OSNews

I had a comment on your opinion about the global menubar. I think I disagree the global menubar is not good compare to the menubar placement of Windows, and various *nix system. I don't want to went through interface design theory, but the context change menubar is just something you get used to, and when you remember or know that's the way it works, you could not mistaken again. (In fact, it's extremely easy for a Mac to put the shutdown command under the always accessible Apple menu.) You may argue in a pure sense that when you have to remember some behavour of a system work, that means it's not intuitive or "bad". But I just wonder how much better the system without a global menu bar. That's true that you don't have that context change bar at the top to make confuse you where to command goes. But while you have multiple windows openof a app nd several different apps also open, yuou have indeed multiple menubars that is the duplicate of the others or just different from the other but you have no idea what it is, the confusion is not only stop there when you add the adjustment of where the window place and where to access the app without using the switcher command. It's a huge chaos if you run apps like you do in Mac. I think Mac handle these very well. I don't think your example of your mother get confuse by the menubar is a good example to demonstrate your point. Because I'm sure she will be even more confuse by the multiple menubar. And either way of the interface design couldn't solve your mother's problem if she don't know she just click on the desktop and no command is activated for her to use. >>Erich Ringewald, the author of MultiFinder, made the observation a few years back that the bumper stickers he'd seen (current at the time) saying "Windows 95 = Mac 89" were perfectly true, but the real problem was that Mac 95 = Mac 89, too.<< I'm not clear about what's your point here, are you talking about the interface design or the artichtecture of the Mac OS? Seems to me you're talking double. I think the observation Erich made was directly about the interface design. And in that respect, Mac 95 =Mac 89 is a good thing. although it's been improve again, I would rather think Apple got lucky while they have the interface nail just right at the first time. And if you talk about the underneath architectural design, then you're right. The system didn't change much and that's not good. The changes they made only make it more and more complicated and the problems still due to the much fragile base of the MacOS. So I think Mac OS X is a very good thing. Especially they retain the simplicity as much as they can and run it on a more solid foundation. This is going to be a real opportunity for the mass lay their hand on a unix system. I also want to say something about the comment about the behavior of some Mac users since that was one of your point make in your post. I think it's true that many Mac usrs are "zealots".But that's very much the same with other system' users. To called Mac users names doesn't make the person who call names any better. Mac users is tends to over-react, but their over reaction is not just towards people crticize Mac in a aunfair manner, their reaction is also toward Apple the company make the Mac itself ! What that scenario tell you? One reasons I know is that Mac is being treated unfairly for over a decade in all aspects of computer related domains. And the war between Mac and Windos started because that day Bill Gates took the GUI and make Windows. (You might want to argue history) But there's enough people around to prove what Bill Gates did. And also the hyprocrisy the PC world also add into the complex of Mac users, while the world PC world using DOS and they laugh about the mouse and GUI is not business like and a toy, when the day Windows become more popular (sure, it's popular is because of GUI), they change tune right away. Yet, they don't admit they're wrong about it. Even more so, they defend their position by beating Mac up even more to cover their ass. I think it's even more ridulous today while Mac only hold a mere 5 percent of market share, and those own 95 percent of the market come down hard on Mac, what are they trying to do? I guess one of the reason is what Apple's doing have a lot of relevency to the computer world. They're not welcome to the most because they're not doing everybody's doing. Am I trying to defend the over reaction of the Mac users? No, the reaction itself is "or-react" , but I do understand why it happened. And about they article last time, I'm one of those criticize it. And I stand stand by it, it was bad written (I'm not talking about English, I'm not a English speaker myself). But I think you come from a understanding point of view and forgive her article, that doesn't neccessary for everybody should do what you do, especially the article fundamentally have nothing to defend itself as a balance and informed article. I hope I don't come across as another Mac fanatic to you and took what I said negatively, otherwise the message got lost and it only get worse. Thanks.