.................................
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... ;)
Oh geez, now I'm spending my _spare time_ defending a Microsoft (sic!)
product on Commie list! How low *can* I go?
> 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..."
Sometimes it just seems so unefficient use of the screen space that you
can't just minimize, maximize and open in fullscreen mode whenever you
please. I suppose not many users need that feature but I've grown very
attracted to it.
> > > 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.
But it really isn't that slow, believe me.
> > 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...
Argh, the problem is there even if you don't work in fullscreen! If
it'd bring to top every possible window when you're dragging your
thingie quickly over them, it would for one thing mess up the Alt-Tab
order of the windows. Also the Win 2000 feature that the button on the
task bar will be flashing when there's something new in the window and
you haven't seen it yet would be messed, and also, there are some
programs that respond when the focus is moved in or out of the window
they reside in (like onFocus and onBlur event handlers in JavaScript).
As a side note, when we're talkin fullscreen mode here, it isn't
actually fullscreen. It's just a window maximized to fit the screen. In
fullscreen mode, you don't have the taskbar or anything. (Try going to
the MS-DOS prompt and hit Alt-Enter so you'll see what I mean.)
> > 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...
I know what you mean, I was just trying to recall which Windows program
consisted of separate menu windows and work area that were _not_ inside
a master/parent window, but I can't recall which one it was.. Maybe I'm
imaging things or sumfink, but I really think I've seen such a program.
> > > > 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
Yeah but speed really isn't everything. I mean I don't like the hidden
taskbar either, for a number of reasons, some that Tog brought up in his
article, but I can see why some people would want to use it. One obvious
case is when you have a "demo" machine somewhere, say a fair ("messut")
or something that you want to show demos of your software or some nice
PowerPoint slideshows (OK, PowerPoint can do the real fullscreen mode so
it's not a problem there but anyway), and don't need to access anything,
it's good to take the taskbar out of the way. Or if you have very small
screen (640x480 or so).
But it would be great if the hidden taskbar could also be bigger than
just one row. If you could drag it to desired size and then click some
"make hidden" attribute on. Then the feature would be more useful.
> 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.
OK, I can admit that Mac takes better care of the desktop and it's more
useful. (Many old Windows programs (eg. WS_FTP) don't even know what's a
desktop, if they use nonstandard file dialog.) But the Windows desktop
is usable, especially if you use it combined with the My Documents
feature (that I personally don't use because I'm used to the old skool
ways of doing things, but that most new Windows users do use).
> > > 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,
I meant: you don't *see* the program you want to activate always. And
the Switcher/Finder/whatever (I am really getting confused which is
which) on the top-right corner in older MacOSes at least is really
strange, I haven't even to date really figured how it works (not that
I'd had tried hard).. But it seems this is better taken care of on newer
versions of the OS?
> 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.
Ha, at least in one thing Windows is superior! =) =)
> It'll finally be fixed in Mac OS X...
Oh bugger. =)
> > 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?
No, you can't drag things on the task bar items (which is stupid and
illogical, yes, agreed), but as I explained before, you can wait and the
window opens, and you can drag the thing wherever you want there. If you
try to drag to the taskbar, Windows at least tell you you can't but you
can do this.
I've seen some very effective uses of drag&drop with shortcuts on
Windows, like a packer/unpacker proggy that packs or unpacks anything
you drag on the shortcut, depending whether it's a packed or not,
without launching any window or dialog. It just spills out "from the
other end". Neato. OK, I know this has been done on Mac for years, but
it has been possible on Windows too for years. It just haven't been
utilized to the max.
> The passive windows are dim. And you can see the active program in
Which isn't always very clear, really.
> 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
This would be nice on the Windows taskbar too, that it could be made a
floating box.. And that you could arrange the window buttons by dragging
them around the taskbar. It's kinda stupid you can't, since most
everything can be arranged thus in Win2k.
> > 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...
Yes yes but the orginal point where all this debate sprang up was, that
people buy Windows and Office because they find them useful and offering
at least something worth their money, not just because evil Bill is
using secret brainwash rays to convert all people of the world into
devotees of his completely useless product. And I argued, that one
reason why Office is so popular, is that it is well-integrated.
But this debate has gone so far away from that, that I suppose it's
better to forget Office for now..
> > 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.
Uhh, the current PDAs (at least all I've seen, Palm and Psion machines
and the Communicator) are really diffult to use. Even if they have a
keyboard, the keyboard is too small. And don't even think about serious
word processing (with automatic proofreading and thesaurus functions) on
a PDA.. (yet, of course a few years from now it'll be everyday) PDAs are
great for mobile use, but think of working 8 hours a day with one.. Uhh,
I can see the ergonomy specialists getting all juicy about the idea. =)
Talk about carpal tunnel syndrome, dorsal and cranial problems,
epilepsy, weakened eyesight.. =) =) (Now isn't it cool to know this many
medical terms in English..? =)
> 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.
No, of course not. But if you are the user (or IT person) planning the
purchase of the computer, it's reasonable to think about the needs of
the user and not to go for the universal solution. I suppose a Mac would
be OK for plain office use too, why not, but the Windows machine has so
many advantages: the price, the compability issues (programs and
documents) and available support/service. (I've heard horror stories
about a Mac floppy drive breaking up and the spare + work to replace it
totalling over 1,500 FIM..) And of course most office workers know how
to work with a Windows machine and not with a Mac, but that of course
has little to do with this or that UI being better, it's just that it's
obviously easier to use the same GUI you're used to than to learn a new
one.
And I still don't agree there should be just one way of doing things. I
can see what you mean by having primary and secondary ways of doing
things, that may be very well applicable in many cases (the file
browsing is one that I can agree benefits from having just one primary
way of operating), but in many it isn't.
> 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.
Now this is a little problem with Windows, since Windows uses Ctrl-,
Alt- and Shift-keys different than Mac, but the Mac-native programs are
the industry standard in graphic work (Photoshop, Illustrator, Freehand
etc.). Which puts Windows-native graphic programs (Corel Draw, Paint
Shop Pro et al.) in a schizophrenic position: should they work like
Windows usually works or like graphic programs usually work? No clear
answer there..
Pity Apple and MS originally went different ways on this issue..
> Yup, but the times, they are a-changin'... Linux is coming more
> user-friendly. (Not to mention BSD-based OS X...)
Hope so. I'm no Microsoft fan, that's for sure. It's just that Windows
is, to me, to date, the best client OS for the regular user. I'd only be
happy to see a Linux variant (or x86-based MacOS) to take that position!
(Although I have still to say that with Windows 2000 it finally seems
Microsoft is really doing something right.)
> > > 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
I don't think you can say that this or that interface would be the best
for everyone. (That's why Win2k still has the Explorer, because we old
skoolers are used to it, not because they want to confuse people.)
> > 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
OK, I can see your point and I think Win2k makes this case clearer. But
I think it's good to have these other options for those who've used to
working with them. (The command prompt is an obvious legacy of the
MS-DOS and pretty much hidden anyway in all Windows versions.)
> 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...
But in Windows 98 and 2000 the Explorer and Internet Explorer really
work pretty much the same way. As does My Computer, which actually (in
Win98/2k) is just a different view to the Explorer (or vice versa), the
latter having the screen split in half.
But OK, it's not like the most logical of things, no.
> 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.
Well that's the way this is with Windows, too. The difference is that
Explorer has the directory tree, My Computer hasn't and that My
Comnputer by default (you can set that) opens a new window for each
folder you open (like in Mac), Explorer doesn't since it works within
one window all the time. (In older versions of Windows they also had
other differences.) And their default view is different, but this can be
changed easily.
> 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
Yes they do, if you disable the auto arrange feature.
> 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
OK, this is something Windows can't do.
But one thing Windows (NT/2000) can do better, I think, is setting the
user priviledges and file sharing per file or per folder basis. At least
the older MacOS's are terrible with network and multi-user things, dunno
about the new ones..
> 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.
That is not the case if you use My Documents, which I think most new
generation non-poweruser users do use. You don't have to remember very
much.. And of course if you have a knowledge management tool like my
beloved company's TJ Dynasty, you don't have to remember almost
anything.. =) I just wonder, why no OS I'm aware of, has a proper
inbuilt knowledge management (organizing and searching _all_ files on
all or some mounted drives/networks by type, name, author, comment,
generator, modifier, last access date, creation date, modification date,
moving/copying date, size, source or a number of other criteria so that
the user doesn't have to know anything about files or folders)?
> 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
OK, Windows should use metadata better. Agreed.
> The reason why Microsoft bundled IE with Windows file system was not
> to bring some extra functionality to folks, but to make their browser
> inseparate from Windows - the operating system. The reason was to
Originally, yes. With Win2000, it finally has some useful features,
too.
> Web pages on desktop? Gimme a break... What's the extra gain you get
> from it - compared to just an ordinary browser window running in the
> background with that fooken stock page open all the time? If you want
Well, if you are like me a DHTML/JavaScript "expert" =), you can value
the active desktop, since it's not noninteractive. I think it is even
possible to build drag&drop hotspots on the active desktop and stuff,
but I'm not sure about that. Sadly the active desktop is rather buggy in
my Win2k beta so I can't use it really.
> to see some page immediately every time you start your Mac, just put
> an alias to the page on your startup folder. (You can drag the
> address out of the URL field in the browser and drop it as a URL
> shortcut wherever you want to...)
Yeah, that can be done in Windows too, but the active desktop isn't
just another webpage. If you know something about web programming, you
can do lotsa things.
> There are a lot of better things for utilizing the desktop than
> making it to some kind of interactive background picture... Another
It doesn't stop you from utilizing the desktop otherwise.
> I think it's good to separate the things that are outside and the
> things that are inside of the computer. Web is outside, hard disk is
> inside. The logic for using them can be the same (I'd like them to
> be...) but you should very clearly know all the time, when you're
> connected to net and when you're not.
If you have a constant connection, I don't think this is necessary. I
mean, when the stuff comes from outside the firewall, it's a different
thing, but within the local network I don't think the user needs to know
whether he/she is accessing his/her own HDD or an outside resource.
> [Putting things to Startup menu versus Apple menu]:
> > Windows does this automatically, which is easier for the "muffin" level
> >user.
> ... and after about ten installations you have a HUGE "Programs"
> submenusubmensubmenu complex
> (http://commie.oy.com/typicalwindowstartmenu.gif) there. Compared to
> my Apple menu (http://commie.oy.com/mymacapplemenu.gif) you find a
> _lot_ of useless crap.
Well, the Windows UI Guidelines explicitly forbid programs to include
any shortcuts to documentation or web pages to the start menu. It's sad
that developers don't follow them.
Windows 2000 has a nice feature that moves those menu items you haven't
used for a period of time (customizable) away, so that they are not
cluttering the view but are easily accessible when needed. (I'd provide
a screenshot, but I'm home where I have an NT machine.) It's really very
useful and makes Start menu much easier to navigate than before. You can
make the Start menu work pretty much like the Apple menu by moving menu
items from the Programs folder to top level of Start menu if you want.
> Because you drag your application to the hard disk in Mac - while
> installing - you very clearly know where they are. Usually an average
> Windows user don't have a clue. Because an average Mac user makes the
> alias to the proggy him/herself (wherever he/she wants to), he/she
> knows the difference between an alias and the file. Usually and
> average Windows user can't tell the difference between a shortcut and
> a real file.
Well why should one be able to tell the difference? If you remove
programs like they should be removed, the Add/Remove program panel (or
using a separate uninstaller), there are few reasons why the user should
concern him/herself with shortcuts and actual files. Actually, I for one
think that there should be no diffence: every icon should be equal.
Sadly, I think that this is not the case with any common OS..
> overload Startup menus... (unless I've organized them myself). Again,
> the feature is there in Windows too, but who uses it? What does
> _your_ Startup menu look like?
My NT Start menu is very messy, I don't use it much so I haven't gone
through the trouble to clean it up. But my 2000 Start menu is neat,
because of the above mentioned feature.
> I hope I don't have to point out, which one of these menus is faster to use...
I don't think this is an issue, since one doesn't launch new programs
so often..
> BTW, what I meant by "getting to the Control Panels in Mac thru the
> Apple menu" was (look at the Apple menu picture: 1) Select Apple
> menu, 2) Select the "Control Panels", but do not select any
> subselection. Now you're in the control panels folder and you can
> trash unnecessary control panels.
You can make a shortcut to the Control Panel in Windows to the top
level of the Start menu if you insist. And on W2K you can access the
Control Panel by right-clicking the taskbar and selecting from there.
> aliases are more clever than Windows shortcuts. If you move the real
> file, the alias doesn't break (unless you move it to another disk).
Well OK, this is the way it should be. I don't know how Win2000 handles
this since one doesn't often need to move program files and I rarely
make shortcuts for documents.
> [Back to hiding programs]:
> > > > - 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).
> >
> > Yeah, but it's not as easy.
>
> What??? I think it's a lot easier to use some feature that is
> _visible_ all the time (like Finder menu), than to find a gimmick
> that's hidden behind the second mouse button on an area of the
> interface, where you're not supposed to click anything at all ...
I wasn't talking about the minimize all here, but that you can right
click on a window name on the task bar to maximize or kill it.
> To hide all the windows in Windows, you have to click the right mouse
> button on the part of the taskbar that has no buttons... It takes
> annoying aiming sometimes if the taskbar is full of window titles,
> and for me it took a couple of years to notice the whole feature in
> the first place...
But in Windows 2000 it's much easier. It's one very obvious icon on the
taskbar. Click there and off you go.
> do _anything_ by clicking _any_ mouse button... Clicking the first
> mouse button on the empty taskbar area doesn't do anything, so why
> would the second mouse button give you any alternative to the first
> one? It's not the first thing you'll think about, because logically
> it would be "doing nothing in an alternative way".
Well I don't think it goes quite that way, but I can see your point. It
is difficult to find, admitted.
> [Mac GUI consistency]:
> >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".
> >
> > Well that is true, but I don't think that's something you can blame the
> >GUI for. PC is an open standard (even though Windows isn't), Mac is not.
> >Therefore Apple has a greater influence over the software developers.
>
> Ehm... we're talking about third party software developers, aren't
> we? I can assure you, that every application developed for Mac
> _doesn't_ have to be qualified by Apple before releasing... There's
> no Apple's greater influence over the software developers because of
I don't know, but if I was Apple, I'd have a policy of forbidding
developers from using the apple logo on their product if their UIs don't
comply with Apple's standards. I know Microsoft has somewhat similiar
system on technical issues. I don't mean they go check out every
possible product, but if they find out that someone's constantly
ignoring their standards, why not take it away? They have the copyright
for the logo and when the average Mac user goes to shop for software,
he/she obviously looks for the little apple on the package to know
whether or not it's Mac software.. See my point?
But I don't know for sure if they do this. They could also not give
their developer documentation to companies they don't like, like
Microsoft does. But dunno about that either.
> > > Right-click logic is not clear, when you add third party software there.
> > Again, I wouldn't blame Windows or Microsoft for that.
> What does it help to blame anyone, if the thing just doesn't work? I
Well, it isn't a problem with Windows, it's a problem with Windows
software.
> think Microsoft should've been more aggressive in talking about the
> interface consistency...
True. I suppose they will emphasize that in the future, because that's
what they have against Linux and the kind.
> > The average user doesn't need to alter the TCP/IP setting but very
> >rarely
> ... so it's hidden to "Start Menu -> Control Panels -> Network ->
> Settings -> Protocols -> TCP/IP"... It's in a subwindow of a control
> panel window's subpage. I think that just pure wickedness... Takes
> some time to find it...
Well, you can access it also from IE for example (which is the most
obvious place where you find out you need to alter the settings). And I
don't think the deep nesting is such a problem with rarely used items
*if* the path you need to follow is logical. To one who even knows what
the TCP/IP is, I don't think you're example isn't so bad. I think it's
rather logical when you get accustomed to the Windows control panel.
> [Keyboard use in Mac]:
> > Power users who know what they want, can use keyboard shortcuts and
> >shortcut icons. Inexperienced users find what they want easier if there
> >aren't many choices visible at the time.
>
> You call using shorcut icons "power using"? In Mac, that's basic
> use... You get used to the idea of aliases very soon, because you get
> used to the file system immediately.
I mean creating your own shortcuts in places where you want and so on.
Few average users do this.
> But talking about keyboard use...
>
> To select things: cursor keys.
> To open something: apple+O
> To get really fast to some file in a folder: Type a couple of first
> letters of the file name
> To get to the next file in alphabetical order: tab
> To get to the previous file in alphabetical order: shift+tab
> To close a window: apple+W
> To get to Mac Help Center: shift+apple+?
> Etc...
>
> What's different from Windows is only that you can't open menus with
> keyboard. That's hardly a loss, because getting to menus with mouse
> in Mac is so fast. While you're still figuring out in Windows, which
> key should be pressed down together with the alt key, you've already
> opened the menu on Mac.
But it is different. If developers follow Windows UI guidelines, they
make all programs fully keyboard accessible. This means, for one thing,
that all items in a dialog box should be keyboard accessible. In Win2k
you can effectively make your own kbd shortcuts to almost anywhere.
Windows also offers support for custom keyboards with own buttons for
launching different browsers etc. (I don't know whether Mac does, I just
haven't seen any.)
--
"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
