Slashdot Mirror
Windows 7 Taskbar Not So Similar To OS X Dock After All
cremou brulee writes "Redmond's photocopiers have been unusually busy for the last couple of years, with the result that Windows 7 copies a lots of Mac OS X features. First and foremost among these is the Dock, which has been unceremoniously ripped off in Windows 7's new Taskbar. Or has it? Ars Technica has taken an in-depth look at the history and evolution of the Taskbar, and shows just how MS arrived at the Windows 7 'Superbar.' The differences between the Superbar and the Dock are analyzed in detail. The surprising conclusion? 'Ultimately, the new Taskbar is not Mac-like in any important way, and only the most facile of analyses would claim that it is.'"
Normally Ars stuff is pretty good, but that article is *very* ordinary, with a lot of conceptual, functional and historical errors.
The main thrust is correct, however, the Windows 7 Taskbar is clearly a descendant of its Windows 95 Great-great-grandfather, not the bastard child of NeXT and MacOS.
It's called "nextstep". Look into it.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Not that one should take at face value what Microsoft or Apple announce at their conferences, but in their developer conference the MS guys explained this evolutionary path. I saw several videos about it around the time.
The underlying tech is quite different between the Dock and the Taskbar, also they have similar but not equal philosopies behind them. I have been using XP's toolbars in pretty much the way Microsoft has done with the Taskbar.
+Raider of the lost BBS
Actually no, you're wrong--OS X displays a button every application that you decided to put in the Dock, whether they are running or not. Additionally, there is a document shortcut area of the dock which also shows minimized document/application windows (if document, independent of which app they are part of).
Yes, the fundamental philosophy each inherited is different, but in effect at the 'dock' or 'taskbar' representation, Windows 7 and OSX end up presenting things similarly.
He makes the point that the OSX dock is for applications and that Windows is for each window, though Microsoft is heavily encouraging grouping that makes it seem as much like the dock as possible. True, in Windows this can be turned off, but that doesn't do anything to disprove the intent is to acheive the model the Dock presents. He says that when you close the last application window, it dissapears from the taskbar. The issue there is it behaves the same on Windows 7 and OSX, if an application exits, then the dock icon or taskbar presennce will disappear unless persistantly set.
He mentions things like the presence of the notification area as proof of difference, but all it really proves is that MS had a few different design ideas as they went and they must support all of them as a consequence.
Just like WindowMaker largely deals with non-GNUstep applications and makes them seem NeXT like through some of the best window group identifying methods in an X system, Windows is trying to fight clutter by removing quicklaunch and taskbar redundancy, and enabling the taskbar presence to be manipulated to replace system tray presence.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Windows 7 Taskbar Not So Similar To OS X Dock After All
C'mon, this has to be flamebait. The article pointed out some differences, and mainly tried to make the window-centric-vs-application-centric distinction we all know about already. It didn't say that they "weren't so similar after all", because that's clearly false.
The new taskbar is nice and it has a couple of features that the dock doesn't have and probably won't ever pick up. Specifically, the window thumbnails and the fact that "jump lists" (aka contextual menus) stay behind even when the app is closed.
I'm not accusing MS of taking ideas. I am accusing them of taking too long to implement what was the optimal solution to a design problem. Having an icon on the desktop, in the start menu, the quick launch bar, and possibly the notification area...none of which correspond to the actual open windows, which are instead listed in the task bar: stupid. Not that anyone these days has a problem with it, but still, from a design standpoint it's wasteful and annoying.
Ars is fishing for objectivity points here, and at best is running this as a dog-bites-man story (that is, "we know the new taskbar acts like the dock, and MS has a history of playing catch-up in this area, but you'll be surprised at what we think is the truth"). The fact that the headline on Slashdot exaggerates this further pisses me off quite a bit.
If it looks like the dock, walks like the dock, and quacks like the dock...you know the rest.
Actually, the Xerox Star had a dock for applications, printers. tools, and so on.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Ok, let me clarify that I posted like that to mock the guy above. Figuring out who invented what is obviously a useful UI paradigm and then pointing fingers at everyone else for copying is childish, immature, adolescent, etc.
You needed to use Spaces. Group any number of applications and windows into the same or adjacent spaces, then use control-arrows or control-numbers to immediately jump into the correct space.
See: Confessions of a Space-o-holic
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_(web_browser) Mosaic was on Macs at the end of 1993.
How is it vaporware if it exists in beta form? I think you need to look up what that word means.
All your base are belong to Wii.
That's no moon! Err... I mean, that's no dock. Those are just the minimised Icons on the desktop from other applications. That was the way up to and including Windows 3.11. The taskbar was introduced in Windoes 95.
[--- PGP key and more on http://www.root42.de ---]
I'm assuming you're one of those kids who think you're "old school" because you used to play Half-life on daddy's computer in 1999. Because honestly, those are (as others have pointed out) minimized applications, Windows didn't have a task bar until Windows 95.
/Mikael
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
Actually, both of you hit two heads of the same nail.
The cleanest model for applications running is that you open documents for them, and you close documents for them. Everything else is OS overhead (e.g. is it running?)
BUT, some apps aren't doc-centric. iTunes shares your music when it's open, and the window is the app -- closed = gone, open = running. There's some opportunistic fuzziness with multiple playlist/store windows open, but it's really more of a desktop accessory than a normal file-editing program.
Question is, is it a problem? Application startup/shutdown for doc-editing apps usually isn't a problem until you want to free up some resources. iTunes runs or it doesn't run, usually not a problem unless you forgot it was open on another virtual desktop.
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
Mac OS X used to be called NeXTstep, and NeXTstep had a dock which Windows 95 copied to create the task bar.
If you had actually used NeXTSTEP, you would know that its Dock and the Windows 95 Taskbar behave very differently. Much like the taskbar and the OS X Dock behave differently.
The Windows 95 look which came to be called the Windows classic look which was in fact a shameless but inferior copy of the NeXTstep look from 1988.
Rubbish. Application launching, task switching, menu interaction, window management - all these things were quite different in NeXT compared to Windows 95. Indeed, you'd struggle to find ways they were similar, that weren't also shared by every other GUI.