locations of the icons, but you
still see the colors (and comments, and sizes, etc)... I mean, this
is a really sophisticated system... BeOS has something similar - it's
the only other OS where has been used metadata of the files
effectively. (Still, there were even more advanced ideas for Mac icon
view that weren't ever implemented. Someone suggested that icons that
are in piles should become "pile objects" or something like that...
You'd been able to give name for the pile and see the thumbnails of
the contents by holding the mouse over the pile - without the need to
open another window... This idea didn't get through...)
The Windows Explorer with its columns view really shows the hierarchy
a bit better, but in Mac the file hierarchy is not so crucial thing
that in other OS's, because there are other more visually means for
organizing things.
BTW, OS X introduces an interesting three-column file view borrowed
from NeXT... It's like Windows Explorer developed a bit further...
Seems interesting, although the rumours that Apple is going to
abandon some familiar Finder interaction horrify me... (like those
disks on your desktop that I like)...
--
---> jab | commie
commie radio:
listen at http://166.90.148.110:6136,
set up at http://commie.oy.com/radio.html
