I don't know about anybody else around here, but I knock MS for CRAPPY software and monopolistic business practices. Closed business models have their place, as open ones are still in early stages of development.
When you can figure out how to get a grassroots community to design AND MANUFACTURE world-beating hardware (the way that Linux has come about), let me know. I'll be first in line to help develop your product.
Ummm...since it can run ALL the applications Wintel and Linux run (since it can run Wintel and Linux) your statement makes zero sense. If you don't like it, DON'T BUY IT.
Heavy? Have you SEEN these P2 laptops? They're BRICKS! Rubber? Impact resistance. Look into it.
Crikey...why do these people hate Apple so much? Once in a great while, they do something COOL like this!
You have funny math if you think that $1599=$2000. That little factoid aside, do you have any idea how many college students get $2K+ laptops nowadays? This is a goldmine. Just 'cuz your mommy and daddy didn't buy you a computer (mine didn't either...), don't think that everybody is that way.
Instead of throwing around accusations of dishonesty, how about if you define your terms. What is correct UI? What is efficient UI? Why can't you (through good engineering) have all of these virtues?
The purpose of a user interface is to facilitate a human working with the computer, right? Therefore, interfaces that facilitate (that means make easy) working with the computer are better at their primary function. Interfaces that obfuscate (by poor feedback, poor instruction, and poor consistency) are less good interfaces.
Quality of user interface is the ONLY THING that Apple does right. Until very recently, the company has been run by bumbling morons, making asinine decisions, killing great products, having shitty quality control....the list goes on. The ONLY THING this company has is a KILLER user interface. That's the ONLY way the company has stayed afloat.
Read the articles I referenced earlier. It's the best breakdown on how to make a good user interface I've ever found. If you have better articles, I'd love to read them. UI design is basically what I want to do when I grow up, and I'm trying to find the best and make it better. Right now, my opinion is that though it is far from perfect, MacOS is head and shoulders above any other computer UI.
I've got a MacOS system on my desk that hasn't been rebooted since I added a hard drive four months ago. Break? Not frequently.
What do you need to upgrade exactly? It has everything I'm likely to need. What, you think that your Dell laptop is upgradeable? To what?
Little or no control over the design process. OK, how many companies' laptop design processes have you had control over?
IF YOU LIKE TO BUILD COMPUTERS FROM THE GROUND UP YOU CANNOT HAVE A LAPTOP. Duh.
It's NOT about showing off to my friends. It's about having the right tool at the right price. If the iBook is the right tool, buy it. (I will!) If it's not, don't.
Again, if you like frustration and complexity because it makes you feel like a computer badass, fine. Don't buy a Mac.
Let me know when Linux is a consumer product. It's getting there, but my grandma can't use it yet, so it is not a consumer product.
Why is consistency opposed to correctness? Why is simplicity at the cost of efficiency? I do not understand why you think these things are mutually exclusive. There are lots of different ways to make a user interface, but one that ignores the steepness of its learning curve in favor of geek-appeal is doomed to niche success.
You can see some other ones here. They're a bit more positive, and detailed.
Some of your points are well taken (modal menus are a horrible idea). Others (like resizing only from one corner) are quibbles. Note that some of us consider "your" (making a gross overgeneralization) brand of fragmented, inconsistent, willy-nilly "open" user interface to be the worst combination of attributes ever expressed on a bitmap display.
You make my point. The tool is not important. The TASK is important. The tool should do nothing but facilitate the task. Whenever I'm concentrating on the tool, not the task, I am not accomplishing my aim. Reliable, user-friendly tools are what computers are SUPPOSED to be. If you like tinkering with computers (like I do) you have a radically different agenda than 99% of the humans (read: customers) out there. Don't be surprised when people design products for those customer types. They have a shitload of money, ya know...
Nothing is wrong with that. There's one called the PowerBook G3. Feel free to buy one of those if you want to.
It is DESIGNED to be a kid's toy. I like toys. I like the iBook. Guess they DO have a target audience after all.
And I'll be laughing at all the ridiculous suits who are laughing at my ridiculous orange laptop. I'm sure glad I'm not them!
Nothing happened to them, except that this is not it. Don't like it? Fine. Don't buy it. I defy you to find cool curves and neutral colors in computers that AREN'T designed by Apple.
Yeah, durable simple computers...nothing to break or malfunction...where's the appeal in that? If I can't magically be fixed by you when you break it, you can't look like a big computer wizard in front of your friends, and we wouldn't want that would we?
Name me a consumer product that DOESN'T assume you are an idiot.
Get of your high horse. The view's better from down here.
If you don't like the iMac, you won't like its portable kin. Duh. Guess what...Mr. Jobs probably wasn't talking to you.
I've got a FINE idea...DON'T BUY ONE. That way we won't have to hear you whining all the time about how often you transfer data on slow, clunky, error-prone 3.5" floppies.
Get a ZIP drive. Get a SuperDrive. Get an ORB drive. They're hot pluggable, they weigh about as much as a paperback novel, and you get several orders of magnitude more storage capacity.
If you're a consultant who works a lot with needlessly paranoid companies who are more concerned about ludicrous security concerns than with efficient problem solving, well this isn't the laptop for you. I don't think Apple will miss those four customers.
For me, my only complaint is that I can't get one in red. Yet.
I know you're tongue's in your cheek, but I bet you'll look long and hard before you find a faster and more flexible networking implementation than Open Transport (which uses Mentat's Streams technology). It is, in a word, awesome.
That's insane. Complexity is not a virtue in and of itself. It might SEEM like the OS is a toy, but it DOES EVERYTHING IT NEEDS TO DO. Needless complexity is a hallmark of inferior engineering.
With my Mac, I don't have to recompile the kernel to do compression, even on the fly disk compression (which IMHO is a supremely rotten idea, but I'm biased). If you LIKE computers that don't work, don't use a Mac. If you LIKE problems for problems' sake, don't use a Mac. For those of us to whom a computer is a tool, not an end it itself, not having to wrestle with the OS to get it to do what you want is a Good Thing.
If it (by which I assume you mean the operating system) hides problems to such a degree that they are undetectable, it's not much of a problem is it? What do you want to change about the hardware or the OS that you cannot change? Just because it doesn't have a CLI doesn't mean it's not usable. You might consider actually WORKING with a Mac before drawing these hackneyed conclusions. You'll learn a lot about how computers ought to work.
Ever seen an SU-27? Most military aircraft show an economy of form that, to me, is very beautiful. Some military hardware, like the M-1 tank, despite its profound ugliness, has a purposefulness that is an aesthetic all its own.
Your assumption that any comment pointing out a benefit of open-source software distribution can be dismissed as "ridiculous open source activism" is just as ludicrous as the assumption that open source==good software. Prejudice and stereotyping are unreliable crutches for people who try to think for themseves. The article pointed out a feature that the author felt was valuable, and that feature derived from the software's open source distribution model. Should they have NOT mentioned this to avoid offending your sensibilities?
As far as CmdrTaco furthering his arch-evil agenda by secretly replacing PERL scripts with devious filters that CONTROL YOUR BRAIN, well, this seems far less credible than the Trilateral Commission.
No, I don't work for the Trilateral Commission, and I don't spend my days disavowing their existence, and I promise that they don't really control the universe. Really! I promise!
Give a mom a fish, and you feed her for a day. Teach her to fish...
I do the same thing on the phone with my customers. My goal is to solve their immediate problem, not teach them how to solve problems. If I was going to teach somebody how to copy files, I think it would be easier for them to understand drag and drop and rubberband select than explaining how filenames, paths, and wildcards work. Hell, I still can't use xcopy without using a/? first. Different strokes for different folks...both are appropriate in different situations.
To me, the key feature of the MacOS is that you DON'T HAVE to use the keyboard shortcuts if you don't want to. The advanced functionality is available, but not required to use the system. This to me is a key feature of truly great UI design.
And MY Mac mouse has four buttons, that I program on an app by app basis, to do what I want them to, programmable in an easy point and click interface. I'd kill for that feature on any other OS.
No no no. I never got the impression that the author wanted to scrap all the other distros. He wants there to be a subset of the Linux community who is served by "Linux for the Masses". That's not to say that all the geeks can still use whatever distro they want, he was trying to articulate what would be necessary for Linux to REALLY go mainstream on the desktop. None of his goals preclude any other distro still being available (if you like the kludgy stuff).
I want to know what the hell kind of Jesus battery this thing had to get him up the on-ramp and drive a mile! These things normally have a range of about 15 feet before you have to recharge 'em...
Ummm...I can walk in to WalMart and buy a CD player for $50. When they came out, you couldn't touch one for less than $1000. The poster was talking, I believe, about the hardware, not the software.
Why was the iMac not a good thing? Did somebody grab you in a hammerlock and make you buy one? If people like the computer enough to shell money out for it, and you don't have to, then why is it a bad thing?
If you want to pay extra for symmetric DSL, that's fine. Most providers will be glad to oblige you. However, the vast preponderance of my traffic (I have a cable modem) is downstream, so I am well served by asymmetric system. Rather than demanding what YOU want, I think it makes more sense to demand the option to get whatever fits your needs. Note that in most cases, we have that option.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about anybody else around here, but I knock MS for CRAPPY software and monopolistic business practices. Closed business models have their place, as open ones are still in early stages of development.
When you can figure out how to get a grassroots community to design AND MANUFACTURE world-beating hardware (the way that Linux has come about), let me know. I'll be first in line to help develop your product.
Ummm...since it can run ALL the applications Wintel and Linux run (since it can run Wintel and Linux) your statement makes zero sense. If you don't like it, DON'T BUY IT.
Heavy? Have you SEEN these P2 laptops? They're BRICKS! Rubber? Impact resistance. Look into it.
Crikey...why do these people hate Apple so much? Once in a great while, they do something COOL like this!
You have funny math if you think that $1599=$2000. That little factoid aside, do you have any idea how many college students get $2K+ laptops nowadays? This is a goldmine. Just 'cuz your mommy and daddy didn't buy you a computer (mine didn't either...), don't think that everybody is that way.
Instead of throwing around accusations of dishonesty, how about if you define your terms. What is correct UI? What is efficient UI? Why can't you (through good engineering) have all of these virtues?
The purpose of a user interface is to facilitate a human working with the computer, right? Therefore, interfaces that facilitate (that means make easy) working with the computer are better at their primary function. Interfaces that obfuscate (by poor feedback, poor instruction, and poor consistency) are less good interfaces.
Quality of user interface is the ONLY THING that Apple does right. Until very recently, the company has been run by bumbling morons, making asinine decisions, killing great products, having shitty quality control....the list goes on. The ONLY THING this company has is a KILLER user interface. That's the ONLY way the company has stayed afloat.
Read the articles I referenced earlier. It's the best breakdown on how to make a good user interface I've ever found. If you have better articles, I'd love to read them. UI design is basically what I want to do when I grow up, and I'm trying to find the best and make it better. Right now, my opinion is that though it is far from perfect, MacOS is head and shoulders above any other computer UI.
I've got a MacOS system on my desk that hasn't been rebooted since I added a hard drive four months ago. Break? Not frequently.
What do you need to upgrade exactly? It has everything I'm likely to need. What, you think that your Dell laptop is upgradeable? To what?
Little or no control over the design process. OK, how many companies' laptop design processes have you had control over?
IF YOU LIKE TO BUILD COMPUTERS FROM THE GROUND UP YOU CANNOT HAVE A LAPTOP. Duh.
It's NOT about showing off to my friends. It's about having the right tool at the right price. If the iBook is the right tool, buy it. (I will!) If it's not, don't.
Again, if you like frustration and complexity because it makes you feel like a computer badass, fine. Don't buy a Mac.
Let me know when Linux is a consumer product. It's getting there, but my grandma can't use it yet, so it is not a consumer product.
Why is consistency opposed to correctness? Why is simplicity at the cost of efficiency? I do not understand why you think these things are mutually exclusive. There are lots of different ways to make a user interface, but one that ignores the steepness of its learning curve in favor of geek-appeal is doomed to niche success.
You can see some other ones here. They're a bit more positive, and detailed.
Some of your points are well taken (modal menus are a horrible idea). Others (like resizing only from one corner) are quibbles. Note that some of us consider "your" (making a gross overgeneralization) brand of fragmented, inconsistent, willy-nilly "open" user interface to be the worst combination of attributes ever expressed on a bitmap display.
Different strokes...
Whoops! Mistyped my slam. Explain how it's NOT more economical.
If you can't afford a zip drive, you can hardly afford a new powerbook. Back to the salt mines with you.
Before you go, explain to me how a $10 100mb cartridge is more economical than 1.44mb $.25 floppy disks.
You make my point. The tool is not important. The TASK is important. The tool should do nothing but facilitate the task. Whenever I'm concentrating on the tool, not the task, I am not accomplishing my aim. Reliable, user-friendly tools are what computers are SUPPOSED to be. If you like tinkering with computers (like I do) you have a radically different agenda than 99% of the humans (read: customers) out there. Don't be surprised when people design products for those customer types. They have a shitload of money, ya know...
You make one that doesn't suck, and I'll buy one from you. Let me know.
Nothing is wrong with that. There's one called the PowerBook G3. Feel free to buy one of those if you want to.
It is DESIGNED to be a kid's toy. I like toys. I like the iBook. Guess they DO have a target audience after all.
And I'll be laughing at all the ridiculous suits who are laughing at my ridiculous orange laptop. I'm sure glad I'm not them!
Nothing happened to them, except that this is not it. Don't like it? Fine. Don't buy it. I defy you to find cool curves and neutral colors in computers that AREN'T designed by Apple.
Yeah, durable simple computers...nothing to break or malfunction...where's the appeal in that? If I can't magically be fixed by you when you break it, you can't look like a big computer wizard in front of your friends, and we wouldn't want that would we?
Name me a consumer product that DOESN'T assume you are an idiot.
Get of your high horse. The view's better from down here.
If you don't like the iMac, you won't like its portable kin. Duh. Guess what...Mr. Jobs probably wasn't talking to you.
I've got a FINE idea...DON'T BUY ONE. That way we won't have to hear you whining all the time about how often you transfer data on slow, clunky, error-prone 3.5" floppies.
Get a ZIP drive. Get a SuperDrive. Get an ORB drive. They're hot pluggable, they weigh about as much as a paperback novel, and you get several orders of magnitude more storage capacity.
If you're a consultant who works a lot with needlessly paranoid companies who are more concerned about ludicrous security concerns than with efficient problem solving, well this isn't the laptop for you. I don't think Apple will miss those four customers.
For me, my only complaint is that I can't get one in red. Yet.
I know you're tongue's in your cheek, but I bet you'll look long and hard before you find a faster and more flexible networking implementation than Open Transport (which uses Mentat's Streams technology). It is, in a word, awesome.
That's insane. Complexity is not a virtue in and of itself. It might SEEM like the OS is a toy, but it DOES EVERYTHING IT NEEDS TO DO. Needless complexity is a hallmark of inferior engineering.
With my Mac, I don't have to recompile the kernel to do compression, even on the fly disk compression (which IMHO is a supremely rotten idea, but I'm biased). If you LIKE computers that don't work, don't use a Mac. If you LIKE problems for problems' sake, don't use a Mac. For those of us to whom a computer is a tool, not an end it itself, not having to wrestle with the OS to get it to do what you want is a Good Thing.
If it (by which I assume you mean the operating system) hides problems to such a degree that they are undetectable, it's not much of a problem is it? What do you want to change about the hardware or the OS that you cannot change? Just because it doesn't have a CLI doesn't mean it's not usable. You might consider actually WORKING with a Mac before drawing these hackneyed conclusions. You'll learn a lot about how computers ought to work.
Ever seen an SU-27? Most military aircraft show an economy of form that, to me, is very beautiful. Some military hardware, like the M-1 tank, despite its profound ugliness, has a purposefulness that is an aesthetic all its own.
Guess it IS in the eye of the beholder. : )
Your assumption that any comment pointing out a benefit of open-source software distribution can be dismissed as "ridiculous open source activism" is just as ludicrous as the assumption that open source==good software. Prejudice and stereotyping are unreliable crutches for people who try to think for themseves. The article pointed out a feature that the author felt was valuable, and that feature derived from the software's open source distribution model. Should they have NOT mentioned this to avoid offending your sensibilities?
As far as CmdrTaco furthering his arch-evil agenda by secretly replacing PERL scripts with devious filters that CONTROL YOUR BRAIN, well, this seems far less credible than the Trilateral Commission.
No, I don't work for the Trilateral Commission, and I don't spend my days disavowing their existence, and I promise that they don't really control the universe. Really! I promise!
Give a mom a fish, and you feed her for a day. Teach her to fish...
/? first. Different strokes for different folks...both are appropriate in different situations.
I do the same thing on the phone with my customers. My goal is to solve their immediate problem, not teach them how to solve problems. If I was going to teach somebody how to copy files, I think it would be easier for them to understand drag and drop and rubberband select than explaining how filenames, paths, and wildcards work. Hell, I still can't use xcopy without using a
To me, the key feature of the MacOS is that you DON'T HAVE to use the keyboard shortcuts if you don't want to. The advanced functionality is available, but not required to use the system. This to me is a key feature of truly great UI design.
And MY Mac mouse has four buttons, that I program on an app by app basis, to do what I want them to, programmable in an easy point and click interface. I'd kill for that feature on any other OS.
No no no. I never got the impression that the author wanted to scrap all the other distros. He wants there to be a subset of the Linux community who is served by "Linux for the Masses". That's not to say that all the geeks can still use whatever distro they want, he was trying to articulate what would be necessary for Linux to REALLY go mainstream on the desktop. None of his goals preclude any other distro still being available (if you like the kludgy stuff).
I want to know what the hell kind of Jesus battery this thing had to get him up the on-ramp and drive a mile! These things normally have a range of about 15 feet before you have to recharge 'em...
Ummm...I can walk in to WalMart and buy a CD player for $50. When they came out, you couldn't touch one for less than $1000. The poster was talking, I believe, about the hardware, not the software.
Why was the iMac not a good thing? Did somebody grab you in a hammerlock and make you buy one? If people like the computer enough to shell money out for it, and you don't have to, then why is it a bad thing?
If you want to pay extra for symmetric DSL, that's fine. Most providers will be glad to oblige you. However, the vast preponderance of my traffic (I have a cable modem) is downstream, so I am well served by asymmetric system. Rather than demanding what YOU want, I think it makes more sense to demand the option to get whatever fits your needs. Note that in most cases, we have that option.