Buying a Mac requires the buyer to make a conscious decision about which computer to get. From this alone, you would expect the group of Windows users to have the largest amount of people who don't think, Linux to have the smallest, and Mac user to be in the middle. On the other hand, there are no really cheap Macs, so people who have small incomes due to their limited mental capacity can't have Macs. On average, I would guess Windows users are dumber than Mac users, and Mac users and Linux users are about on par, maybe with a slight advantage for Linux users:-)
Finally what? Finally malware writers think that Apple's market share is large enough to warrant writing malware, even though they found no actual security issue to exploit, and thus rely on users installing the malware themselves?
In addition to the other points: Keynote (and the keynote templates) encourages you to use images, large type, little text on each slide, and many slides. PPT encourages you to use bullet points. Lots and lots of bullet points.
People who use Keynote often end up with tons of slides with few things on them. People using PPT often end up with few slides with tons of stuff on them.
Jobs, of course, doesn't use PowerPoint, but Apple's own Keynote. I've switched from PowerPoint to Keynote a few years ago, and I think my presentations have gotten a lot better. I'm not entirely sure why; I think Keynote kind of encourages you to use large type (thus you have less space for filling up pages with bullet points) and images. It's also fast and easy to create lots of slides without missing what's going on, which further encourages people to create more slides, but put less into each slide, which automatically turns slides into a tool supporting your narrative instead of repeating it.
Also, it's just a pleasure to use, unlike PowerPoint.
If you have a Mac, you owe it to yourself to give Keynote a try.
I fail to see how this is a response to my comment.
It wasn't really intended as a response to your comment. More like adding my own view to yours.
How many Wii games are as nice as Ratchet?
Having played the previous R&C games, the new one bored me so much that I did not even manage to finish the Demo. So I would say that the Wii has dozens of games "as nice as Ratchet."
[The PS3 is] already a better buy than a wii from a certain point of view.
Yes, from the point of view from somebody who mainly cares about how games look. I think those people are a small minority of all gamers.
The Wii games you mention are replete with games that really cannot compete with PS3 games like Ratchet. Perhaps you are being unfair.
No, perhaps it's you who is unfair. R&C is an uninspired shooter which has gorgeous graphics, but plays just like its previous versions. There's really no incentive for me to play the same game again, apart from the graphics. And frankly, I don't play games for their graphics.
I have all three systems, and I just do not think the wii has anything interesting.
Okay, now you've definitely jumped the shark. You love R&C, but you think the Wii has nothing interesting? Eledees is not an interesting game? Cooking Mama, not interesting? Zack & Wiki? Battalion Wars 2? Manhunt 2? Victorious Boxers? Dewy's Adventure? Even Wii Sports? Those are not interesting games, but R&C is?
Come on, seriously, who's not being fair here?
Another banal point, that isn't so relevant to you perhaps, is that many of the good 360 games also exist on the PS3.
In inferior versions. I own two multi-platform titles, skate and Ridge Racer. Ridge Racer looks a lot better on the 360, and the PS3 version of skate has serious framerate issues, as well as an inferior online mode.
As of now, there's simply no reason for getting a PS3. The 360 has a better selection of hardcore games; the Wii has a better selection of casual and innovative titles; and it's too loud as a Bluray player.
Am I the only one seeing a Slashdot double standard when it comes to Microsoft and the XBox?
First of all, more than one person posts on/., so having a double-standard hardly applies.
Second, it's perfectly possible to think that Microsoft is evil, or bad, or behaves unethical, while still acknowleding that the games selection on the 360 is great, and the 360 has a lot of strong points.
Personally, I despise Microsoft. I own a PS3 and a Wii. The Wii is great, but as of now, it doesn't get a lot of hardcore games (skate, for example, is not available on the Wii). On the other hand, the PS3 ports of these games suck. The aforementioned skate is often barely playable due to the sucky framerate, and the online mode is gimped.
There are three things keeping me from buying an Xbox:
It's Microsoft
Online is not free
Hardware quality is unacceptable
If they fix one or two of these, I might break down and get one; the PS3 currently simply sucks so much that it's hardly an alternative to the 360 at all. So yeah, I think it's possible to despise Microsoft and still pay for their crap, mainly if their competitor makes even bigger crap.
I own both a PS3 and a Wii. As of now, I would not recommend the PS3 to anyone. If you're a hardcore gamer, get a 360. Sure, it'll probably burn and explode, but as long as it still works, at least you've got some decent games. If you aren't a hardcore gamer, get a Wii. Tons of great games are available.
For the PS3, these are the games I'd recommend if you insist on getting one:
Warhawk. Great game, although a bit expensive for online-only
Motorstorm. Not too many tracks, but fun while it lasts. No split screen is a major letdown, though
Resistance. Awesome FPS
You might also want to look at the following games. They are neat, but have serious flaws:
R&C: Looking good, but if you've played an earlier R&C, you've already played this one
Heavenly Sword: Pretty, but way too short
Ninja Gaiden: Basically the same game as the Xbox version
skate: Fun, but has serious framerate issues, and online is gimped; if you can, get the 360 version instead
Calling all Cars: Fun little online game for those who like local multiplayer gaming
Stardust HD, Everyday Shooter: Two of the better dual analog shooters
So there are three really good games, and a bunch of games that are acceptable. On the other hand, the Wii has stuff like Zelda, Resident Evil 4, Metroid Prime 3, Super Paper Mario, Wario Ware, Trauma Center, Mario Strikers, Rayman, Wii Sports, Elebits, Excite Truck, Super Monkey Ball, finally a good 3D Sonic... and that doesn't even include any of the VC games. As of now the Wii simply has the better game selection, and it looks like the gap is widening as franchises are moving to the Wii (Monster Hunter), while Sony has trouble keeping third parties on their console. The sales numbers paint the same picture: While the PS3 has a grand total of two million sellers (Motorstorm and Resistance), the Wii has at least nine.
Like I said: Even though I own a PS3, I would not recommend it to anyone. I think there's a good chance that it'll end up this generation's Gamecube: A few awesome first-party titles, but few third-party titles, and the third-party titles it gets are crappy ports from other consoles.
If you're happy with Leopard on an 800Mhz G4, you'll be happy with Vista on a similarly aged PC.
Yes. Although from what I've seen of both systems, on similarly-specced Intel hardware, I think Leopard will perform a whole lot better. It actually feels quite a bit faster on my two-years-old MacBook Pro than Tiger did; some things, like Spotlight, have definitely been optimized quite a bit since Tiger.
There definitely are financial ties between Miguel and Microsoft. Back when I was studying, he held a Microsoft-sponsored speech about Mono, where Microsoft raffled off Xboxes to the people who attended. I didn't win one:-(
Right now you can control-click, click-and-hold, and right-click... and all are supposed to get you a contextual menu, except that Apple provides absolutely no support at the application level for making that happen: if you're extending a widget or writing your own you have to explicitly test for all three cases. Yes, that is very bad and should be fixed asap.
That should be handled at the OS level, by the input manager. The application should only ever see the separate events if it explicitly looks at raw events instead of symbolic ones. Agreed 100%.
In the meantime it means that the dock menu comes up if you wait too long before moving the mouse when reorganizing objects in the dock. Which is incredibly annoying, true.
But back to the point here. First, Apple's already making the dock menu more prominent in Leopard. Yes, but that doesn't make the fact that you can open application-specific menus from the Dock more obvious. It's a power user feature, not something the user should be expected to know about.
Fourth, if pop-up menus are the normal way of doing things then using pop-up menus in the Dock would be natural and consistent. Well, context menus are a normal way of doing things, but that didn't make them natural and consistent (which is why I think the "gear" menu in the finder, which opens the context menu for selected items, is a neat trick). There's no UI item indicating that the Dock icons have menus; there's no obvious way of opening the menus.
I've used window systems that work this way, including both of Xerox's window systems (the one that was used by Smalltalk and in a slightly different way in Interlisp-D, and the Xerox Star). Smalltalk's had a different menu or behavior for just about every combination of mouse clicks, which was a bad idea and one that probably led to Apple's ovveraction to mouse buttons in the first place, but on the Star Office System it was completely consistent and worked very very well. For you, but you're obviously different from 99% of everyone else by the mere fact that you've even used these systems:-)
An average of five or six extra top level menu items is not a big deal... But you'll get sub menus in Dock menus; sub menus are a bad idea to begin with, and the Dock menu would add yet another layer of menus to the hierarchy...
the second makes the menu that appears dependent on a non-obvious mode Indeed. That's why I suggested that the Dock icon could be used. However, the behavior of the contextual menu in OS X is already non-obvious... depending on which combination you use to activate it it may or may not work for a non-focussed window. Yes, context menus are somewhat broken to begin with (especially in OS X), so they shouldn't be used as examples on which to base new features:-)
the context menu is only a shortcut to begin with; it should never be the main way to access things. As originally designed, it was the ONLY way to access things, and it still is in all user interfaces based on the original Xerox model rather than Apple's variant. And it works well. Again, it may work well for you, but you're a Xerox-using/. posting super user:-)
It made a lot more sense when the menu was right there next to the window you were working on, rather than up at the top of the screen out of the way. True, but it was still dumb, because it's an unordered collection of commands.
Sorry to reply again, but I want to repeat my earler suggestion: re-arrange the virtual position of your screens. You can even put them edge-to-edge so that you get 6 normal, infinite edges and one edge on each screen which allows you to move the mouse between screens. A lot of people prefer that arrangement.
Fitt's law was not invented. It's an observation, not an invention, just like the laws of gravity weren't invented, but merely observed to exist.
The whole point of the corner is that your mouse gets caught there. That's what Fitt's law is about.
But beyond that, it's just plain you refuse to listen to anybody.
Thanks, I appreciate that. I do my best. It's my job, you know. I'm a scientist, not a priest. I'm not paid to listen to people, I'm paid to measure them.
That is absolutely correct, and it has got nothing to do with hubris. Quite the opposite. You should do a few actual usability tests; it's humbling. The solution that feels best and/or fastest hardly ever is. A typical outcome of a usability test is that developers think one way is best, users prefer another way, and the actual numbers show a third way being faster and with fewer errors. You are not actually capable of objectively "feeling" your own performance.
Frankly, you don't know what's best for you, just as I don't know what's best for me. Only usability tests can show which solution is best, and it's hardly ever the one you or I think is best.
Unsanity seems to think it's not their fault. From an e-mail I got from them today:
Make *sure* you have APE 2.0.3 or later installed *before* you install Mac OS X 10.5. If you have an earlier version of APE installed before you install 10.5, you may exhibit one of the following symptoms upon booting into Mac OS X 10.5:
- Your goldfish may die. - A strange dog might bite you on the street. - A friend may punch you. - Your computer may catch fire. - Your loved one may leave you. Seems APE just disables itself on newer versions of OS X.
I thought your comment on multiple screens was so obviously missing the point that you were intentionally playing stupid, but I assume now that you were serious. Here's the thing: Multi-monitor setups are even better than normal setups because you have more corners you can hit. Of course, the secret is to not use the "pseudo-corners."
So, if you have a smaller screen and a larger screen, do not put the menu bar on the smaller screen. If you must insist on putting the menu bar on the smaller screen, at least do the virtual monitor setup (it's in your preference panes) in a way that makes sure that your mouse can't leave the screen on the top left and right edges.
I mean, this is so obvious that I simply did not think your post was serious. You're complaining about something that nobody in his right mind would ever see; it's almost as if you had intentionally set up your monitors incorrectly so you could make a point.
It's like having two screens on top of each other and putting the menu bar on the lower screen, and then complaining that fitt's law is stupid because you're constantly overshooting the menu bar...
You have no clue what a usability test is. Hint: You can't test yourself. You do not know whether you're faster with a menu on top of the screen, or on top of windows, because your personal feeling on what is faster has little in common with reality.
No, it's not choice, it's a different mode. In the current environment, maybe. The thing is, you asked "what would I do instead of the menu bar", then got ironic[*] at me when I suggested the dock menu, so that's what I'm talking about:
Admittedly, I wasn't trying to be ironic or sarcastic, and certainly not sardonic. I was just trying to point out that the Dock menu is a bad place to put stuff, because it's non-obvious. Most people probably never use Dock menus. English is only about the fourth language I've learned, so I hope you'll pardon my lack of control of some of its nuances:-)
* All menus available under the mouse at all times.
This may be a good idea (especially in multi-screen environments), although I would have to see data from usability tests. On the one hand, it cuts down space, since the menu item is closer to the mouse; on the other hand, it introduces a new choice before accessing a menu: Use the local menu, or the one on top of the screen? Whether the advantage outweights the disadvantage would have to be shown in a test.
* Either all menus available from the dock menu when there are no windows open, or the global menu selection be based on the current focus rather than the object under the mouse.
I suspect both of these ideas are bad ideas (the first leads to big Dock menus, and as I said, I doubt people even use these; the second makes the menu that appears dependent on a non-obvious mode - especially non-obvious if you don't have menus that show you which app you're in).
The global menu selection could be an additional element in the contextual menu, or a new button, or a mouse gesture, something that doesn't involve my dragging the pointer up to two feet across to the main screen and then a foot up to the menu bar.
Gestures for non-natural things don't work for the vast majority of people, and the context menu is only a shortcut to begin with; it should never be the main way to access things.
While I'm about it, some other things that I've been able to get using hacks (not all of which I currently use) or that used to be available:
* Services in the contextual menu. Maybe instead of the Services menu, maybe make the contextual menu and the services menu equivalent. It's really daft to have two completely different ways to get context-sensitive operations.
I agree. The Services menu is incredibly dumb, and it's no surprise that hardly anyone makes use of it, despite of the great features it provides.
* Recent folders - in the Apple menu.
Might be a good idea.
* An expanding directory tree in the Apple menu or the dock. I don't think Stacks quite do this, they only seem to be one level deep. This could also handle the recent folders bit with a smart folder.
I think the Leopard stacks are somewhat stupid, anyway.
* Eliminate the backdrop for the dock completely.
Probably a good idea, too.
* A shelf at the edge of the screen, or make the dock work like the shelf, and make it work on multiple sides. Stacks might make up for this.
You mean like the NeXT shelf where you temporarily put pointers to files? I think Mac OS X has already too many differently behaving icons (no, don't worry, removing something from the Dock doesn't delete it. No, you can't drag stuff away from the Dock, it'll disappear).
* Move the disk icons off the desktop into the dock, maybe next to the trash can. Maybe I can make/Volumes a stack.
Yeah, having the disk icons in the Dock might be a great idea; although the Dock is rather overloaded as it is.
And a single global input manager preference pane that lets me l
Thanks for the tip. Hmm, I just tried it and it didn't work.
Some applications don't support this modifier, but generally, it should work.
How about because I like to work that way?
Then use the system that provides what you want, but don't complain about a system that works differently if the other system is objectively better. I can't speak for Apple, obviously (I don't work there), but to me, it doesn't matter how you like (emphasis on both "you" and on "like":-) to work. As an UI designer, I don't design for you, and I don't design for what people like. I design so the majority of users have the most efficient user interface. This doesn't even mean that it's necessarily the one they prefer, it just means that they are most efficient using it - quite often, these two are at adds. What people think they do hardly ever corresponds with what they actually do (a perfect example are keyboard shortcuts. Users feel more efficient using keyboard shortcuts, but turns out, in actual tests, those using the mouse to select menus are, on average, faster).
There's a case to be made for having apps which take over the whole screen in specific cases; I often do that when I work in IntelliJ (with the compiled app running on the second screen), because IntelliJ's UI kind of falls apart if you don't give it a full screen. Which, as I said, you can do on a Mac, it's just not the default mode for most apps (although it is for IntelliJ).
I wouldn't claim Windows is superior to Macintosh
Yes, I apologize. I didn't mean to say that you claimed Windows was superior; I meant to say the Windows windowing mode.
It seems that by the "best solution" you mean the "best solution for the majority of people."
Yes. What we do (and I guess Apple does, too), is run usability tests on iterations of interfaces. Most of the time, these show that one of the options is vastly superior to all other options. That doesn't mean that the test subjects like this option best, or that all users work best with this option, it just means that, all tests considered, one option turned out to work best in a huge majority of all cases.
We then make this option standard and discard all other options.
Yes, KDE has its advantages. If you want a system where you can configure everything, use KDE. You'll be much happier with it than with Mac OS X (although most likely, you'll also be much less efficient without even noticing it).
As for the hidden files things, this is broken in Mac OS X. Mac OS X does something incredibly stupid: It mixes two different "hidden files" system, the one from Unix and the one from pre-X Mac systems. The Unix system is something the user controls. Put a dot in front of your file names, and the files disappear. They are still files the user is expected to be able to control; you don't want to hide.htaccess forever, for example. Hidden files from the Mac side are different. These are files where the system stores its own meta data. You never want the user to see a.DS_Store file.
Incredibly, Apple decided to hide all.files, regardless of where they come from and what they contain. What they should have done instead is show.files, and only hide all files with invisibility bits. Then, set those bits for the files the user should not see. That way, stuff the user should not see (like.DS_Store files) would be hidden, while stuff the user should see (like.htaccess files) would be visible.
It takes a lot of hubris for you guys to be telling me that the shared menu bar is really better and easier when I keep saying that for me it isn't.
It doesn't even matter whether it would be easier for you (and you don't know whether it would be, because you haven't done usability tests on yourself, and your feeling is most likely way off); as an UI designer, I don't design for every single user, I design so the majority of users has the best possible experience. Having an option for menus inside windows in Mac OS X would harm a ton of other users (not to mention developers, but frankly, they don't matter at all:-).
I don't know if it's just a defense mechanism by people who think they've stumbled on perfection
It's not perfect, just better than what you ask for.
Slashdot Mirror
Buying a Mac requires the buyer to make a conscious decision about which computer to get. From this alone, you would expect the group of Windows users to have the largest amount of people who don't think, Linux to have the smallest, and Mac user to be in the middle. On the other hand, there are no really cheap Macs, so people who have small incomes due to their limited mental capacity can't have Macs. On average, I would guess Windows users are dumber than Mac users, and Mac users and Linux users are about on par, maybe with a slight advantage for Linux users :-)
Being used to malware didn't seem to help Windows users any, so far.
Finally what? Finally malware writers think that Apple's market share is large enough to warrant writing malware, even though they found no actual security issue to exploit, and thus rely on users installing the malware themselves?
Seems like somebody hit you where it hurt, huh? :-)
In addition to the other points: Keynote (and the keynote templates) encourages you to use images, large type, little text on each slide, and many slides. PPT encourages you to use bullet points. Lots and lots of bullet points.
People who use Keynote often end up with tons of slides with few things on them. People using PPT often end up with few slides with tons of stuff on them.
Wow. You were in the army, and what caused your mental health issues was PowerPoint. I think that says it all.
Jobs, of course, doesn't use PowerPoint, but Apple's own Keynote. I've switched from PowerPoint to Keynote a few years ago, and I think my presentations have gotten a lot better. I'm not entirely sure why; I think Keynote kind of encourages you to use large type (thus you have less space for filling up pages with bullet points) and images. It's also fast and easy to create lots of slides without missing what's going on, which further encourages people to create more slides, but put less into each slide, which automatically turns slides into a tool supporting your narrative instead of repeating it.
Also, it's just a pleasure to use, unlike PowerPoint.
If you have a Mac, you owe it to yourself to give Keynote a try.
It wasn't really intended as a response to your comment. More like adding my own view to yours.
Having played the previous R&C games, the new one bored me so much that I did not even manage to finish the Demo. So I would say that the Wii has dozens of games "as nice as Ratchet."
Yes, from the point of view from somebody who mainly cares about how games look. I think those people are a small minority of all gamers.
No, perhaps it's you who is unfair. R&C is an uninspired shooter which has gorgeous graphics, but plays just like its previous versions. There's really no incentive for me to play the same game again, apart from the graphics. And frankly, I don't play games for their graphics.
Okay, now you've definitely jumped the shark. You love R&C, but you think the Wii has nothing interesting? Eledees is not an interesting game? Cooking Mama, not interesting? Zack & Wiki? Battalion Wars 2? Manhunt 2? Victorious Boxers? Dewy's Adventure? Even Wii Sports? Those are not interesting games, but R&C is?
Come on, seriously, who's not being fair here?
In inferior versions. I own two multi-platform titles, skate and Ridge Racer. Ridge Racer looks a lot better on the 360, and the PS3 version of skate has serious framerate issues, as well as an inferior online mode.
As of now, there's simply no reason for getting a PS3. The 360 has a better selection of hardcore games; the Wii has a better selection of casual and innovative titles; and it's too loud as a Bluray player.
First of all, more than one person posts on /., so having a double-standard hardly applies.
Second, it's perfectly possible to think that Microsoft is evil, or bad, or behaves unethical, while still acknowleding that the games selection on the 360 is great, and the 360 has a lot of strong points.
Personally, I despise Microsoft. I own a PS3 and a Wii. The Wii is great, but as of now, it doesn't get a lot of hardcore games (skate, for example, is not available on the Wii). On the other hand, the PS3 ports of these games suck. The aforementioned skate is often barely playable due to the sucky framerate, and the online mode is gimped.
There are three things keeping me from buying an Xbox:
If they fix one or two of these, I might break down and get one; the PS3 currently simply sucks so much that it's hardly an alternative to the 360 at all. So yeah, I think it's possible to despise Microsoft and still pay for their crap, mainly if their competitor makes even bigger crap.
For the PS3, these are the games I'd recommend if you insist on getting one:
You might also want to look at the following games. They are neat, but have serious flaws:
So there are three really good games, and a bunch of games that are acceptable. On the other hand, the Wii has stuff like Zelda, Resident Evil 4, Metroid Prime 3, Super Paper Mario, Wario Ware, Trauma Center, Mario Strikers, Rayman, Wii Sports, Elebits, Excite Truck, Super Monkey Ball, finally a good 3D Sonic... and that doesn't even include any of the VC games. As of now the Wii simply has the better game selection, and it looks like the gap is widening as franchises are moving to the Wii (Monster Hunter), while Sony has trouble keeping third parties on their console. The sales numbers paint the same picture: While the PS3 has a grand total of two million sellers (Motorstorm and Resistance), the Wii has at least nine.
Like I said: Even though I own a PS3, I would not recommend it to anyone. I think there's a good chance that it'll end up this generation's Gamecube: A few awesome first-party titles, but few third-party titles, and the third-party titles it gets are crappy ports from other consoles.
I didn't mean to say that Microsoft directly gives him money. I doubt that. But they do sponsor his speeches.
Yes. Although from what I've seen of both systems, on similarly-specced Intel hardware, I think Leopard will perform a whole lot better. It actually feels quite a bit faster on my two-years-old MacBook Pro than Tiger did; some things, like Spotlight, have definitely been optimized quite a bit since Tiger.
Is that really true? Leopard even runs on old 800 MHz G4s, I think.
There definitely are financial ties between Miguel and Microsoft. Back when I was studying, he held a Microsoft-sponsored speech about Mono, where Microsoft raffled off Xboxes to the people who attended. I didn't win one :-(
Sorry to reply again, but I want to repeat my earler suggestion: re-arrange the virtual position of your screens. You can even put them edge-to-edge so that you get 6 normal, infinite edges and one edge on each screen which allows you to move the mouse between screens. A lot of people prefer that arrangement.
The whole point of the corner is that your mouse gets caught there. That's what Fitt's law is about.
Thanks, I appreciate that. I do my best. It's my job, you know. I'm a scientist, not a priest. I'm not paid to listen to people, I'm paid to measure them.
That is absolutely correct, and it has got nothing to do with hubris. Quite the opposite. You should do a few actual usability tests; it's humbling. The solution that feels best and/or fastest hardly ever is. A typical outcome of a usability test is that developers think one way is best, users prefer another way, and the actual numbers show a third way being faster and with fewer errors. You are not actually capable of objectively "feeling" your own performance.
Frankly, you don't know what's best for you, just as I don't know what's best for me. Only usability tests can show which solution is best, and it's hardly ever the one you or I think is best.
- Your goldfish may die.
- A strange dog might bite you on the street.
- A friend may punch you.
- Your computer may catch fire.
- Your loved one may leave you. Seems APE just disables itself on newer versions of OS X.
I thought your comment on multiple screens was so obviously missing the point that you were intentionally playing stupid, but I assume now that you were serious. Here's the thing: Multi-monitor setups are even better than normal setups because you have more corners you can hit. Of course, the secret is to not use the "pseudo-corners."
So, if you have a smaller screen and a larger screen, do not put the menu bar on the smaller screen. If you must insist on putting the menu bar on the smaller screen, at least do the virtual monitor setup (it's in your preference panes) in a way that makes sure that your mouse can't leave the screen on the top left and right edges.
I mean, this is so obvious that I simply did not think your post was serious. You're complaining about something that nobody in his right mind would ever see; it's almost as if you had intentionally set up your monitors incorrectly so you could make a point.
It's like having two screens on top of each other and putting the menu bar on the lower screen, and then complaining that fitt's law is stupid because you're constantly overshooting the menu bar...
You have no clue what a usability test is. Hint: You can't test yourself. You do not know whether you're faster with a menu on top of the screen, or on top of windows, because your personal feeling on what is faster has little in common with reality.
No, it's not choice, it's a different mode.
In the current environment, maybe. The thing is, you asked "what would I do instead of the menu bar", then got ironic[*] at me when I suggested the dock menu, so that's what I'm talking about:
Admittedly, I wasn't trying to be ironic or sarcastic, and certainly not sardonic. I was just trying to point out that the Dock menu is a bad place to put stuff, because it's non-obvious. Most people probably never use Dock menus. English is only about the fourth language I've learned, so I hope you'll pardon my lack of control of some of its nuances :-)
* All menus available under the mouse at all times.
This may be a good idea (especially in multi-screen environments), although I would have to see data from usability tests. On the one hand, it cuts down space, since the menu item is closer to the mouse; on the other hand, it introduces a new choice before accessing a menu: Use the local menu, or the one on top of the screen? Whether the advantage outweights the disadvantage would have to be shown in a test.
* Either all menus available from the dock menu when there are no windows open, or the global menu selection be based on the current focus rather than the object under the mouse.
I suspect both of these ideas are bad ideas (the first leads to big Dock menus, and as I said, I doubt people even use these; the second makes the menu that appears dependent on a non-obvious mode - especially non-obvious if you don't have menus that show you which app you're in).
The global menu selection could be an additional element in the contextual menu, or a new button, or a mouse gesture, something that doesn't involve my dragging the pointer up to two feet across to the main screen and then a foot up to the menu bar.
Gestures for non-natural things don't work for the vast majority of people, and the context menu is only a shortcut to begin with; it should never be the main way to access things.
While I'm about it, some other things that I've been able to get using hacks (not all of which I currently use) or that used to be available:
* Services in the contextual menu. Maybe instead of the Services menu, maybe make the contextual menu and the services menu equivalent. It's really daft to have two completely different ways to get context-sensitive operations.
I agree. The Services menu is incredibly dumb, and it's no surprise that hardly anyone makes use of it, despite of the great features it provides.
* Recent folders - in the Apple menu.
Might be a good idea.
* An expanding directory tree in the Apple menu or the dock. I don't think Stacks quite do this, they only seem to be one level deep. This could also handle the recent folders bit with a smart folder.
I think the Leopard stacks are somewhat stupid, anyway.
* Eliminate the backdrop for the dock completely.
Probably a good idea, too.
* A shelf at the edge of the screen, or make the dock work like the shelf, and make it work on multiple sides. Stacks might make up for this.
You mean like the NeXT shelf where you temporarily put pointers to files? I think Mac OS X has already too many differently behaving icons (no, don't worry, removing something from the Dock doesn't delete it. No, you can't drag stuff away from the Dock, it'll disappear).
* Move the disk icons off the desktop into the dock, maybe next to the trash can. Maybe I can make /Volumes a stack.
Yeah, having the disk icons in the Dock might be a great idea; although the Dock is rather overloaded as it is.
And a single global input manager preference pane that lets me l
Some applications don't support this modifier, but generally, it should work.
Then use the system that provides what you want, but don't complain about a system that works differently if the other system is objectively better. I can't speak for Apple, obviously (I don't work there), but to me, it doesn't matter how you like (emphasis on both "you" and on "like" :-) to work. As an UI designer, I don't design for you, and I don't design for what people like. I design so the majority of users have the most efficient user interface. This doesn't even mean that it's necessarily the one they prefer, it just means that they are most efficient using it - quite often, these two are at adds. What people think they do hardly ever corresponds with what they actually do (a perfect example are keyboard shortcuts. Users feel more efficient using keyboard shortcuts, but turns out, in actual tests, those using the mouse to select menus are, on average, faster).
There's a case to be made for having apps which take over the whole screen in specific cases; I often do that when I work in IntelliJ (with the compiled app running on the second screen), because IntelliJ's UI kind of falls apart if you don't give it a full screen. Which, as I said, you can do on a Mac, it's just not the default mode for most apps (although it is for IntelliJ).
Yes, I apologize. I didn't mean to say that you claimed Windows was superior; I meant to say the Windows windowing mode.
Yes. What we do (and I guess Apple does, too), is run usability tests on iterations of interfaces. Most of the time, these show that one of the options is vastly superior to all other options. That doesn't mean that the test subjects like this option best, or that all users work best with this option, it just means that, all tests considered, one option turned out to work best in a huge majority of all cases.
We then make this option standard and discard all other options.
Yes, KDE has its advantages. If you want a system where you can configure everything, use KDE. You'll be much happier with it than with Mac OS X (although most likely, you'll also be much less efficient without even noticing it).
As for the hidden files things, this is broken in Mac OS X. Mac OS X does something incredibly stupid: It mixes two different "hidden files" system, the one from Unix and the one from pre-X Mac systems. The Unix system is something the user controls. Put a dot in front of your file names, and the files disappear. They are still files the user is expected to be able to control; you don't want to hide .htaccess forever, for example. Hidden files from the Mac side are different. These are files where the system stores its own meta data. You never want the user to see a .DS_Store file.
Incredibly, Apple decided to hide all .files, regardless of where they come from and what they contain. What they should have done instead is show .files, and only hide all files with invisibility bits. Then, set those bits for the files the user should not see. That way, stuff the user should not see (like .DS_Store files) would be hidden, while stuff the user should see (like .htaccess files) would be visible.
It doesn't even matter whether it would be easier for you (and you don't know whether it would be, because you haven't done usability tests on yourself, and your feeling is most likely way off); as an UI designer, I don't design for every single user, I design so the majority of users has the best possible experience. Having an option for menus inside windows in Mac OS X would harm a ton of other users (not to mention developers, but frankly, they don't matter at all :-).
It's not perfect, just better than what you ask for.