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!
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".
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
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!
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..."
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.
First off, I didn't read the article, but I will comment
Yep, that's stupid, all right.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
In the Matrix?
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
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!
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
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.
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.
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...
The point of the registry is to hide (through obscurity) portions of the operations of the computer from the computer owner.
What the fuck? why would Microsoft want to make things harder
The windows registry is a sort of one-size-for-all configuration database. You can configure basically everything, even some obscure kernel options like "enable swapping parts of the kernel" are configured through the registry, which is kinda weird because the system needs the kernel to read the registry in first place.
The main failure of the windows registry is forcing people to use a separated API to modify it, and reimplement it as a sort of in-kernel filesystem. They could have implemented it as directories and files, they could use ntfs acls to give permissions, they could change values by simply echo'ing to them in the shell. That is the main failure of the registry IMO, but the idea is till great.
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
You missed the "b" in Whambulance.
That's $12 for a single plugin. Add all the costs of all the little bits and pieces over time and see how much you've wasted on things that, everywhere else, are completely free. Christ, I'm surprised Apple included a "Shutdown" option in the menu, rather than leaving it out so that some developer could sell you one for $40.
I can't believe some of the silly crap that I've actually seen people charging for on this platform. Are they nuts?!
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.
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.
I don't think the article is attacking the usefulness or the practicality of the software as much as its innovativeness. The Windows platform does not breed innovation - either in hardware or software. Windows is more historical than future-oriented because it has to be compatible with what people currently use. The sticker price on critical Windows applications are too much to not make the next OS backwards compatible with them. Hence, every version of Windows looks more and more like Windows. And the new ideas in Longhorn and IE 7? Yeah, two - three years after Apple.
Why? It can't. How innovative is Windows XP if the games I played on Windows Me, which also worked on Windows 98, also run on Windows XP?
Innovation is change - change in how we do things and how we build the tools we do things with. The Windows platform does not change, except in an increase in resource demands. If the tools don't change, the art doesn't change.
The Luddites were ahead of their time.
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.
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
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.
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
Nothing personal, but what a load shit. If the state of Windows software proves anything, it's that quantity does not mean quality. I've used both Mac and Windows extensively and Windows software in general is horribly designed.
I am a long-time Mac user (but not a Mac worshipper) and when I first had to use Windows professionally in 1999, I was absolutely appalled at how clunky a lot of programs were (including stuff from Microsoft) and how badly written many of them were. I experienced far more application crashes on Windows, far more memory leaks and far, far more instances of not having the slightest clue how to use a piece of software because it was designed with a user interface that only a mother could love.
At that time, NT had many theoretical technical advantages over the current Mac OS (OS 9), but because software for NT was so badly written in general, it pretty much leveled things. Until that point, I had been considering switching from Macs to PCs, but my experiences on the platform put a stop to those plans.
So no offense, but it's hard to figure out where you're coming from. Have you used other platforms extensively? You come off like some kind of Windows apologist.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
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.
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 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?
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.
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
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!
Why not maximize?
Well, for one thing, I don't focus on the window at the top for very long except when I'm surfing the net, and not even then, really. Like I say, the pile of open windows helps me keep track of what I've done, what I'm doing now, and what I need (or want) to do next. When I'm coding, I may even have two or three windows on the same file open, so I can track what I'm working on and the thing it's going to effect with my eyeballs and let my imagination keep track of the larger issues in the background.
Another is that a maximized window, even at 1280x1024, is still significantly less real estate than my physical desktop, so giving up a small amount of screen real estate to be able to grab different windows on my work is, for me, a good trade-off.
It's just different work styles.
How long have those tabbed windows been available? I don't remember them in VS 6.
Are they basically the same thing as tabbed windows in browsers? What happens when you have, oh, say 15 different source files open? If you get multiple rows, or if you have multiple groups, do the rows/groups jump when you bring something from back to front?
Can you mix graphics edit windows and shell windows and external debugger windows and db GUI windows with the VS windows?
Codewarrior on MSWxx, somewhere around v. 5 or 6, developed the ability to break out of the old MDI interface. But trying to use that gives me a feel of how hard it must be to get it to work right in MSWxx. And it doesn't really work the same, although it is an improvement.
BTW, you actually can get the min/max effect in Mac OS X, it just takes a little extra work to set it up. Drag the top-left corner into the top-left corner, drag the resize tab to the bottom-right, and the next time you hit the resize button in does more or less what you want from then until you forget and resized by hand.