Slashdot Mirror
Windows Software Ugly, Boring & Uninspired
An anonymous reader writes "CPU magazine has written a very straight-to-the-point editorial on the lack of quality and innovation in software for the mainstream OS. They compare it to the Mac, which is found in a much different light. Where has all the innovation gone?" From the article: "There's too much coal and not enough diamonds within the sphere of downloads. The greatest pieces of software are plagued by unintelligent design, and very few rise to the level of ubiquity. Windows users don't have a strong sense of belonging; there's no user community rallying around the platform. We use the computer, certainly, or is the computer using us?"
There isn't one of them that gives you functionality that your browser doesn't already afford. Sure, they're pretty, but what's going to happen is that as people amass more and more of these widgets, the dashboard becomes cluttered and slow (it already is painfully slow on my MDD 1.25GHz G4, and that's just with the stock widgets, with the default set active only). Then there's going to be the question as to how to organize them all... the faux dock at the bottom is already insufficient. I know, let's stick a menu in there! Great idea!
Why not call it the Widgets Menu? And when you choose a widget from the menu, up comes the widget! Just like if you had chosen a bookmark from the Bookmarks menu from your favorite browser: up comes the web page containing the info you sought!
Or, we could create a page of little Widgets links, and then the user could click on the link and up pops the widget! Just as if it were a web page full of links, each leading to a separate page with different and useful functionality!
So my question is, why not just use the browser? IT ALREADY DOES THESE THINGS!
Not as pretty? Find a web page that has a decent designer/artist behind it. Between CSS and the GiMP, there's no excuse for ugly web pages anymore.
If you want to throw stones, throw them at a target that deserves to get hit: the Desktop Metaphor. Menus and windows with scrollbars and dialog boxes and lions and tigers and bears. The same constraints that Windows suffers under are also felt by Mac OS X, Gnome and KDE users too.
The branding has nothing to do with it.
BTW, Chris Pirillo, the guy who wrote this, he's the one who couldn't make the cut as a TechTV ScreenSaver, isn't that right?
As a recent Mac convert (okay, I owned a powerbook for awhile a couple years ago, too), I have to say that two of the three (boring, uninspired) fits for most of the Mac world, too.
Don't get me wrong, I love my powerbook. I am quickly becoming a big Apple fan. However, all of the software looks the same. It all has the same uninspired brushed-metal plastic-shiny interface. And aside from a few big applications and open source stuff, everything else is second-rate after-thoughts (that most certainly goes for games, which seem to be a last minute consideration in most developer's minds, resulting in lame five two or three year old games just-now coming out for Macs).
Yes, the Apple gui is prettier. But really, is there that much more innovation when it comes to applications and software for Apple (video and audio editing aside) than there is for any other platform? I don't really think so.
In fact, I would say that the Apple experience is very Orwellian. "Here is the interface you will use. It is the same as every other interface. Your ability to configure it and later it is very limited, but you will learn to love it and live with it.".
Let's see... in Apple, you can choose from "Aqual blue" and "aqua graphite" color schemes... and.... you can change your desktop wallpaper. Fuck, the CDE window manager has done that for years.
Not to mention, you have to pay for anything decent on the Mac. There are some nice open-source/freeware applications around, but a lot of simple things cost money. I guess Apple developers know that there are enough mac suckers who won't mind paying $10 to be able to collapse their windows into shades, since they spent $3500 on a laptop already. Fuck, even the default browser (Safari) doesn't do most of the simplest Firefox functions -- unless you install some Safari extensions... Oh - by the way - those extensions (tabbed browsing, adblocking, etc) ARE NOT FREE. That's right, you have to PAY for the Safari extensions (unless I've missed something..?) that do what Firefox does for free (except firefox is sloooow on OSX). Amen for innovation, huh?
Granted, Camino can do these things with a few free plugins installed, but they aren't nearly as good. For instance, Adblock is part of one of the plugins, but you can't configure it in any way. You just turn it on or off. So it blocks far fewer advertisements.
Anyway, Mac is great - but it is a very rigid, enforced experience. I hope that will grow as the number of Mac users increases (which I hope happens quicker after the move to Intel chips).
Does it work? Does it make me more productive? That's what I want to know. Everything else is secondary, especially how "inspired" and "exciting" it is.
They'll be creative and innovative any day now; as soon as they find a creative, innovative company to buy...
Would not change until strong economic incentives force microsoft to innovate.
Monopolies are strange that way.
Not sure I can see any examples of what he's talking about?
Yes, a lot of programs are ugly, but that's usually because developers aren't educated in human/computer interaction etc, but just in e.g. C++. This applies to Windows applications as well as Linux applications that I've seen. Can't speak of Apple developers' apps because I have no experience of that platform.
As for his other claims -- boring and uninspired. What is he asking for? Is he asking for more bells & whistles? What makes a software "boring"? More innovation? What is he looking for a Windows software to do but can't find?
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
I swear. The windows software just feels so standard. Its like this boring old car that I take to work every day. I can't even soup it up like my camero. Which is in the proccess of beings souped up, when its ready its gonna be sweet!
A lump of coal in my stocking...
I wish I had gotten something else...ANYTHING else would do.
This is just an idea, but has anybody considered that maybe our computers are designed around our personalities?
Think about it, who do you think of when you think of a mac user? Granted, there are many out there, but when I think of a hardcore mac user I think of somebody who is into designing music, movies, graphics editing, etc. They are designed to cater to a group of people who are more creative and right brained.
How about your average PC user? Picture an office cubicle. You'r accountant, lawyer, and doctor all use a PC.
Let us never forget that pretty software does not automatically mean functional software, and please God let us never make well structured code and functionality less of a priority than UI "prettyness".
Yes there are nice widgets out there and some look quite cool, unfortunately after staring at them for 2 weeks at work they have become so tacky your eyes are starting to bleed and a nice dull functional gray scheme seems very appealing.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
If something looks bland, that probably means that it's finally being used for something other than just being decorative? I mean, it's not like the average can opener had variable transparency and a shitload of useless LEDs stuck to it... One of the best applications I use in Windows (other than games) is Daemon Tools which is basically a system tray icon, a standard MFC load widget and some configuration scerens. Best. Interface. Ever.
I can appreciate a certain blandness, it allows me to actually see what I'm doing. Damn, my pencil is playing Amazing Grace again.
Fight hunger. Filet a politician and send him to a 3rd world country of your choice.
With rapid development environments like Visual Basic around for the Windows OS, it's not surprising that there is a lot more crap out there for Windows, verses other OS that don't have these easy to pick up IDEs. It simply takes a more developed skill set to write apps for MAC and *nix. I think that when (not if) a high quality and easy to learn development platform for Linux comes along, we'll start to see mountains of shit for it, too. Indeed, think about all the crappy web apps and dynamic web sites, written in your scripting language de Jour, this is what we have to look forward to.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
as windows is (still) where it is only for compatibility.
Wondering why i am doing so strange posts? I am trying to get a "+5,Flamebait" or "-1,Insightful" rating.
Perhaps the author, being an elitist know-it-all about lovely user interfaces should look around a bit.. there's plenty of examples, such as Window Blinds from Stardock.
But the answer truely is that software doesn't need to be pretty to be functional. Most of the time all the eye-candy crap just gets in the way or slows it down.
My new catch phrase is: "I NEED A NEW CATCH PHRASE, BABY!"
The same could be said for Linux software too. You have to admin, the clean, slick UI of Mac OS X is something every suave mofo could enjoy.
Well, I guess Windows users can at least run this :)
u m03&id=shouter&option=com_gallery&Itemid=60&includ e=view_photo.php
http://amarok.kde.org/index.php?set_albumName=alb
What are the odds that any extra functionality MS adds to Windows will result in another $500 million fine and a plethora of Slashdot comments decrying it as another example of MS leveraging their 'monopoly' to drive out competition?
I say.. pretty good.
In Soviet Russia, computer uses YOU!
By reading this you acknowledge that you have read it.
Slashdot boring, repetitive, and Linux centric
/sarcasm
RTFA again for the best results.
The problem is Microsoft got big with Corporations, where most of their attention was focused since their rise to power. The biggest demand and greatest source of business and income has come from large corporations, and it only makes since Microsoft focus more of their attention on them.
Besides, Macs are luxury machines.
I wish I could be posted on slashdot every time i went on an unfocused rant...
1. unfocused rant
2. anything else (its unfocused..it works)
3.... well you all knwo the deal.
seriously though. isn't looks the same thing that basically killed innovation in the gaming industry? sure its nice that they have started to focus on giving OS's a bit of style and community but thats not really whats important to me... but maybe thats just me.
The problem with fancy GUIs is that they often use more of the system's resources, i.e. RAM and CPU. Personally, I rather use a boring but fast app than a applesque peice of software...
This screenshot looks innovative.
We use the computer, certainly, or is the computer using us?
Depends on where you live. Take a wild guess where computers use us.
The biggest problem with Windows is there are all kinds of inconsistencies. For example, last night I wanted to try the shortcut for creating a new Excel Spreadsheet. When I use the File menu, it shows me the "equivalent" shortcut is control-N, and it allows me to select a template on the right-hand side of the screen. When I use control-N, however, I can't select a template!
Another issue is that I can't find control panels and wizards that I've somehow wandered into earlier. For example, how do I roll back to a restore point? I know I've done it before, but yesterday I couldn't find a way to get there! I brought up the System control panel, and it only let me configure how much disk space to use for the system restore feature, not configure which restore point to roll back to! Argh!
Some software still innovates. For example, some audio players have CUE sheet support now.
I sure some of this is due to market-share issues. A developer targeting Windows knows there's 200 million new PC shipped each year (and probably a billion PCs installed). They figure that their software only needs to be good enough to snag only 1% of users to sell 2,000,000 copies a year and gain a 5 million user install base. In contrast, the Mac developer looks at Apple's 3% market-share (say 6 million Macs/year) and thinks that they need to attract 33% of the user base to reach the same target sales figure.
The result is that only the most dedicated and talented Mac developers survive whereas any idiot with a C-compiler can create a PC software title and be assured of some sales (just convince 1-in-10,000 PC users to spend $29 and you gross $600k per year). Given the huge market-share disparity, Mac software must be 30X as good as PC software to survive in its small marketplace. (OK, its a bit more complicated due to dilution by competing vendors, but I'm sure its much harder on the Mac side to attract an economically viable user-base for software package.)
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Google's Picassa is the first piece of really inspired interface design I've seen in a long time. If only Windows / Mac / Linux was this easy to use and looked as good.
PocketGamer.org - For the gamer on the go!
Safari does indeed have tabbed browsing and pop up blocking. Not sure what you mean by ad blocking. Also the case for Orwellian design seems kind of weak to me. If you don't like it then don't buy it.
"sweet dreams are made of this..."
Yes, eye candy can suck and take away from productivity, but in the case of OS X, it's not just eye candy that makes a good UI, it's the USABILITY!
I have see too many shitty programs on Windows that try so hard to look pretty but truly suck when it come to actual usage.
and very few rise to the level of ubiquity
Sounds like somebody needs to enrol on Economics 101.
Mac has allways been the main platform for artists, musicians and graphical designers.
Windows however was mostly used by the cube masses.
(go figure why windoze apps are more boring)
perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
Most Mac fans just won't understand the *business* in today's IT. Big businesses pay top dollars to IT professionals to lock down and make Windows even uglier, less creative, and even more boring. The goal is for uniformity, easier support, and better security for the corporate desktops. Apple make their OSes too colorful, too much fancy stuff, it confuses the bosses because OS X look like a kid's desktop OS, rather than a business desktop OS. That's where the money is Steve Jobs!!
First off, I didn't read the article, but I will comment on the notion that users must feel like they 'belong'. Simply put, they don't care. As long as they can check thier email, surf the internet and write a few documents, spreadsheets or presentations , thier happy.
Doubt me? Look at Mac users. They feel like thier part of something, but where has that gotten Apple in the PC market?
One of the things that few companies do is integrated into the Windows Shell. Windows provides ample opportunities for an application to just dissapear and become part of the operating system. For instance, in a chat program, your chat buddies could appear as icons in a folder right alongside your other files --- dragging and dropping a file onto your friend's icon would start transferring the file. There are a lot of other examples, but part of the problem I think is pride (and not just in windows development) Everybody wants to do something a little differently. If you have a standardized skinnable shell and plug in your apps around that it would do a lot for the appeal of the product.
And don't even get started on annoying popups and those freaking MS Office icons like the paperclip guy.
To me, a big part of design is noticability: if I take my time to notice it, it's getting in the way of the work I want to do.
If that's what they say about Windows applications, I'd hate to see what they think of Linux applications.
"Menu hierarchy like an Escher illustration."
"The fonts are making my eyes bleed."
"Spall checker leaves a little to be desired."
Yes, slightly OT, but bare with me -
In general, coal, though not "pretty" can be used for: Generating electricity, making coke for use in steel blast furnaces, the manufacture of synfuels, carbolic acids, amonia, paint pigments, TNT explosives, linoleum, sugar substitues, batteries, disinfectants, varnish, insulation... Oh, and it's cheap and relatively easy to get...
Diamonds ARE pretty...and they're expensive... oh, and they can cut things...
Personally, I think I'd rather have the "coal" software over the "diamond" software, but maybe that's just me.
then why do people like KDE so much?
There's a good reason for interfaces to look the same and follow the system interface guidelines, it makes them easier to use.
... Oh wait it's a complete pain to use. All the buttons are rendered tiny and instead of text labels they have little pictures, most of which are unrecognisable. (Where's the "Open file" menu option??). The volume control is even a knob you have to "rotate" by moving the mouse in little circles. WHATS WRONG WITH A SLIDER???
Take for example the DVD software I have. They've made the interface look exactly like a DVD player! Brilliant!
Using the system default style means that an interface is instantly recognisable with familiar controls (buttons, sliders, scroll bars). Of course it's still easy to design a bad interface even using system controls, but at least it puts you off to a better start.
I'm sure if this guy got his way all program's interfaces would look like Kai's Power Goo, but rather then just being able to install a new program and get on with it you'd need to learn a completely new interface first.
Finally strangely large amount of praise for Comic Life. "Be forewarned: It's likely to drive even the most die-hard Windows user to switch to OS X." Right, so a program that simply provides some Photoshop filters, speech bubble clipart and word art is so revolutionary that people will throw away their computers and buy a mac just to use it?? (Well until OS X86 is released I guess).
Slowest. News day. EVAR!
Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
I thought a lot of Microsoft products are inspired by other companies' products.
...It must be true, I read it in Slashdot comments.
Being funny is my sig nature.
The 'computer experience' has advanced enough over the years to the point it does the job we ask of it.
Perhaps there isn't a whole lot left, except slow *evolution*. All the *revolutionary* concepts have come and gone. ( Much as its happened in life. you dont see much revolution now, its all about slow evolution of nature )
Furthermore, 'pretty' doesnt really matter in the business world ( the main PC market ). Functionality does.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
hey Dr. Kool
You can say fuck if you like, no-one minds.
Cunt, balls, arse, wanker, shit, piss and bastard are also availble to you.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
The entire point of a GUI such as Windows or OS X is to allow the user to most easily do what they want through utilization of the proper program. A GUI is an interface--it is designed for utility, not for prettiness or to accrue some kind of user dedication.
Not to argue that Windows is amazing or anything, I just think that it's a device of functionality, and therefore cannot be properly criticized for a shallow interpretation of the way it looks.
Because looking at an experienced Unix shell user, you realize that the functionality and surface level beauty of a computer interface are two entirely different things. Criticizing the latter is just insignificant considering the importance of the former.
-M
If anyone knows ugly, boring, and uninspired, its Chris Parillo
If a software's UI is attractive and well-designed, it's more enjoyable to use. But if you enjoy something, then it's not really work. Ergo, Mac users never get any work done, and Windows makes people more productive!
Cheers,
IT
Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.
That's a feature, not a bug. I HATE the "belonging" aspect of the Mac community. I just want to own the freaking hammer, I don't want to join a hammer cult.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Sure it's Sunday but how does this half page article buy some guy represent any kind of real news? I'm getting really tired of editors green-lighting these obviously unresearched, entirely too short analyses. I read Slashdot for the NEWS THAT MATTERS!
There's all kinds of new spyware and adware coming out for Windows all the time! Ok well maybe it's not inspired but it sure is innovative! I regularly have to clean people's systems and it drives me nuts because of all the innovative ways it installs itself and buries itself and really fucks up their systems. You don't see that on the mac!
I am absolutely sick of hearing about how great Mac OS X is compared to Windows in *every way*. Yes, Mac OS X looks very nice -- but does this make for a more productive system? I'd say not. Also, for those gamers out there -- do *not* get a Mac. Unless they change their OS drastically. Because Mac OS X is so very pretty, it also uses tons of resources to render it all in OpenGL. This means that a port of a Windows game usually loses quite a bit in the framerate category. If you don't believe me, check the benchmarks for Doom 3 on the Mac. They are extremely pathetic. That said, I run Halo on my Mac, and it works great, but is also a pretty damn old game, too.
Windows is heavily into useless eye candy which, like the Mac, sucks up CPU cycles and screen space, but unlike the Mac does not look very good. Windows was not designed by anyone who had to use it, and it shows; most Linux GUI's are designed to match Windows as closely as possible, and inherit most of its faults. My Step 1 to making XP usable is to turn off every animation, feature, sound, etc, that can be turned off, and turn on every "like 2K" option that can be found.
My real objection to Windows (and I use it 8 hours a day at the office) is how HARD everything is. Pretty much anything I want to do takes an extra click or keystroke, or slogging through a couple extra tabs/modal dialogs, or just locating the right Properties dialog (Visual Studio, for example, scatters its settings randomly through several independent sets of controls.) It's frustrating in the same way as wearing mittens would be.
For example, Visual Studio is exceedingly slow and awkward to use, not because it lacks features but because its features are hard and awkward to access, compared to just about any other program I've ever used. And this is the program supposedly used to develop MS's own software! Well, Apple version (XCode) sucks pretty bad too, and Apple uses that to develop its own software too.
The bright side of this is that expectations are much lower on Windows than Mac, which makes it much easier to crank out commercially viable software quickly, which pays my bills.
...Some of you may like to know that there is NO unique id on the OSX for x86 install DVD's provided with the Intel Developers kit... confirmed through MD5 and SH1 sums. ;)
You know what to do...
Take Adium. No other OS has such a good, solid, beautiful, well-integrated IM client. No other OS has such a simple and sexy IRC client (Colloquy). Quicksilver is a downright godsend, and gives you the productivity of a text-based interface when it is a better solution. The truth is, OS X has the best apps because Cocoa is fantastic. It essentially forces you to great good looking and consistent applications. If you haven't experience Mac shareware/freeware, then you're missing a big part of what makes it the best desktop platform currently available.
I'll tell you something about Mac software: today I had to actually download a program to eject CDs because the mother fuckers at apple decided it would be too 'inside the box' to include a 'force eject' option even somewhere hidden on an advanced menu! That is until i discovered you had to reboot and hold the mouse button down, seriously WTF is wrong with that picture? Oh and while we're on the topic, what sort of software that comes with a computer forces you to upgrade in order to view videos in full screen mode? Quick-time is what. Oh and apparently deleting songs from iPods is a bit of an issue for some people.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
So, yet another Generation Y-er (OMG! 3 'no carrier' jokes in the first paragraph! U R TEH FUNNYMAN!!!!!11one) posts yet another mindless rant about how Windows sucks. We hear how great his PSP is, how well Apple is doing with the iPod (thank you, Captain Obvious!) and how OS X apps are infinitely superior to Windows apps.
The twin barbs of his attack: Dashboard (which has already been discussed to death; let's just say that as many people hate it as love it) and an application called "Comic Life", which this grizzled veteran of computing (look at the picture) thinks "is likely to drive even the most die-hard Windows user to switch to OS X." Yeah: I'm gonna dump my whole platform to make my digital pictures cuter. Uh-huh. I'm surprised he didn't sneak a 'BSOD' joke into his rant or spell Windows with 'BL' or a dollar sign.
One mark in his favor: clearly, he is an expert in boring and uninspired. A lame blog post about Windows software sucking? Wow. Next.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Zonk... seriously, this stuff is getting old. I'm as much a Mac fan as the next guy, but this kind of stuff getting posted on a daily basis is just asking for a flame war. There are far better places to post this kind of Mac evangelism than here.
Unless I'm mistaken, most of us here expect to discuss topics of actual intelligence, rather than repeatedly beating each other over the head with such pointless debates like Mac vs PC.
I'm not suggesting that all Mac-related articles are bad. If Apple manages to do something truly revolutionary for the computing industry, I'm sure we'd like to know about it. But please, for the love of God, stop polluting Slashdot with this kind of nonsense to satisify your own personal biases.
Thank you.
8==8 Bones 8==8
I was a windows users (for years and years) and now a mac user (for about a year). I find that there are no more diamonds in Mac than Win, in fact less. Why? because there is so much less software available (both free and non-free) available.
Yes, the percentage of software available for mac is more diamonds than coal. But the count of diamonds available for Win is higher.
I might yet switch back. I'm going to give Mac another 2 years to prove to me why I shouldnt' switch back.
Windows as the most software written for it of any OS, so yeah a lot of it sucks, but it also as inovative software.
Besides the most talked about software nowadays isn't software dependant its web apps like Google Maps.
la la la la la
When I use my mac, I feel like I have control of my computer. When I use windows and I have all this useless crap all over my system tray and all this useless stuff always seems to pop up on the screen (granted, I'm using other people's computers) I feel like I don't have control of the computer. This is especially true when I'm setting something up for someone and the wizard says "Windows is now doing (insert task) as if it's a person doing what you asked it to instead of a machine doing what you told it to.
Bottom line for me is that I find my mac fun to use and it stays out of my way when I'm trying to get something done. When I use windows, I'm constantly being annoyed by software that tries to be everything to everybody and won't get out of your way as well as an operating system that thinks it knows what I want to do better than I do.
--- Don't ever trust a woman until she's dead- B.B. King
pleasant looking, reserved and classic. I like Shaker furniture too.
.Innovative!"
.to the rear.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Yeah, most UIs suck, but as already noted by other posters, Chris didn't actually give us an example of an interface that sucks. As for apps, I'm afraid I've never had a desire to turn pictures into cartoons, and still don't. That's not how I wish to use my computer.
The interesting thing in this context is that it's the most "innovative" (i.e. with the most chrome and tailfins) interfaces that suck the hardest. What the hell good is "innovation" that has to detract from usability to "innovate"?
"Hey kids, I've got a great idea, let's put a steering triangle in our cars from now on. It's hip. It's cool. Nobody's ever done it before. It's. .
And so "technology" marches onward. .
"Natural" interfaces are the ones that tend to bug me the most, as they are often natural on a physical device, but quite unnatural on a computer. There are no knobs on an image. Mice are not turning devices like fingers. The monitor is really big, you don't need to make the buttons on the radio as small as the buttons on a car radio (which are universally reviled as a real world interface in the first place).
Most of all, if you are going to use a "natural" interface, don't let the braindead graphic designers loose on it, using the power of the virtual world to make "natural" interfaces that wouldn't exist in real life, insuring that the interface sucks in every possible way, in every possible context, because for some reason they never seem to think the best of both worlds is "cool." Only the worst.
On the whole the most usable computer interface remains the plain window with a menu bar and a couple of big buttons for common functions.
If you wanna paint the big buttons in primary colors and make them weird shapes and call that technogical innovation, well, fine, go ahead, just don't force it on me, because I think it's ugly, sophmoric and uninspired (it's the sort of artistic "innovation" common to beginning art students); and has nothing to do with technology or interface usability.
KFG
With the switch to x86, games will easily be ported to the mac and This concept actually has a precedent. OS/2 was an alternative operating system for the same hardware that windows targetted. IBM made sure you could run nearly all win32 and most 16 bit DOS and windows software, as well as OS/2 software. I fully expect Apple to do the same with their x86 Macs.
Now the not entirely unexpected result was that all 3rd party software companies targetted the win32 API, and droppped support for OS/2. After all, their win32 software would run on both platforms anyway, so supporting only the biggest of the two made good business sense.
I'm not saying that OS/2 could have been a success if it had been unable to run windows software, but clearly being compatible with the big masses did not make it a success, or even save it.
Steve Jobs wants to move to x86 so he can directly compete with Dell. That's a very interesting idea in theory, but in practice none of the other PC companies appear to be able to compete with Dell, so I don't see how yet another PC company that stands out only with their unfamiliar OS interface and their far higher prices is going to be able to do it.
But I gotta say "Comic Life from Plasq" looks like it raises the art of home slideshow torture to previously unimagined levels of pain and suffering.
Watching home movies makes me want to be exceptionally rude to the host.
Having to read Comic Life home comics would force me to gouge my eyes out with my ragged fingernails.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
I assure you, the vast majority of MIT researchers absolutely abhor proprietary operating systems. As for Word, we do most of our typesetting and word processing with XEmacs's great LaTeX extensions.
By the way: Sun workstations are the Sun workstations of the 21st century.
and there is nothing on any other browser like pithhelmet, adblocker on firefox is a pale pale pale imitation. Probably the best value for money ever.
"NO REGISTRY! I've seen many a 3.4 Ghz P4 system cripled to the equivalent of a 300 mhz Celeron because their registry (an unbelievably stupid concept) was fscked."
The point of the registry is to hide (through obscurity) portions of the operations of the computer from the computer owner.
An amazing concept, but most copy protection in Windows appears to be done via obscure registry flags and codes hidden therein.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
http://www.delicious-monster.com/
Delicious Library.
Nah. I haven't read the article. But, I have worked for a software company that made both mac and windows software. I have also used productivity tools on both platforms for (groan) years.
One thing that struck me is that there are just some software companies that "get it." They make programs that are intuitive to use, pretty to look at and properly take advantage of the OS. The programs also play nicely in the playground.
And most importantly, once you get used to using these programs you don't know what you would do without them.
In the Mac world of software programs like TechTool Pro and Diskwarrior are two excellent examples of getting it right.They are both disk/system repair utilities. Simple to use and effective and in some cases have benefits which are not readily apparent but easy to figure out later on. In that sense they are like a lot of programs that fill the gaps in the Mac experience.
You see, most of these great programs for the Mac exists because A) Apple refused to include certain functionality to the end user; B) The best houses build good software that really seems like it just belongs on a Mac and should be included with every box sold. (Omni Software is an example of an OS X company that fits this bill; Alsoft's Diskwarrior is one that fits the bill for OS 7-X)
Often that Windows Choice for innumerous software titles is like going to an office supply store and digging through discount bins for cheap and perhaps practical items that you don't realy need after using once or twice. There's nothing wrong with that but most Windows software (3rd party) doesn't add to the Windows experience it just adds software to your computer.
The goal is for uniformity, easier support, and better security for the corporate desktops. Apple make their OSes too colorful, too much fancy stuff, it confuses the bosses because OS X look like a kid's desktop OS, rather than a business desktop OS. That's where the money is Steve Jobs!!
Uniformity, easier support: Mac OS X has no "skinning", as Windows has. OS X has two possibilities for customization: Aqua or Grey colored widgets. OS X does not have the Windows "feature" that hides menu items from the user. So an application looks and behaves the same way on every Mac. On Windows it may look differently, and different menu items will be present.
Better security: WTF?
Too colorful, too much fancy stuff: You think XP isn't "too colorful", but Mac OS X (Blue, White, Grey) is?
It's an OS. It does what I need it to do. Why do I need to have a bunch of stupid graphical flair to be more "inspired" when it's just going to slow down my computer and eat up more resources! this isn't a freaking independant film festival, this is the machine that I use as a general purpose workhorse. I have a mac, and you know what, it's slower and less responsive. Not only does the heavy graphics eat up RAM, CPU, and GPU usage, but the "cool" animations and all the flair around the system make the system go slower - on purpose - because you have to wait for the flashy animation to get done before you can click "ok" on a dialog box.
Windows users don't have a strong sense of belonging; there's no user community rallying around the platform. We use the computer, certainly, or is the computer using us?"
That is one of the dumbest things I have read all week. Normal folks use computers as a means to an end. Just because the author gets a hardon over extraneous features and eye candy that add nothing to productivity, and is apparently thirteen and in need of being part of a group, doesn't mean the rest of us give a flying shit.
This guy is clueless, windows it just plain awesome ... there are tons of reasons to love windows, and i will throughly outline them... just after i reboot.
Mike
I heart the RIAA & MPAA, im sure its mutual...
Windows software is made to be professional looking, and easy to use. Even with the inovation of the luna themes, many still go back to classic at the work place. You would rarely see a law office using a mac simply because it doesn't look professional that when you delete an icon off the dock it poofs away like a cloud. Overall, the PC is professional, and because buttons don't blink, glow, and fly around the screen does not mean we PC users are lacking innovation...
Ugly, boring, and unspired are useless descriptions for software, because it isn't software's role to be pretty, interesting, or inspiring. The purpose of software is to deliver and enable you to author content that is not ugly, boring, or uninspiring. To put it another way, a bikini is not interesting to look at when it's sitting on a boutique rack; it looks a lot better on a beautiful woman.
Funny, I say the exact same thing about CPU Magazine ("Ugly, Boring & Uninspired").
obviously, in soviet russia, computer uses us!
We use the computer, certainly, or is the computer using us?
I'd like to thank the submitter for including that quote. It prevented me from wasting my time reading the article. I would have thanked them even more for not bothering submitting such a worthless article in the first place.
Dan East
Better known as 318230.
Is it just me, or are others scared of pressing links with [apple.com] after them?
I don't know if I can take an article seriously that lavishes such ridiculous praise on the PSP's fairly uninspired set of games
Was there ever innovation? Gates basically stole Apple's point-and-click graphical UI from the Macintosh (albeit Jobs got it from Xerox) and licensed Windows to anyone who wanted to use it.
I definately admire Gates' skills as a buisness man, he outmanuevered Jobs, but Apple has always had more innovation on their side.
Seriously, people shouldn't even waste their time reading the front page blurb on this one.
Vote for Pedro
This article is pretty much correct. There are simply too many applications written for Windows where some enterprising young bastard has done away with the familiar and practical Windows widgets in favour of some overcomplex (or often over simplified) toolkit or skinning system. Most of these applications are therefore not compatible with accessibility features like tooltips and scalable fonts, international fonts, keyboard shortcuts, or even proper copy and pasting.
There is too much of this bad innovation that's spurred by the fact that MFC/WTL isn't terribly exciting and doesn't have enough pictures of naked animé girls. As you might have guessed, I hate skins. I think they're a prime example of a breakdown between function and form. So-called "innovative" interfaces break away from the Windows look and feel and clutter the desktop. If I have my desktop themed the way I want it, I resent applications that do not follow that theme. I resent crappy software that makes the text in the titlebar huge, italic Times New Roman, for example. I resent Quicktime Player. I would (and pretty much do) resent Winamp but I let it off the hook because by default it's a good example of skins done right. There's no useless bloat there (see Windows Media Player for the other side of the coin). My basic rule is: if you have to break away from the standard set of windowing controls presented to you by WTL because you feel your interface is not ergonomic, this is a failure state.
There are some special cases where it's not possible to use standard Windows controls, such as cross-platform software. But even here, suites like wxWidgets exist to allow you to keep the standard look-and-feel of the target OS.
I guess what I'm arguing for is for my desktop to be consistent across applications. It may be fair to say that Windows does not satisfy interface designers because it doesn't allow them to customize as freely as they may want to, but I believe that some restrictions are good. I am more than certain that I prefer Microsoft's idea of what a basic user interface should look like (well, Microsoft's pre-XP idea anyway) to what a 15-year-old manga fanatic or an overly arrogant designer thinks would be a totally awesome interface. Microsoft's is generally clean and simple, as it should be.
Some notes before I go:
Yes, I know that Office 2003 totally deviates from the typical style of Windows, but Office products tend to give hints about which way Microsoft would like the general look and feel of the interface to go. It also still works like a standard Windows interface with all accessibility, tab order, and customisation and hotkey features available.
I also fully understand that Windows may not be the best interface out there, and that MFC/WTL/ATL/STL totally sucks dude lollers! It's pretty good and consistent though.
Maybe I'm getting old, but I just want something that fits elegantly into my desktop paradigm, accepts my chosen font sizes and theme, and doesn't look like a pile of ass compared to all my other apps. Longhorn does not look like it's going to help me much in this regard. I just hope they don't make everything look like WMP.
gopher://cramer.plaintext.cc http://cramer.plaintext.cc:70
Best possible case if your company innovates on the Windows platform is that they get bought by Microsoft, who will then sit on your product and let it stagnate until someone else invents the same thing, at which point they'll release your old version of it skinned to have a consistent MS look to it, and then they'll rapidly go through about 3 development cycles to get it to the point where it's actually useable again, only it'll be integrated with the OS and Office.
This pretty much explains the lack of innovation in the MSverse.
Also, instead of innovation, they're working on making software stable and secure. They're pretty good on stability now, and in a few more years they may even have security done. At that point, they'll be free to innovate on features and functionality again.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
I'll take option one. Easier to remember (visuals are easier to remember) and easier to discover if you don't remember.
Ugly, Boring & Uninspired because Windows users are Ugly, Boring & Uninspired....
Quick, join the Good Looking, Interesting, Creative Linux Community now (bring your own beer).
Windows: Ugly, boring, and uninspired.
CPU magazine has written a very straight-to-the-point editorial on the lack of quality and innovation in software for the mainstream OS. They compare it to the Mac, which is found in a much different light. Where has all the innovation gone?"
Editors, please. Let's rewrite that as "They contrast it with the Mac [...]"
I don't want my computer to clique me into a particular "community".
I want it to be a toolbox that allows me to be a part of many communities I choose to join.
And if you don't like the software available, it is, you know, possible to write your own, to your - or the world's[1][2][3][4][5][6] - standards of function, style, consistency, robustness, and hipness.
So is it Windows's fault that it's too broad and not restrictive enough on new tools, or is it Mac's fault that it's provincial and overweaning?
Yes, Windows is ugly. Yes, Mac is pretty.
That said, if you use Windows, go for bbLean. It is a blackbox shell clone for Windows. It sports a minimalist design, multiple desktops, easy skinning, and easy keyboard shortcuts. Navigating is super easy. It also uses less resources. It's a win-win situation.
Did I mention it's easy (and FREE)?
Check it out. You won't be disappointed!
Here is the homepage:http://bb4win.sourceforge.net/bblean/
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. - Victor Hugo
Software for Windows is generally uninspired, generically cloned, and overwhelmingly wrought with lackluster (read: lousy) user interfaces.
The author of the article is completely and utterly mistaken. The Windows UI is well thought out, and users expect consistency among their applications. Once the user learns the conventions used in a few applications, they can confidently use new programs. The user interface fades away, and users can concentrate that the task at hand instead.
If Windows users did not feel passionately about the look of their programs, then why are countless websites dedicated to pointing out those programs where designers have broken the rules?
If Windows programs can be constructed in any which way, then why do users become frustrated when they encounter a badly-ported program that does not follow the Windows GUI?
So the article's author loves Mac OS X, all power to him, but that love does not invalidate the expectations and preferences of other users.
Sorry, it's still #1. And you're wrong - Most computer users aren't administrators, we are the vast minority. (400 to 1 or so in my company).
Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
http://homepage.mac.com/hogfish/PhotoAlbum2.html
In a word: Expose http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/expose/.
Instantly access any open window with a single keystroke. Display all open windows as thumbnails, view windows of the current application or hide all windows to quickly locate a file on your desktop. Spotlight may make finding things easier, but for sheer ass-over-teapot improvements on the usability of a computer, in an elegant and simple way, Expose is the hands down winner.
That's perhaps what you want to know, but I daresay the majority of computer users out there are using it only because they have to, and if there was anything that could make the experience more compelling, they'd perhaps hate using it a little less.
Apple does not make computers. They make creative experiences.
Even though I made the switch in 2000, I'm still pleasantly delighted when things just work the way I would hope they would, like when I copied World of Warcraft onto my iPod, and it ran on other Macs!
That is part of the excitement... the idea that without knowing exactly how everything works, you could discover it.
So while you might only ask "does it work?" there's definitely something involved in human emotion which makes it more worthwhile, I think, if you can answer the "does it work while making me happy?" in the affirmative.
yours,
kbs
...means no updated forecast information through Dashboard either. Dashboard does not alleviate the need for an internet connection; it is the equivalent of keeping an instance of a browser open to the forecast page.
I have NOT seen a single developper or engineer who owns/uses a mac for work.
Until AutoCAD (also electrical/mechanical), OrCAD, Protel, Microstation and all that good stuff runs on a Mac, enginners won't touch a Mac with a 10 foot pole.
Developpers, some are starting to use some Open Source tools, but so far all my co workers/friend developpers all use windows as well, since we primarily use VS.Net (and a bunch more windows-only apps). Lots of us are slowly moving towards Open Source tools and solutions, but so far I haven't seen one even show interest in Macs. The one I know not using Windows all use Linux instead.
The greatest pieces of software are plagued by unintelligent design...
How can you people tolerate such convoluted anti-evolutionary nonsense?
If you knew anything about BSD and what makes BSD great you'd know that Mac OS X is an abomination. BSD was not meant to be chopped up into pieces and merged into Mach. That is just plain UGLY, like the myiad of other decidedly un-Unix-like design decisions of Mac OS X.
For you to compare the security record of Mac OS X with some of the more venerable BSDs is a fantasy. Try a google search for buffer overflows in Mac OS X. Or check Apple's very own patch page. There are lots of security problems with OS X, and security is not even a priority for Apple and their high-complexity maze of ugly, ugly hacks. I use OpenBSD every day. And believe me, Mac OS X is no OpenBSD.
Apple marketing hype has created the myth that OS X is a serious Unix for serious Unix users. That is a lie.
I've played with the different Windows programs Google offers (Picasa, Google Earth) and I must say I am damn impressed. In a world of ugly widgets and blaring blue start bars, those programs are *beautiful* - I normally use OS X, and they'd be beautiful even by Mac standards. They're amazing programs to boot (well, GE is, Picasa is only "pretty good").
And that's why Google is not yet evil ^^ although they have copyrighted the world....
Rather I think MS software has set he de-facto standard in many ways (e.g. MS Office) and because it is so widely-deployed seems diluated and boring compared to myriad other specialized apps on other platforms that users might have a harder time using (therefore more intriguing).
However the fact that MS Office has become the boring standard lends credence to it, especially when other office suites are continually trying to catch up and vy for user's attention.
Sounds more like a name-calling excuse to me.
If you're not interested in paying ten bucks for it, just check the "I paid" checkbox and move on.
For sessions, Saft.
Opera saves sessions, and Firefox doesn't without an extension, so this isn't some leet power Firefox user thing, you know.
Commence bitching about paying for software...now.
Um... you don't have to be administrator to create a share.
Take a look at power user as a example.
"think of it as evolution in action"
I don't know, whatever, it would be really great to try MacOS on my Intel-based processor (PC).
If only they will not lock such a possibility via hardware itself.
Now, I can compare how long I sit in Linux, and how long in Windows. I need ot make the reality check for MacOS, too. Let's wait for the event (if any).
Actually, everyone who installs Windows NT, by default, is administrator. ;)
Seriously? In a message you're posing to a website, you're asking how you could possibly create a list, or a note to yourself using a web browser. Seriously?!
As for weather, if you fire off a link to Noaa.gov with your city, they'll be more than happy to give you your forecast and whatever, straight from the horses mouth. Assuming you don't like your local TV news site. It's like you go out of your way to be hassled, of course things are more difficult, when you do that.
And you're touting calculator apps? Really? and you need to do that for multiplication?! The built in calculator app that EVERY OS has, cli aside, their not good enough for the kind of multiplication you need to do?
Now you're just talking crazy. OS X comes with games!!!!
1. Java.
2. Web pages can be stored locally.
3. You can schedule them so you've always got the freshest version possible.
5. Key bindings are not new, or amazing. (yay someone did them for you)
4. It's been this way for a long time.
All I can assume is that you are in fact mentally deficient, and can't be trusted with more than one mouse button.
What is it will all the Mac pimps? Why are all the things they point out as OS X exclusive advantages things that every OS had been doing for a decade? If you are pimping something and you want me to buy, I want the new young tight hotness, old whores in new lipstick get the job done but doesn't inspire anyone to leave their comfort zone.
I agree that Dashboard is pretty useless, but look at things this way:
How is Konfabulator different from Microsoft's Active Desktop? And that's been around since Windows 98. And, if you're a bit less strict about functionality, what about the Desk Accessories MacOS has had since version 1?
I don't buy that rip-off stuff. The idea for Javascript-based widgets, or little mini-applications, has been around for decades in the computer industry. Apple isn't ripping off Komfabulator anymore than Chrysler is ripping off Ford by manufacturing cars.
Comment of the year
Obviously diamonds are expensive and not everyone can afford them so the vast majority of us get by with coal. It may not be pretty but it works.
The media would have you believe 80% of the women are ugly, boring and uninspired based upon what they hold up as a reference model (heroin-addict thin, vapeous, self-absorbed, etc.) This does not make most women less productive than their "beautiful" counterparts in Hollywood movies or New York runways. In fact, most succesful families and productive careers are spearheaded by women who look nothing like Paris Hilton.
Likewise, there are a bunch of ugly Windows applications doing a lot of work. Like it or not, Microsoft made it possible for mediocre programmers to make boring apps that get a lot of work done. These programs may not be innovative with pretty UI gimmicks that suck up CPU cycles, they tend to use more resources than they ought to, and they are fraught with spaghetti and bugs, but they get the work done.
The lack of innovation may help minimize training when teaching new apps. Teaching new paradigms is expensive and time consuming.
Like it or not, ugly is what most work is getting done on.
Who cares about soviets now? What was your point?
Especially if we know that the computers in soviets russia frequently were the single tool to escape.
Anyway, it's offtopic, IMHO...
You have got to be a woman.
you can easily use the built-in "sticky note" widget to jot down several items.
Or make a text file. Lemme guess, the "sticky note" widget comes with a "wite-out" widget, in case you make a typo?
What if you want to know the 5 day forcast for this week? You could launch up firefox...and glance at the corner, where you installed Weatherfox.
Need to do some quick multiplication? Instead of searching google for a bloody online calculatorOK, first, google *is* a calculator. But this button on my keyboard, labeled "calculator"? Guess what it does.
so how would you do all that with a web browser, especially if you have... no internet connection?
Sweetheart, if your Mac can give me a local forecast without being online, I'll buy one. As to the multiplying and post-it-leaving and games...Jesus Christ.
you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
Prime UID Club
As to the multiplying and post-it-leaving and games...Jesus Christ.
... (grindgrind) AMEN?!
Did somebody say JESUS?!? Got that widget
CAN I GET AN
something.
Yes, but I was replying to my parent who made the claim: If there is anything that Microsoft is horrible at, it's remember that MOST computer users are administrators. which is wrong. Most users aren't administrators. They are ordinary users who, even though they have 'admin' access, still don't want to edit a conf file by hand.
Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
Slashdot is a part of society, including you.
Probably, you fart everywhere else, too.
Unfortunately it's a part of our reality.
Not everything around you is just for your personal entertainment, buddy.
I, for example, was interested by the discussion.
Just my 2 cents.
"FreeBSD underneath - You say this as if it's a tiny feature; more evidence you know very little about OS X, and FreeBSD. I have access to virtually all of the command line programs on most linux distros, even apt-get!"
.NET... why? 90% of the worlds' computers running Windows is pretty good odds of making a buck is why. Money's a POWERFUL motivator.
Nice, nice, this I can agree is a benefit... provided you know how to port the code over if needed correct? I mean, if time showed me ANYTHING about Unix code, & C even...? Universal portage & instant run is largely a fantasy, some work IS involved... heck, even between Linux variants @ times!
"Many linux programs are easily runnable along side OS X apps using X11. Simply put, the Terminal application in OS X blows the "Command Prompt" in windows away."
Mebbe... what about Windows Shell Scripting? Are the development tools the equivalents of say (my fav) Borland Delphi?
(RealBasic might be, this is a NEWLY released language that afaik? Creates TRUE, non-interpreted apps (single.exe w/out runtimes) on Windows, Linux & Macs...)
"Security. I don't have the link on me but it's been shown that OS X and other FreeBSD derivatives are the most secure operating systems on the planet."
No, it means they are LESS attacked, because there is less of them out there... Macs, as nice as they are currently (this I can agree upon because I like the FreeBSD underpinnings & Aqua), present less surface area to attack... there aren't as many out there, due, imo, to their cost.
You can secure Windows 2000/XP/2003 Server EXCELLENTLY & EASILY, if you know how its done... takes about 1/2 hour tops with notepad.exe & regedit.exe...
"There was an article on slashdot a few months ago about this, but I'm too lazy to search for it. Windows security... heh, oxymoron."
Again, no oxymoron. It's simple to do, see here:
http://www.avatar.demon.nl/APK.html
That's ALL you really need to do, & it doesn't take more than 1/2 hour to hack in.
"iApps - Free. Buy a mac and get many aplpications for free (iMovie, iPhoto, iTunes, GarageBand, Mail, etc). If you've actually used these, you'll realize how great they are. They're not simply little toys, but they are real, near-professional quality applications that can do amazing things. Get a windows box, and you will have none of this (Windows Movie Maker, a poor rip off of iMovie, is so crappy it does not count)."
Hmmm, mebbe. I have to admit, I was impressed with MacOS X's native IP toolset for instance. BUT, imo, Windows has way, WAY more software available for it that works & is of professional software OEM quality even in the shareware/freeware world.
Why? RAD tools like VB, Delphi, & C++ Builder... they make it possible to learn to code alot simpler than (imo) tools that existed on & for the MAC until RealBasic showed up recently.
Plus, the monetary incentives' the largest to learn to code for Windows via Win32 API or even
"Built in Java VM. It makes Java developers happy (like me)."
Well, there USED to be a std. MS JavaVM, until Sun & others raised hell on MS... so, there you go on that account.
"Built in Python. It makes Python developers happy."
Built in Assembler called DEBUG in Windows if you do assembly... built in Windows Scripting HOST too, if you know VB (simplest to learn imo), you've got that too & it's fairly powerful... and batchfiles aren't the joke you made them out to be either... they can be pretty powerful.
"Intelligent file sharing with permissions; in windows you have to go through hell to get this working."
No you don't! It's EASY to get up & running... a simple network client & if you like? You change it to simple file sharing in Explorer, make your shared folder etc. & add users to it that are allowed from remote systems to access them into a valid us
Windows users don't have a strong sense of belonging; there's no user community rallying around the platform
In other news, there's no 'user community' rallying about around the world. I don't see people running around and screaming "HELL YEAH EARTH FOR TEH WIN!" at least.
When something's so big and so vast and there's no majority to keep oppressing you, there's no "user community rallying". People just accept it how it is. If Mac was the dominant platform, if the niche feeling was lost, there would be no 'macintosh user community' feel anymore.
What is this obsession that slashbots have with being cheap? It's 12 freakin dollars , man! If you're willing to run Firefox (whose developers clearly consider the Mac a second class platform. Basic adherence to UI guidelines? We'll have that ready by 1.5! Maybe!) in order to save a measly 12 dollars, more power to you, I guess.
...on the majority of windows apps is piss poor. Most programers wouldn't know how to properly design an interface if you smacked them in the head repeatedly with the design manual. I really wish people would stop making this a mac vs pc issue because it's more about lazy, ignorant programers then the mac vs window pissing contest.
Yes, TFA is yet another Mac handjob gone too far, but the biggest argument seen from the Windows fanboys is that the GUI is ugly and boring because it's meant to stay out of the way and let you productive work done (read surfing porn and wasting time playing whatever crap game released this week).If they really beleived this crap about the GUI staying outta the way they would be using an interface like http://www.nongnu.org/ratpoison/ or http://www.6809.org.uk/evilwm/. Now stfu and admit the windows interface just sucks.
Ubuntu: If at first you don't succeed, blindly slap a sudo in front of it
Don't you guys understand what sarcasm means?
i love how this article about bashing micro$uck for being boring has degenerated into a discussion about how macs suck/don't. I'm sure billy boy must hire someone to troll slashdot every time something bad is said about his litle company. c'mon, surely i'm not the only person who has ever thought this...
"a ton of examples as to how, say, Mac OS X is so much more beautiful, exciting and uplifting?".
Mac OS X: A bra for your computer.
I just want to own the freaking hammer, I don't want to join a hammer cult.
I joined a hammer cult, with cool candy-apple red toolboxes and lifetime guarantees on tools and stores that were great places to buy hammers and guys working there who were veritable gurus of how to join things together, make holes in them, and finish them off.
I've bought Sears Craftsman tools that I've never used, because they were so cool. I've got a screwdriver here with 32 unique security tips. I've never had to use a security tip in my life, but if I need to open up a weird sealed box in my car some day, I'm ready for it.
Sears hasn't been quite the same since they merged with or got bought by KMart (one of those big marts anyway), but I'm sticking with the Hammer Cult for now.
We use the computer, certainly, or is the computer using us?
You mean generally, or in Soviet Russia?
While it may be true that Windows does have the worst software community, that is 'without innovation', and full of ubiquity, it does have the largest software community, which means that I can find more polished programs that are more likely to work for its operating system than I can for any other operating system. Other OS's may have higher quality software per programmer, or more innovative programmers, but the sheer number of applications says that there is something there from an economic standpoint if from nothing else. And the typical addage goes that *nix apps continue to lack the spit and polish of Windows apps, and I must say that it is dreadfully true.
With rapid development environments like Visual Basic around for the Windows OS, it's not surprising that there is a lot more crap out there for Windows, verses other OS that don't have these easy to pick up IDEs.
You've never used XCode.
There's plenty of Windows (and Linux) software, much of it open-source and/or freeware, that I find to be extremely useful and practical. I don't give a damn whether or not it's pretty to look at.
And of course, the vast majority of popular, inspiring and non-boring computer games are available on Windows but not Mac or Linux.
Just for the record, I am not a Gates fanboy, I use both Windows and Linux (whatever's most suitable to the task at hand). I would use OS X if I had any good reason to, and if I didn't have to buy Apple's hardware to do so.
However, all of the software looks the same.
That's a feature, Fred. It used to be more of a feature before Steve got this bug up his ass about how kewl Metal was, so now you have regular apps and OH WOW I'M IMPORTANT metal apps. Luckily you can turn most of the metal off.
Fuck you
We offshored it.
Sold it to India and China.
If you haven't noticed, none of the Big Software is fun to code - that's why the FOSS equivalents are ragged around the edges at best and outright unimplemented at worst.
Most users I've noticed are perplexed with explorer and its interface. They know specific hierarchies like My Documents and Program Files, but as soon as you drop them into an unfamiliar shell hierarchy, they aren't sure "what to click on" or what in general is possible.
A new interface based in windows shell may be organized the same as others but is functionally different, and people end up looking for things that they are "allowed" to click, like they might an exe in Program Files, or a doc in My Documents. It is far from intuitive, as these custom hierarchies don't necessarily order things intuitively and even when they do, functionality varies from object to object whether you click, double click, or drag and drop.
Functionality of different actions should be implicit in the design, so they can be inferred by those unfamiliar with what actions are possible in a particular application context. Now if windows made it standard that right clicking on an object should not only bring up object-specific options, but also describe simply what drag and click operations are available with respect to that object, then these interfaces might not be such a mystery.
People aren't that dumb, they'll learn given context sensitive documentation like this. Finding their way to documentation is otherwise too frustrating, as it is often mired in a web of unfamiliar material. The frustration the average joe faces at a PC is enough to make him learn, if given a more accessible way to find the immediately relevant sources. He doesn't need to understand why the whole damn system works to find one particular solution, he'll generalize that with enough access to particular solutions.
Unfortunately, this is sort of a no-win situation. Should MS upgrade Movie Maker to a fully functional application, everyone will start crying again about how MS is trying to take out the rest of the market.
On the flip side, I've noticed that for quite a few of those few applications on the Mac there's a distinct lack of alternatives.
Not many people can build a business competing with free...
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Well - Gates already said no to implants. I guess he doesn't want to go the Pamela route. R.
The Windows computers do what most folks want - email, the web, fiddle with some pictures and print them. Sheesh, a computer is just another appliance for most people, not a way of life.
My refrigerator is "boring" too - but it keeps my ice cream cold.
Am I missing something? God, I hope not, because I sit in front of this stupid computer more hours than I care to think. If there were some compelling reason to sit here more... shudder
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Ugly, boring, and uninspired? Sounds like Chris Perillo is talking about himself. I mean, this is fscking CHRIS PERILLO we're talking about here!
Lets look at some statistics.
.5? Why not just make it version 1 and clean up any nagging bugs? Unless, of course, they plan on adding more features on their roadmap.
.01 and such. Not even a tenth of a final version. Granted I know that open source projects move slowly, but why even bother advertising your project when it isn't even 1/10th of the way done?
Marketshare for Desktop OS
Windows ~90%
MacOS ~5%
Linux ~3%
That means that for every great app, there is likely to be nearly 100x more terrible apps for Windows than for the other operating systems. Its like the Playstation. Because Sony has the greater market, they also have the larger number of terrible games. An operating system does not make an application good or bad, regardless of whether pretty widgets are in the toolbar. Personally there are quite a few Windows applications that I could not live without that do not have any sort of linux equivalent good enough to allow me to switch.
Here are a few:
Mp3tag (Best tagger out there)
Photoshop
Illustrator
Reason
Ableton Live
Reaktor
Sound Forge
Picasa2
CDex
Alcohol 120%
GAMES GAMES GAMES GAMES
I could go on, but the fact of the matter is that at the very least Linux needs to start getting some serious sound applications for me to make the switch. I used to dual boot, but in the end it was such a pain anytime I wanted to play a game or work on some music that I gave up and stuck with the one environment that has all of my needs satisfied. MacOS is kind of interesting and has all the audio software I would ever need, but at what cost? More expensive hardware and about 0 games I'd be interested in. For what I didn't have to pay for my copy of windows, I'd be awfully hard pressed to start paying apple for an OS update every 6 months.
My point is that its not the platform that it is the problem its just that a lot of lazy and piss poor developers tend to flock to the platform that is the most popular. To be perfectly honest, if you want a great example of a platform that has a lot of god awful software, just take a look at linux and the bazillion apps that never got past their second alpha prerelease.
Hell, just look at how many system tools are included in distributions that are not even version 1 yet. Granted I've had very few problems with a lot of the console tools I've used, but after a while you start to realize that a little bit of polish goes an awful long ways. For instance, apt-get:
aptluna:~# apt-get -version
apt 0.5.28.6 for linux i386 compiled on Mar 22 2005 07:17:03
Granted apt is about as solid as a console tool can get, but version
I love how when I look for linux apps in sourceforge, a great deal of what I find that would be interesting to use is at version
I know people here resent it being called open sores software, but in too many cases, calling it open sores would almost be a compliment.
zosxavius photography
1) There was no benefit to making the registry a non-text file, except that MS wanted to make it more difficult for end-users to poke around and understand more clearly what's going on
2) Applications do have to use the OS to read/write/update (so far so good), but the OS *never tracks what the application puts there*. As a result, every developer puts their copy protection in obscure keys in the registry. Even worse, and unforgiveable, are applications that leave crap behind.
3) Keeping it all in one place (i.e. registry) sounds like a great idea... until you realize you can't readily *do* anything with it from a user's perspective because guess what... the OS won't let you do a simple "c:>copy registry to registry.backup".
This could be solved easily:
1) Make it impossible for an application to write to c:\windows or c:\windows\system32 or... you get the idea
2) Registry files should be stored locally in the directory the application was stored in, or better yet in "My Directory". The system would have its own registry stored in the system directory.
3) They should be text files that can be copied by the user easily using standard tools.
4) When a program is uninstalled, the OS would ensure all traces of the registry entry are deleted (this is easy because of #2)
5) The only thing allowed to alter a program's registry entry is that program. And every time its altered, a new version is kept. This would allow users to go back to old version if required.
6) A user could tell the OS to lock a registry so that nothing can alter it
7) The system registry could never be altered by any application. Requests to modify would require the root password entered by the user. Every time.
This is easy. But MS makes it hard and in the process makes registry damage fatal to the system. With no way to properly back it up. So they have goofy "restore points" that you can't explain readily what it does. So then they'll add more utilities instead of following the KISS principle.
I sometimes feel over at MS they have a bunch of brilliant programmers who have never set foot outside of Microsoft and don't understand the issues with their own product.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
"How else can you explain the fact that VIM/Emacs is still in heavy use today?"
The harder a program is to learn the less likely those who master it are willing to give it up. There's also an incentive to promote the program to others, thus reinforcing and extending the value of being a guru. This is a core UNIX cultural characteristic.
When it comes to the Windows UI looking like crap he's right... There really isn't much we can do with it either. I've searched far and wide and in the end I'm stuck using Windows defaults because alternatives look ugly. As for Mac having the 'cool' developers and Mac looking so awesome, that's BS. If you want to see cool widgets and interfaces, switch to Linux.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I've got a lot to complain about with Finder, (like how it barfs when you select a corrupt mpeg - hey, I'm just selecting the damn thing, maybe I want to delete it?)
it'll only choke if you're in column-view and the finder tries to get the preview.
change to icon- or listview and you'll be able to select your file without waiting - corrupted or not.
i'll admit that the Finder could handle this in column-view better, but ...
I use OS X, Linux, and Windows. I prefer OS X to all of the above for practical reasons, but for ideological reasons I like GNU/Linux the most. Windows offers no ideological or practical advantage from my perspective and for what I do. That said, I wouldn't waste my time on this article, and I don't think it's worth of a /. post.
(%i1) factor(777353);
(%o1) 777353
nokilli said:
.pdf imaging / display, memory management (there was a guy asking after loading apps from a RAM disk on an InDesign mailing list 'cause in Windows XP he couldn't keep large numbers of apps open for extended periods of time and wanted to be able to launch them more quickly than his RAID 0 array would allow), pervasive drag-drop &c.
>The Steve Capps' Finder delivered with the original 128K
>Mac *still* blows away today's Finder in terms of
>elegance, responsiveness and overall usability. Moreover,
>I see no difference between today's Finder and WIndows
>Explorer, except for this odd example you give us which
>really has nothing to do with anything. BTW, I've never
>had the need for force-quit Windows Explorer. You really
>want to call that a feature?
Are you not aware that on the Mac System as shipped on a 128KB Mac Folders were purely a visual organizational cue only expressed / made use of in the Finder, aren't you? When you used a File Open dialog one saw _everything_ that was on a give floppy (except the folders) in a flat listing. Given that, I think your claims are suspect; to iterate:
1st - by hiding the toolbar as a default one can get Finder windows in Mac OS X to behave pretty much like System 6 (which was pretty much like the much older System I see on my wife's SE when I haul out my _Through the Looking Glass_ game floppy, modulo things added since like list view, folders which are actually directories as opposed to visual aids &c.).
2nd - my wife's SE (same CPU speed as my 128KB Mac I bought in 1984) is quite a bit more sluggish than the G5 at work when working from a floppy --- perceived response is about the same from the HD).
3rd - Mac OS X affords a lot of really nice features I'm not finding equivalents for on the XP box at work:
- Miller column file browser (I suppose you could use http://www.winbrowser.com/ 'cept that last time i tried it it crashed, a lot)
- no convenient place for temporarily storing a folder one needs temporary access to --- currently at work I'm updating links to some art w/ munged filenames in an InDesign document --- I drag the current destination folder into the sidebar to drag files into, then I can click on the same folder in the sidebar in the file open dialog in ID to get there w/ a single click, when I'm done w/ that folder I drag it out of the Sidebar and it goes ``poof'' --- how does one do something like that in Windows w/ anywhere near the efficiency?
- the Dock affords one a single place to launch and switch applications --- why is it that in XP I click in one place to launch (the Start Menu) but use another area (the Task Bar) to switch --- in Mac OS X I click on the same icon either way.
Lots of other niceties in Mac OS X such as Services, pervasive
William
(who really wishes Windows XP was well-suited enough to his working style to allow him to justify purchasing a Tablet PC)
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
Konfab is very similar to AD, but that's not really what I was talking about. The Konfab widgets look almost identical to the Dashboard ones. The functionality of the widgets is very similar. And the way they're written and designed is similar.
If they didn't look almost identical, act very similarly, and provide the same functionality, I might agree.. but there's just too much the same.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
The dashboard is the response to the "threat" that Microsoft was touting of the "sidebar" back in the 2003 PDC Longhorn debut. Apple saw the attention this bit of desktop polish was getting and looked for something to answer it. Once you ditch reviewers' major criticism that the sideboard was always visible and taking too much space on a user's desktop, the dashboard looks a lot like the sideboard.
Personally, I think the makers of Konfabulator went the wrong way in their cries of "Why didn't you give us lots of money! You've ripped us off!" The better way to have handled it would have been to take what you know about these types of widgets (knowledge that you have more of than even Apple) and come up with the definitive $35 pack-of-ten must have widgets that every Mac user will shell out money for. The Konfabulator guys took it as an attack rather than as a profit opportunity that did away with the headache of implementing the underlying widget engine. Apple changed their market, but it was Konfabulator that reacted poorly to the changes.
Personally, I don't mind the performance issues of the Dashboard even on a 400mhz G4. I get the most functionality out of using it as a quick, one-button, viewing device. The weather, comics, headlines, porn images are great to have at one's fingertip, but I don't really get into the more interactive widgets such as the dictionary, translator, or calculator. The magic of dashboard is that you can get so much info with just a keypress; I'm less impressed with the utility of the complex widgets that require interaction.
I think Apple's "dashboard" made a good, "Yikes!" response to the unexpected debut of Longhorn sideboard. It's sort of suprising that Microsoft dropped the sideboard in the WinHEC beta, but we'll supposedly see some of the hot new GUI tools that will replace it at the upcoming PDC.
Most software sucks. Most software is designed poorly, is uninspired, and just plain sucks.
This is partly because design is not an easy process when writing software. Many of my early attempts at writing software suck too. Sometimes I chose the wrong technology to work with, and sometimes, I just made braindead choices. Sometimes, even, I relied on kludges because I didn't know the languages I was using well enough to do things right.
So the bast majority of software on all platforms sucks... Now my software is much better, but I still look at some of my software and say "What a horrible design choice. I better fix that."
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Or everyone's talking past each other. We've got a mac at home here, and a mac-loving guy I worked with talked about how great macs were. Once we got it, and my wife complained about how slow it was, he (colleague) started saying things like 'well, you don't have enough memory. You shoulda got a faster CPU.", etc. This was late 2003 and we had an emac (1ghz with 128 meg of ram it came with).
The line I got from him and others was "everyone knows 128 meg isn't enough to do anything with!". So, I asked, why did Apple sell something which apparently everyone knows would give an extremely bad user experience? This from the company whcih is arguably all about user experience? If they can't make a low end machine decent enough to not suck, just don't make it. Hrmm... never any answer on that one.
So, upgraded RAM - 1ghz, 384 megs of RAM now. Still often very slow. Safari is the worst, but many other things slow things to a crawl. Pinwheel of death comes up quite often. To me, and to my wife, it's slow. I've noticed that many diehard Mac fans gloss over this stuff. I've even had a hardcore Mac guy use this machine and he didn't mind the slowness. That's just what he expects!
So, your statement of 'smooth as glass' doesn't address the issue of speed at all. What you're used to and what I'm expecting are probably totally different.
I work with a group of people who mostly use Macs - the machines are top of the line and yet generally things are very slow, compared to what I can do on a Dell D800 either under Windows or Linux. No one cares. Trying to point out to them that things are slow is met with "no" or "but it's so cool" type responses...
creation science book
A community of users who actually give a rat's ass about other users. That's the difference I've seen among BSD and Linux users that I don't ever remember encountering in the in the Windows world. There was some among DOS users, but not like what I've found among *nix users.
By the way, thanks to all you Windows & MAC fanatics for the amusing [not-quite] flamewars. You made my last hour.
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
http://chris.pirillo.com/blog/_archives/2005/6/26/ 975606.html
Before any liberals are tempted to mod up one of my comments, a word of warning: I'm actually making fun of you.
I have to agree because I installed XP SP2 yesterday on my laptop and the experience was....well, not worth remembering. Kind of fits the description in the post.
Oh, it's hard to tell when there really are people out there who will argue that administrators are more important than regular users.
Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
So why don't they make spoilers for hummer vehicles but they make them for honda civics?
They have no function on the honda civic...its too slow for the spoiler to affect performance. So whats the purpose?
The reason is the audience. There is a subculture of honda civic owners who demand such products.
No look at Mac vs Windows... Without know the statistics, I can say without a doubt that many artists prefer the macintosh platform to Windows machines- and its been that was since early versions of Mac OS.
So why was such a idiotic question posted as a top level slashdot article? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if artistic people use something, the tools will be targetted at those people. Whereas with Windows, the users are a wide variety of types, so the interfaces and designs are more bland to appeal to a wider audience. Not everyone likes artistic flare or creative inconsitencies designed around usability. The vast majority of people who are afraid of computers what consistency....it it worked in one crappy way before, it should work in that same crappy way in the future. If it doesn't, then its total crap. Its that simple.
Why do we keep getting these lame articles here? Slashdot is really looking for stuff to fill their pages nowadays. Why not just post "Which is better, Mac or Windows?" or some other such nonsense that no intelligent reader would give a @#$! about?
It's news because the author is a "mainstream" user/developer who's noticed how sad Winblows is. Other interfaces are blowing Microsoft's stale facade away by implementing a handfull of tricks that have been available on free platforms for eight years or more. This guy noticed. He's not a Zealot ranting about the virtues of being free, he's just made an obvious quality comparison. About the best thing he could find for Winblows was Stardock, a $50 add-on that won't even give you multiple desktops or virtual workspaces but will bring your computer to a crawl.
Mac has brought some nifty interface ideas to a mass audience and I have to admire some of their features. Dynamic desktop zooming, multiple desktops, transparency and so on. Still, the styles are limited next to the choices available on Linux.
With Linux you have your choice of fantastic interfaces that work with hardware Winblows stifles:
The list goes on and on. Each of the above is extremely flexible and all of it can exist side by side and concurrently without problem. Programs written for each work in all and many have very easy to use development kits. All have features you will not find on Winblows or Mac.
The author must never have used any of the above to still be considering goofey stuff like Window blinds on the pathetic single screen interface that comes from Microsoft. That's why I consider him "mainstream." What he needs is a nice little Mepis disk and a few weeks of playing with really cool interfaces. His audience might not recognize him after that.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
You can find it on the Windows XP PowerToys page. And yes, it predates Panther.
P.S. Windows-D hides all windows to display the Desktop, and has for several versions.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
In all honesty, though, I have yet to hear complaints from the thinkpad crowd I know... and they have had their laptops for over 2 years now. (I'm still on year 1).
windows is a 'good enough operating system'.
it has never been 'insanely great'.
The software is functional, but nothing inspirational. The new widgets add nothing to the actual software. It is mere window dressing (there is no pun intended). Their core software really hasn't changed in about 10 years. There are of course issues about reliability (I seem to recall years ago trying to get any Microsoft word processor to deal with very large pieces of text, and they all kinda crapped out in the same way. If you for example wanted to quickly scroll 20,000 lines down (or 50,000), it was a matter of scroll, scroll....250 times. No novel editor there. There have always been some screwups with their software. I wonder if they have anyone who actually architects the software, or if it's just old Bill saying 'naw, I want it done this way' depending on how sober Bill is that day. Bill might be good at underhanded business deals, but he's shit when it comes to computers. There are times when he deferrs to someone with a brain, and then there are times when he tries to play mr computer guy. I think that's why windows95 turned out the way it did. Given the fact that AFAIK none of their systems has the equivalent of a fork command (a very powerful feature), virtual machines that suck like a hoover (crash a day or crash a week, which do you prefer), .net which is a thin set of macro wrappers around some very old win32 and even some really ancient win16 api's (can you say DOS), and you have a system that appears to be described in the article. A lot of people who don't know anything about computers like it. A lot of people who do know about computers don't like it. The more you know about computers, the less there is to like about Microsoft software. If you know better, you tend to ask yourself why they don't know any better. Worse, if you compare features on other systems, with theirs, you continually wonder why theirs remains lacking, when others systems developed with far less economic resources can perform so much better. It's like they threw a pile of money at people who didn't know any better, got them to cobble something together, then sold it, found it to be lacking, and then have spend much more money trying to improve on a really truly flawed design. It's like the design was on the back of a coffee napkin, and someone in charge insisted that they programmers start coding right away without a design (if you aren't typing, you aren't programming). Whatever they keyed on the first day (with no direction) remains to this day. Not the brightest aproach to software design, but no one every gave Microsoft any kind of award for software design. Business awards (and marketing, lets not forget marketing) up the ying yang. But none for software design. Their stuff is just too sukky.
It's just inspired by the previous generations most sleek operating systems (such as Avalon in Longhorn most likely having similar characteristics to OSX.) And no, I don't mean to troll. Companies always take good ideas from other companies, be it simple technology, interfaces, or other things. I'm sure some things exist in OS X that were probably Windows inspired too.
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
Slashdot articles one sided, predictable and repetitive.
slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
I've learned that there really is something powerful about combining several generalized apps (like in bash with pipes and such). Apple seems to be catching on to this idea more with their "Automator" in the newest OSX. Windows still doesn't let you combine things in this way, so the solution to most problems is to download (or write) another specialized program.
----
All of whose base are belong to the what-now?
You want to know what I think about Windows boring interface? It's great. It generally adheres to the few standards it sets. Drag and drop is great when developers implement it right. When they don't, it isn't worth the trouble. Widgets are "innovation"? Rubbish.
This is the sort of innovation I'd like to see: give me a sharp, readable display with consistent drop down menus that are organized in some logical fashion. Give me fonts that render correctly and buttons that do a few things well, not a bloody rube goldberg monstrosity. Animation? Fuck no! Just create an interface that doesn't get in my way, doesn't prompt me for this and that every five seconds, and doesn't take up lots of screen real estate, ram, and cpu time. Give me something with an organized api that is easy to develop for so that you can spend more time on core functionality instead of nifty but irrelevant crap. Give me software that delivers on the promises of some 20 years ago.
Why is it that you need a separate viewer for web pages, another one that reads man pages, yet another one that reads pdfs? You guys wouldn't know "innovation" if it bit you in the ass.
You don't have kids, do you? iMovie is absolutely brilliant when it is time to send the grandparents a quick DVD -- attach the camera via Firewire, press the play button, and in less than an hour, you have something that Grandma and Grandpa just love. For free. Profession features would just be in the way at this level.
The original poster forgot to mention iChat AV, the replacement for the Microsoft Messenger and AIM. It is included with the OS, and is tightly integrated: When you start writing a mail in Mail, and your contact is online, it will place a little colored button next to his name. I have seen MSN and AIM, and am amazed that Windows users put up with ads on both -- no such thing with iChat AV. People who have the iSight camera says it kicks ass (at that price, it certainly should).
You forgot iDVD, by the way.
Just looking at the individual programs ignores how they cooperate: iMovie, for example, access iTunes and iPhoto and sends stuff to iDVD. Microsoft can't do that because a) they don't have anything comparable to the iLife suite included and b) they have been convicted for abusing their monopoly and are not allowed to combine stuff.
Their bad. Are you going to suffer for their mistake?
Sounds like the man who built the company.
What do you expect, then?
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Windows has the same problem with corrupt avis, it hangs at 99% CPU while trying to get the dimensions from the file.
Linux is not Windows
what's the big deal about desktops. I'm useing FVWM2 everywhere with a small panel with pager, clock and net/temp meter. Everything else is in the menu, which comes up if I click on a free space (there's always free space, or you can just add more panels). I mean what's the point of having a nice picture of SMG as the background if I can't see her :)
Give your eyes a good time, check out Joss Whedon's Serenity http://www.serenitymovie.com/.
Learn to separate truth from illusion. Because in this world, it's the hardest thing to do.
I remember, that i was also affected by this "apple is cool" lie a few years. Coincidentally, this has changed the very moment i started to work and earn money with these machines.
Still I have to admit, that most of your arguments are correct.
Anyway, there are a few flaws
My animosity is mainly about the Finder. Calling this thing "intelligent" is kinda abyssmal. Maybe i am biased, since the only GUI-Filemanager i ever use is the explorer. Both examples are no match for sth like norton commander or the likes.
e.g. show me a way to define default settings. Or is it just me, having to switch settings everytime i open some folder for the first time?
Also the searchfunction as you mention it is just minimum functionality, not some sort of kickass-feature.
Aditionally, when it comes to large file-trees and folders with hundreds of objects, the Finder gets slow as hell, might refuse to show a few objects at all and sometimes crashes.
About the force-quit-issue: Never had the finder hanging and refusing to.. do anything. Couldnt even kill it. Especially with the appletalk protocol the finder becomes some sort of slug, crashing at will.
Talking about appletalk...
"Slow" is still an understatement. Maybe apple wanted to protect every single packet with a fluffy hull over overhead-"wool". Sheesh!
The machines using it are somewhat "chatty", even slowing down all other machines in the network aswell.
Unfortunately we have to keep using appletalk especialy Apple Filing protocol for legacy purposes.
On th other hand, the rest of OSX might be really cool. I just cant find out why.[/rant]
God damn! Why do I never had mod points when I find a comment that desparately needs modding up?
I badly want to give my desktop a consistant look and feel across *all* applications. Windows doesn't cut it because of a number of application developers who think it's cool to skin their apps. Linux suffers in a similar way because many of the apps I use, use GTK1, GTK2 and QT toolkits. Just looks plain ugly if you try to mix them. My next hardware purchase will run OS-X, and I'm hoping that will offer exactly what I'm looking for.
Where is the innovation? Sure, they added some of the features you listed, but let's go over things:
Innovation does not mean copying features or fixing previous features. It means coming up with new features. Things that I think of as features: Expose, trackpads, Alt-Tab, the mouse, a GUI, user switching, preemptive multi-tasking, the keyboard (as opposed to punch cards), and integrated circuits.
Windows has improved a heck of a lot in the 6 years after Windows 95 came out, but not through innovation.
Anyone with some sort of degree in psychology/human interfaces want to tell me why? I'd like to know.
There's some insight in your post: Here are some reasons I don't like windows: Windows is just too dull and corporate. WinXP annoys you all the time with stupid patronizing little yellow bubbles in the system tray. The default theme is god awful.
Sounds aesthetic.
By way of comparison: to me, patronizing is when I mistype a login and the screen shudders. Or the sad mac / happy mac business. "Unfathomable" best describes my opinion of this marriage between productivity tool and Furby. Windows apps use their own widgets all the time and never seem to comform to any kind of standard user experience, which tends to slow me down because I have to make sense of what I'm looking at, rather than just looking at something familiar I can just use.
I have precisely the opposite experience with what's intuitive about the UI. On the hardware side, the monitor LED doubling as the system's power switch, or the CD tray opening from (and only from) the keyboard feels like spiteful iconoclasm.
Many people used to taking things apart share this reaction. What things do is laid bare by how they fit together; form is function. Apple's MO has been to obscure that relationship, which requires engineering types to accept a set of rules that is apparently arbitrary. Mac has historically been the car you don't [can't] tinker with. Somewhere between pride and thrift, needing a "professional" to change your oil stirs feelings of revolt and revulsion.
There have always been great, free Windows apps: I'm running Samurize, DTools, EAC, AdAware, ABC, and emacs as I type this, and most of those are just frontends for other great homebrewed apps. The internet is much too big a place for "crappy / horrible / suck"-ware to be popular. (You do get recommendations, right?)
The culture is moving towards the middle in both camps. MS is helping lock people out of their purchases; more developers are writing for OSX. Your platform, like your car, should suit your needs and tastes. Either way, most people don't care to be told what they're missing.
you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
Prime UID Club
You said:
Not as pretty? Find a web page that has a decent
designer/artist behind it. Between CSS and the
GiMP, there's no excuse for ugly web pages anymore.
no excuse for ugly webpages?
if I don't give a fuck, i don't need an excuse
Apple keeps trying to sell me QuickTime Pro.
Garbage software produced by talentless, uninspired, under-nourished drones that live in squalor.
Software for Windows is generally uninspired
Computers are tools, not literature. If there is a need for a specific program, someone will make it.
generically cloned
It's called UI consistency...which the lack of is a major complain with Unix.
and overwhelmingly wrought with lackluster (read: lousy) user interfaces
Putting aside the fact that the basic elements of a GUI app are the same no matter what the platform, how's that the fault of the O/S? Why aren't app vendors blamed?
Windows users don't have a strong sense of belonging
I did not know I had to belong to somewhere to write letters and edit my taxes. Where do I register??? :-)
there's no user community rallying around the platform
Yeap, the millions of programs for Windows is the result of the ...non existent community.
One application that typifies the creative elegance that you can find on systems outside of Windows is Comic Life from Plasq (plasq.com). Be forewarned: It's likely to drive even the most die-hard Windows user to switch to OS X.
So port it to Windows then, and I'll buy it.
It runs well, looks amazing,
Kudos to the developers. What has Windows got to do with it though?
and does something so incredibly unique you'll find yourself wanting to take more digital pictures just to make another comic strip out of 'em.
I my entire life, it is the first time that I see an operating system being blamed for not having a 3rd party application that another O/S has. It's crazy!
Again, we come back to the concept that Windows software developers rarely develop any kind of pleasant UI.
Millions of happy MS Office users would disagree here.
There may be hope with Kapsules (kapsules.shellscape.org), although it suffers from a lack of useable widgets. Konfabulator (www.konfabulator.com) has an OS X and Windows version of its rendering engine with an extensive collection of sweet-smelling widgets
So now the problem is that Windows icons are not as beautiful as Mac OS X's are? Hire better artists then. Or download a better looking theme. It's absurd to blame an O/S for that, though.
Although I read /. a few years now, I've never seen such a lame column related to computers making /. headlines. There has to be a line somewhere on blaming Microsoft and Windows; after all, Windows is being used in millions of computers around the globe; they certainly can't be sooo bad!
Thats what really is "Ugly, Boring & Uninspired" http://www.computerpoweruser.com/images/smartcompu ting/fullsize/00631340.jpg
Visit my site @ http://www.madtorrent.com
What the hell is that "Widget" you are talking about? A "Widget" by definition is a "graphical user interface component", and it's been that since at least 1983. Whoever thought this could mean some small program as well, is a moron.
"The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
Contrary to popular belief, you CAN disable spotlight if it so bothers you. It isn't a "pig" by any stretch but whatever. To disable it, simply change the following entry in
SPOTLIGHT=-YES-
to:
SPOTLIGHT=-NO-
I have Spotlight disabled on my Tiger servers, not because I've seen any resource hogging, but just because on a server I always disable any service I don't think I'll need or use, regardless of the OS.
Do a search on www.macosxhints.com for different ways to remove the icon from your screen.
As for Dashboard, if you never push the hot key it doesn't start. The Dashboard and widgets only load the first time you invoke them, which is why there's that 10 second or so pause the first time before you see the content of the widgets. To "disable" dashboard, just change the keyboard mapping and be done with it.
As for best things about OS X, the ones listed by "isittoday" are good. I'd only add that, unlike Windows, OS X is very resilant to errant programs, which is a function of its superior security model. On Windows, if you're an administrator of the machine, you can litterally destroy your installation by just surfing the web (a properly coded website can take advantage of a bug in Internet Explorer which can install something nefarious). On OS X, the WORST that can happen without your explicit approval (typing in the password for an install, etc) is you have to create yourself a new account to log in as and clean up your personal settings. Maybe reinstall some applications if they were deleted. but on OS X you have to explicitly allow something nefarious to be installed, it can't just happen behind the scenes without your knowledge.
Bring on the elitest mac fanboys...
Seriously people any chance to beat on the old "zomg MS and windows are teh sux" horse?
Listen, I use windows xp just like any other pc user out there. At work, i have windows 2000. All i hear from freinds with macs is how windows used to blue screen on them, how they hated the functionality and how OSX was basically shat out by god himself unto us lowly beings below.
Give me a break.
I've used a mac, my experience wasn't any different. Want to know why so little mac viruses and security holes exists? Because so little of the business world uses mac for exploiters and hackers to bother with. I use my pc for everything everyone else does, from gaming to programming. I don't get bluescreens, and if i do it's a very rare occurence. Security holes? Firewall. Viruses? Plenty of good free scanners out there that put symantec to shame. IE stinks? Firefox is waiting for you. (yes i'm aware of the irony of using firefox)
There's a reason why windows update exists and last time i checked MS gives us security updates every second day. Guess why? Because everyone and their damn uncle wants to break windows, and the business world having adopted windows demands that those holes be plugged up asap. Who cares if the damn GUI is grey. You can change it easily with the millions of skin programs out there for 2k and XP. Personally i'll stick with my silver and blue skins.
If OSX had a huge global market with millions of businesses counting on its product, they'd probably be the ones we'd be bashing.
And because every app has a similar look and feel and similary keyboard commands, every app acts like the other one, so there's no retraining.
You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
am i the only one who find widget to be an inappropriate term for those things? applets or desklets should do it... why Apple needed to choose a term so widely used in GUI jargon?
do users know it means window gadgets?
I don't feel like it...
Bastards.
The applications usually don't check those values, when they are started again. This results in offscreen windows in W2k (if you happen to change the number of attached monitors in between).
Congratrulations!
There are easier ways to screw your interface though.
...to be excited or uplifted. I use it to get things done. If I wanted to be excited or uplifted I would go to the theatre.
Yeah... who needs Firefox when you have IE... Firefox is SOOO REDUNDANT.
Modesty is one of life's greatest attributes
Why are all these people expending all this energy trying to convince these amoeban brains that windows blows and OSX and U*NX rocks. They have to evolve before they can understand advanced concepts like how an operating system works.
Quit modding up trolls, flames, and ignorant comments! We get two or three diehards here and they take over the whole thread!
NOBODY gives a fuck about functions, nobody but freaking geeks. Human beings dont give a flying fuck about being able to this or that this way or otherwise. Its the interface that sells, that make people use something, period, not the functions, not the abilities, not the good coding, ITS-THE-INTERFACE, widgets are better because they present you information in a context sensitive way with a straight to the point interface that anyone can understand just by looking at it, SIMPLICITY, INTERFACE... thats is what widgets are, browser tools that are actually useable without publicity nowhere, no need to have firefox and this and that, nonono just open the freaking temperature widget and it gives you temperature, you see it, its big and there is a sun behind it in case you don't really understand, a hint, a peek and you have your information, freakin browsers don't do that and they arent spacialy bound so forget about a peek.
That's because they are fucking idiots who shouldn't be using a computer to begin with unless they have a real admin at home.
I hate maximized apps. To me it's like trying to squeeze my mind throw this little tiny window in the ceiling. With lots of windows spread around and overlapping, it's like having my pick from lots of tiny windows in the ceiling.
Yeah, I know, that means that when my boxes boot up, they have open windows lying all over the place. Messy desk. I like it. One thing I miss about the Classic Finder, it kept the pile in the same order I dumped things in it until I moved things around. Made a nice stack for when I had to backtrack trying to solve problems.
I wonder if that grouping by app behavior can be shut off. And it would sure be nice if Finder (and MSWExplorer) would remember the order of the pile when it boots.
I guess maybe this shows one of the bases of disagreement that may be in operation here? Different ways of looking at problems.
Oh, I don't know about you, but when I'm doing serious dev, I have to force-quit MSWExplorer on occasion, too.
Of course, some people don't know about clicking that little triangle to the left of folders.
But the GP want's both the tree view and the list view in one (compound) window, and, yeah that doesn't come stock on a Mac. Some people like it that way, some people don't.
I've gotten used to both, but I still prefer the messy desk with a stack of windows that reminds me where I've been by way of what stacks on what. Mac OS X is almost able to do that again, but not quite yet, I guess.
Ouch.
As for good integration between the apps, I grant its well done, but then again a lot of the cool features require a paid subscription.
Jherico
What can the average user can do to ensure his security? "Nothing, you're screwed"
We dont know how to break this to you, but we prefer the home-made bath-salts.
Oh, and next time you visit, you are paying for the cleaner and a new sofa.
Love,
Ma and Pa.
Depends on what you mean by maximize.
MSWindows Multi-document interface window (or whatever that is) interface, like VisualStudio does by default, is actually considered against the HI guidelines in the Mac world. I suppose that's because Mac types assume it's not the role of the computer to be "helping" the user focus on the (single) task at the top of the pile on the screen.
So there is not a single button that you can click to make the current window fill the screen and then click again to shrink the window. There is a button that you click to switch between the current and previous sizes. I rarely use it, but then I rarely (intentionally) maximize windows in MSWindows.
(Once or twice a day I miss the close or minimize button and feel frustrated while I chase the maximize button down where it flew off to so I don't have the app thinking it should open maximized next time I run it.)
I think the negative optimizations of the maximize concept is what induced Apple to invent Expose' and Dashboard.
The minimize button on Mac OS X does work in pretty much the same way as in MSWindows, except that the Dock doesn't have any non-minimized windows in it, and the minimizations don't stack vertically. I find both approaches equally cumbersome, myself, far prefer the windowshades and tabbable folders of Mac OS 8/9.
Perhaps the UI should allow users to choose the behavior of maximize and minimize, and whether running ups and such show up in the dock or maybe could be tabbed on an edge of the screen or something.
Or, perhaps, "Why not support one-click maximizing?" And it's a good question. With the OS libraries supporting most of the basic window functionality, the behavior of the maximize/resize button seems like it ought to be customizable. And, for those who like maximized windows, it would be a useful thing, as opposed to having to resize the windows yourself the first time, and then remember to use the resize button instead of trying to resize by hand.
Resizing on Macs may feel awkward if you're used to grabbing any edge to resize. Mac Classic in v. 8/9 allowed you to drag the window by any edge, so I felt sabotaged on MSWindows at first, trying to drag with an edge, and messing up the window size, instead. But Mac OS X is back to dragging by the menu bar only.
But, yeah, I did mean the physical desktop. I guess I'm always going to feel like the interface is constraining until I get a full holodeck. (I don't use a tool belt on the real workbench, either. It gets in the way when I have whatever I'm working on propped up overhead.)
I must admit, I felt the same constraints when working with punched cards, too. But I don't remember that feeling so much with either the Unix command line or the Mac interface. DOS command line and MSWindows before 2000 brought the feeling back a bit.
Hunting covered windows is definitely a frustration. I keep forgetting about expose', so I don't know how well I'll like that. It looks useful, when I remember it (or accidentally hit F9 through F12).
Before expose', I'd just use a non-linear tiling to make the windows I need the most from the most places poke out where they'd be least likely to end up hidden. Somehow, having deliberately put the window there made it easier to remember where it was.
When that didn't work, the last option was to use the dock (or the application menu that classic put in the top-right-hand corner) to get the app, then use the app's Window menu. (That kind of thing is one of the reasons why the menu bar is always at the top of the screent on Macs.) It's a little clumsier than the task bar, but it's easier to tell what you're bringing up before you click.
The problem with MSWindows's task bar is that by the time you need the task bar, you can't tell which is which any more, so you have to remember which it was the last time, or go hunting. Perhaps it's something of a matter of which direction you're used to when you go hunting.
Thinking about using maximized windows, what would you think of being able to put those window tabs all around the edges of your screen, maybe putting the current app's tabs at the top and tabbing the other apps around the other edges, and if it gets too crowded, stack, but never stack the current app's tabs at top? Kind of like the task bar, but separating the curent top-most apps.
Why use an external debugger? Well, for example, when you're using a custom dev tool for some niche tech, you often have to use the debugger that comes with the tool. You may be compiling C with VS and linking the compiled object into some other tool.
Its not a case of beautiful = unusable
Its more a case that if you market for only beauty, then you can loose sight of other things such as functionaity and/or game-play.
Without beauty, you need to focus on the other aspects to become good. Though its sometimes hard to compete with beauty in the marketplace, when selling to the masses, even with lots of the other stuff.
The only other aspect is the learning-curve. Its one thing to figure it out for yourself, it another thing entirly to create a map of everywhere a user might get lost.