Wow! I hope I'm right in feeling like he represents an unusual class of user: Impatient with many more traditional GUI conventions, but still interested in some handholding beyond doing everything from the command line.
Looking through the discussion so far, I see a lot of "always do this" or "never do this" comments. While some may represent good rules of thumb, there's a reason why there's a whole science of Human-Computer Interaction behind Web design: There are few hard-and-fast rules, and design can't be accomplished via a checklist.
Not to say you shouldn't try, of course. But bear in mind that different purposes, feature sets, and demographics are going to require different things. Consider what you want the site to be and do, and what your target users will expect and know.
There are some good books on Web design in particular, including Jakob Nielsen's Designing Web Usability and Flanders and Willis' Web Pages that Suck. You might also check out more general books on Human Factors and HCI, including Tufte's books on information design and Donald Norman's The Design of Everyday Things (these examples are just a few). You might also check out Jakob Nielsen's Web site at useit.com, both for the articles and for the links to other material. asktog.com is also sometimes helpful.
Re:...and there was much rejoicing.
on
Photoshop for OS X
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I'll echo an earlier response in pointing out that your mind already seems quite made up, between being proud of not owning a Mac and wondering why the story is slashdot-worthy. (Answer: Because it's news about the computer industry, like many other posts on slashdot.)
And if you absolutely must build your own PC, then no, don't get a Mac. If, on the other hand, you'd like an OS that lets you perform similar configuration at the software level, but still runs major consumer apps, OS X is a great choice.
Beyond that, when you're working in Photoshop or Word, you're not gonna notice a whole lot of significant differences between platforms. I share the view of a lot of Mac users that the user experience is better in a number of ways, but if you're happy with your Windows machines, no, there's probably no hugely compelling reason to switch, just as there's no real reason to be quite as anti-Mac as you seem to be.
Plus, cluster a bunch of old iMacs and it's still pretty cheap to just replace a broken one, and as you point out the human & time cost is minimal there.
I'll admit my understanding is incomplete, but I think if you multithread Cocoa apps, they can take advantage of multiple processors, at least on a single machine. The small amount of basic multithreading I've done seemed pretty easy, and Cocoa is relatively easy in itself, and uses Objective-C, so standard C (and I think C++?) code should compile. Can anyone fill in the details?
For what it's worth, I have a dual-processor Mac and when I pop up the CPU Monitor I see both processors hard at work:) But I won't claim to understand how that relates to the cluster variety of parallel processing.
Interesting! I feel like they should play that up a little more. It may not be their most up-to-date offering, but the fact that they're still making a low-cost desktop home system shouldn't get lost, for all the reasons stated in this discussion.
As I understand it a 600MHz G4 is probably in the same range as a 1.2GHz P4. iBooks have G3s though, so I don't know how they compare. If the Intel is a P4 then I'd guess you're right, it's probably faster, and my understanding is that MHz for MHz a P3 is actually faster than a P4 (?).
I'd love to own a Mac, but I need a laptop, and the ones avaible from Apple only have the "look good" factor (as I'm vain, I'll prob. still buy one, but most ppl will not, and it's a shame)
I'd actually dispute that. I think most hard core computer users won't buy for looks, but I suspect that as computers become more and more a consumer commodity, mainstream consumers _will_ buy for looks rather than specs. For all that we compare processor speeds and graphics cards, any of these machines is going to get the job done for basic users, and people do want the "cool" factor. I think the success of the original iMac -- along with all its translucent plastic imitations in every product category -- is indicative of this trend.
I hope I'm right, too, because it seems like Apple's banking on it.
I have the same mouse. I think for the most part Microsoft is responsible for that fix: While two buttons and a scroll wheel have become somewhat standard, the back/forward buttons are unique to the MS mouse (and maybe a couple others?). If Apple expanded its mouse drivers I certainly wouldn't complain, but ultimately it's not their responsibility to write drivers for third-party quirks.
As to pressing the scroll wheel down, that's another story, since I believe that's somewhat of a standard. I could see Apple adding support for that. I actually thought it worked in some apps already but now I can't get it to.
I'm not entirely sure how that translates into American currency (sorry), but am I correct that you're saying the iBook is similar in features to a similarly-priced PC laptop, _except_ for a lower-powered graphics card?
So at least for non-serious-gaming, non-external-monitor users, it would come out comparable. Are the newer graphics cards that much more expensive than the RAGE 8Mb, or is there some other reason why Apple wouldn't have put in a newer chip?
You're right, though, that Apple doesn't have a base consumer model for the home. The original iMac took care of that nicely, but I think Apple's betting on people being willing to spend a bit extra -- even with cheaper comparable PCs -- for the flat display and small footprint of the new iMac. They may be right at that...only time will tell.
But...lets face it, if Apple wasn't so anti-competitive there would be lots of nice cheap apples floating around...but there aren't.
The best reasoning I've heard for that is that by opening up a clone market for the OS, Apple might compromise some ease of use and software-hardware integration. On the other hand, a fairly tight set of specs for OS licensing might fix the problem.
As I understand it, though, Apple makes much better profits from hardware than from software.
All that aside, yeah, price competition would be nice. I'd certainly be psyched to spend less on my Macs. But I guess the important thing from Apple's perspective is that I buy them anyway.
It has to therefore be valid to compare the lower end pcs as apple has no alternative. I'd love to be able to buy a nice cheap mac, but since they don't exist I buy PCs.
I guess there are two perspectives: (1) As you suggest, compare no-frills PCs because there's no Apple equivalent, or (2) Don't, because Apple doesn't seem to be targeting that demographic. Also, aren't iBooks fairly price-competitive at this point?
And comparing apple to premium PC brands it has to be said that for equivalent performance pcs still come out cheaper.
Is this taking into account the fact that MHz for MHz G4s are supposedly faster than P4s (how much isn't clear, though Apple claims something like 30%)? I'd be interested to see a side-by-side comparison in terms of real-world performance of Macs and equivalent Sony VAIOs. Be kinda cool to get some hard facts out there, regardless of which side wins:)
On the other hand, while I can see usability reasons for sticking with 1-button mice, I can't think of any for tiny keys on a non-laptop keyboard.
Plus, if memory serves, Apple actually had full-sized extended keyboards for a while _before_ they introduced the smaller keys (was it with the iMac?) Those smaller F-keys drove me nuts.
My understanding (someone correct me if I'm wrong) is that Apple's original intention was to make Carbon a transitional technology, and Cocoa the ultimate goal. That's changed because developers don't want to think about rewriting their Mac apps from the ground up.
If you're just starting out and don't need OS 9 support, Cocoa might be an easier route. Its tools and objects for building UIs, document-based apps, etc., are easy to use and extensive, allowing you to pull an app together fast. Check out Oreilly's Mac Dev center Cocoa in a Nutshell book.
Obj-C turned me off at first too, but once you code in it for a couple days you get into the groove and actually start to like it. That was my experience anyway.
Every time someone posts a new Mac product announcement, we get these two ridiculous comments:
(1) "I could build a comparable Athlon box for way less money."
Yes, you probably could. But Apple is a premium brand. Think Sony. You do pay extra for an integrated software-hardware package, good industrial design, 90 days free tech support, etc. You may not need or want these things but some people do. In particular, Apple's ease of use is somewhat predicated on the OS knowing exactly what hardware configuration to expect, so the user doesn't have to mess around with device drivers and kernel extensions.
(2) "I can't believe Macs still have only a one-button mouse. What a bunch of morons. When will they get with the program?"
Buy a Mac. Then spend $15 and buy a 2-button scroll-wheel mouse. You won't have to install anything because OS X already supports it, context menus and all. My Mac's mouse has 4 buttons and a wheel. Macs come with a 1-button mouse for good reasons, like ease of use for first-time or novice users and purity of the original mouse metaphor (point at things and click on them). There are actually users out there (including PC users) who find the second button confusing and may not know what to do with it.
Sorry for the lengthy rant. But I just keep seeing these comments over and over again, and they miss the point.
Where do you get this? Are you just making this up?
It's pretty clear that you don't know the facts and haven't used a recent Mac. I don't have usability test results to support my assertion that the UI is better, but I think they would. But there _are_ benchmarks, parallel features, and apps on both sides enough to make it very clear to anyone who's used both platforms that the Mac can easily hold its own.
My suggestion: Learn the facts before you post such negative comments. Then maybe people will take you seriously.
When you get _that_ old you get into the low end Mac community. I don't know if there's an Intel counterpart, but there are people modding old, old Macs and even Apple II's like crazy, swapping stories about all their uses, etc. Not my cup of tea but pretty cool nonetheless.
On the Palm vs. MS issue: My understanding is that these really are two different devices. Not that they aren't trying to attract the same customer base, but Palm is trying to be a true PDA (emphasis on "assistant") whereas MS is creating a small PC with all the bells and whistles (bloat, anyone?). For my money, I'll take the Palm approach.
While I'm a bit disappointed myself at the new release's lack of major innovation (I was really hoping for a built-in cell phone), Palm is moving forward while MS isn't. Palm OS is evolving toward information appliances: targeted devices whose UI reflects a context-appropriate set of tasks. This helps overcome one of the problems with monolithic PCs of any size: The overhead required to _start_ doing what you want to do. Most of the tools we interact with don't have this problem.
Build too many bells and whistles into a handheld device and it's just a laptop with limited screen space. Handhelds' interfaces need to reflect the fact that they get used on the go. What I've seen and heard of the MS devices (which is admittedly a fairly small sample size) suggests that they're not pursuing that goal the same way Palm is. And many of what I hear touted as MS-only features are available in some Palm OS configuration anyway.
Compaq still does. Plus I'm not just talking computers. Last time I walked into Linens 'N' Things I saw colorful translucent microwaves, colorful translucent phones, colorful translucent George Foreman grills...you get the idea.
Also, the point is not whether Apple's legal department overreacted but just that the imitation took place.
JonKatz keeps saying that consumers need ease of use, not hipness or coolness, but he's missed a very simple thing: Usability can't exist without coolness. A product that is drab but otherwise perfectly usable has a distinct competitive advantage, because it looks out of date and unprofessional, and fails to make users want to use it.
You insist that Jobs is wrong to pursue the form of his products so relentlessly, and that Gates is doing the right thing by largely ignoring it. But that's not what Microsoft is doing at all! Look at the effort that went into giving Win XP a pretty interface, or the fun little glowing red light on the MS IntelliMouse Explorer. On a more global level, look at what the original iMac did to the industry: now everyone's boxes have translucent plastics and come in different flavors.
I agree that people want stability on the level of a basic household appliance, and that we're not there yet. But I think that's a separate (though related) issue.
Usability is inseparable from aesthetics. But in addition, I think that as computers become more and more a basic consumer commodity, the aesthetics will continue to rise in importance, and hardware makers will again find themselves copying Apple. This wouldn't be the first time...look at the industrial designs for established consumer electronics like Walkmen, portable CD players, and to a lesser degree cell phones.
Yes! There seems to be this idea among many/. users in this discussion that G4s are significantly slower, and that somehow that's Apple's biggest problem.
MHz don't match up across processor families. Architectural considerations, not to mention OSes, come into play too. While the discussion I've seen seems to call into question whether G4s are actually 30% faster than P4s per MHz, there's clearly enough evidence to indicate that the G4 can hold its own! Why, then, this insistence that it doesn't measure up?
OK, calm down. MoneyT was quoting averages. No one's contesting the fact that you can surf the Web on an old 486, or that there are dead Macs out there. The point was about the average lifespan of a Mac vs. a PC.
And if the 5-year-old Macs you have at work don't boot, why are you starting them up and whacking them? No amount of usability will save you from a dead hard drive.
Exactly. Open Source is a great way to develop software back ends, but user interfaces are by their very nature designed for people other than those who create them. By the time you've written a piece of code, you only need a rudimentary UI to use it.
The forces governing UI design for consumers are markedly different from those governing back ends. (That's part of what makes OS X a great OS...it uses Open Source where that's the best strategy, and proprietary code where it's more appropriate.)
Take a cue from Feynman...remember to play around with things. You got into CS in the first place because you like something about it. Maybe the problem-solving, maybe logic, whatever. Create fun projects for yourself doing whatever you like, even if it's pointless, even if it's been done before. In Feynman's case it led to some great research.
That said, I'll echo some of the other posts in suggesting you explore some other areas. I had a similar crisis my senior year and took Intellectual History, Abnormal Psych, design, and some other stuff. I ended up back on the same path, but with a far better idea of why I was there and where I wanted to go with it.
Find work doing what you love, and your job will be fun.
Nerf toys and funky offices are temporary diversions that can't possibly make for long-term job satisfaction. I think many Internet startups cultivated this environment in the hopes of keeping employees at work longer and getting more out of them. But if you work somewhere where people do good work because it's meaningful to them, it'll be a fun job and the company might have more of a chance at success.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow! I hope I'm right in feeling like he represents an unusual class of user: Impatient with many more traditional GUI conventions, but still interested in some handholding beyond doing everything from the command line.
Not to say you shouldn't try, of course. But bear in mind that different purposes, feature sets, and demographics are going to require different things. Consider what you want the site to be and do, and what your target users will expect and know.
There are some good books on Web design in particular, including Jakob Nielsen's Designing Web Usability and Flanders and Willis' Web Pages that Suck. You might also check out more general books on Human Factors and HCI, including Tufte's books on information design and Donald Norman's The Design of Everyday Things (these examples are just a few). You might also check out Jakob Nielsen's Web site at useit.com, both for the articles and for the links to other material. asktog.com is also sometimes helpful.
I'll echo an earlier response in pointing out that your mind already seems quite made up, between being proud of not owning a Mac and wondering why the story is slashdot-worthy. (Answer: Because it's news about the computer industry, like many other posts on slashdot.)
And if you absolutely must build your own PC, then no, don't get a Mac. If, on the other hand, you'd like an OS that lets you perform similar configuration at the software level, but still runs major consumer apps, OS X is a great choice.
Beyond that, when you're working in Photoshop or Word, you're not gonna notice a whole lot of significant differences between platforms. I share the view of a lot of Mac users that the user experience is better in a number of ways, but if you're happy with your Windows machines, no, there's probably no hugely compelling reason to switch, just as there's no real reason to be quite as anti-Mac as you seem to be.
Plus, cluster a bunch of old iMacs and it's still pretty cheap to just replace a broken one, and as you point out the human & time cost is minimal there.
I'll admit my understanding is incomplete, but I think if you multithread Cocoa apps, they can take advantage of multiple processors, at least on a single machine. The small amount of basic multithreading I've done seemed pretty easy, and Cocoa is relatively easy in itself, and uses Objective-C, so standard C (and I think C++?) code should compile. Can anyone fill in the details?
:) But I won't claim to understand how that relates to the cluster variety of parallel processing.
For what it's worth, I have a dual-processor Mac and when I pop up the CPU Monitor I see both processors hard at work
Interesting! I feel like they should play that up a little more. It may not be their most up-to-date offering, but the fact that they're still making a low-cost desktop home system shouldn't get lost, for all the reasons stated in this discussion.
I'd love to own a Mac, but I need a laptop, and the ones avaible from Apple only have the "look good" factor (as I'm vain, I'll prob. still buy one, but most ppl will not, and it's a shame)
I'd actually dispute that. I think most hard core computer users won't buy for looks, but I suspect that as computers become more and more a consumer commodity, mainstream consumers _will_ buy for looks rather than specs. For all that we compare processor speeds and graphics cards, any of these machines is going to get the job done for basic users, and people do want the "cool" factor. I think the success of the original iMac -- along with all its translucent plastic imitations in every product category -- is indicative of this trend.
I hope I'm right, too, because it seems like Apple's banking on it.
I have the same mouse. I think for the most part Microsoft is responsible for that fix: While two buttons and a scroll wheel have become somewhat standard, the back/forward buttons are unique to the MS mouse (and maybe a couple others?). If Apple expanded its mouse drivers I certainly wouldn't complain, but ultimately it's not their responsibility to write drivers for third-party quirks.
As to pressing the scroll wheel down, that's another story, since I believe that's somewhat of a standard. I could see Apple adding support for that. I actually thought it worked in some apps already but now I can't get it to.
I'm not entirely sure how that translates into American currency (sorry), but am I correct that you're saying the iBook is similar in features to a similarly-priced PC laptop, _except_ for a lower-powered graphics card?
So at least for non-serious-gaming, non-external-monitor users, it would come out comparable. Are the newer graphics cards that much more expensive than the RAGE 8Mb, or is there some other reason why Apple wouldn't have put in a newer chip?
You're right, though, that Apple doesn't have a base consumer model for the home. The original iMac took care of that nicely, but I think Apple's betting on people being willing to spend a bit extra -- even with cheaper comparable PCs -- for the flat display and small footprint of the new iMac. They may be right at that...only time will tell.
The best reasoning I've heard for that is that by opening up a clone market for the OS, Apple might compromise some ease of use and software-hardware integration. On the other hand, a fairly tight set of specs for OS licensing might fix the problem.
As I understand it, though, Apple makes much better profits from hardware than from software.
All that aside, yeah, price competition would be nice. I'd certainly be psyched to spend less on my Macs. But I guess the important thing from Apple's perspective is that I buy them anyway.
It has to therefore be valid to compare the lower end pcs as apple has no alternative. I'd love to be able to buy a nice cheap mac, but since they don't exist I buy PCs.
I guess there are two perspectives: (1) As you suggest, compare no-frills PCs because there's no Apple equivalent, or (2) Don't, because Apple doesn't seem to be targeting that demographic. Also, aren't iBooks fairly price-competitive at this point?
And comparing apple to premium PC brands it has to be said that for equivalent performance pcs still come out cheaper.
Is this taking into account the fact that MHz for MHz G4s are supposedly faster than P4s (how much isn't clear, though Apple claims something like 30%)? I'd be interested to see a side-by-side comparison in terms of real-world performance of Macs and equivalent Sony VAIOs. Be kinda cool to get some hard facts out there, regardless of which side wins :)
On the other hand, while I can see usability reasons for sticking with 1-button mice, I can't think of any for tiny keys on a non-laptop keyboard.
:)
Plus, if memory serves, Apple actually had full-sized extended keyboards for a while _before_ they introduced the smaller keys (was it with the iMac?) Those smaller F-keys drove me nuts.
But hey, you never know.
Obj-C turned me off at first too, but once you code in it for a couple days you get into the groove and actually start to like it. That was my experience anyway.
Every time someone posts a new Mac product announcement, we get these two ridiculous comments:
(1) "I could build a comparable Athlon box for way less money."
Yes, you probably could. But Apple is a premium brand. Think Sony. You do pay extra for an integrated software-hardware package, good industrial design, 90 days free tech support, etc. You may not need or want these things but some people do. In particular, Apple's ease of use is somewhat predicated on the OS knowing exactly what hardware configuration to expect, so the user doesn't have to mess around with device drivers and kernel extensions.
(2) "I can't believe Macs still have only a one-button mouse. What a bunch of morons. When will they get with the program?"
Buy a Mac. Then spend $15 and buy a 2-button scroll-wheel mouse. You won't have to install anything because OS X already supports it, context menus and all. My Mac's mouse has 4 buttons and a wheel. Macs come with a 1-button mouse for good reasons, like ease of use for first-time or novice users and purity of the original mouse metaphor (point at things and click on them). There are actually users out there (including PC users) who find the second button confusing and may not know what to do with it.
Sorry for the lengthy rant. But I just keep seeing these comments over and over again, and they miss the point.
Yeah, no kidding...dontcha envy those industries where things get _more_ valuable with time?
:)
Think processor upgrades...processor upgrades...
Plus we can probably get some GeForce 3's pretty cheap pretty soon
Where do you get this? Are you just making this up?
It's pretty clear that you don't know the facts and haven't used a recent Mac. I don't have usability test results to support my assertion that the UI is better, but I think they would. But there _are_ benchmarks, parallel features, and apps on both sides enough to make it very clear to anyone who's used both platforms that the Mac can easily hold its own.
My suggestion: Learn the facts before you post such negative comments. Then maybe people will take you seriously.
When you get _that_ old you get into the low end Mac community. I don't know if there's an Intel counterpart, but there are people modding old, old Macs and even Apple II's like crazy, swapping stories about all their uses, etc. Not my cup of tea but pretty cool nonetheless.
On the Palm vs. MS issue: My understanding is that these really are two different devices. Not that they aren't trying to attract the same customer base, but Palm is trying to be a true PDA (emphasis on "assistant") whereas MS is creating a small PC with all the bells and whistles (bloat, anyone?). For my money, I'll take the Palm approach.
While I'm a bit disappointed myself at the new release's lack of major innovation (I was really hoping for a built-in cell phone), Palm is moving forward while MS isn't. Palm OS is evolving toward information appliances: targeted devices whose UI reflects a context-appropriate set of tasks. This helps overcome one of the problems with monolithic PCs of any size: The overhead required to _start_ doing what you want to do. Most of the tools we interact with don't have this problem.
Build too many bells and whistles into a handheld device and it's just a laptop with limited screen space. Handhelds' interfaces need to reflect the fact that they get used on the go. What I've seen and heard of the MS devices (which is admittedly a fairly small sample size) suggests that they're not pursuing that goal the same way Palm is. And many of what I hear touted as MS-only features are available in some Palm OS configuration anyway.
Compaq still does. Plus I'm not just talking computers. Last time I walked into Linens 'N' Things I saw colorful translucent microwaves, colorful translucent phones, colorful translucent George Foreman grills...you get the idea.
Also, the point is not whether Apple's legal department overreacted but just that the imitation took place.
JonKatz keeps saying that consumers need ease of use, not hipness or coolness, but he's missed a very simple thing: Usability can't exist without coolness. A product that is drab but otherwise perfectly usable has a distinct competitive advantage, because it looks out of date and unprofessional, and fails to make users want to use it.
You insist that Jobs is wrong to pursue the form of his products so relentlessly, and that Gates is doing the right thing by largely ignoring it. But that's not what Microsoft is doing at all! Look at the effort that went into giving Win XP a pretty interface, or the fun little glowing red light on the MS IntelliMouse Explorer. On a more global level, look at what the original iMac did to the industry: now everyone's boxes have translucent plastics and come in different flavors.
I agree that people want stability on the level of a basic household appliance, and that we're not there yet. But I think that's a separate (though related) issue.
Usability is inseparable from aesthetics. But in addition, I think that as computers become more and more a basic consumer commodity, the aesthetics will continue to rise in importance, and hardware makers will again find themselves copying Apple. This wouldn't be the first time...look at the industrial designs for established consumer electronics like Walkmen, portable CD players, and to a lesser degree cell phones.
Yes! There seems to be this idea among many /. users in this discussion that G4s are significantly slower, and that somehow that's Apple's biggest problem.
MHz don't match up across processor families. Architectural considerations, not to mention OSes, come into play too. While the discussion I've seen seems to call into question whether G4s are actually 30% faster than P4s per MHz, there's clearly enough evidence to indicate that the G4 can hold its own! Why, then, this insistence that it doesn't measure up?
OK, calm down. MoneyT was quoting averages. No one's contesting the fact that you can surf the Web on an old 486, or that there are dead Macs out there. The point was about the average lifespan of a Mac vs. a PC.
And if the 5-year-old Macs you have at work don't boot, why are you starting them up and whacking them? No amount of usability will save you from a dead hard drive.
Exactly. Open Source is a great way to develop software back ends, but user interfaces are by their very nature designed for people other than those who create them. By the time you've written a piece of code, you only need a rudimentary UI to use it.
The forces governing UI design for consumers are markedly different from those governing back ends. (That's part of what makes OS X a great OS...it uses Open Source where that's the best strategy, and proprietary code where it's more appropriate.)
Take a cue from Feynman...remember to play around with things. You got into CS in the first place because you like something about it. Maybe the problem-solving, maybe logic, whatever. Create fun projects for yourself doing whatever you like, even if it's pointless, even if it's been done before. In Feynman's case it led to some great research.
That said, I'll echo some of the other posts in suggesting you explore some other areas. I had a similar crisis my senior year and took Intellectual History, Abnormal Psych, design, and some other stuff. I ended up back on the same path, but with a far better idea of why I was there and where I wanted to go with it.
Find work doing what you love, and your job will be fun.
Nerf toys and funky offices are temporary diversions that can't possibly make for long-term job satisfaction. I think many Internet startups cultivated this environment in the hopes of keeping employees at work longer and getting more out of them. But if you work somewhere where people do good work because it's meaningful to them, it'll be a fun job and the company might have more of a chance at success.