That's really interesting, because I much prefer to follow the error line numbers manually. (Honestly!) When I get errors, I prefer to have them in the comfort of a nearby terminal window, then just go through the lines in vi (which is simple as pie) and compare the two windows. Automatic line-jumping systems are a distraction from the convenience of just having more than one windows with simple tools.
I know. Eugenics wars in the '90s, if I recall (it's been a loooong time since I was a Star Trek geek.) Shot into space after starting a big war, in the sleeper ship Botany Bay. Married Lt. What's-her-name, and she died. Hated Kirk, etc.
Kang was a Klingon in TOS. I don't remember when or where.
I'm not talking about drive failures or other such issues, I'm talking about the computer just plain crashing.
I'm comparing it to my Mac in 1992 and 1994, or my NeXT, whose GUI was designed in the late 1980s. It was ass-ugly then, and it's ass-ugly now. Windows 3.1 was awful (probably worse) but I'm comparing it to NEXTSTEP and System 7, which were contemporaries, and were a lot more pleasant to use and pleasant to look at.
Besides, when I look at screenshots from 3.9, which everyone is all about, or Dopus Magellan, they still have the same problems and the same ugliness that I've always seen.
Like, well, all of them? I can't tell you how many Amiga Basic programs I lost, or PenPal (worst word processor ever!) documents I lost to guru meditation errors. Not only were they flaky, they were gut-wrenchingly ugly and unintuitive. I really can't fathom why people like this machine so much. It seems more like a fancy game console than a real computer. Especially when the Workbench was such a complete POS (and I've used 500s, 2000s, a 1000, and more than one 1200.)
I agree with the parent poster. I used Amigas for years, and I think I might be the only person who hated them. Loathed them, in fact.
The interface is configurable from ugly to uglier. One of the lower posters suggested that it doesn't have to be ugly, and provided this as a suggestion. Well, geez. That's the same ugly with frosting on. Will the resolutions all be strange? Will it have a screwy interlace mode where certain programs (that page layout program that pretty much sucked) shimmy and jitter while you're trying to use them, will all the text be distorted and bloated?
It's inaccurate, but it's a lot more appealing than an A Braking System.
Actually, I've more frequently heard people talking about an "Antilock Braking System" or "ABS Brakes." Both are okay, as in the latter, "Antilock Braking System" is used as a modifier for Brakes. But this is all irrelevant =)
It's a big deal because it's brilliant! It's a fantastic business plan and a wonderful idea. Get everyone to use your program such that it becomes a scourge, and make people pay to get rid of it. I love it.
They even made it so that they could be the only ones to kill it.
Brilliant! It makes me laugh out loud, what a wonderful move this is for AOL!
Uh, I know. Admiral Kirk's real nemesis was Kahn. If my memory serves, Kang was a Klingon captain in a TOS episode (and maybe that Klingons-from-the-past DS9 ep.)
I thought my comment was funny. People differ. (And feh to the offtopic moderator. That's where the interesting bits are here.)
The desktop background isn't all that important, but a novice user's e-mail settings, inbox contents, and downloaded digital camera pictures sure are important.
Scared the shit out of Unix vendors? Can you find one person who is proud of CDE? Crumbs. OpenStep, maybe, but any of the others? I think someone here used to have a sig pointing out that the Solaris GUI looks like it was designed by mentally challenged children with crayons (though I'm not wholly anti-OpenLook, just mostly). I can't think of a Unix besides NEXTSTEP/OpenStep that has been close to appealing, visually. (Again, a disclaimer: I love UNIX desktops. I've found enjoyment even in HP-UX.)
With your last paragraph I agree. It really does look like it's for kids. Mac OS X is playful, but it's not overwhelming. Except for a few details (genie minimization for one) the jazziness of the interface doesn't actually obstruct use (in fact, most of the details enhance it, like the drop shadows.)
And the Win95 GUI is one of the worst examples of design I've ever seen. It's just a nightmare. Which Unix/Win/Mac mistakes did they fix? I don't know what complex decoration around menus is, iconized minimization has its benefits (and the Taskbar approach is far from a panacea), and I don't know what you mean about extra border lines.
I'm not a breathless Ogg fanboy, but enough of my friends use Ogg that I'd be pleased as punch if Apple decided to go whole-hog with Ogg. (I promise that I didn't plan for that to rhyme.) It'd be just another one of those places where Apple can say, "well, yea, of course we do that."
You'll note that I never once said that the interface was intuitive. It's actually not all that much different from most operating system interfaces, and like them, it needs to be learned. What I said is that unlike Windows, it doesn't spend most of its design effort keeping the users away from the system. With Windows, all of the designs are based on keeping the user from actually needing to use his computer. The result of that philosophy is that when the user wants to do something unorthodox, or needs to fix something, he's in totally alien territory (i.e., not with the aid of a wizard.) That's my point.
It doesn't look specifically like Mac OS X. It looks like something that's trying to be like Mac OS X without understanding what Mac OS X is. If you start with 2k, then try and make it more like Mac OS X, you get XP if you're using the Microsoft thought pattern. If you take XP and try a little harder, you get this and you think you're closer to your goal, while you're actually farther away.
You're right as rain. All of the colors are mighty distracting (this is coming from a Mac OS X user, too.) It's like a big cartoon operating system with oversized buttons and title bars. It's like everything's been inflated, and I think it looks goofy.
Why isn't it important? Because you think it's inefficient?
Anyhow, I think it's amazing how much _more_ like Mac OS X this looks than XP. And it's even more impressive that even though it looks _more_ like Mac OS X, it has more of the awful aspects that are further evidence that MS just doesn't get what it is that makes people like Mac OS X. At least that's how I see it.
All of these god-awful directories as web pages, wizards, and other strange abstractions to keep the user away from his computer will only serve to confuse him all the more when it comes time to fix something or take action that isn't already anticipated by the software designer. It should be easy to use the computer, not easy to use the interface abstraction. That's what MS just doesn't get, and it's why Windows will always be frustrating and always work in unexpected ways.
I have to take issue with most of what you've said, and I'm going to try and not be a jerk while I'm doing it.
First, it's a game. If you actually believed in what you're talking about, you wouldn't compromise your ethics/whatever to play a game. Simple as that.
What you say and what you do are two very different things. If I beat my wife all the while telling her I love her and that I don't want to hurt her, that does nothing to stop her from getting a black eye. Who cares if you're embarrassed that you're using Windows partition. There's nothing wrong with it. It's juvenile to breathlessly complain about something then go ahead and at least tacitly support it.
Second, your sig is very irritating. It's emblematic of the most god-awful trends in writing and popular thought today. If something isn't funny, you know what? It's probably just not funny. Why do you think that what you write is of sufficient intellectual caliber that people should assume that it's worthwhile without proof. And, once again, the proof is in what you do, not what you say. If you say its funny and nobody agrees, then it's probably not very funny.
Slashdot Mirror
Silly, that only works if you own a glass-polishing company!
Not for people who don't like their glass all gritted up =)
That's really interesting, because I much prefer to follow the error line numbers manually. (Honestly!) When I get errors, I prefer to have them in the comfort of a nearby terminal window, then just go through the lines in vi (which is simple as pie) and compare the two windows. Automatic line-jumping systems are a distraction from the convenience of just having more than one windows with simple tools.
I know. Eugenics wars in the '90s, if I recall (it's been a loooong time since I was a Star Trek geek.) Shot into space after starting a big war, in the sleeper ship Botany Bay. Married Lt. What's-her-name, and she died. Hated Kirk, etc.
Kang was a Klingon in TOS. I don't remember when or where.
Where did I call Kahn a Klingon?
I'm not talking about drive failures or other such issues, I'm talking about the computer just plain crashing.
I'm comparing it to my Mac in 1992 and 1994, or my NeXT, whose GUI was designed in the late 1980s. It was ass-ugly then, and it's ass-ugly now. Windows 3.1 was awful (probably worse) but I'm comparing it to NEXTSTEP and System 7, which were contemporaries, and were a lot more pleasant to use and pleasant to look at.
Besides, when I look at screenshots from 3.9, which everyone is all about, or Dopus Magellan, they still have the same problems and the same ugliness that I've always seen.
Like, well, all of them? I can't tell you how many Amiga Basic programs I lost, or PenPal (worst word processor ever!) documents I lost to guru meditation errors. Not only were they flaky, they were gut-wrenchingly ugly and unintuitive. I really can't fathom why people like this machine so much. It seems more like a fancy game console than a real computer. Especially when the Workbench was such a complete POS (and I've used 500s, 2000s, a 1000, and more than one 1200.)
The interface is configurable from ugly to uglier. One of the lower posters suggested that it doesn't have to be ugly, and provided this as a suggestion. Well, geez. That's the same ugly with frosting on. Will the resolutions all be strange? Will it have a screwy interlace mode where certain programs (that page layout program that pretty much sucked) shimmy and jitter while you're trying to use them, will all the text be distorted and bloated?
No thanks. I'll stick with my Mac and my NeXT.
It's inaccurate, but it's a lot more appealing than an A Braking System.
Actually, I've more frequently heard people talking about an "Antilock Braking System" or "ABS Brakes." Both are okay, as in the latter, "Antilock Braking System" is used as a modifier for Brakes. But this is all irrelevant =)
No, but you'll need to get the money for it from an ATM machine.
Sell a Dr. Seuss book, teach kids how to read and ... continue to sell them books? I don't see the parallel.
It's a big deal because it's brilliant! It's a fantastic business plan and a wonderful idea. Get everyone to use your program such that it becomes a scourge, and make people pay to get rid of it. I love it.
They even made it so that they could be the only ones to kill it.
Brilliant! It makes me laugh out loud, what a wonderful move this is for AOL!
I think there are a hundred thousand Office for Mac owners who might disagree.
Uh, I know. Admiral Kirk's real nemesis was Kahn. If my memory serves, Kang was a Klingon captain in a TOS episode (and maybe that Klingons-from-the-past DS9 ep.)
I thought my comment was funny. People differ. (And feh to the offtopic moderator. That's where the interesting bits are here.)
Um, I don't want to be rude, but you'll note that in the rest of the thread, I clarify precisely what I mean.
Do you care to explain why the interface is pretty bad?
The desktop background isn't all that important, but a novice user's e-mail settings, inbox contents, and downloaded digital camera pictures sure are important.
This is a great move, and really funny, too boot.
Kodos!!!!
Scared the shit out of Unix vendors? Can you find one person who is proud of CDE? Crumbs. OpenStep, maybe, but any of the others? I think someone here used to have a sig pointing out that the Solaris GUI looks like it was designed by mentally challenged children with crayons (though I'm not wholly anti-OpenLook, just mostly). I can't think of a Unix besides NEXTSTEP/OpenStep that has been close to appealing, visually. (Again, a disclaimer: I love UNIX desktops. I've found enjoyment even in HP-UX.)
With your last paragraph I agree. It really does look like it's for kids. Mac OS X is playful, but it's not overwhelming. Except for a few details (genie minimization for one) the jazziness of the interface doesn't actually obstruct use (in fact, most of the details enhance it, like the drop shadows.)
And the Win95 GUI is one of the worst examples of design I've ever seen. It's just a nightmare. Which Unix/Win/Mac mistakes did they fix? I don't know what complex decoration around menus is, iconized minimization has its benefits (and the Taskbar approach is far from a panacea), and I don't know what you mean about extra border lines.
(BTW, I really dig your paintings.)
I'm not a breathless Ogg fanboy, but enough of my friends use Ogg that I'd be pleased as punch if Apple decided to go whole-hog with Ogg. (I promise that I didn't plan for that to rhyme.) It'd be just another one of those places where Apple can say, "well, yea, of course we do that."
You'll note that I never once said that the interface was intuitive. It's actually not all that much different from most operating system interfaces, and like them, it needs to be learned. What I said is that unlike Windows, it doesn't spend most of its design effort keeping the users away from the system. With Windows, all of the designs are based on keeping the user from actually needing to use his computer. The result of that philosophy is that when the user wants to do something unorthodox, or needs to fix something, he's in totally alien territory (i.e., not with the aid of a wizard.) That's my point.
It doesn't look specifically like Mac OS X. It looks like something that's trying to be like Mac OS X without understanding what Mac OS X is. If you start with 2k, then try and make it more like Mac OS X, you get XP if you're using the Microsoft thought pattern. If you take XP and try a little harder, you get this and you think you're closer to your goal, while you're actually farther away.
You're right as rain. All of the colors are mighty distracting (this is coming from a Mac OS X user, too.) It's like a big cartoon operating system with oversized buttons and title bars. It's like everything's been inflated, and I think it looks goofy.
Btw, kick-ass website. Seriously.
Those don't look like no bluejeans to me.
Btw, I really dig the Longhorn logo. That's pretty cool.
Why isn't it important? Because you think it's inefficient?
Anyhow, I think it's amazing how much _more_ like Mac OS X this looks than XP. And it's even more impressive that even though it looks _more_ like Mac OS X, it has more of the awful aspects that are further evidence that MS just doesn't get what it is that makes people like Mac OS X. At least that's how I see it.
All of these god-awful directories as web pages, wizards, and other strange abstractions to keep the user away from his computer will only serve to confuse him all the more when it comes time to fix something or take action that isn't already anticipated by the software designer. It should be easy to use the computer, not easy to use the interface abstraction. That's what MS just doesn't get, and it's why Windows will always be frustrating and always work in unexpected ways.
It seems MS or someone from its legal team is keeping an eye on /., don't you think?
I have to take issue with most of what you've said, and I'm going to try and not be a jerk while I'm doing it.
First, it's a game. If you actually believed in what you're talking about, you wouldn't compromise your ethics/whatever to play a game. Simple as that.
What you say and what you do are two very different things. If I beat my wife all the while telling her I love her and that I don't want to hurt her, that does nothing to stop her from getting a black eye. Who cares if you're embarrassed that you're using Windows partition. There's nothing wrong with it. It's juvenile to breathlessly complain about something then go ahead and at least tacitly support it.
Second, your sig is very irritating. It's emblematic of the most god-awful trends in writing and popular thought today. If something isn't funny, you know what? It's probably just not funny. Why do you think that what you write is of sufficient intellectual caliber that people should assume that it's worthwhile without proof. And, once again, the proof is in what you do, not what you say. If you say its funny and nobody agrees, then it's probably not very funny.