“Mad Echidna” has posted an article about his migration from a Linux based PC to an old iMac in this article. My Take: My reply to his annoyances:1. Programs don’t close
That’s how the Mac works, it is in fact a system where shortcuts must be used to get a better experience out of it. On the Mac, I use more shortcuts than under any other system (I am a visual, mouse person). ALT+W/Q will do the job.
2. Constant handholding
I never needed such a feature with the Mac.
3. Lack of a media player
Apple is in the business of evangelizing their products, don’t expect Windows or Real codecs to be supported. Simply download these respective apps from their sites, and VLC as well.
4.Interface inconsistency
Two (plus Java). One is the legacy Carbon, and the other one is the native Cocoa. Cocoa supports both interfaces, Carbon supports one (I think). I don’t like inconsitencies either, but at least this is a sexy one.
5. Legacy support
I have to agree with this. Mac OS 9 should have been installed by default with OSX, so users can run their old apps.
6. Theme support
There is a third party hack to add theme support.
7. 3D acceleration
Weird that your box doesn’t support 3D acceleration. From what I know, all old iMacs did have an ATi Rage 8/16 MBs AGP card and 3D games are accelerated just fine. Maybe you mean that it doesn’t support QuartzExtreme? In that case that ain’t Apple’s fault. QuartzExtreme (and Longhorn’s 3D engine) require lots of VRAM and brand new features that are not found on old 3D cards. You need a Radeon/GeForce and above to get QE support.
No offence, but these don’t seem like very good rebuttals Eugenia:
That’s how the Mac works : who cares? It’s unintuitive and annoying. It’s making something manual that the computer could do automatically, but doesn’t, because of a holdover from the way MacOS was designed over a decade ago. It’s stupid and dumb but fixing it would make it less “Mac” so it stays. Why is that not a legit complaint?
Apple is in the business of evangelizing their products: again, so what? Why does he care? Apple are causing him hassle because they want to control another market. Stupid reason, detracts from the product, it should die. But that would get in the way of the corporate politics Apple loves to play. They want to be the next Microsoft, fine, but that’s not an excuse or reason.
There is a third party hack to add theme support: yes, but at least in my experience such hacks break with alarming regularity, and the one I saw actually left bits of the theme behind if you tried to undo it. Apple want consistent branding to help them sell more Macs, and some of their users clearly want to personalise it. Again, what Apple wants is not what the customer wants – no excuses or workarounds please, this complaint is totally justified.
Didn’t the original iMac have an Ati Rage Pro in it? I know those aren’t supported in OSX being the owner of a old Beige G3.
I have to agree with this. Mac OS 9 should have been installed by default with OSX, so users can run their old apps.
I disagree. You need encouragement for the developers to make native os x applications. Look what windows compatibility did to OS/2.
It’s unintuitive and annoying.
I think it’s intuitive and very usefull.
Wow. look at these great arguments flying arround.
I’m a videographer by trade. Now after using Macs for the last two years, in a little over a week, I’m going to go to the IT department and ask to put debian on these things. Sure they are G4s, but Debian (or Gentoo) on these systems will be way better than the high priced, slow Mac software. Sure allot of the products from Apple are nice, but not enough features for the cost.
Sorry I totally disagree with your 1st point, I favour the QUIT way to exit a application, I’ve found it a total pain in the arse when using windows to close a doc that I am working on at that moment to move to work on another part of a project and then going back to work on the previous doc and find that the program has quit with I asking for it to do. unintuitive and annoying to you, but not to others
Mike, the complaint about programs closing is not legitimate because it is based on the opinion that the windoze way is the correct method. Does it really make sense that closing the window of a program quits the application? What if you happen to be done with that window but still want to use the application? It is faster to launch a new window in an open program than to launch a new window & the program itself. If you want to close the program AND the window simply go to the menu and quit. What I find completely ironic is that this switcher complains about not having enough control over some things but then complains the operating system should just “magically” know when to quit.
who cares? It’s unintuitive and annoying. It’s making something manual that the computer could do automatically, but doesn’t, because of a holdover from the way MacOS was designed over a decade ago. It’s stupid and dumb but fixing it would make it less “Mac” so it stays. Why is that not a legit complaint?
It’s like a Mac user using Windows and complaining that the close button quits the application, instead of just closing the window. It’s stupid and dumb, but fixing it would make it more Mac like, so it doesn’t happen. Why is that not a legit complaint?
Point is, the Mac functions differently. You can’t expect it to function like Linux or Windows. Macs have been that way for years. It’s intuitive to Mac users and it just takes a little getting used to if you’re coming from some other OS. Why break compatibility?
Apple is in the business of evangelizing their products: again, so what? Why does he care? Apple are causing him hassle because they want to control another market. Stupid reason, detracts from the product, it should die. But that would get in the way of the corporate politics Apple loves to play. They want to be the next Microsoft, fine, but that’s not an excuse or reason.
What exactly are you complaining about? Windows doesn’t ship with a DVD player, or a Real media player. Linux doesn’t ship with anything out of the box and in many distros you don’t even have MP3 support unless you download it separately.
How is the Mac causing him hassle because he has to download Real and Windows media player? I don’t have Real or WMP installed on my Mac. Why bloat up the default install when it isn’t necessary?
I agree with you that 3rd party hacks destabilize the system. But you’re assuming that all users want to change the themes. A consistent interface is important, as you’ve said so yourself.
From the article:
It’s a little unsettling to leave the system to maintain itself, even if it does always work right.
That’s the silliest thing I ever heard. If it always works right, why do you need to maintain it yourself? Personally I always found system administration a dirty hack. The utopian machine should just work and adapt to its environment and any installed hardware without any user interference. None of the complex OSses reach that goal, but we can only applaud any OS that tries to reach it.
As a recent Windows to Mac “switcher” I do find the lack of customization of the UI disapointing. Grey or Blue? Also the way that the Mac is only optimized for Safari and Mail is fairly lame. One simple example, in iPhoto you can’t send a picture to email unless you use Entourage or Mail. Why couldn’t Apple make it work with the default application? I am finding that Apple wants you to think different until you dump your Wintel box, then it is time to toe the line and think like Poppa Steve wants you to.
That’s how the Mac works : who cares? It’s unintuitive and annoying. It’s making something manual that the computer could do automatically, but doesn’t, because of a holdover from the way MacOS was designed over a decade ago. It’s stupid and dumb but fixing it would make it less “Mac” so it stays. Why is that not a legit complaint?
I agree it’s not exactly intuitive. It’s one thing I had to get used to on OS X. However it’s also something I’ve grown to appreciate. It actually fits in rather well with OS X’s memory management. The system takes no noticable hit when I’ve got apps I frequently use such as my browser and terminal running constantly, and so when I need them I just click on their icon in the dock and get a new window with no load time.
Apple is in the business of evangelizing their products: again, so what? Why does he care? Apple are causing him hassle because they want to control another market. Stupid reason, detracts from the product, it should die. But that would get in the way of the corporate politics Apple loves to play. They want to be the next Microsoft, fine, but that’s not an excuse or reason.
There is a third party hack to add theme support: yes, but at least in my experience such hacks break with alarming regularity, and the one I saw actually left bits of the theme behind if you tried to undo it. Apple want consistent branding to help them sell more Macs, and some of their users clearly want to personalise it. Again, what Apple wants is not what the customer wants – no excuses or workarounds please, this complaint is totally justified.
These I’m gonna stick together because I’ve got the same basic retort. For the first I do kinda agree, however it does make sense that Apple would push for Quicktime and Quicktime does come supporting most non-competing media standards. The problem really is that we have no Windows Media, Real, and DivX support out of the box. However I think this is laregely to be expected. No one childes MS for not packing Real and Quicktime with Windows, and no one to my knowledge packs in a DivX codec with their consumer Windows PCs. Linux can get around this in that they have a good selection of open multimedia apps that’ll play a variety of formats, though typically not their newest incarnation. On a commercial OS it makes sense if you wanna play a format you get that format’s player or your own work around. As for themes, personally I prefer a more consistent work. However once again few commercial OSes are themeable without thirdparty software. Linux distros once again are an exception here.
That’s how the Mac works : who cares? It’s unintuitive and annoying. It’s making something manual that the computer could do automatically, but doesn’t, because of a holdover from the way MacOS was designed over a decade ago. It’s stupid and dumb but fixing it would make it less “Mac” so it stays. Why is that not a legit complaint?
Actually you’re using the word “unintuitive” to be meaning “different than what I’m used to”. Obviously, for someone that’s been using Macs for twenty years, this is perfectly intuitive. Just some semantics aside, there is actual technical reason why Apple implemented things the way it did. By having menu bar to be on top of the screen at all times, you know exactly which application you are currently using. It requres less effort on your part of your eye searching for what application is in focus at any given time. Also having the menu bar at the top allows applications that allows you to open multiple documents (MDI in windows world) to have access to desktop at the same time. An example of this would be Photoshop. It allows you to open multiple images. For windows, the application has to have this large empty parent window surrounding smaller windows floating inside of it and that obscures the desktop. In windows, you can end up having multiple instances of Excel running where each instance of an application is actually MDI. To me that’s pretty complicated concept for someone new to computer to grasp. In a Mac, the top menu bar pretty much forces the clear distinction between the application and the document it’s working on. The idea that you can close the document while the application is still running isn’t all that hard to grasp. But then again, what’s intuitive is really what you’re used to. Just because you’re not used to it doesn’t mean it’s wrong. There are valid reasons for why things are way they are.
Well I don’t know if there’s a set standard way to send an attachment to an email app in OS X. (Or any OS for that matter?) However if an email app wants to have that feature they can just add a plugin to iPhoto. It supports them fine. The app I use with my PDA The Missing Sync includes plugins for both iPhoto and iTunes.
So there Apple provided a door for supporting more, you can’t expect them to support your email app for you with such a feature. I think a more legitimate complaint is that if I wanna set the default browser and mail app, then without a third party tool I have to use Safari and Mail.app to do it.
Lack of UI customization? Install shapeshifter and you can customize it.
Anyway, I ‘m really surprised he didn’t mention the “menubar is always on top instead of attached to the window difference” between macosx and almost all other operating systems. If i’m correct only mac uses that. Dual screen users will know it actually is possible to have for example itunes on the monitor 2 while the menubar of itunes is displayed on monitor 1. Not very handy.
I switched a year ago and i’m now used to it, but it’s still a bit irritating. Same goes for the application doesn’t close when you push the close button thing. I gave one of my mousebuttons the task of apple-q so i can close an app with one click.
-Qutting programs is subjective – it depends on what you first learned and/or how long you did it one particular way.
-Does this Strawberry iMac have a DVD drive? If so, DVD Player is automatically installed. And, it’s a good proram.
-Is the iMac an early type with a tray loading optical drive or the later slot loading drive? If the former, it probably only has 4 MB VRAM. You can look and see in System Profiler.
Guys, please keep this civil and informative conversation going. I’m getting close to being put under Steve Job’s spell and I need to hear honest gripes about the Mac OS that do not involve outright MS bashing or talks of spyware and crashes (neither of which have been a problem for me).
Alright, let’s go through these one at a time.
Mike, the complaint about programs closing is not legitimate because it is based on the opinion that the windoze way is the correct method.
I disagree. Firstly it’s not just the “windoze way”, it’s also the Linux way, and the BeOS way. Those are the systems this guy had used before, and if you change a behaviour as fundamental as this it is definitely unintuitive because it does not act like anything else you have used before. That’s pretty much the definition of unintuitive, no?
Does it really make sense that closing the window of a program quits the application? What if you happen to be done with that window but still want to use the application?
Yes, it makes perfect sense. Firstly non-Mac apps don’t quit if you close just any window, they “quit” (which basically means their process stops running and the system forcibly releases any resources they were holding) when the last window closes. Once the last window has closed, on Windows/Linux you cannot interact with the program at all unless it has a tray icon or somesuch, so it makes sense that the process should exit. On a Mac you can interact with it via the menu bar, but typically the only useful operations you can do with that will open up some other window again.
So this is circular – the reason the app stays in the menu bar is because back in the day, the internal design of MacOS Classic made it convenient to make apps do this. It’s not due to any inherant usability.
Bear in mind that when you say “quit”, what you actually mean is “deallocated”. If the user does not wish to interact with an application anymore then the system should release resources to make other interactions faster. Requiring the user to manually do this makes no more sense than requiring the user to manually disconnect TCP/IP sockets when a network app closes.
The concept of an application as distinct from a window has very poor usability anyway, studies have shown time and time again that people associate what they see on the screen with the underlying resource. The icon isn’t a representation of the document, it is the document. The window isn’t an arbitrary resource of the program, it is the program. Having the app stick around after there are no more windows left requires the user to understand the concept of programs that are running and invisibly slowing things down, but not interacting with the user – not intuitive.
It was said that No one childes MS for not packing Real and Quicktime with Windows.
True. However, “but Windows is just as bad” is not a valid reason. Both Apple and Microsoft try and push their own multimedia solutions on users not because that is what is most convenient for the user, but because that’s what is most convenient for the executives. Just because somebody else does it, doesn’t make it right.
It’s also true that some Linux distributions do not ship MP3 or DVD support out of the box. But this isn’t a deliberate decision of the Linux community, it is forced upon them by the (US) lawmakers. If there were no legal problems then absolutely they would be shipped. In fact I believe NLD and maybe Fedora will be shipping Helix (Real) Player soon. That’s a big difference to “we could ship this, but we want to control the multimedia market so we won’t”.
Finally, I agree with you that 3rd party hacks destabilize the system. But you’re assuming that all users want to change the themes. A consistent interface is important, as you’ve said so yourself.
You’re confusing theming with inconsistency. MacOS X is inconsistent – applications have one of two different appearances apparently at random. For a while the Apple HIG attempted to justify the brushed metal/aqua discrepancies with something to do with metaphors to real life objects, except that Safari clearly has no relation to a real life object so it appears to have been retro-actively justified. However MacOS X is also not themable.
Implemented well, a themable OS can be more consistent than one that isn’t themable. For instance, my current Linux/GNOME desktop is highly consistent because all my programs use the same theming engine and look the same. Most apps are GTK2 based and the ones that aren’t, like Firefox, do their best to fit in.
I’m not saying all Linux systems are like that. They aren’t. Fortunately mine is.
What is important is internal consistency. Do I care if my computer looks different to somebody elses down the road? Not really. Do I care if multiple applications on the same desktop look different for no obvious reason? Well, it’s not a huge problem but it is pointlessly distracting.
This is why theming does not equal inconsistency. Unfortunately MacOS X has the worst of both worlds – no theming yet inconsistent artwork and UI design.
…don’t worry, the flaming will come…
It’s unintuitive and annoying. It’s making something manual that the computer could do automatically, but doesn’t, because of a holdover from the way MacOS was designed over a decade ago. It’s stupid and dumb but fixing it would make it less “Mac” so it stays.
You could also look at why it’s designed that way and take advantage of it. MacOSX isn’t Windows and it has different window handling mechanisms, because they work best the way it’s designed.
The reason for this is: The dock.
The dock isn’t the same as the Windows taskbar. It behaves differently, because it works both as a task bar as well as an application launcher AND a tray icon bar AND a folder shortcut bar. That’s beautifully functional and spacesaving. 4-in-1 where Windows needs four separate program representations for that, which also easily causes clutter of the task bar.
When you run a typical OSX application, you can do two things to get rids of the windows: Minimize them to the dock, or hide them. You can’t hide windows in Windows unless they are hidden to the tray, which only some apps support. That’s probably why Windows must close the app when you click the close button. In short The Window is the app whereas in OSX, the dock icon is the app.
So… when you want to refer to the application in any way look at the dock icon. It’s always in the same place, never moves unless you move it. You can switch windows in the app, you can close the app, open it, hide it, kill it, relaunch it, drop files on it, locate it in the finder and uninstall it from that one icon.
You can’t do that from the taskbar in Windows, because it only offers window, application closing and taskbar control.
Therefore it’s logical that Windows closes the app by the windowor the taskbar button, where OSX closes it by the dock icon. See?
Also learn the keyboard shortcuts for window handling: Cmd-H to hide the current application, Cmd-Shift-H to hide all others. Cmd-< and Cmd-> to switch between windows in an app. Cmd-tab to switch apps. Cmd-W to close a window, Cmd-Q to quit the app.
I also came from the Windows world and about 4 years ago I switched to the Mac at my job and now at home too when the time came to retire the old computer. And I did find it strange at first that I kept having so many open apps that I was not using because I kept forgetting closing them.
Windows, though is not that different. The key to understand why it works that way is to see that you are closing document windows, not so much application windows.
I might be wrong since I obviously did not run any statistics on this, but most multi-windowed apps in WIndows also remain open when you close all open documents, only that MDI makes it so obvious that the app is still open because you have different “close” widgets for documents and applications, and because the whole desktop is obscured by a gray background when all documents are closed. But if you think twice, you will see that Flash, Dreamweaver or Photoshop behave no different in Windows or Macs in this aspect. You simply do not have a “close” widget for the application window, only document windows while in Windows you have both.
Only in later versions of Office (since 2000 I believe), Microsoft ran from its MDI way of doing, where Word could stayed open with no opened documents. So there is some inconsistency in the Windows world too, because many applications will work as “one application for many documents” (like I said, Photoshop is one example) and others will work as “one application instance for each document” (Word, IE…), in essence diluting the difference between the application and the document itself.
On the other hand, not all Mac applications will remain open if you close the window. Some will quit with the window, like System Preferences, iPhoto or iMovie. While I find that unfortunate, since I have grown to appreciate that nothing quits unless I explicitly tell it to “File>Quit”, there is at least some reasoning behing it. In applications that can only have one window open, the window IS the application, and not a document of it, so closing the window quits the application. IMHO it is not so obvious that there is this reasoning behing when you first notice that some apps remain open and some others do not, so it just adds to the (little, IMHO) unintuitiveness that Mac OS X might sometimes fall, but if anything, I think it is quite more coherent than Windows.
> Firstly it’s not just the “windoze way”, it’s also the Linux way, and the BeOS way.
Actaully it wasn’t the defualt behavor for BeOS. Its just that 90% of all the devs made apps behave this way. It wasn’t until R5 that Be supported a “Close App On Last Window” flag in its Interface Kit as i recall.
as a side note:
I have been a BeOS user for a while (full time primary desktop starting back in the R3 day, both at home and at work). I recently picked up a mac mini, and have been quite impressed with OSX overall. I have my gripes (which fall no where close to any of the ones i have read about anywhere
), but as with any desktop it takes time to get used to.
There’s a huge difference in intuitive and merely being consistent with past learned experience. I would argue that something is intuitive when someone with NO experience at all can get it right quickly.
Calling something non-intuitive because it is inconsistent with previously learned behavior is to completely confuse the concepts. This would suggest that there is no hope for changing anything that people have learned, no matter how bad it is. In other words, it’s better/more intuitive because it’s always been done that way or because everyone is used to having it that way. That’s the very reason Windows is still around, in spite of what a piece of crap it is.
I would argue that two very different appearing programs can still be intuitive, because it is the exact details of how the UI guides you to do the right thing, rather than it’s sameness to some other UI, that makes it intuitive.
Also, a poor, unintuitive UI can be consistently implemented across multiple programs. You know what to do because you are familiar with it, not necessarily because anything is intuitive.
Anything that is truly intuitive is such precisely because it does NOT rely on past experience!
I am using iPhoto 5.0.1. When I read that one cannot email a photo from iPhoto I tried to email one of my pictures. Select (click on) the picute you wish to email. Then go to the “Share” dropdown menu and select eMail (3rd item from the top). The iPhoto app gives one the opportunity to determine the pixel size. When finished it opened iMail with the picture attached to a new email window. Enter the email address and any comments and send.
That seems simple enough.
I think one common thread I see a lot (and I see it a lot; part of my job involves teaching a lot of Windows people to use Macs) is that people have a strong tendency to confuse “different” with “wrong” or “unintuitive.” The closing windows not closing the app thing is a great example – the fact of the matter is, each system has its advantages, but it seems like neither side is willing to admit that the other side’s method might have some good points.
Another tendency I see in Windows users is to assume that if something doesn’t end up working exactly as in Windows when they try it, that the feature must not be present at all. For example, people will often hit the ‘delete’ key in the Finder to attempt to delete a file. When it doesn’t work, their first reaction is not to ask, “What is the keyboard command for deleting files”, it is to ask, “Why can’t you delete files with the keyboard?”
“There’s a huge difference in intuitive and merely being consistent with past learned experience. I would argue that something is intuitive when someone with NO experience at all can get it right quickly. ”
So; take a child in front of a Mac with no previous experience. Open up a wordproccessor, tell them to close it. You’re right that the red button in the right corner is pretty obvious; the kid will probably click on it to close the window.
Now– ask the child if the program is still running. They will most likely say “no”; after all, there are no windows open or other obvious indications of the program still running, are there? The child, however, would be wrong.
That is counter-intuitive, by the above definition.
The menu bar is on the top of the screen on the Mac because of (or at least justified by) Fitt’s Law. Dual monitors, however, do throw a wrench in this a bit.
There is no definition for unintuitive – the word doesn’t exist. The correct word is counterintutive.
Regarding the closure of an application when the last document window is closed, the argument could be that since the Mac OS came first (before Windows, Linux, BeOS, etc.) that all the rest got it wrong.
Here are the “rules” for window closure on Mac OS X straight from Apple’s Human Interface Guidelines:
“In most cases, applications that are not document-based should quit when the main window is closed. For Example, System Preferences quits if the user closes the window. If an application continues to perform some function when the main window is closed, however, it may be appropriate to leave it running when the main window is closed. For example, iTunes continues to play when the user closes the main window.”
“ALT+W/Q will do the job.”
I think you meant CMD+Q to quit an application. Maybe you have too many os’s in your head. And I prefer to quit an application when I want to quit and click on the x to close the window. I like the fact that they’re separate.
I don’t get complaining about the interface inconsistency of the Mac moving from Linux of all things! You’ve got QT apps, Gnome+GTK apps, GTK (but no Gnome) apps, wx? apps and who knows what else. Most Linux desktop environments come with a Windows-like “Start” menu, but is every DE and distribution seems to invent its own way of adding icons to it, which are always 10 times more complicated than just dragging an icon to the Dock (or Windows System Tray).
In Linux, the font and size of the “File” menu isn’t even consistent from one application to another!
And it also seems a bit off to complain about “interface inconsistency” and “lack of a themeable interface” at the same time. Which one do you want? The ability to apply your crappy homemade icons and color choices to the applications that support them, or a consistent interface from one application to the next?
So; take a child in front of a Mac with no previous experience. Open up a wordproccessor, tell them to close it. You’re right that the red button in the right corner is pretty obvious; the kid will probably click on it to close the window.
Now– ask the child if the program is still running. They will most likely say “no”; after all, there are no windows open or other obvious indications of the program still running, are there? The child, however, would be wrong.
That is counter-intuitive, by the above definition.
Have you tested this with 100 children, or are you just saying what you would say, and assume everyone else thinks like you? Even your question is biased. It’s better to ask “what will happen if you click the red X button? Will it close the document, or the application?” You could even open multiple documents in the same application. Then see how “intuitive” it is that the red button sometimes closes a document, and sometimes closes the entire application.
The concept of an application or a window on/from an application is just too abstract to be handled intuitively. It is, was, and always will be learned behaviour. Only the nipple is intuitive, the rest is learned.
Does the child really care if the app is running or not? Does he feel delighted when the app opens again in 1/2 sec or does he wish to wait 10 seconds?
I personally find the dock intuitive and practical. And it really isn’t that hard to hit apple-q if you really want to quit an application..
I find things annoying on the mac, i don’t think he hit any of them though.
But on the window closing thing he has a slight point, but only slight.
I think the way apple does it is great…for some apps. Apps that you always have running in the background, like itunes, mail, ical otherwise you end up with a cluttered dock. My problem is there is a lot of apps that should just close when you close them. Like system profiler, preview, quicktime and others. When your close the window it’s pretty clear you have zero intention of keeping them running in the background. Now how to clearly define which way an app should be in a HIG would be difficult.
The wanting a hardware manager is just silly. Apple has worked hard to make such a thing completely un-needed.
Pretty much the same for the rest of his comments. The whole idea of the mac is to not find yourself tweaking with it continually.
That people are friggin morons who can’t understand the concept of a computer?
A Mac OS Xinterface is different than Windows. XFC is different than both, CDE is different yet again. The command line is yet another way.
YET they all fscking do the exact same thing. They run programs. That is their only job, is to provide you the user with a way to run programs. The only other question is how.
Damn it’s like you people aren’t even trying to understand that things can be different yet still be identical, There is more than one way to drive a car, make a plane fly, or walk down the street. Why is it a pain in the neck when your way isn’t the same as the guy’s next to you.
When it doesn’t work, their first reaction is not to ask, “What is the keyboard command for deleting files”, it is to ask, “Why can’t you delete files with the keyboard?”
That’s pretty much my point about intuition. It is designed to help you by allowing you to guess behaviours based on past experience. That is its purpose. If there is a button on the keyboard labelled “Delete” and every OS you used previously deletes a file when that’s pressed, then it’s unintuitive that it would not do the same in the Finder.
Now you can say, but MacOS is right and everything else is wrong! But that is, once again, making excuses – even if in some objective sense Apple is right and the rest of the world is wrong, most “switchers” will be used to the other behaviour. So forcing them to change makes no sense. In most of these cases it does not achieve anything useful because the new behaviour is not so much better that the cost of unlearning a habit is worth it. In the case of the menu bar/persistent apps, you could easily argue the behaviour is much worse.
forgot about this, but apple leaving OS9 support out is good in my book. And makes sense big time for those who are new to the mac, and have zero interest in having anything to do with OS9, (it’s the reason so many hated macs for so long, Mac OS classic sucked). Apple putting support in there only for when people need it, mainly people coming from OS9 was fine.
I really wish windows would cut the chord when it comes to old stuff like apple did. One could hope so much that longhorn would bring a whole new setup like OSX did and have emulation or whatever for old apps, but let those of us who hate crud get rid of it all and just go with stuff made for longhorn.
Another tendency I see in Windows users is to assume that if something doesn’t end up working exactly as in Windows when they try it, that the feature must not be present at all. For example, people will often hit the ‘delete’ key in the Finder to attempt to delete a file. When it doesn’t work, their first reaction is not to ask, “What is the keyboard command for deleting files”, it is to ask, “Why can’t you delete files with the keyboard?”
Well who would possibly think that the keyboard shortcut Delete actually _should_ delete something?
“ALT+W/Q will do the job.”
I think you meant CMD+Q to quit an application. Maybe you have too many os’s in your head. And I prefer to quit an application when I want to quit and click on the x to close the window. I like the fact that they’re separate.
I think he was talking about Windows. You can quit with CTRL+W/Q.
The menu bar is on the top of the screen on the Mac because of (or at least justified by) Fitt’s Law. Dual monitors, however, do throw a wrench in this a bit.
I will have to say that this just makes it harder to click ‘x’ if your app is zoomed (maximized). On Windows (and at least KDE also) you don’t have to aim the little x with your mouse, you just push it up and right until it stops and click. And from a psichological perspective it is perfectly natural for humans to expect the close button on the right side, because we (most of us?) read from left to right and expect and endline, a dot or some kind of termination on the right side. You can actually google this up, there were researches about this – almost every indicator of something that started end on the right side.
In applications that can only have one window open, the window IS the application, and not a document of it, so closing the window quits the application.
People believe in what they see. That’s the way thr human mind works. If you see something then that means it’s there, it exists. So (IMO) the Mac way is not the most appropriate way. If you put in front of a computer (any OS) a person who has never seen before a PC he will think the same way. If the windows doesn’t exist, it’s not there, it’s not running. I will favor Windows for this because it makes a pretty good way handling this. If you hide (minimize) the windows it will still stay at the taskbar to let the user know it’s still there. This is common thinking and there’s no denying it. Also see RK’s comment above.
I agree with you that 3rd party hacks destabilize the system. But you’re assuming that all users want to change the themes. A consistent interface is important, as you’ve said so yourself.
I completely agree with this. An OS should look and feel the same on every PC. This just prevents further confusion. At most, it should only allow a few different color hues to change the look (Mac could have additionall 2 or 3 themes but not anymore).
You can’t do that from the taskbar in Windows, because it only offers window, application closing and taskbar control.
It just extends the confusion. An average Joe must look at the Dock wondering what app is still running (that little arrow is sure hard to see) and what is a shortcut for launching an application/folder. I should be able to view the lower portion of the screen and see exactly what is running and what is a shortcut. Again (IMO of course) Windows does a _little_ better here, because of it’s intelligent positioning. Lower left are applications, a little to the right are shortcuts, in the middle there are RUNNING programs and on the right is the clock + all the apps in the tray that don’t need user’s attention that much.
And btw, Windows’ taskbar can do all that the Dock can and more, because it allows of linking HTML content directly on the the taskbar. Combine that with Javascript and you should be able to achieve what you want. [Google on ‘Windows taskbar Javascript HTML’, or make a script and right click – add – new taskbar – path to the HTML file.
Also learn the keyboard shortcuts for window handling: Cmd-H to hide the current application, Cmd-Shift-H to hide all others. Cmd-< and Cmd-> to switch between windows in an app. Cmd-tab to switch apps. Cmd-W to close a window, Cmd-Q to quit the app.
Thanks for pointing out this. This is one thing I don’t seem to understand so if anyone can explain this better…
Apple still sticks with the one button mouse and is all about simplicity. I ‘get’ some of the parts of their GUI but why do they require so many actions to be controled via a keyboard shortcut. It is far more confusing for a user to remember all the various keys instead of just making those things accessible through a right click menu or a little cluttered GUI.
I understand hiding the application is sometimes more useful than actually exiting it, but they took thw rong apporach there. I think it would be far more useful (and confusing, see ~30 lines up) if the ‘x’ would exit the app and there was either a hide button or if ‘hide’ could be accessed through the menu. There are a lof of flaws on all GUIs, because every developer either thinks he knows better then the user using that app, or just doesn’t have the required knowledge about what makes a good GUI. Sometimes simplicity restrcts us and sometimes too many options cunfuses us.
I really wish windows would cut the chord when it comes to old stuff like apple did. One could hope so much that longhorn would bring a whole new setup like OSX did and have emulation or whatever for old apps, but let those of us who hate crud get rid of it all and just go with stuff made for longhorn.
Microsoft doesn’t have the laxuary Apple has when it comes to their developers. If Apple decides to abandon the Cocoa API and introduce a new one, tough luck for the developers. They will just have to learn the new API because (a) there will always be Mac users that buy software so they (developers) would lose a fair amount of market share otherwise and (b) they are already familiar with the Mac/PowerPC platform and learning another thing would be time consuming and expensive.
On the other hand if Microsoft would just wipe the whole Win32/MFC API developers would start to turn head and maybe leave for a more consistent platform. Just think about how hard Microsoft is trying to push the .NET API and still many don’t use it.
If my memory serves right (it’s late here), that second part of your comment is exactly what Microsoft is doing. All future Windows apps will be based on the new .NET API, and those written for Win32 or MFC will be ’emulated’ by the CLR. But Win32 is still supported on Longhorn. Drivers will have to be .NET though.
I hope I didn’t confuse things here.
/off to bed.
Why the hell is a blog entry by someone called “Mad Echidna” being mentioned on OSNews?
This guy can barely even spell. Look at the stupid cursor. Anyone who uses that cursor (or any alternate cursor) on their website deserves to be beaten with a piece of rubber hose.
He also seems to love using the word “proprietary”.
What?! You have to install a bunch of OS9 software to get Classic app emulation?! That’s ridiculous! Everyone knows you should be able to just dump an OS9 binary on a Mach/BSD system and expect it to run.
What?! No hardware acceleration on my ancient hardware?! What an outrage! This is SO Apple! Microsoft would never do something like that. I’m 100% confident I’ll be able to run Longhorn with 3D hardware acceleration on my Pentium MMX!
I used to be a pc user – those days are gone. Mac combines the best of both worlds – unix underpinnings and a rational UI. The gripes about the interface come from newb switchers who haven’t figured it out yet. The fact that ‘closing’ a window doesn’t exit the app is EASY to get used to. Most of the resources are freed but the app is still readily available – if you’re so old fashioned that you just can’t stand the idea of an app still being at your beck and call – use the menu and exit the application – or press command-Q. Personally, I leave most apps running all the time – doesn’t seem to hurt foreground performance and makes switching instantaneous.
If you don’t have access to a modern mac, don’t theorize as to how bad some perceived lack is – what sounds weird on paper might just be the coolest feature and you mightl actually grow to love it.
The MAC is no panacea, however, it is clear to anyone who’s used one that Apple has spent a LOT of time and effort to make the experience pleasant.
I used a powerbook G4 recently and I loved it! I am in a scientific field were people use linux and so do I! But occasionally you have to boot in windows and that is annoying. In mac os x you have the commercial next to the open source applications and this is so impressive! Let alone this so peculiar feature: when you connect somewhere with ssh and the net connection drops, when you reconnect your ssh connection is still active (!!!???).
the thing is windows managed to switch kernel’s and still maintain like compatibility with like 90% of existing software. I’m sure that the BSD kernel is a hell of a lot different than OS 9’s than NT was to DOS’ but still a little more out-of-the-box compatibility would have been nice.
also to the peron using Fitt’s law. then riddle me this: why is the default appdock raised off the bottom of the screen?
and
just how useful is having an the menu as an infinite target when the menu items themselves are still reletively finite.
Fitt’s law is really about corners more than entire sides.
i don’t know my complaints with the GUI are as follows: having a global menu means that if i have a half a dozen apps open and i want to save on a back ground app (assuming it doesn’t have a save icon in a local toolbar) i have to click that app head up to the gloabl menu save then go back and click the old app. versus the local menus where it’s just move the cursor on top of the file menu of the background app (while still in the back ground) click, it automatically raises the window and opens the menu then save and then refocus on the previous app, saving myself traipsing across the monitor. and of course the dual screen problem. i mean it doesn’t come up all that often on a consumer scale i’m sure but it’s still there.
the biggest problem i think is the appdock, although thats not so much because i hate it as because apple keeps telling me i should love it, my complaints on the dock itself though are summed up pretty well by Tog, http://www.asktog.com/columns/044top10docksucks.html.
though expose is a nice feature and as a chronic keyboard user i appreciate that apple has pretty much everything mapped to a shortcut.
Talk about ‘intuitive’ interfaces is junk. When you see a person, usually someone over 50 who has never grown up with computers use one for the first time, you realise everything we take for granted – that seems ‘intuitive’ is actually learned behavior taken to the point of habit.
I’ve used everything from 8 bit machines, Amiga, Linux, Windows and finally Mac OS X. I prefer not to have to administrate every aspect of the OS nor feel the need to skin the interface. I have the luxury of taking it for granted things work and look how I’d want them. That’s great – it means I can use the computer as a tool rather than flypaper for my mortal time ‘tweaking’.
I like having my programs operating in the background. If Photoshop and Preview are open I can just drag and drop the files into the dock and it will open the file. In windows, If I accidentally close PS, then I have to go through a long process waiting for everything to reload. With my RSS reader, having it operating in the background means it can update content all the time without taking up window space.
I have to say, as original web page gives Mac OSX 9 out of 10, the refutations in OS News are a ‘non-story’.
PS. I never used nor knew about the delete key and windows. Very useful! Does this mean i avoid the counter intuitive window asking me if I’m sure I really want to delete something when I just put it in the trash? Bravo MS.
Heh. I am with you, YNOP. I still have my BeOS machine running… but I use my mini for most stuff.
I also have ubuntu on another PC. But it and my BeOS machine are now relegated to the basement art studio… 
1. Programs don’t close
That’s how the Mac works, it is in fact a system where shortcuts must be used to get a better experience out of it. On the Mac, I use more shortcuts than under any other system (I am a visual, mouse person). ALT+W/Q will do the job.
I’ve found that all-in-all, application management is a whole lot better on the Mac than on Windows.
At my work, all of the users (we are 100% Windows based) run the applications that they use on a daily basis all the time — they never close them, because it is easier and faster to open a Word document when Word is already open, for example. This is the same thing on the Mac, but instead of having to minimize the Word application (on Windows), you just have to close all Word documents (on Mac OS X). It doesn’t require any screen realestate at all on the Mac, aside for the menu at the top of the screen and an entry in the doc. But on Windows, you have a full blown window open, and yet another entry in the already over crowded task bar. Open applications on Windows take more system resources, as well, because you have to actually have a document open to have the application still running.
Now imagine you have 15 applications all running, all taking screen realestate and having taskbar entries. And all the system resources are gone and you’re swapping to disk from memory and you are wondering why the system runs so slow. That’s the normal state of being at our work, and all we can do is buy more powerful hardware, compensating for bad operating system design.
I’ll take the Mac way any day — it’s a shame what corporations will put themselves through in the name of comformity.
I like keeping my apps open all the time.
When I’m doing work, I keep all the apps open.
One click on the dock and the apps there, without the time to open the app.
Apps kept open, sleep, wake up and you’re good to go in a flash.
I’ve kept my apps open for weeks, its a continuation of my GTD.
I like it.
I am really liking quicksilver also.
Things naturally terminating on the right is just BS. There are languages that go the opposite way, and even top to bottom. The close button is probably on the other side so Microsoft could make their OS look as different as possible while copying at the same time, thus avoiding losing a major lawsuit.
Everything is learned behavior, including the nipple.
Actually, since the mouse goes to the top left to do any menu function, don’t you think its easier to have window management buttons in that direction too? (actually in windows it would be window/application management buttons. You know, more intuitive that way :/)
Keyboard shortcuts- So much better on the mac. alt-f4 to close a window is ridiculous. f4 is like miles away from alt on almost any keyboard. Honestly i’ve been using a PC and Mac for many years, and love keyboard shortcuts, but only use them for the mac. They were extremely easy to learn, and quickly became very easy to use. Windows, the only ones i can bare using are cut, copy and paste. The fact that sometimes you use alt, sometimes ctrl, sometimes something else (all depending on what command you want to do) in windows is really very bad.
On the mac, all commands use the command key; add shift or option(alt) as a modifier if you want to have one letter for two different commands(print and page setup). It always works the same way, and ctrl is delegated as a contextual menu button. Always
The fact that you can delete a file by hitting one button in windows is pretty scary. I have to check my waste-bin before i empty it every time because i occasionally delete things i didn’t mean to. It is far safer and more intuitive to use the command-delete keystroke to delete a file, because deleting a file is a command. Do your documents and programs open when you have them selected and hit o? No, you have to hit the command key first, which is either alt, ctrl, the windows button… I’m not sure
Complaining about brushed windows and aqua windows being inconsistent is kinda petty. I agree there is work to be done, and may be done with Tiger, but the truth is that the user interface is almost the same between the two. The only difference other than appearance is whether you can drag the window from just the title bar or from any metal edge.
So i open an app, and see that its metal. hmmm, that means it works just like an aqua app, but i can drag the window from any corner. Big deal.
I’ve never used linux (would like to try it but i don’t have free days of my life to waste to find, download, burn a disk image, setup, install, tweak, search for the good programs, etc etc. My comments have nothing to do with linux other than the barrier to entry i’ve just stated.
actually in windows if you click on the upper left it DOES give you exit/windows management options
“So; take a child in front of a Mac with no previous experience. Open up a wordproccessor, tell them to close it. You’re right that the red button in the right corner is pretty obvious; the kid will probably click on it to close the window.
Now– ask the child if the program is still running. They will most likely say “no”; after all, there are no windows open or other obvious indications of the program still running, are there? The child, however, would be wrong. ”
Wait, so can you tell my why in the world would this child care about whether or not the app quits or stays open? In my years of using a Mac and talking with other people who have switched from other OSes to Mac, I have not once heard anybody complain about this. This article (and the one it linked to) is total flamebait. If anything, I guess it’s kind of amusing to see a bunch of supernerds battle over completely irrelevant details.
it isn’t delete on a button, it asks you “are you sure you want to delete” and actually in windows opening folders and apps IS one button: enter
I don’t think either way’s perfect – I dislike the Mac way of (not) closing apps when I have to use it, but the Linux/Windows one bit me earlier today – I was opening a long list of spreadsheets three at a time. I didn’t really want OOo quitting after I closed them, but that was basically what it was going to do.
The problem with keeping apps open is sooner or later they get in the way – it’s fine saying you don’t want to reload Photoshop, but there’s a reason we don’t preload every single app you might ever want – RAM is a finite resource and it’s not a lot of fun finding and closing everything before you have a game of something.
I agree with the complaint on the interface inconsistency – I’ve read the Apple guidelines on it and they’re totally devoid of logic. Apparently you can use the brushed metal look in four cases – where it pretends to be a real device (iDVD), or where it interacts with the filesystem (Finder), or where it’s accessing the interweb (Safari). I forget the fourth…
Basically there’s no rhyme, reason or consistency in it. Why do those situations require a different look? Why not just stick with one?
Windows officially loses here too though, being in possession of at least four slightly different appearances – classic Luna, Office XP, Office 2003 and again I forget the other one. Plus they’ve got a perfectly good themeing GUI, but you can’t actually change it to anything because it won’t install third-party themes without a complex DLL swap – good going guys…
Linux doesn’t do this well either with the whole GTK/Qt thing, but at least they’re clever enough to have software that’ll cram your theme from one onto the other. And of course it is extensively themeable – one could suggest that’s due to a certain lack of arrogance on their part 🙂
Agree on the media player too – it sucks both ways. Why can’t I just play bloody videos with one program? It’s totally possible, but the companies have to be difficult and try to hang onto their proprietary codec – which goes just as much for playing Quicktime in Windows/Linux as for playing WMV’s in OSX.
“Mike, the complaint about programs closing is not legitimate because it is based on the opinion that the windoze way is the correct method. Does it really make sense that closing the window of a program quits the application? What if you happen to be done with that window but still want to use the application?”
Use minimize.
“also to the peron using Fitt’s law. then riddle me this: why is the default appdock raised off the bottom of the screen? ”
The dock is not raised off the bottom of the screen. Maybe you have a bad monitor or something.
I happen to be one who likes the dock, never really understood peoples issues with it. It could use a few more things. But overall I like it a good deal.
“So; take a child in front of a Mac with no previous experience. Open up a wordproccessor, tell them to close it. You’re right that the red button in the right corner is pretty obvious; the kid will probably click on it to close the window.
Now– ask the child if the program is still running. They will most likely say “no”; after all, there are no windows open or other obvious indications of the program still running, are there? The child, however, would be wrong. ”
You must not have actually done this on a Mac. If you had, then you would see several clues that the application was still runing even though there is no document window open. In the upper left of the menu bar, there is the name of the application. All of the tool bars and palletes associated with the application would still be visible. And if you look down at the dock, then you would see the black triagle underneath the icon.
Of course, it is still completely a matter of choice whether you like this behavior or not, but it is certainly consistent and logical and there is no confusion about what is the active application, document window(s) open or not.
So how do you actually quit an application on a Mac? If you like keyboard commands, then command-Q usually works. If you look under the menu associated with the application name, there is usually a “quit” item (which also tells you about command-Q). Or you can control-click on the iem in the dock, and one of the options is “quit”. All three of these options are in logical places, they are easy to find, and they work the same way for all applications.
maybe, it’s not mine (i’m windows/linux) it’s my grandmother’s (I had once wrote two pages of instruction on how to copy and paste, needless to say i end up using it a lot to show them how to do things) its an eMac and i’d guess the appdock is about half it’s height above the bottom.
although even if i am just absolutely wrong and have managed to overlook this fact for a year and a half (i’ve done worse), the second point stands that aside from the corners pretty much every thing is really a finite target.
I see a lot of comments here on the window and shutting down an application thing. If you take the time out to learn how a Mac works which thank God is different than a PC then the learning curve is not that bad. I guess the assumption is that you have the capability to learn something new.
Also what is so wrong with the idea that closing a window closes a window and quitting an app quits an app? Why does a menu have to be attached to every single window of the app being open. Why do you need a menu for every single window, why not have one menu.
Either way you look at it, it can work both ways its just that Apple does it different than anybody and maybe better and I think that is what upsets people.
“why is the default appdock raised off the bottom of the screen?”
Somebody reads too much Tog.
Tog reviewed the public beta, I think, which had a bug where the dock was off by one pixel. Which meant when you threw the mouse at the bottom of the screen to use the dock, you inevitably “overshot” and had to move the mouse back up to get at the icon.
This has been fixed.
You don’t understand! Closing the last window of an application has to quit the application, damnit! It _just_ has to!
This reminds me of another annoyance. I’ve spoken English since before I can remember. When I go to countries like Mexico they don’t speak English! Talk about unintuitive. How the hell am I supposed to survive?
Regarding the Menu Bar, multiple windows without a surrounding containment window, why didn’t my program quit when I closed the window:
It is convenient and very useable for me to open several windows with
several different images, in order to easily move parts of images back
and forth between other images, this is done very often in Photoshop,
Illustrator, CAD programs, in word processing as well as spreadsheets,
and between applications (via drag & drop).
It is a basic convention on the Mac and works well the more one uses it,
especially If one considers how easy it is to drag and drop files to and from the OS
and between programs most of the time. I find that this makes working
more fluid than saving out a file and then finding and importing it into
the other program that you want to use this information in.
I have always appreciated that when I finish hammering nails I can
keep my hammer out and just grab a few more nails as needed, no need
to go and get another hammer just because I ran out of nails. This is similar
to how the Mac works in regards to the Menu bar and all that.
At work I must use W2K due to the fact that we use Pro-E (high-end MCAD).
It does run on one specific Linux distro, but the company I work for only
knows and supports Windows. Which has been behaving itself lately, luckily.
As for the Media player complaint, Quicktime came out before WMP and Real.
The functionality was better then. Why should Apple be like MS or Real,
reinventing the wheel again or just throw in the towel when Quciktime is a very
capable and useful program for many and it is cheap, US$29.
Went to the Apple center.:-(
I was going to buy an i-book.I’m glad i didn’t.Instead i bought an AMD64 laptop (< 999 euro AMD64 3000+512 DDR,60GB HD,Geforce 5700) and installed gentoo on it.Agreed a little more work at install time,once you have everything in place though it’s a breeze to use.I was realy disapointed by the performance of all the i-books.The AMD64 3000+ runs at 2.0 GHZ and is with linux installed much more snappier than MaxOsX on whatever standard i-book.The only tool that i would consider seriously is a dual 2.5 G5,the rest is to slow.But i don’t have the money yet for a G5 and don’t want to be limited by hardware, i think honestly to build again a PC myself( maybe a vaporchilled one).
why? it takes some of the same complaints that mac (and some windows users) have trown at the *nix desktops for a while now. most glareing is the gui inconsistency one. suddenly its ok that there is more then one widget stylem we are talking mac after all. but use a gtk app inside kde or a qt app inside gnome and most distro testers comeing from a diffrent os will complain about it to no end.
allso, you can pull a similar stunt to the “app not closeing when last window closes” in *nix. mark the binary as sticky and it will stay in ram after its closed, this way you will notice a improvement in load time for frequently used apps but eat up some ram.
The iMacs (G5) and PowerMacs are ok, its just their laptops that are attrociously under powered, hopefully this will change with the next revision of the G4, which apparently will have a on board memory controller, with a front side bus greater than 400Mhz. Lets hope that Apple puts the heat under Freescale.
“That’s how the Mac works” — Eugenia
That is an accurate and fair answer to this. I switched from Mac OS 8 to Windows 95 eight years ago, and the application close/quit thing drove me nuts. But that’s just how Windows works. I just became an adder with my Mac Mini, and guess what drives me nuts? The quit/close thing. I prefer the method used in Windows (and Linux), but that’s just my preference.
The only hole that I can think of in Eugenia’s rebuttal is that not too long ago, a company named Apple ran a campaign called “Switch”. Apple didn’t do a whole lot to ease the transition for those of us who are very accustomed to the Windows way of doing things. Because of this, I tend to be sympathetic with any switchers who find it difficult, if not frustrating, to adapt to the Macintosh Way.
I didn’t need to retrain myself to use KDE, so why should I have to on the Mac? As a multiplatform user, I do prefer that the OS’s I use on a daily basis (Windows, Xandros and OSX) to be as similar as possible (within reason). Fortunately, there are applications (like uControl and Quickeys) that make the transition more bearable.
Don’t get me wrong, OSX is a nice platform. But contrary to what the Mac faithful might say, it’s not free of annoyances, nor is it necessarily “perfect” for switchers and adders, especially heavy Windows users like myself. Exception: Light Windows users and “n00bs” who don’t have deeply engrained usage habits will likely be more immune to these nuisances.
Offtopic: If anyone can point me to a tool/hack that moves the “traffic light” control buttons to the right side of the window bar, I would be extremely grateful.
I guess this is a “why does everyone ignore me”, but anyhow.
In comment’s page #2 I tried to explain why it works that way, why IMHO is exactly the same way in Windows (albeit less obvious) except that it is quite more consistent in the Mac, and why it is not true that, in Windows, when you close the last window you quit the application (really depends on the app).
But I wonder if my take on that was of little interest to everybody. All the quarreling has turn in what is the meaning of intuitiveness…
I think he was talking about Windows. You can quit with CTRL+W/Q.
You see? This is precisely what I was talking about. CTRL+W (most of the times) closes a document while leaving the app open while CTRL+Q quits the app. Same in Windows as in Mac OS.
…drop the static menubar (or at least offer an option to turn it off), offer the menu of the active app as an extensive context-menu.
to hell with fitts law.
Programs don’t close
What exactly does it mean for a program to `close’? When you close the last window of a application in OS X and select another one the only difference in the UI is that the old app still has a triangle next to its icon in the dock. Do you mean it’s still eating you RAM? OS X uses around 5-10% of your disk space as virtual memory, so your old app will quickly be swapped out to disk if you don’t use it for a while. When you want it again, it will just be paged back in, which is usually quicker than starting it again.
Constant handholding
I’m not sure what this means, or what is meant be a `hardware manager’. The system profiler allows you to see all of your hardware in some detail, if this is what is required. Beyond that, a lot of tweaking can be done via the sysctl and nvram commands in the terminal. If you want to tweak, the options are there. If you want to just use your computer, you aren’t forced to tweak. You can even boot the system to single-user mode, or have a standard UNIX-like init display instead of the boot splash screen if you prefer, both with a single key combination at boot time. Oh, and if you really want hardware management, take a look at what is possible with OpenFirmware, and then remember the crippled (by comparison) BIOS from your old PC.
Lack of a media player
What is a `media player’? Are video and audio to be treated the same way (a horrible idea, in my estimation)? iTunes provides everything you need for managing music, DVD player allows you to play DVDs, and QuickTime plays most video clips embedded in web pages (unless they use WMV or RealVideo, in which case you will need to download Windows Media Player or Real Player). The QuickTime player is a bit dated now, but the player included with QuickTime 7 (due soon) looks to address this. I, personally, use VLC for most video playback, and it handles more or less anything I throw at it (it also seems better at de-interlacing DVDs than Apple’s DVD player).
Interface inconsistency
A different appearance is given to applications that behave differently. This gives a visual clue as to their behaviour. Brushed metal apps are NeXT-ish, Aqua apps are MacOS-ish (the Finder is a good example of this – it has both a brushed metal and an Aqua mode with corresponding behaviour). Where there is no difference in behaviour, the Aqua interface is preferred for document driven applications and the brushed metal interface is preferred for everything else.
Legacy support
Yes, you have to install the Classic environment to use Classic apps. Most new switchers have no Classic apps, and so have no need of it. Existing users know that they need it, so they install it. MacOS Classic had a different set of HIGs to OS X, and maintaining the platinum look for apps run in the Classic environment gives users a visual clue that their apps are not going to behave exactly like modern ones. Beyond that, they integrate well with the rest of the system – drag and drop and copy and paste work, and the finder will happily launch classic apps if you click on a file type associated with one (or via the open with menu).
Theme support
The Graphite colour scheme exists because a blue UI is bad for graphics work. Note that Graphite is not a theme, it is simply a set of different colours, for people working a lot with colour. Read Raskin for more on why theme engines are generally a bad idea UI-wise.
3D acceleration
I believe the Rage 128 was the oldest 3D card to be supported by OS X. The Rage 128 offered similar performance to a VooDoo 2 (i.e. hardly stellar), and earlier Rage cards were barely worth calling 3D accelerators. Trying to run OpenGL apps on one would be very slow, making it not worth the effort of supporting.
I just do not get why everyone is so hung up on the fact that the program does not quit when you close the window. It is not that difficult to comprehend. I am working from a Mac right now, on my desk I have a Slackware box with FVWM and at work I have a mix of Windows, CDE, and Gnome. It does not take a genius to learn the behaviors of different OS/Desktops. Why does everyone seem to assume the average user is an idiot?
At first I found it unsettling that when I closed the window the app did not close. I would occasionally go down to the Dock and close everything I was done with. After a week or so though I got used to <CMD>-W and <CMD>-Q and <CMD>-H. It is not counter-intuitive nor is it intuitive, both Windows and Mac methods are learned behavior.
Another thing I find mildly ironic is that everyone only mentions the negative. Overall it was a fairly positive review of Mac OS X. Mac OS X is not perfect but it certainly has a number of things going for it. Ease of use with a POSIX(ish) back end is one of them IMHO.
Speed could be better but for everyday tasks my PB is hardly slow. Cost could be lower, but no one forced me to buy one and I do not regret the purchase. Warranty is atrocious compared to IBM/Dell’s next business day warranties. That is my only real gripe as a business user.
“This reminds me of another annoyance. I’ve spoken English since before I can remember. When I go to countries like Mexico they don’t speak English! Talk about unintuitive. How the hell am I supposed to survive?”
LOL
What about when you go from the USA to a place like China and wonder, “Why are there so many Asian people here? Its not like back home! This place is a mess!”
These closing app arguments come from a Windows centric point of view and the idea that Linux does it that way also is because Linux copied their UI guidelines from Windows.
I use Mac and PC and I have no problem knowing how to close apps. A tip for those that get confused, you can store info in your brain.
I am a long time mac user. I switched from DOS in 1989 and of course have never looked back. With the new OSX and a great premptive multasking and the ability to have multiple programs open(10 +) with out issues it lets me be a software piggie. I find that I have more then 80 applications big and small, commercial and free/shareware and demo/test on my computer at all times and check out and down load more every day. OH so what is my bitch…well I don’t think that the doc is such a good way of giving me access to all those programs. There was a drop down menu item that still exists below the apple called “Recent Items that has both Applications and documents” in it. The PROBLEM is that it can contain ONLY 50 applications and the folder is not readily editable like it was in OS 9! Yes I have dropped a link of my applications folder in the document side of the doc and it does alow me to move through the WHOLE applications directory “relatively quickly” but it is a bit hard to have several half good choices for a source for getting to a standard task. So much of life and work is HABIT and habits are hard to break. Jus try tying your shoe laces together and try to get through your day.
I think that the above discussion has a basic flaw. People use their computers in two very different ways. One is a BASIC TOOL to get things done. Like the Honda car they want economy/dependability and will use it accordingly. The other group of computer users use the computer as a toy to take apart and play with. Fiddle Fiddle Fiddle is not work but fun to them. The MAC now with OSX is not really an FFF platform. It is a WORK platform( you CAN fiddle with if you want but you don’t HAVE to). MAC users want their computers to JUST WORK and they do it pretty well. To ask your grandmother to go out and tune her own car and replace the points and plugs is laughable. To expect her to patch for viruses and what not malware on a PC with MS Windows is also as laughable. How ever my brother that loved to rebuild his dune buggy every week so that he could go out and trash it every week end, pushing it past the breaking point was in heaven. Naturally he is a PC Gamer and loves building his PC’s for just this purpose and reason.
So would my brother want a Honda to drive to the grocery store dependably for the next ten years? NO. Do I want a patched together buggy dune buggy that typically gets about 200 miles before breaking down and needing an overhaul ( no matter how cheap) the initial cost of the orginal frame? NO!
The choice is yours. What has pissed MAC users off all these years is having Wintel crap shoved down our throats and all the lies and missinformation being spread by PC fanatics and bigots shouting about how their computers were best. BEST is not a place but a comparison and an opinion. WE KNOW BETTER. LOL.: ) Yes Dear that was a joke!
MY MAC is the BEST! That is my opinion! And yes change of any kind is frustrating. So if your switching platforms expect a little frustration and a learning curve and all of your long built HABITS to get in the way and to trip you up. And no I don’t care about your whining and problems, I switched to a mac and rode all the OS Changes on the MAC platform from OS6 to OSX. Was I frustrated? YES? Did I whine? YES! Did it make a difference and did Apple listen to me? NO. So…you either find out what is good about MACs and run with them or you stay with the platform you know and live with all the frustrations that come with that choice.
“To a person with a hammer all the world looks like a nail”.
Might I suggest trying Quicksilver as an app launcher (among other things) instead of the Dock? For me it is far easier to use, especially when you have such a large number of programs. The dock is still there, hidden, but I rarely make use of it anymore.
Launchbar and Butler are two other alternatives to the dock though neither fit my style of use as much as Quicksilver.
So much of this discussion is really, really pathetic. Somebody switched to a different OS and it doesn’t behave just like their old one?? Heaven forfend!
Re app quitting/doc closing: look, there are applications, and then therer are documents, which open inside applications to be viewed/edied. Closing a document is clearly a different action from quitting an application. That is (hopefully) not being debated. But so two OSes treat these processes differently: Apple says, they’re two functions, so let’s have a separate way of performing each function. That way the user can do whichever she wants, depending on her needs at that moment. Windows and all of the Linux desktops that copy it conflate the two functions. Maybe it’s more efficient and maybe it’s not – OS X seems better at running stable with lots of apps open, so maybe it’s okay to forego that efficiency.
Regardless, it’s far from clear that the Apple way is counterintuitive. I used Widnows for ten years, and I found Apple’s separation between app quitting and doc closing to be more intuitive after a mere two weeks on OS X. So am I right? Or is the guy who started all this right? Well, certainly he isn’t. He seems to suggest that everything I ever found intuitive is somehow objectively wrong, which is a stupid assertion to say the least.
Re single menu bar vs. menu bars in every window: more stupidity. Someone above said that Apple “should finally drop the static menubar (or at least offer an option to turn it off),” as if that’s some kind of compromise! How is that any better than me wishing that Windows should finally drop the multiple menu bars and just put it at the top of the screen – or at least give me the option to do so in my install?
Here again, Apple’s rationale is pretty simple: you only ever perform functions in the menu of one app at a time. (That will be true until we start using a mouse in each hand and have two pointers on the screen.) If we only ever use one menu at a time, then we only need one menu on the screen at any given time. So let’s save some screen real estate and move all those menus to a single consistent location.
Whether this is more efficient or intuitive for you personally is an open question – it is for me, it isn’t for some people. But there is clear logic behind it, and for those who like it it works well. It makes no sense to criticize them for that preference. If you like the Windows way better and work more efficiently on that platform, then by all means buy their product. That’s your right as a consumer, and even if I make a different choice I don’t begrudge you yours.
So with the commercial OSes each product has its quirks and they are what they are. But the original poster is a Linux guy, and the Linux market fascinates me. The transaction costs are, for the most part, much lower, since you don’t have to deal with the realities of a commercial marketplace. So when I started to look into Linux I expected to see al sorts of different designs competing with each other. There’s a dream there, of lots of individual OSes all running the same apps. If that dream was realized we wouldn’t even have to have this conversation.
But I found that the reality of Linux is very different. With dozens and dozens of distros out there, why on earth does every single one follow the same (i.e. MS) menu bar paradigm?? (Not to mention the same task bar paradigm, the same desktop paradigm, the same minimize/maximize/quit button paradigm, etc.) Whatever its faults (and there are faults), OS X is a professional, elegant, useful operating system, just like Windows. It runs mission-critical apps for businesses, millions of home users like it, etc. So why, why isn’t there a single Linux distro that emulates some of OS X’s design elements? Why don’t we see some Linux desktops that look like windows with multiple menus and a task bar, and some that look like OS X with a single menu and a dock, and some that look altogether different? I’ll have a lot more respect for Linux when I see a broader diversity of approaches.
I’m surprised to see that no-one has mentioned virtual desktops… does OSX have these? I personally think that this is a great way to leave a process running in the background without taking up too much screen real-estate (maybe for the pager). I find this very natural, but then again I have used UNIX/Linux since the 90’s and make use of virtual consoles before I used X, so maybe I have just taught myself this habit . Not saying that you guys are wrong, but I find Windows and Mac both a little…jarring. Windows because there’s not enough screen real-estate and Mac because it’s simply different than what I’m used to. However I suspect that the Mac would be easier to adapt to.
Not every Linux desktop uses the MS style. I think that comes as the default because most switchers are from MSland, and in order to ‘keep them around’ the linux desktops must provide a similar environment. But of course you can change that; just look at KDE (www.kde.org), many of the highest rated styles are OSX derived or clones. I personally like single-click and Window-shading, but not menubar at top. Also you can change many preferences to provide a nice blend of methods, or even something completely different. I believe that Gnome now uses a menubar at the top like MacOS, but I mainly use KDE and XFCE so don’t rely on that. I won’t deny that Linux requires a lot more work to customize everything, but you can customize more and in the end I think it’s worth it for people that use their computers as a toy rather than a tool…which is also why Linux isn’t for everyone.
Mac OS X does not use Virtual Desktops, however there are a few third party solutions such as CodeTek’s Virtual Desktop Pro <http://www.codetek.com/ctvd/>.
The whole Virtual Desktop thing is an interesting way to clear desktop real estate, but I too often find myself needing to look at information from two sources who’s process is running in two different desktops. (in the little time I’ve spent using virtual desktops)
Once I get a new G5 tower, I’ll probably turn my old box to linux, just to start learning what’s out there. (though I may just throw darwin on it with Gnome on top)
windows doesn’t have enough screen real estate? its got the same amount as any desktop, you sure you weren’t at a much lower resolution?
and yeah virtual desktops are every where windows has a couple dozen third party solutions too (actually there is a first party virtual desktop app for windows but its kinda useless)
@ anonymous above me, look for a different virtual desktop manager then, i don’t know what options there exists for MAC but most of the good ones will let you grab an instance of an app inside the pager and drag it over to another desktop (letting you bring an instance over without having to switch desktops)
Closing a document is clearly a different action from quitting an application. That is (hopefully) not being debated.
Actually, it is. That’s the entire point. An “application” is a very abstract thing, in fact it’s not even a thing, it’s an implementation detail. What you really see and interact with on your desktop are objects. Either documents or tools, but objects in any case, represented by windows. Everything else should be totally transparent to the user and everytime we expose them to implementation details, we admit that our technology still sucks a bit too much.
Of course Windows isn’t any better in this regard, MDI is much worse as it’s exactly the Mac OS way with a container window slapped behind it. And most Linux software isn’t better either. But if we only make excuses, there won’t be any progress.
@ anonymous above me, look for a different virtual desktop manager then, i don’t know what options there exists for MAC but most of the good ones will let you grab an instance of an app inside the pager and drag it over to another desktop (letting you bring an instance over without having to switch desktops)
Thanks for the tip. BTW–you’ll drive Mac users crazy calling our machines MACs. MAC stands for Media Access Control. It’s also a cosmetic line and an ATM network.
Again, thanks for the tip–I’ll have something to play around with at work Monday.
<quote>
But I found that the reality of Linux is very different. With dozens and dozens of distros out there, why on earth does every single one follow the same (i.e. MS) menu bar paradigm?? (Not to mention the same task bar paradigm, the same desktop paradigm, the same minimize/maximize/quit button paradigm, etc.) Whatever its faults (and there are faults), OS X is a professional, elegant, useful operating system, just like Windows. It runs mission-critical apps for businesses, millions of home users like it, etc. So why, why isn’t there a single Linux distro that emulates some of OS X’s design elements? Why don’t we see some Linux desktops that look like windows with multiple menus and a task bar, and some that look like OS X with a single menu and a dock, and some that look altogether different? I’ll have a lot more respect for Linux when I see a broader diversity of approaches.
</quote>
1. OSX doesn’t run mission-critial apps, GNU/linux and other unix does. Don’t belive me, go to a business that makes uses of apple computers and ask them what their run in the back rooms, 50% chance it ain’t OSX.
2. OSS developers generally writes software for themselves, not to please any moron who whats one set of way to do things. This usually means they explicited write software according to the KISS and WYSIWYG priciple.
The end result is that GNU/Linux does what it was design to, a technically superior OS design to get the job done and do it better than any other OS available.
As for the menubar thing, the developers perfer it this way, probably because of WYSIWYG. On this merit, I’d agree with them. Every application haveing its own menubar also has its advantages.
Plus I don’t think its possible on Linux since most graphical applications are written to be seperate from the GUI, allowing them to run regardless of GUI used.
Ok, I use a pbook 15”. I switched 7 months ago. There’s one annoyance I found in OS X.
The difference between Hide and Minimize is obvious. Old time Mac users told me: “I use hide all the time, it’s the way the Mac works”. But there are sometimes when you want to minimize an app, to see it in the dock running. For example Photoshop lets you minimize a Window and you can end up with 10 Photoshop windows minimized. Each one representing a document (an image in Photoshop’s case).
I find this terrific, however… there’s one little problem. Once a document/application/window/whatever gets minimized, there’s no way (more on this later) to restore it without the keyboard! You have to Click on the minimized icon. Or you can use Cmd-Tab to switch to it (the application, photoshop in this case) and the menu bar will be Photoshop’s bar, and cmd-q will quit photoshop, etc. Even pressing cmd-h will hide photoshop and ALL the minimized windows. This is nice, but what’s not nice is that I can’t “restore” (unminimize?) my documents back unless I click with the mouse.
All in all, there IS a way. You can use a shortcut to get to the Dock (cmd-f2? can’t even remember) use the arrows… etc.. you get the point. But that’s more time consuming than simply grabbing the mouse and getting the thing restored.
As as side note, I was a long time OS/2 user then Windows and got used to the Macintosh (OS X) quickly and I am looking forward to buying a G5 Dual to entirely replace my AMD box with Windows XP Professional.
Actually, it is. That’s the entire point. An “application” is a very abstract thing, in fact it’s not even a thing, it’s an implementation detail. What you really see and interact with on your desktop are objects. Either documents or tools, but objects in any case, represented by windows.
Except that the Mac OS (and Windows MDI –see again? both are really similar) makes the difference obvious by adding a menu bar wether or not there is any doc open. You CAN interact with the application even if there is no open document, be it to do a batch action, to tinker with preferences or whatever. OTOH (some) Windows apps do not (mainly non-MDI ones, which are not the majority BTW) because they integrate application with document. They make it one only thing and once you close the document window, with it goes any possible way to interact with the application (i.e. the menu bar which holds the commands you might want to use).
Joining the crowd of what’s “intuitive” according to what I am used to, then, I find that both concepts, document and applications MUST be separated visually to the user, so that that user really understand what it is he is controlling and hence what actions he might want to take to interact with the doc or the app (i.e. what the heck does each widget do at every single time).
MDI was Mac OS, except for the (most unfortunate) opaque background, which had absolutely no use. IE and Office 2000 ran from MDI, in what IMHO was a mistake. Not only because of the obvious inconsistence with other apps, but because as I said, once you tie application with document you have absolutely no way of interacting with the app unless you have a document open, even if you do not need that particular document at that moment. And now Microsoft if making it all the worst IMO with Windows Media Player 10, with the inability of interacting with the application EVEN if there is any window open, favouring looks over functionality by removing the menu bar a la iTunes just because it looks nicer (except for the fact that iTunes DOES have a permanent visible menu bar, albeit not tied to the window).
Every system deserves their gripes, however, in this aspect, I think Apple beats Microsoft hands down.
IIRC Quartz extreme requires 32M VRAM minimum, which was NOT a “feature” of macs until 2001 or 2 IIRC with the addition of a nVidia Geforce 2MX GPU(32M, I filed a bug report about this in 1999 or 2000 }:) or the ATI Rage Pro(16M, this was the “standard” for a ridiculously long time! BTW these were options only for Powermacs IIRC, notebooks and e/imacs came with ATI Rage GPUs for a while longer then 1st gen Radeons IIRC…).
Prior to Quartz extreme all we had was hardware assisted 2D UI acceleration, since the early 90s.
Also, I’d really consider Quartz extreme pseudo 3D acceleration as it makes use of 3D features to support a 2D interface, primarily texture buffering along with replacing 2D acceleration with limited “3D” acceleration.
Mac is different not only in looks but also in its behavior. Mac is not just a different theme of Windows. Thank god!
“1. OSX doesn’t run mission-critial apps, GNU/linux and other unix does. Don’t belive me, go to a business that makes uses of apple computers and ask them what their run in the back rooms, 50% chance it ain’t OSX. ”
Well at Apple, Army/Colsa Corp, Genentech, Virginia Tech, Oracle, NIH, and UIUC would disagree with you. I find these generalizations amusing.
“2. OSS developers generally writes software for themselves, not to please any moron who whats one set of way to do things. This usually means they explicited write software according to the KISS and WYSIWYG priciple.”
Exactly why programs such as GIMP suck from a useability standpoint compared to Photoshop. Its precisely the reason why design of interfaces are important in creating a product that is powerful AND easy to use and accessible. You shouldn’t have to be a programmer or computer scientist to use a computer.
I just don’t see it. I’m not a computer geek by any stretch of the imagination. I’m a filmmaker by trade. I used a couple of Linux distros (corel and red hat), but they all seem rather similar to windows in look and feel. I know I can add an OSX theme to them, but why do that. I have a mac. Where is the true innovation in the OS. linux to me just seems to borrow from the Windows paradigm, Nothing really ground breaking.
I do like multiple desktops, but other than that it like using Windows with slighly less crashes.
PS.
I AM NOT A COMPUTER GEEK. I DO NOT PROGRAM, CODE, HACK, OR ANYTHING REALLY HIGH LEVEL. I know in linux you can configure it a million different ways, but that’s to much like work. I wanna play.
Doulia den eixe o diaolos … gamouse ta paidia tou …
Xipniste zoa… Xipniste…
The mac is a great machine and one of my happiest passtimes is
browsing through imacs in an Apple outlet but unfortunately I will not be buying one anytime soon. After I have spent the past 5 years griping to anyone that will listen about how one company has such a tight grip on the software market, I am not about to mortgage my computing experience to another company that insists on dictating both the hardware and software that I use.
Anyway, I ‘m really surprised he didn’t mention the “menubar is always on top instead of attached to the window difference” between macosx and almost all other operating systems. If i’m correct only mac uses that. Dual screen users will know it actually is possible to have for example itunes on the monitor 2 while the menubar of itunes is displayed on monitor 1. Not very handy.
Well, not everyone has been using computers for 10 years or less. When I had to upgrade from 8-bit I bought the best available and I’ve stayed there until now. Of course, for one reason or another, I have also used extensively most available OSes. Still today, I can’t feel comfortable with Windoze’s unorthodox widget position and opposite directory separation character.
Window$ is not particularily easy. I remember uneducated first-time computer users using Unix GUIs in the University just as easily. But Linux is years behind for desktop use and it’s been out of focus for almost a decade by trying to mimic the Window$ GUI paradigm. Things will get better with Gnome and KDE development teams receiving support, contributions and directives from Sun, IBM et al. Linux purpose should not be gaining customers by copying inadequate HCI guidelines but offering a testbed for innovative ideas.
I run GNOME, and use only GNOME/GTK+ applications. Hence my desktop is nice and consistent. Simple, no?
oh, and the concept of a consistent yet themeable desktop is entirely consistent. Take GNOME. As long as you use GNOME apps, each app will have the same interface. If you change the desktop theme, each app will still look the same as each other, just different from before. Both consistent and themeable. Easy. Windows does it too, at least for apps which don’t do braindead things like using old APIs or forcing their own stupid themes and widgets on the user.
IMHO, the biggest design disasters in windows came from a partial copying of what mac was doing. i would rank MDI very high on that list.
the way mac does it is document based. the way windows does it is application based (they have been trying for task based for awhile now, but it hasnt really worked out too good). MDI was basically a hybrid between the two, documents being represented as windows, but being grouped soley within the application. that may not seem to bad in theory, in practice its atrocious. what you get is several “portholes” into these virtual mac-esque environements. i dont think ive ever seen an MDI used the way it is supposed to be used, the only way its really usable is with everything inside maximized, and using a “Window” menu to switch between documents.
fortunately, we are starting to get “MDIs of the future”. since noone uses the documents inside an mdi in a visual way anyways, the new MDIs have all documents maximized with tabs to switch between them. i find that alone to be a colossal improvement over the old way with the window menu, it fits in far better with the way windows works and removes all ambiguity over what is an app, and whats a document. not only that, but people are truly starting to leverage the mdi in intelligent, windows oriented fashion. an example is the whole collapsable panels docked to the sides of the screen. when it comes to usability paradigms you have to go all the way, while a well implemented spatial interface can be extremely intuitive, a poorly implemented one quickly becomes a confusing mass of controls.
some other examples of crimes against usability that microsoft introduced to copy the mac would be the spatial explorer in win95 (theres alot more to it then just opening all folders in a new instance), the whole desktop/folder metaphor (a directory and a folder are two different things. the illusion of folders was well done in mac classic, where the directory structure rarely got deeper then 3. on windows or unix, folders do not act or behave even remotely like folders in real life, which leaves people with a rather hazy idea of how to navigate their harddrive), the control panel (again, theres a difference between a config applet, and a standard config dialogue. windows would be much better suited with something along the lines of kde or mandrake for configuration), the recycle bin (if the main way to delete a file is to press delete, and the way to use windows is to have all applications maximized and switch between them via the task bar, then what is the point of having the trash as a spatial object?), etc, etc, etc.
anyways, this is all fairly OT. what it comes down to is that the reviewer thinks that just because it doesnt work in a way he is used to (or understands for that matter), it is automatically bad or annoying.
let me quote a great comment from a jwz rant
“Whenever a programmer thinks, “Hey, skins, what a cool idea”, their computer’s speakers should create some sort of cock-shaped soundwave and plunge it repeatedly through their skulls.
I am fully in support of this proposed audio-cock technology.”
(http://www.jwz.org/doc/linuxvideo.html)
in theory themes are a good idea. in practice, they rarely are worth the effort. a much better use of resources would be to design an interface well in the first place…
<quote>
“1. OSX doesn’t run mission-critial apps, GNU/linux and other unix does. Don’t belive me, go to a business that makes uses of apple computers and ask them what their run in the back rooms, 50% chance it ain’t OSX.”
Well at Apple, Army/Colsa Corp, Genentech, Virginia Tech, Oracle, NIH, and UIUC would disagree with you. I find these generalizations amusing.
</quote>
I didn’t generalized. I know full well that some places uses OSX for their servers, its just that much more places uses linux/unix instead.
<quote>
“2. OSS developers generally writes software for themselves, not to please any moron who whats one set of way to do things. This usually means they explicited write software according to the KISS and WYSIWYG priciple.”
Exactly why programs such as GIMP suck from a useability standpoint compared to Photoshop. Its precisely the reason why design of interfaces are important in creating a product that is powerful AND easy to use and accessible. You shouldn’t have to be a programmer or computer scientist to use a computer.
</quote>
If you don’t like it then don’t use it. You can use cinepaint instead. If you dont’ like that one either then argue with Pixar, since they were the ones that forked cinepaint from the gimp for their own professional use.
<quote>
I just don’t see it. I’m not a computer geek by any stretch of the imagination. I’m a filmmaker by trade. I used a couple of Linux distros (corel and red hat), but they all seem rather similar to windows in look and feel. I know I can add an OSX theme to them, but why do that. I have a mac. Where is the true innovation in the OS. linux to me just seems to borrow from the Windows paradigm, Nothing really ground breaking.
I do like multiple desktops, but other than that it like using Windows with slighly less crashes.
PS.
I AM NOT A COMPUTER GEEK. I DO NOT PROGRAM, CODE, HACK, OR ANYTHING REALLY HIGH LEVEL. I know in linux you can configure it a million different ways, but that’s to much like work. I wanna play.
</quote>
Well as you said you’re neither a computer geek nor do you want to spend some work understanding how gnu/linux works. Its a pity since to take any real advantages using a gnu/linux system, you need to be technically competent person. You don’t need to be a computer geek or programmer, just someone willing to learn.
OSS developers don’t copy windows. But if they see a good useful feature in another OS, obviously they’ll try to implement it in OSS software. Apparently it seems they are more useful features in windows and other OS than what’s in OSX, considering how much of those former features are in OSS software.
The true innovation rarely happens at the GUI, after all there is only so much ways you can click your mouse. True innovations happens in the internals of the system, this is why gnu/linux has, and ALWAYS will have more market share and OSX.
spelling error, second to last word, and ->>> than
First of all, all the comments about the video card and quartz extreme are way off. OSX 10.1 supported my card fine, but Apple discontinued support for it later on. THAT’S why, it has nothing to do with Quartz extreme.
Secondly, people made a big stink about my media player comment. What I meant was that there is Quicktime doesn’t seem to support many codecs,k?
“The true innovation rarely happens at the GUI, after all there is only so much ways you can click your mouse. True innovations happens in the internals of the system, this is why gnu/linux has, and ALWAYS will have more market share than OSX.”
innovation and marketshare are only related in the most general of ways. ie hasnt been innovative for close to a decade now, and osx has the featureset of longhorn, the technology they use makes windows 98 downright archaic by comparison, even though it is the os with the highest marketshare.
Actually, it is. That’s the entire point. An “application” is a very abstract thing, in fact it’s not even a thing, it’s an implementation detail. What you really see and interact with on your desktop are objects. Either documents or tools, but objects in any case, represented by windows.
Don’t want to harp, or limit the discussion to this point, but I think it illustrative. I understand that documents are what people work with, and it is kind of admirable to ebvision a time where different documents can be opened and viewed/edited by the OS itself (and NB that OS X is better at this than the competitors, allowing for viewing and editing of various kinds of files in the Finder). But that’s not how it is. Currently, docs have to be opened within special environments: you don’t open a Powerpoint doc in Word, you open it in Powerpoint. There is an implication that this doesn’t reflect human habits outside the computer (fair enough) and should be done away with or at least hidden – thus the MS approach and the tendency to shut down apps when closing docs.
But to realize this you’ve got to eliminate every reference to the app. You know how Word docs have little Word icons and Excel docs have Excel icons? Get rid of’em. When the user looks in the task bar, he should only see documents open, not documents open in applications. And there should be no app-specific menu items – only doc-specific items and system-wide items. This would make things difficult for the user: something as simple as the “open new…” command would have to be off-loaded from the app. The basic system explorer would become much more important.
Even that wouldn’t reach the ideal, though, because apps are what people buy and download. I know this is a bit different from Linux, where all the apps are free and the OS often comes bundled with a tool to install all relevant apps out of the box (so to speak). And maybe switchers from Linux to OS X will feel some variant of sticker shock when moving back to the consumer world of obtaining apps individually. But for most users, this is how software is obtained, app by app. So OS X realizes this, treating apps as different from docs, and enabling different actions for each.
I’m not saying it’s objectively better. I’m just saying there is a logic to it and an internal consistency to it. There is a logic to the other approach as well. To each his own.
This is a bigger problem for any kind of switcher. I often hear people say “why does Apple tell me to think different, and then force me to do everything their way?” It’s because that’s precisely what think different means. It means try doing things the Apple way, which is different from the MS way. Anyone swithing from a consumer OS to Linux is going to face some big differences as well. You can probably tailor your Linux install to behave a lot like your old system, but that would be kind of silly. There really is a (different) Linux way of doing things (obtaining apps is a good example) that will be jarring for switchers, but really might end up being (subjectively) better.
what you described is pretty much how the mac works. in windows, if you had an image open in ps, a doc open in word, and a browser pointing to dictionary.com, you will see those three things, side by side. to switch from one to the other, you click on the documents, and the application switches transparently. a similar situation in windows would be three wildly different interfaces, each taking up the whole screen, with switching between tasks done at the taskbar.
the problems with consistancy between apps is fairly non existant in the apple world. apple has defined how apps should look, act, and behave, and developers listen. most of the smaller apps are quite interchangable, the bigger, more complex ones will have some more noticable differences, but so much is the same that the paradigm still works. to give you an idea, take a random 10 (non-gnome) apps from linux, and compare it to a random 10 apps from windows. the windows ones will all more or less work the same and look the same, in linux land its a nightmare. take the difference in consistancy between ms and linux, and its roughly the same between ms and apple.
as for removing all references to an app, that would be taking it too far. first of all, app association is stored in metadata, not a filename extension. if all documents were the same, you wouldnt know if “The song remains the same” is a link to a zepp site, a dvdrip, a song, cover art, or lyrics. also, the goal is to put the focus on the document, not eliminate the app. as with most good metaphors, take a real world example to see how it holds up. lets say im doing my taxes. i have forms, one of those reference booklets, pen for writing on the forms, pencil and some skratch paper for jotting stuff down, and a calculator. i will have them spread out in a rather haphazard fashion, they will not be in a big pile with index tabs sticking out. if i punch something into the calculator, chances are i wont put it on top of the notepad. if i am copying stuff from the notepad to the form, i will have them side by side. ill probably have the reference book open to whatever page i need, and have it lying off to the side where i can easily glance at it.
as you can see, im describing apples usability metaphor. you work the same way on a mac as you would in real life, in windows its an additional level of abstraction. when i switch from pencil to ink, they both operate more or less the same way. not exactly, but close enough to have it be a fairly seamless and subconcious transition. when im copying things from the notepad, or taking note of what the calculator is telling me, they will be quick glances, once again very simple and subconcious. the mac os doesnt try to hide the pencil. what it does is focus on the paper rather then the pencil, by working the same way that the average (non computer) person works.
now, i grew up on a mac, and i remember playing in the pc lab at school in my spare time. i couldnt comprehend how one could get serious work done, and didnt even think the term “multitasking” should be used for both operating systems, as i didnt feel like i was doing more then one thing at a time. the mac pulls off this utopia you are describing very well (or at least did in the sys7-8 era), so well that i thought it was part of how you use a computer.
<flame-retardant>
I used mac up to my teens, the classic II is the newest mac i own. at home i use ubuntu mostly, and am very happy with it. at work i use winxp, and develop an ie only webapp. i find zealotry for an operating system to be dumb.
</flame-retardant>
“in windows, if you had an image open in ps, a doc open in word…” should be “in the macos, ….”
I look at my real desk: therer is a notebook, a calculator, a bunch of stickies, a graph notebook. Say I write out a draft letter on the top page in the notebook. I like what I wrote, so I file that page away in a folder in my file cabinet. When I put away the page, does the notebook disappear too? Of course not, it’s still there on the desk.
So the Mac OS is better?
Alternatively: on my desk I have a piece of lined paper, some stickies, a calulator, etc. I write out a letter and then file it away. Now I have no paper! My note paper has disappeared from my desk. What ever will I do if I want to write another letter? Well, I open a drawer where I keep all my not paper and pull out a new sheet to write up a new document. When I file it away I again have nothing to write notes on.
So Windows is better?
I honestly can concieve of a computing environment with no apps, only the OS and docs. It would be a modular OS that enables 3rd parties to write software modules that handle different kinds of docs. So there could be a .doc plugin, a .wpd plugin, a .aac plugin, a .wma plugin, etc. Rather than buying a software program to open a doc, you could buy a plugin that would allow the OS itself to open that doc type. Docs themselves wouldn’t have app-based icons, they would have categorical icons. All music files could show up as music files – you’d have no indication of the particular format, even when it’s playing, unless you did something like a “get info.”
It would have to be an open-source OS, since 3rd parties would need access to the base code to write plugins. And it would have to completely rethink the way GUIs are done. 3rd parties would have NO ability to make their own GUI – everything they did would be invisible, and insofar as they helped design the player/editor components, they would be bound by strict uniformity rules.
The GUI would either be completely controlled by the OS maker and always function the same, or else it could be completely themeable by users – everything from colors and icons to button configurations, menu items and keyboard shortcuts. For corporate and educational users there could be various standardized themes that lock out user changes. (Off-topic: the root/admin/user paradigm was such a revelation when I discovered the Unix OSes! It’s amazing to think of all the crazy startup scripts my (Win) office pc has to run. Why do corporations put up with that?)
All of the format-based headaches of today (Quicktime doesn’t play enough media formats, you say?) would be gone. You wouldn’t buy programs, you’d buy format compatibility in its purest form. Put another way, today’s programs’ document-opening capability and their GUI would be separated. The former would be purchased as an addition to the OS, and the latter would be distributed as themes.
Heh, pipe dreams are cool. pass me that bong, dude.
I’m a Linux guy. Been running it since November 1991. Been using it exclusively for home and work since 1994. Four years ago I got an older iMac for my son (he was 4 at the time) and put OS X on it. Since then I have used it alot as well. Here’s my take…
1. Programs don’t close
They do if you want them to. What’s that funky Apple key called? Command I think. Command-q works for me every time.
2. Constant hand holding
For a Mac?!? Maybe if you are an infant. My 4 year old was doing everything imaginable on his within a week or two. Heck, he was showing me how to use it.
3. Lack of a media player
Am I the only one who thinks that this is even worth talking about? If it’s not included just go get it. Same for Linux. Only it’s even easier on the Mac.
4.Interface inconsistency
Unless you are running CICS on a Mainframe you will have interface inconsistency (and at time you can have it in CICS, too). Who cares! The programs all run and exit whenever I tell them to. What more can you ask?
5. Legacy support
Ok, I’m with the, “They should have kept OS 9 in there” crowd, too.
6. Theme support
Themes suck! They serve no useful purpose and do more for making an OS or app unusable than any programming design idiocy can.
7. 3D acceleration
Our older iMac can do it. Not like it’s used for anything other than some games my son plays, but it’s there.
Well, that’s ramblings on this.