Slashdot Mirror
Zarf in Mac OS X Land
baruz writes "Andrew Plotkin (aka Zarf), award-winning interactive fiction author and Mac and Unix programmer, has not-so-recently posted a secret diary of his experiences installing and using Mac oh ess ex."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
I'd just like to point out that I've had an install of OS X since the public beta release, and NEVER have I sent information in to Apple.
Another "journalist" complained about this then X first came out.
It's quite simple: when running then installer fill in the info, then when it asks if you have an internet connection, say no. When it asks if you want to register with Apple, say "later."
After it boots, go set up your Networking preferences, etc.
No info sent to Apple. I mean, how dumb do you gotta be to not realise that you dont HAVE to send anything in?!
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Man, I'd love to travel back in time five years and tell a bunch of Mac advocates that within five years, Emacs will come pre-loaded on a Mac.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Likes American McGee's Alice.
;)
Hates Dock.
Doesn't get why you wouldn't want to have root access always on.
Doesn't like font handling.
Has strange habit of referring to Apple computer engineers and UI designers as 'Steve'
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
The correct pronunciation is: Mac OH YES! SEX!
(Saw that in Dr.Dobbs I think)
"Bad design or stupid user? Hmm."
PEBKAC
Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair.
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
Well, for a UNIX guy I am suprised he was baffled by having to enter an administrator password to install a package or make other system level changes.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
...because I kept waiting for the grammar to devolve into Hulk-speak:
RARRR! No like OSX! Icons EVERYWHERE! Stupid Steve! HULK SMASH!
My sigs always suck.
I guess he's talking about the 1024 cylinder limit on older BIOSes, which crippled earlier versions of LILO, so the kernel image had to be on a partition within the first 1024 cylinders (usually 512 MB) of the hard disk.
But I thought that was an x86 platform specific issue. What kind of bootloader do the Macs use?
What annoys me most is the "You don't need to know" attitude it takes to a lot of the things in it. For example, it's possible to get detailed info on startup, but they hardly make it obvious how. And the help features are incredibly annoying. One other thing: I think the designers spent too much time thinking "Feature X is cool" and not enough time on "Will feature X be incredibly annoying after a few weeks' use?"
Cleaning up mistake: "Delete User" on redundant "guest" account. Dialogue: "This user will be permanently deleted. The home folder will be reassigned to the administrator..." Choice of "System Administrator" or "Andrew Plotkin". Choose "Andrew Plotkin". Okay. The "guest" folder in Users is now changed to "guest Deleted". Don't need it, drag to trash...
/Users/shortname\ deleted"
"The item 'guest Deleted' cannot be moved to the Trash because it cannot be deleted."
What??
This is for security reasons. In order to delete the user, go to terminal and type "sudo rm -rf
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
You should play his games, then. Zarf's narrative is immersive, evocative and depressing at the same time. "So Far" is a massive cathartic trip.
I really don't care much for the problem-solving side of IF (I don't enjoy playing games, I'd rather solve math problems :-), I wish he would write a novel some time, because I do believe he has The Gift(TM).
"Mac Oh Ess TEN"
Ten Ten Ten
"Ecks" is reserved for X (as in X11)
thank you.
- Entertaining Bits from the Ancient Kernel Tree
Steve Jobs may have wanted us to pronounce SCSI "sexy" not "scuzzy", but SCSI is (unfortunately) "scuzzy". Similarly, he may want us to call it "Oh Ess Ten" - uncharacteristically, he wants us to avoid saying sex - but it is "Oh Ess Ex", because that's what millions of people call it.
By the same token, Hoover PLC may own the brand name Hoover, but if you're in the UK, a vacuum cleaner is just a hoover, no matter who makes it. Copyright law is insignificant - they're called hoovers, because people call them hoovers.
I think this outlines a fundamental problem in switching between OSen, though. When I first installed X, I installed ASM Menu, FruitMenu, everything I could find to make it as much as possible like MacOS 9. Over time, though, I've started trimming these bits back out because they really aren't neccesary. I was just trying to force my old UI preconceptions onto what was an entirely new OS, instead of adapting to fit what the UI was designed for.
:)
:)
In general, though, this article was really on point with a lot of the interface crap Apple has piled on in recent years (I hate Sherlock!!!). Although his hatred of animations might have shown a need to move on from OS9 - does he realize OSX is preemptively multitasked, thus allowing you to do other things while the app icon slides out of the dock?
All in all, even with the occasional human interface snafu, I love MacOS X. It's still a mite bit slower than OS 9, but the overall experience and quality makes booting into 9 seem like travelling back in time 20 years. The development environment is unmatched, and it's like running 3 OS's worth of software (OS9, OSX, and GNU/Linux/BSD/OSS/Gnome/what-have-you).
Plus I like those little animations.
If you don't do better, I won't subscribe and tweak my Squid+SquidGuard config to ignore big ads Slashdot on my OS X box.
So there! Plus I haven't gotten a wedding invitation, yet!
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
When you've got only one internal drive, it's always a good idea to make two partitions. When one fails for whatever reason, you can still boot from the other (always keep a backup System handy!). This is essential (or at least makes it very easy) to run DiskWarrior and Norton (not that you would ever want to run Norton... at work my co-worker had a slightly old Norton, and while he was running in OS 9 it automagically scanned his hard drive for errors, and changed every .dot file to a _dot file on his mounted OS X partition. Crap on a stick.).
:( I'd love to get those back.
Back to the subject, I bought my Mac when iTunes was new. I fooled around with it for a few minutes, and found that it came with a HOARD of good MP3 files. I dumbly thought that the Software Restore CD would put them back after I wiped the drive and repartitioned.
I was wrong
Moderators should have to take a reading comprehension test.
We just finished moving about a quarter of our Mac users to OSX. It was almost painless; I was expecting many problems from different people about the new design. One user even went from OS8 to OSX on a B&W G3/300/192MB, and I haven't heard a peep from her since. The most "power" user we have runs Photoshop, Pagemaker and Illustrator, all of which run under Classic and she had the most problems migrating -- but after a couple of weeks of using it , she stopped in to thank me and to inform me that she hadn't had to reboot her Mac in over a week. Previously it was at least once a day (ie, "System Error -1 : Restart your Macintosh"). They unversally love the dock, and the all seem confused by the new finder. They also don't like the s l o w window resizing, but the consensous is that it's well worth the niggles and bugs that do exist.
The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
That actually reminds me of a funny story.
I had just recently installed the public beta of OS X on my G4 Cube. A friend of mine and his girlfriend dropped by to visit and take a peek at it. His girlfriend was a Mac user and wanted to see what OS X would be like.
I was demonstrating some of the new features of the dock, etc and she turned to her boyfriend and whispered, "I want oh-ess-ex." He heard it as "I want oh sex." and answered, "What? Here?!"
Seems confusing OS X with OH-SEX can happen. Perhaps its not a bad thing to make an note to refer to it as oh-ess-ten.
/// Zoid.
..to see a review of the OS X UI issues from a Linux or Windows centric perspective. PLEASE NOTE: I acknowledge the right of long-time OS 8/9 users to find pain in the new OS, but I'm not one of those.
I'm a Windows (at work) and Linux (at home) user who is growing a little fed up with both (okay, HATE Windows; Linux is starting to drive me a little nuts).
Fact is, I've got a clean RH 7.2 install sitting on nice hardware and half my apps don't work properly (Konquerer crashes, old Netscape sorta runs but has rendering problems, Mozilla -- forget it, Opera won't even start up -- haven't installed the just released beta yet).
I prefer KDE to GNOME, but after being into computers for over 15 years, the fact is, none of these systems work as well as they should. We've got 20+ years of consumer-level industry experience behind computers and they still suck.
Windows 2000 is almost serviceable, but XP is the bastard son of MS' strategy for hobbling half the OS against 3rd party media app incursions.
There are power management, sleep and hibernate issues that MS won't fix in W2K and that aren't that much more stable in XP. Hibernate twice and chances are things will start dying if you try anything. Drivers suck -- I can't set my desktop to sleep because the f&$king HP USB drivers pop up a dialogue after the machine wakes up every time. The only option is to LEAVE MY PRINTER DISCONNECTED BETWEEN USES. But yeah, my wife's a media artist -- she kinda needs the color printer. So much for my Energy Star compliant computer.
My laptop has 256MB ram and web pages can still choke media. My desktop has 512MB ram and switching among 2 users make it feel like a slug.
My latop is 1.5 years old and shipped, without me noticing (my bad), with ACPI. No linux power management..
I'm inclined to tell people who want to buy a computer not even to bother. Use the one at work for your email and spare your home life from the misery that is the modern computer industry.
On a related subject, you can use the Mac OS X app Frotz to play all the old text-based interactive fiction games like Zork, HHGG -- basically the Infocom and Z-Code games.
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
What is the point? It's a single user machine, why does it need security? If we're talking about protecting the user from his programs then what we need is a capabilities system that is intimately tweakable and preferably has unlimited undo accessible from a global event log.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I honestly can't say that I've encountered anywhere near the level of frustration that Zarf seems to have met with in his foray into the world of OS X. Maybe I've just been lucky; or, maybe I've spent more time actually trying to use my Mac than trying to beat the bejesus out of the UI until it perfectly matches my own personal internal representation of the perfect interface.
Don't get me wrong: I think it's perfectly valid to point out OS X's present shortcomings, or to mention areas of the UI that you wish were different. But for Christ's sake, please stop construing the fact that Apple didn't personally ask you how to implement each aspect of the UI as a failure on their part.
In the end, the diary gave me a vicarious headache as I envisioned the author's bitter moment-to-moment struggle with Steve's hegemony over his desktop. At points, particularly during the Administrator Password Crisis, it started to sound like the Al Gore sketch that Darrell Hammond did on SNL during the Florida mess.
My favorite in-joke story...
A few years back, a non-tech co-worker asked if it was fair for a local computer shop to charge her $65 to fix problem. $65 is a bit much for a 30 minute fix I my mind, so I asked her what the problem was. She said that the shop owner told her it was just aother "Windows I.D. Ten T" error. Needless to say after I agreed it was a fair price and that she wasn't being ripped off, I about fell out of my chair laughing.
I.D. Ten T = id10t
Just wait till some crappy band steals your nic.
Hold down Command+V at boot up and you'll get a detailed startup description (verbose).
Enjoy.
"War makes me sad." - Me
Stupid Andrew Plotkin. Andrew Plotkin no good intuitively understanding even most simple interfaces. Andrew Plotkin no figure out multiple window animations. Andrew Plotkin no figure out scale faster than genie. Andrew Plotkin no figure out customize toolbar until days later. Andrew Plotkin no figure out time since day be half hour or week.
I have a website. It's about Macs.
A friend of mine installed OS X at my urging. He's used Unix boxes in work for years, so he's computer dumb. He liked it, generally speaking.
Anyhow. He partitioned his harddrive four ways. It gave him troubles from day one. Not big ones, just little ones. The GUI didn't fit how he was using his Mac. The Application button, now was meaningless, the Documents button was meaningless, He never used his Home folder. He fought the interface to do it "his way". Looked for and downloaded shareware apps to help him OS 9ify his computer. He fought his computer for a year, changing this, changing that, trying to make his GUI work his way. That's fine as long as you don't want to get any work done.
So I tell him...."kill the partitions and use the supplied UI elements the way they are meant to be". He says no. Off and on, we have this conversation and he always wants it "his way".
Then one day, he decides that he will try my advice. I tell him how to save his mail and prefs, he backs up his "essentials" on CD. Un partitions, Reinstalls, updates, etc. For one week, he decided to actually USE the UI elements as they were meant to be used. That was 4 months ago. All that shareware he bought is now useless to him. He no longer fights his computer and has found that OS X is EASIER to use than OS 9 as long as you are willing to change a few habits. Not only that, changing those habits took very little time.
In the article, this guys first action was to ceremoniously declare (via instant format and partition, which he complains didn't go over as smoothly as he wanted) "f**k this setup, I want the set up to be TOTALLY different" and has been fighting OS X ever since. I'm willing to be if he set aside his precepts and used it the way it is set up, one week later, he would not be fighting his machine and would be back to getting work done.
Burn Hollywood Burn
The ONE time I really played with an OS X machine (ISDN router training, damn Ascend Pipe 50s SUCK) I was messing with quicktime, and managed to lock it up. Hmmm, so I used top to find the pid, and then kill -9ed it. It was sweet, the power of linux, with a GUI that doesn't scream CHEAP. Now I just need the moola to but a damn iMac, I'm broke.
What, me worry?
I have to admit that I found this bizarre; when confronted with the same dialogue, I clicked on the lock, typed in my password and all was well.
No problems at all for me.
His final conclusion seems to be that he'll do just fine with it, which is doubly odd, all things considered.
D
Two things kind of bugged me about this article. One was the authors seeming expectation of an OS cutomized to his tastes out of the box. The other is his strange (in light of the previous) unwillingness to invest any effort in trying to adjust the UI preferences to suit tastes. For instance:
Miracle! Noticed "Customize Toolbar" option in Finder
And the like. "One True Way"... It reminds me of trying to deal with older engineers who have solidifed their ways of doing things and are unwilling to seriously consider input.
I've been using OSX for about 9 months. Every time I've had an issue/wish with it, I've gone directly to the apple forums, maxoshints and others (stepwise.org is a real gem). There's no mention of seeing outside help until day 9.
Reminds me of psychology readings about brain chrystalization...
Howard Dean for president
"a secret diary of his experiences installing and using Mac oh ess ex."
;)
It's been said a hundred times, though probably not here. It's spelled "Mac OS X"; it's pronounced "Mac O.S. TEN."
Geez...
Triv
I don't mean to imply that I think the OSX UI and general verbage within are perfect, however, the 'diary' seems to posit that the UI should be *absolutely* geared for the totally incompetent user (not that I'm saying the author is incompetent... just assuming he was taking on the role of someone who didn't know his arse from a hole in the ground... for the sake of his 'diary'-based review of the various imperfect elements in OSX). I am not a 'newbie' to the various elements of OSX... I've used MacOS, various *NIXes, NEXT/OPENSTEP, [other platforms], so perhaps I'm not ignoring my experience enough to make a fair judgement... in any case, I don't think the OSX UI/experience is likely to be quite the confusing fiasco portrayed in the 'diary'.
From the first time I installed OSX, I have had *no* trouble understanding when/how to use packages and when/how to enter which passwords. The lack of an active 'root' user was a bit disorienting at first, but was figured out/resolved/activated within a couple of minutes (BTW- Rather than the oft-posted "use NetInfoManager.app to activate...", I simply gave the root user a password in Terminal.app... same effect). I must say that I feel the article announcement's brief bio on the author's background (UNIX experience) set me up to be rather surprised at his inability to *grep* (ha!) the various pieces... that's why I've assumed that he's taking on the role of a newbie and not necessarily so confused himself.
I love OSX. I want it to improve. I know it will. Surely, it will improve to some degree by user feedback... but, I don't think that feedback is altogether useful when delivered in the form of: "stupid [designers]" or "lack of [some pre-existing feature]?!?!?! Apple/Steve is KILLING ME!!!!!". Sadly the vast numbers of people yelling in such manner, in ernest, also drags down the 'humorous' nature of such satire.
All the above: IMNSHO
There's an incredibly fast Sherlock replacement called Locator (freeware) which puts a GUI on the OS X locate database. Searches in Locator take all of a second or two. Plus no channels, no big GUI overhead, just hella fast searches. Plus if you use a program called Keyboard Maestro in it's free form you can reassign Command+F to point to Locator instead of Sherlock. Speed speed speed!
Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage. - Anais Nin
Buddy boy is picky! :-) ;-) j/k
Doesn't like icons, doesn't like generally anything related to ease of use. Just get a pc, install some distro without X and deal if you want it to be difficult.
I can understand some of his gripes though. Configurability is definitely a virtue in an OS, and (while I doubt his accuracy) he descriptions hows it o be lacking such a virtue.
Derek Greene
The big confusion, for me at least, would be that if I'm already logged in as an admin, why should I have to type my password again?
It does sound like the sudo dialog box wasn't worded very well, but on the other hand he should know that if there's ever an authentication step to go through, clicking on images of a lock or a key is usually the way to go.
The rant about the difference between icons for objects versus actions was very insightful - somebody should really apply that interface metric to Windows and Linux systems as well. Sounds like Mac OS really took a step backwards there.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Thrusday, 19:05 EST
Mom's iMac was preventing access to mission critical application (System folder corruption not allowing AOhell to let her into msnbc crossword puzzle with morning cup o' tay)
"No problem" says I.. "plunk down a wad for OS X"
Financing and resources secured. I arrive for a gnarly bit o dinner + boredom watching installation bar creep.
Mundanity ensues and my 1st install of OS X goes well after last touching a mac when options included a mac, or a mac without a mac.
Gratuitous use of AOHell under OS X (they stole my KDE backdrop dammit!) embarks and I am stumped by 10 Across.
Foregoing urge to insert foot into crt, I depart.
Friday, 17:27 EST
21+ hours later and no whiny calls about iMac. I kick the cat instead. Job well done: Thanks APPLE!
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess? - Joshua (Wargames)
I know of someone who never wants to accept change of any kind. I can understand his point of view, but it means that when improvements occur, like the installation of a new computer system, he's the last to take advantage of them.
To me, X is an enormous improvement to 9. For one thing, the "text that looks like hand-set type" is so beautiful I hate going back to anything else. Once I saw that, and got to try true multitasking on a Mac, I really hated going back to 9.
I haven't done any serious work in 9 since Final Cut Pro for MacOS X came out.
D
Ran through the OSX registration procedure
He complains about being forced to register... this has already been commented on. But having no true option is stupid.
Big dialogue box came up: "You need an Administrator password to install the software." Below this, icon of a padlock: "Click the lock to make changes." Totally baffled. What do I do now? No clue how to enter administrator password.
Yeah, that can be confusing. You don't know that your password is an administrator password (it never tells you about the concept of administrators, or that you're it).
Just so you know, he actually took three days to finish Alice (and that was in Easy mode and with a couple of hints on how to beat the bosses. Plus liberal use of cheat keys in final battle.)
I'm better at Alice than he is.
Getting more experience working with new Finder. No longer feel totally mummified, but still not comfortable. Column view -- bleah. (Remember using NeXT boxes in college. Didn't like column view then either.)
Bah, column view was something I always wanted in the Finder. It's good, get used to it :P It's better if you have more folders than files (it's good at finding files deeply nested, and makes it more convenient to have your files deeply nested).
Hit cmd-F to search partition. Oh, no. Sherlock. Forgot how awful Sherlock has become
Sherlock is a bane on the Mac's usefulness. Stupid Steve.
[Dock:] Can click app icon, wait for window list pop-up -- but this is slow and confusing. All Terminal windows have same name anyway
You can Get Info on a Terminal window and change the name. Very useful. Otherwise they have the ttyp# in the name.
Only missing UI element: configurable Apple menu. Or some way to do pop-up menu with hierarchical structure showing a directory tree. Needed for One True Way MacOS structure.
Well, get used to column view, and you've got it. Try this:
- Click Finder icon in the Dock.
- Hit Command-opt-F. This brings up Favorites. Set it to Column View.
- Close window now.
- Hit Command-opt-F. The finder should remember that that folder should be in Column View (it will also remember the window size, for when you open up a new window, instead of navigating from an existing window).
Here's your wonderful hierarchical list, as easy as clicking the Finder icon and hitting command-opt-f. Add folders with aliases in them as your hearts content. Alright, not as easy as the Apple menu, but people abused that thing to no end...This animation takes approximately 0.75 seconds. After approximately 0.375 seconds, I am banging on computer top, screaming "Get move on!!"
Yup, there's too much stupid animation in OS X. A lot of it is warranted and doesn't get in your way, a lot of it (like hitting Command-S(ave), return) takes too damn long as the sheets come and go.
How hard would it be to write a freeware Dock item which navigates folder tree, without delays?
Dock menus pop up instantly if you control-click. Or if you have a two button mouse and right click. He finds that out later, but not the two-button thing. I'm happy with one button... I use two at work because I got one there.
Spent more time selecting fonts. Font selection is annoying.
Font selection is pretty awesome, the Font panel resizes. When the panel is small you get popup menus for your fonts. At a bigger size you get scrollable lists. You can organize fonts into your favorite groups (like Monospace fonts, it doesn't do it for you). And you can set your Favorite fonts, and while you're browsing your favs you get a nice little custom UI for it (favs include bold/point size in one click).
More generally: Carbon and Cocoa apps have different font-rendering.
Actually, CoreGraphics (Quartz 2D) and QuickDraw have different font rendering. The Finder is a Carbon app. Some (many) Carbon apps don't want to jump to Quartz because (a) the developers know QuickDraw and (b) Quartz 2D isn't on OS 9, so the app won't run on both platforms.
(Five minutes later: Selected "Get Mac OS X Software..." from Apple menu. Nothing happened. The hell? I've got menu option eating space in Apple menu, can't get rid of it, and it doesn't work? Stupid Steve!)
He deleted IE, and has not set his default web browser (IE is always the fallback browser if it can't find the preferred web browser). Until he goes to Internet prefs and sets his browser of choice, it (and anything else that wants to launch an http url) won't work.
I've deleted IE, the OS X version is an amazing pile of do-do; absolutely busted functionality. OmniWeb, Mozilla, and Chimera rulez.
On the other hand, have sworn off using Help system anyhow, due to annoying animations.
And it takes about 30 seconds to load.
Moderators should have to take a reading comprehension test.
Because they (or rather the user interface designers that work for them) most likely know more about user interfaces than you do. Contrary to popular belief (particularly with Linux users) customisability is very poor user interface design and this is pointed out in Jeff Raskin's book "The Humane Interface".
When it comes down to it, you are far better off adjusting your habits to something that is more productive instead of continuing to use less efficient techniques to save relearning time. A new OS doesn't come out that often, take some time to appreciate it's new features and benefit from them or there's simply no point in upgrading.
Nothing's perfect. Remember that Mac OS X is a "1.0" in reality, and, given that, it's working pretty well for most. I've never had any system crashes since I started its use last March.
.plist files. Ditto for the transparencies and such.
Zarf's experience confirms three issues about using Mac OS X:
-If you are an experienced Mac OS 9 user, you will do things to your computer (and vice versa) that will be adverse. Example--moving applications out of the Applications folder. OS X updaters expect to find all Apple-installed apps in their original locations. Previous OS versions generally did not care, but this breaks OS X updates.
Tip: LEAVE OS X application locations alone. X apps and other non-Apple OS X apps can be placed whereever you want, but the Applications folder is preferable.
--If you are an experienced UNIX/Linux user, OS X feels fine, but the GUI gets a little in the way, particularly when you're trying to get to the CLI and stay there awhile. The way OS X handles configuration files threw him, too--OS X preferences can be edited, but you don't have dotfiles, but
--If you hate the fluff of Windows, a few interface issues will annoy both kinds of users. Fortunately, unlike Windows XP, the OS does not attempt to find a way to sell you something on launching any app. Also, (Office X excluded) Mac apps are usually not so overly helpful that you want to assassinate the MS Clippy team and their families for bringing up the "assistant" idea.
It will be interesting when he installs XDarwin for an XFree86 GUI (it can run concurrently w/Agua or alone on the display)
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
If I wrote vi, and I say it's pronounced vee eye instead of vie, than that's the way it's pronounced, common usage or not, if I'm the one that gets to name it I'm right and everyone who deviates from this pronunciation is wrong. It has nothing to do with someone being a loser.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
I actually think you have it backwards, slightly.
A computer is a tool. As a tool, it's capability depends on using the tool properly. Like using a hammer to pound in screws, or a screwdriver to strip paint, or a hacksaw to trim hedges.
Which means that, like a tool, there was a envisioned usage. Unlike a screwdriver, however, a computer is at least as flexible as the user, so that the machine can become much more powerful than a single purpose, single usage tool.
I own a Mac, so I feel free to comment. I don't know if you do, so I am unsure as to how valid your comments are.
The UI is not the tool. The OS is not the tool. The UI and the OS is the controls, the manner in which I as a person leverage my goals and drive. With my Mac, with iMovie and Quicktime Pro (two tools), I have the flexibility and power to do things the way I want to. With gcc and the BSD layer, I have the flexibility and power to do things the way I want to.
I do not muck about with the way gcc handles #defines and directives, code parsing, or assembly. I *can*, if I want to look at the source, but I don't. Likewise the OS handles the file naming, location, sharing, UI, and networking. I personally do muck around with all of those, but I don't have to, either. Mucking around with gcc source or with an OS UI is not about a computer adapting to the user, it's about the user trying to improve the underlying functionality.
GPL Deconstructed
There are many quantitative methods of proving that customisability is not a feature of good UI design in most cases. The best way would be to get a large random sampling of people and let them use a program, half with customisability enabled and half with it disabled. After a few months give them a task and see which group finishes it first. When this kind of test is performed it consistently finds that a well designed interface which is not customisable is better than the customisable interface.
There is no reason that the UI could not be shipped exactly as it is, defaulting to that scheme for most users while allowing power users to change things to their liking.
There's no reason why it can't be done but there is a very good reason why it should - it's bad design. In fact, it's bad design on two very basic counts. The first is the fact that when you customise a good interface you invariably make it less productive and just don't realise it. Secondly, it is extremely poor user interface design to have two modes - one for new users and one for power users.
Computers should be flexible and shouldn't needlessly constrain you, however you are much better off taking the time to relearn a few habits to become more productive, even if you feel constrained while you are relearning.
Basically, go away and read the book then you have something to argue. Right now you're spouting off with no evidence to back yourself up. Not everything is as it first appears.
The reason that he wasn't able to use the 'Get Mac OS X Software' option in the Apple Menu is because it calls IE.
Which he said he deleted.
Is it just me, or does it seem like if the person writing the diary added "nick" or "inck" to the end of everything he would sound like "pitr" off off the UserFriendly comic strip? ...just a thought =)
I SURVIVED THE GREAT SLASHDOT BLACKOUT OF 2002!
The rant about the difference between icons for objects versus actions was very insightful - somebody should really apply that interface metric to Windows and Linux systems as well. Sounds like Mac OS really took a step backwards there.
I agree in principal, but at the same time I know that novice users (still a big apple market) love having little icons everywhere. That favorites icon (the heart) which bugged this guy so much will be adored by many consumers ("I just click on the litte red heart, and my favorites come up! Oooh! Aaah!"), and it's easy for the people who don't like it to turn it off. Ditto for the interface tricks he doesn't like ("Look at the animations! Wheeeeee!"). I don't think it's a step backwards. I'm sure they would have gotten lot more criticism if they, god forbid, made a toolbar with a bunch of text-only buttons.
__
Choose mnemonic identifiers. If you can't remember what mnemonic means, you've got a problem. - Larry Wall
Maybe if he had spent more time using the standard interface instead of mucking it up with add-ons and modifications, he would have realized that a lot of his complaints are completely baseless.
Apparently, I learned more about the UI in twenty minutes than he did in several days.
It should stand as a testament to X's ease of use that someone who doesn't even understand how and why "root access" works can still partition and install multiple operating systems on one machine.
I said a good interface.....
The beauty of a customizable interface is that it can adapt to the way you want to work. I frequently want to open links in a new tab, so it saves me time and effort to turn a menu operation into a single middle-click. You cannot convince me that I am not better off.
I'm not going to try to - this modification should have been the default in the first place. (Remember I said a good interface) One of the choice off-hand comments in "The Humane Interface" is "On the other hand, if a program's interface is as dismal - to voice an opinion - as that of Microsoft Word 97/98, the situation is reversed. Almost any change the user makes is an improvement, to exaggerate only slightly."
Raskin makes a couple of other points that are significant here:
By providing preferences, we burden users with a task extraneous to their job function. A user of, say, a spreadsheet has to learn how to use not only the spreadsheet but also the customizing facilities. Time spent in learning and operating the personalization features is time mostly wasted from the task at hand.
Customization sounds nice, democratic, open-ended, and full of freedom and joy for the user, but I am unaware of any studies that show that it increases productivity or improves objective measures of usability or learn-ability. Adding customization certainly makes a system more complex and more difficult to learn.
It is important to recognize that users will customize an interface in such a way that it appeals to their subjective judgement. As has been observed in a number of experiements, an interface that optimizes productivity is not neccessarily an interface that optimizes subjective ratings. (For example, see Tullis 1984, p. 137).
So, we can plainly see that all of the evidence indicates that a good user interface should not need to be customized. You can provide all the anecdotal, heresay evidence you like but the actual tests that have been done show that you are wrong and that customizability is generally a bad thing.
I'm sure a non-customizable interface will probably allow most people to get work done faster. THe point of most people who bitch about OS X(Use it and hate it... god I hate animations) isn't whether or not it is more efficient or not. the POINT is that THEY want to control how their OS behaves, not Steve .
If efficiency was king we sure as sh** wouldn't be using linux now would we? To type in any standard linux commnad takes, on average, about 2-3 times as long then a simpler GUI interface. But, we LIKE to. *I AM GEEK HEAR ME TYPE*. I want to be able to do just about anything to my OS b/c that's how *I* want to do it. Not Steve, or Bill, or some 'efficiency expert'. If i want to convert my OS to only accept Hex commands thats my right!
I understand your point, too much customization can be a bad thing for the average user, but not allowing users hardly any control over there GUI is not the solution either. And, god I hate to say this, microsoft actually did the right thing when they allowed WinXP to be changed to 'classic' windows format ( -1, flamebait). Happy medium people.. happy medium.
First of all, let me point out, I'm drunk and drinking and I'm just taking a time-out to respond to this incredibly stupid diary. Second, does anyone else find this guy to be incredibly lame? I mean, honestly, who takes the time to document in diary format your installations and experiences with an OS? Third, obviously OS TEN (yes, you better start saying the word "TEN" Zarf, because you could get beat up for saying "ex") is not perfect, but it is far better than anything else plus it's still in its infancy. Instead of spouting out that verbal diarrhea (get it? diary-a?), Barf should have taken the time to simply use the OS and get used to it. Every new OS has some learning required. Be happy with the fact that OS X has the shortest. Jeez. Ok, time to drink more.
[figz@figz figz]$ kill -9 `ps -ef | awk '$1=="figz" { print $2 }'`
And you are STILL dead wrong. The computer is not the master, the USER is. It belongs to the user to do with as they please. It is a tool with builtin flexibility. Let it be flexible.
I work MUCH faster on linux with my customized KDE than I do on the Mac (OS 9). I know what works best for ME. The computer is mine, it serves me. Customizing is NOT a waste of time. Hell, it takes a few minutes. Once you set it up to the proper way of doing things (your individual preference) you are done. There is no more tweaking necessary. Also, psychology plays here more than in simply having a base UI design that is efficient. If I cannot STAND the layout/workings/look/feel of a UI and I am not allowed to change it, it causes me stress. Undue and unproductive and damaging stress. This is bad, wrong, stupid. If I can personalize the UI to MY way of doing things (the right way...for ME) then I am happier. A happier me is a more productive me. I do not need nor want to have to fight a UI. The UI must ultimately serve ME, not me it.
You choose the wrong master (Jobs and some coders/academic pinheads). I am my own master fully capable of making my own productive decisions. In any case, a PROPERLY designed interface will allow for customization on a per-user basis so that when I log in, it behave MY way. When I log out and another logs in, it behaves THEIR way (ah yes, the beauty of a true and beautiful multi-user system like linux). The system is broken for other users, it is setup to behave MY way only when I am logged into it. Everyone else has their way which might be the default or their own tweaks. That is the TRUE path.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
This had all the depth, insight, excitement, and originality of one of those "I spent this weekend trying to get on this information superhighway thing" columns from 1995.
It might have been vaugely interesting A YEAR AGO, when OS X was released.
Without meaning to sound offensive - if that's what you want, use Linux. When you want to be productive use the right tool for the job (sometimes Mac, sometimes Windows, sometimes Linux....). Also note that I've not come across anyone who used OS X for a long period of time, tried out the way it does things and actually wanted to go back. Now, part of that is that people get annoyed with it and leave, however the other part of it is that people don't know what they want until they've tried all the options. When I first tried OS X I hated the way it did things and went back to OS 9 (admittedly this was the public beta not the final release). Later when it was properly released I gave it another go and this time tried doing things it's way - now I can't imagine how I lived without it.
I understand your point, too much customization can be a bad thing for the average user, but not allowing users hardly any control over there GUI is not the solution either. And, god I hate to say this, microsoft actually did the right thing when they allowed WinXP to be changed to 'classic' windows format ( -1, flamebait). Happy medium people.. happy medium.
I would agree that some *limited* customisability is a good thing - but it generally shouldn't be in the way you do things, but in the way things look. For instance a user who has sight problems will likely appreciate a high contrast look to their computer, graphics professionals wanted to neutralise the colour scheme of OS X so it didn't affect the perception of colour. Neither of these things affect the way that things are done with the program though.
I would have to disagree that WinXP being able to be changed back to 'classic' windows format is a good thing in principle though. Backwards compatibility should not prevent you from improving your interface. The only time that you'd provide the ability to change back to the old interface is when you don't think your new interface is any good (or if you think users will revolt but that consideration doesn't come into the area of user interface design).
Now, it just so happens that there are some elements of WinXP that really are worse than the classic Windows way - the constantly changing start menu is a particularly bad idea (and proveably so). For these options even I change them back to the old look, however this is an indication of poor user interface design and not a count against customisability. (Probably comes as a surprise that I'm using XP too.... I have an OS X machine upstairs...)
So I run the previewer. Guess what? It takes about a second to render a page. Well...sometimes it's about a half. I try acrobat reader. Even slower! Come on Apple. When I used to use a NeXT running at 40MHz I could read postscript documents at this kind of speed. It's inexcusibly and unforgivably slow. On a 500MHz pentium I can drag PDF documents up and down the screen at about 10-15 fps. It's just like having a paper document that I can scan up and down. But un a supposedly more powerful machine on which PDF is native it's about 5-10 times slower. This is truly pathetic. This is 2d graphics. It's barely a million monochrome pixels that need rendering. What's the CPU doing for all this time? Am I really going to have to write my own PDF viewer?
Otherwise MacOS X is the dog's bollocks!
-- SIGFPE
What you have failed to realise is that there is always some relearning time when moving to a new interface regardless of whether or not that interface is good or bad. If you "cannot STAND the layout/workings/look/feel of a UI" then you are experiencing that change over period. If you take the time to learn the interface you will most likely find (assuming it is a good interface) that you are more productive and are not affected by stress from the interface but instead actually come to like it).
Now my challenge for you - find a study which shows that customizable interfaces are more productive using objective measures.
Let's just state this for the record: You are saying that it is a good thing that users have to enter a password to install software. Who's computer is this again? Is this my computer or is this Steve's computer? If I cant install the software I want I should just go buy a toaster. Maybe you'd like to justify it by saying that installing software requires that the installer write into directories that you dont think the user should be casually deleting or browsing. In which case, that is exactly what should be restricted, perhaps through the finder application or a specific capabilities system, but largely, let's not forget who's computer this is. If I wanna screw it up I should be able to. Maybe Steve would like to warn me "You're about to delete a critical file, dont do this!" And maybe if I ignore him then I should be able to undo my change. But generally, installing a piece of software is not going to break the system and the protection mechanism should recognise that.
How we know is more important than what we know.
True, however there are a basic set of attributes about humans that are extremely pervasive and these attributes are almost always enough to design an interface around. So it is possible to create an interface that is the most productive solution for everybody with only very rare exceptions. I do agree however that there needs to be some degree of customizability but that it should not affect the way things are done but more asthetic concerns. (I mightn't like Aqua and would prefer a nice lime green but when I click the lime green button it does exactly what the aqua button would have.)
However, being that the financial health of the company is paramount (to the company at least) the overriding factor is going to be, and must bem what the user demands. Alien interfaces will discourage upgrading and reduce profitiablity. Incremental changes tends to produce a better profit margin.
Sadly this is true - in terms of a business model you are usually better off appealling to subjective ratings rather than objective ratings - ie: keep the customers happy even if they are less productive. Incremental changes are particularly bad because they extend the length of the learning time for the changes, but allows you to sneak improvements in under the users nose which in a business sense is often required.
Actually, you can but it depends on the type of customisation you're talking about. You shouldn't have to customise the way an application works, but you should be able to customize what it does. Your example is an ideal way of explaining this further.
A very specific example: EMACS is a text editor. It can be used for writing mails, diaries, articles, web pages, computer programs and so on.
All of these are just editing text - different content, same way of editing it. ie: You use the same key bindings to change text etc no matter what you're working on. The key bindings are the way you use the application. The content is what you use the application for.
It so happens that computer languages like C allow the programmer to layout her code the way she sees most fit. By coincidence, EMACS has a feature which automates this layout process to some degree. But since programmers use different coding styles, it's possible to customize the way EMACS does the layout, in order to fit the preferences of the programmer.
Now I agree with you that this customization should be in the program (I was really annoyed with JBuilder for a long time before I discovered I could customise the way it laid out my code). Lets look carefully at what we are customizing though. Take a specific customization that is possible say whether code is indented with tabs or spaces. Now, if we use tabs, to get a new line in the code we hit return and EMACS inserts a tab for us. If we use spaces, to get a new line in the code we hit return and EMACS inserts some spaces for us. Notice what changed between the two scenarios - the content, not the way we did things. In other words, the customisation that you are talking about is customisation of auto-generated content, not of the interface.
That's why EMACS is an excellent editor for pretty much any editing task and why notepad.exe barely suffices for writing an email.
Agreed, the ability to create whatever content you want and to have a consistent way of editing that content is what makes EMACS great (well I use vi but the same deal applies). Now, what is more arguable is whether or not you should be able to turn autoindenting/autoformatting on and off. This does affect the way the application works (pressing return gives you a new line but no indent anymore). I would hazard a guess that you are more productive having your editor indent code automatically so long as the editor is good at it - so strictly speaking a good UI would remove this customisation however it's probably a case where not having this customisation would restrict the content you could create. You would be driven mad using the editor with that new langauge until it was updated to work with it properly. Forcing auto-indenting to be on would also force you to use one of the supported styles - you wouldn't be able to go on a masochistic rage and use a reversed indenting scheme or some other layout change that in your particular situation was worthwhile (a demonstration of really bad code?).
Forcing autoindent in a particular style would be a good way of enforcing a coding standard though... Either way, this is really an example of customising content more than it is in customising the way a program is used.
Have to mention - a more efficient interface for Minesweeper would be to show you where the damn mines are from the start.... poor interface design is actually what makes most games fun (for certain values of poor).
The other way to improve Minesweeper would be to remove it altogether and get back to your real work. :) (Same goes for /.)
this is the best usability study I've ever seen. And because it is so charming, so critical, and now, so visible, Stupid Steve may just pay someone to take it to heart (and probably scrap all the improvements when someone sends a beta screenshot to the press.)
Not to be condescending (well, okay, to be condescending) but that's the way I imagine Apple owners using their computers. Personally praising (or damning) the computer manufacturer's CEO for their whole technological experience *er* lifestyle.
ya mean the text-only browser? or is there another lynx? n browse with omni. browse with iCab. sssssheeeesh.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
First, let's get the easy, snappy answer out of the way. There is no "start button" on X11 (It's not called Xwindows, but I digress...). This functionality depends on ones Window manager.
System 7 allowed one to place anything in the Apple menu, including a folder, or alias to a folder, simply by dragging it to the "Apple Menu Items Folder". Previous systems lacked this simple functionality, and desk accessories could be installed only by using a somewhat clunky program. Soon, someone developed a Control Panel called "Hierarchical Apple Menu", which automatically translated these folders into submenus-- a revolutionary concept. I myself put a alias to my hard drive, allowing anyone with godlike mouse skills instant access to any file on my hard drive. Others (with more sense) created application menus with aliases to their favorite programs.
Apple later incorporated this utility into later Systems.
I think, though, that this sort of behavior predated the Windows 9X start menu. In any case, the "Start" menu is usually preconfigured by manufacturers to categorize apps not by functionality, but (horror of horrors) by software provider. Frankly, I don't care that Aldus, Adobe, and Nisus are (or were) separate companies-- it may suit my style to group my word processor, page layout program and bitmap editor together. Yes, one can reconfigure the start menu-- but because every two bit application wants to add its icons, ads, and other useless bits, it gets somewhat difficult to manage.
Personally, I like the dock.
I simply must believe that all Mac users aren't as braindead as this one. I've made what seemed to be simple mistakes in windows and linux but at least I was smart enough not to broadcast them to the world. Mac users have to be smarter than this guy.
-
Emacs games provide all sorts of entertainment (when your bored on a classified system you discover all sorts of things..)
1)Fire up emacs....(launch terminal app, type "emacs"
2)M-x dungeon
the classic. It's not infocom but...
or
2)M-x tetris
text tetris !?! really. it's not xemacs...
3) M-spook
fun stuff to put in your emails....
For those not familiar with emacs M=esc
to quit type control x then control c.
Tullis, Thomas S., PhD. is wrong. But at least he had the strength of will to come up with his own opinion.
I just realized that TheAJofOZ is right about all his usability rants. The only way he could have responded to so many posts, defending Oh Ess Ecks Dot Lower Case Ell design so vehemently and thoroughly is because of his improved efficiency.
in case i'm not the only one who had never heard of icab until this article, here's their web page place. i've used it for 5 minutes and am impressed by its configuability. better ad-blocking than moz and omniweb, for example. freeish, in development. mac oses only.
A brief summary of the article:
"Go Steve!"
"Stupid Steve."
"Stupid Steve."
"Go Steve!"
"Stupid Steve."
"Go Steve!"
[Steve Ballmer takes over and begins to chant "Developers! Developers!"]
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
How is this different to any other device? You have to get to know every new person you meet to - does that make you avoid meeting people? (Okay, bad example for /. but hey.... :)
Proof of this is in the manner in which people will invariably forget passwords, bank account pin numbers and safe combinations. All are very similar UIs in that they are a series of alpha numeric characters in a set sequence of similar length (though PIN numbers are often the shortest).
No, the ATM is the UI, the PIN is data. Data is much harder to remember because there is (usually) no prompt to help you remember it. This is also the reason that GUIs are easier to use than CLIs - the options are presented to you instead of having to remember them. With GUIs you don't need to learn as such, but rather develop habits.
The more of each of these required to be memorized, the greater the likelihood that one will fail because while the UIs are similar, they are not consistent or the same. This is not to say that they shoudl necessarily be the same, but as a counter to your argument, it works.
So let me get this straight - your argument is that they should all be the same so that we don't have to take any time to learn them. I have three counters to your argument:
Andrew Plotkin write many good stories with big flowery language. Andrew Platkin obviously save up language skills for when writing stories and not waste any on diary. Andrew Plotkin still good. People not think Andrew Plotkin good need read/play 'The Meteor, The Stone And A Long Glass of Sherbet' or other award-winning interactive fiction written by Andrew Plotkin.
A Mac-smoking friend slid his Powerbook
across the table to me at the local coffee shop
and said: "It's got Unix underneath... OS X."
Intrigued... I asked for a terminal window
and poked about... interesting. I might
be at home here and finally loose MS'es
deathgrip on my brain.
The coffee shop has an 802.11 wireless connection
and his Powerbook's Airport gets past the
URL re-directing gateway to download at DSL speeds. I've tried 3 times to get my DLINK'ed
802.11 config to work as the ISP advertises
it should... hmmm... DSL into my office net
with my morning coffee. [Yes, I've spent a
few hours considering Linux for my wireless
laptop... I'd expect many more would be required
to get it all correctly config'ed... should work
but like my MS experiences NOT without great pain
and combinatoric exercise]
So, I ask if I might see if Zope would work
on the Mac w/ OS X. He allows the "test" and
helps my find a package for mac's, download
and install Zope. Someone has made Zope fit
the Mac install paradigm... It's the easiest
Zope install I've seen (vs Windows, Solaris, Linux). I start Zope... and ask if I might add
the Squishdot package (Slash-clone written in
Python and Zope's D(H)TML). He allows...
I download/install it, restart Zope...
Works painlessly.
Now I have this $3,000 decision... To Titanium
or NOT to Titanium... hmmm, clock's ticking and
I can't get myself to re-up w/ the MS eXPerience.
How much might painless computing be worth and
would it remain painless long enough to get
some of my music recorded, video edited, and
real work done from the coffeeshop?
Decisions, decisions... I did enjoy that NeXT
system back in 1991 I borrowed. I miss my Amiga
days... Computers should be fun to use and that Mac was fun.
That's what I get for trusting my memory on something.
Thanks for the correction.
Here's one thing that might brighten your day, if you've never found this before:
:)
Linux ACPI support.
It appears that the 2.4 kernel series supports ACPI (with some tools, see link) but has to be compiled with the acpi option (marked as experimental). Do some research, you may be pleasantly surprised.
-- Reverius
I had a similar dilemma - a big mean x86 workstation or the Titanium Powerbook.
I chose the Powerbook, and I think i definitely made the right decision.
MacOS X feels a lot slower than Win2K or Linux, and it is a big step backwards from OS9 in terms of GUI functionality, but its mostly tolerable.
The chicks dig the dock magnification and window resize animations, anyway.
I develop Java/Tomcat apps, do web design with Photoshop and remotely administer my Linux and Win2K servers with XDarwin and rdesktop.
The Powerbook is IMHO way superior to any x86 laptop I have used, and i've used a few.
It wakes from sleep practically instantly, is easy to switch between different locations, has a useful array of expansion ports, and is light enough to carry easily. It doesn't crash often (Though the Finder locks up for me quite a lot - easily fixed with a 'Force Quit' that actually works reliably for the first time in MacOS history)
Add a good, free (as in beer) IDE and extensive GUI and general purpose APIs, and its a dream to program for.
I would recommend this machine, except for the Aqua GUI, which i can't say has grown on me with time. However, this is a minor annoyance, and I can always run a fullscreen X server to cover it up.
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
> Then why doesn't Apple spell it "MacOS 10"?
Simple, it's a double pun.
(1) Mac OS X, as in the Roman numeral for "10". Not surprisingly, this is the operating system after Mac OS 9. Roman numerals are not unheard of in the US (movies are notorious for using them), so it's not like they're using Greek letters or something like that.
(2) Mac OS X, where the "X" indicates Unix, like X-window or anything like that.
I guess it could be a triple pun, where the X means "unknown", because millions of Mac users who *thought* they knew how their Macintosh works now are confused and lost because version 10 is so different than previous versions.
But the people I've known who switched to Mac OS X all have had a short period of minor disorientation ("What's the Dock?", "Where are the control panels?", etc.), but afterwards they (like me) quickly liked it a lot better than Mac OS 9.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
He is complaining about bad things it the UI that Apple learned about 15 years ago, and forgot when NeXT was paid to buy them out. Things like "Icons should be nouns, and not verbs."
There are certain things that certain people in Apple researched and formed opinions on. That doesn't mean they're true from now until eternity. Somebody can disagree with the earlier findings and try new things. They're not necessarily going to perfect out of the gate.
In my opinion, there's an abusrd amount of arrogance regarding the Mac UI. I think people could be confusing fondness and familiarity with perfection. Yes, it has many good points. But it's far from perfect.
He was spot on with the problems with the Installation dialog.
I agree the authentication thing is a too vague. My personal opinion is he went a little overboard on the commentary on that subject.
I am complaining about the fact that the UI expects you to know that the little lock, inside a circle, is a button, and the only way to install the software. It would have been _much_ better UI to have an authenticate and install, rather than a quit button.
I agree.
Again Apple learned years ago that translucency sucks, yet they insist that all Macs come with translucency.
I believe it's a personal preference in most cases. The fact that certain types of people like flat shaded color and it helps them work better does not mean "transparency sucks." It means they don't like it. The are people that find it interesting to look at, and it allows them to feel like computer work is not such drugery.
Apple learned years ago how to make files and folders not rely on file paths
I agree. This is an aspect of the Mac with no perceptable down side. You apparently gain nothing and lose much by refering to files by ID instead of hard text paths.
Oh, and if I want to put other apps in my home folder, they won't register services either. Of course, if there was anything as infinitely cool as services for Mac OS 9, it would register at startup, and be done with it.
Only problem there is that many people never want to reboot their machines -- just put them to sleep.
- Scott
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas