I liked OSes 8 and 9 despite their tendency towards crashing.
OS X, in my opinion breaks every "usability" paradigm, often to the point of causing the end-user grief.
For the record, I'm a multi-OS user as well. I use Win98, Win2k, WinXP, Redhat Linux, Debian Linux, and OpenBSD on a regular basis, and with a variety of window managers ranging from low-resource gobber XFCE to OSX's resource intensive Aqua.
That said, I LOVE OS X's Unix back-end and newfound stability, however Aqua is the most beautiful and least functional GUI that I've ever used (for an operating system, at least). It does not respond promptly, it eats more system resources, and it does not follow a consistent "paradigm" either by retaining consistency with existing GUIs, or by retaining consistency within itself.
My primary complaints being:
1- Drop shadows replacing window borders. I cannot grab and resize a window from an edge. I cannot comfortably use programs with multiple windows (think Electric Image Universe) because the shadows overlap the other windows. If I shut them off, I'm left with windows that do not have borders, and that blend into windows behind them. Neither one is livable.
2- Transparency. In some cases it's nice, in some cases it renders things unreadable. once agian, it's an "all or none" thing.
3- Placement of drives as they are mounted. It's haphazard. Sometimes my CD-ROM will come up in the expected place, sometimes it will come up in the middle of the screen, sometimes it will come up behind another icon. The same with network icons. I have to minimize every window I have open in order to find where the drive has been mounted.
4- Placement of icons within folders. The default view is "icon view", and when I open a folder for the first time in "icon view", the icons are often overlapping.
5- Application menu. It contains things that have NOTHING to do with the application, and that I don't want to even SEE on the application menu.
6- Dock. It doesn't contain text descriptions of what the hell it is that's on the dock. To find something I have to mouse-over. I have multiple applications with similar icons, and have to mouse-over to find the windows for these applications. It's mystery meat navigation, and a poor implementation of it because THE ICONS CHANGE POSITION TOO! Yes, that's right- if I have my icons nicely placed, then open an application it will show up on the Dock and move all the other icons around. Alltogether this adds up to requiring me to keep the dock 3-4 times larger than I'd like to have it, and to mouse-over every time I need to find something. Also, because the dock has to be so large in order for me to reap its functionality, I have to have it auto-hide, which means that the bottom part of my screen is unusable, because if I go down there, the dock pops up again.
7- Quartz. It offloads to my video card which increases system performance but makes my video card perform like shit until I've de-aquified OS X.
If just those complaints were taken care of, I'd consider OS X to be fairly usable. I'm even willing to let certain annoyances go--like the presence of the trash can on the dock. (I prefer mine on the desktop, but understand the rationale for having it located on the dock instead), OS X's over-use of the color white (eye burn)--it's pretty, and I can just down the contrast and brightness on my monitor until it's gray, anyway. i'm not a graphics person. Stripes. Don't like them, never will, but it's an aesthetics thing, I'm not going to nitpick too much about aesthetics... Honestly, my list of complaints is 10 miles long, but those 7 are the only "deal killers" for me. If Apple were to provide reasonable settings for these, or an "OS 9 skin", then I'd LOVE to be on my G3 24/7. I LOVE the idea of using Photoshop and hopping out to the command line for a few minutes to take care of some business. It's just the GUI that I hate, and I hate it all the more because Apple has always had a wonderful easy to use GUI. Aqua un-does all of that.
Actually, I wasn't talking about finances. I was talking about usability. I have no doubt Apple is showing a profit, how could they not? They're selling pretty plastic things to the masses.
Unfortunately most of the people I deal with are still using an older version of Fetch (fetch FTP) on an older version of the Mac OS, and have enough difficulty setting "binary transfer" vs. text or automatic.
Or worse, AOL's FTP function.
Granted, SFTP or FTP over SSL is a WONDERFUL thing, and I have had pretty good success with getting the end-user to start using it. But it's not as 100% sure-fire as straight FTP as far as "will the person be able to figure it out?"
1.) Whether or not a Mac is a "better computer" is EXTREMELY open to debate. Almost as open as statement number three. (That one depends on the end user. Some end users are wonderful, others can't figure out how to copy and paste, let alone install a program.)
2- Fugu does look quite nice, but programs with that functionality is hardly limited to OS X, which brings me back to your first point... If you want someone to listen to you, to take your comments seriously, and to take the platform seriously, don't argue with bullshit, foggy, arbitrary things. It makes you just as bad as the idiots out there who are using *ADOBE PRODUCTS* as an argument for-Mac anti-windows.
3.) I love the Mac quite dearly, but it's going through tough times right now, and everyone who blindly evangelizes it makes me want to puke.
::posts and prepares to be modded flamebait. But sometimes I just don't give a damn::
Good point--if no authentication is needed, then it can be pretty secure running chrooted (Although chroots are not that difficult to break.) If he did it under BSD and jailed it, it would probably be safer.
You're also slightly less likely to be threatened with root exploits when using HTTP instead of FTP. Especially if you're already maintaining an HTTP server on the particular machine in use--because you already HAVE that security hole open. Rather than opening another hole, you're using one that's already there.
Unfortunately HTTP is still a more secure protocol because HTTP clients can easily implement SSL encryption for passwords and sensitive data transfer. When you're dealing with a client who insists on using an outdated, but "easy" FTP client, it's not easy to tell them they have to change, and it's even less easy to tell them what they have to change to.
FTP is notoriously difficult to secure while retaining ease of use for the clueless end-user.
*laughs* "suggest flight, mobility, and forward movement" yeah right. More like "Suggests that the art director hired someone who doesn't know how to use Photoshop/Illustrator, and is impressed by simple shapes"
Intel... The logo on your computer just got uglier.
Interesting. I've had an extremely hard time adapting to OS X's aqua GUI (Hard time for me--that is.), while I've found frequent changes from DOS->Win3.0->Win3.1->Win95->OS7/8/9->Rhapsody->Lin uxw/KDE->Linuxw/Gnome->Win2k/WinXP painless and intuitive.
Granted, it's more the "things that just do not work right" issues than it is Apple's new paragigm. It's not even that I want OS X to behave like the old Mac OS that I'm used to. It's just simple little things like how folders open up with everything overlapping no matter what the folder is set to view as, and windows having no borders other than the shadows--which make working in multiple window environments difficult--but if the shadows are shut off, you can't see where a window begins and where one ends. And the way there's no windowshade anymore, and the way the corner of the window that's most likely to stick out has the button that turns off part of the window, instead of having a minimize button. And the way the dock moves around and there's no way to control the absolute position of something--it sucks to have to examine the dock every time you use it to find where something has moved. The dock also has to be really large in order to be beneficial--because it doesn't carry text lables. If two apps have similar icons, you're going to be lost until you do a mouse-over. There's too little you can tell from a single glance. It's mystery meat navigation--the same thing that Slashdotters scream about when it comes to the web--but somehow it's okay in a GUI?
Your post starts out making sense to me--but in the end of it, when you talk about OS X you contradict yourself. OS X is like taking a mountain bike that has a thousand features that a user might use day-in day-out, changing the frame to a lightweight but extremely durable core (Unix), but also changing the entire way that the bike looks, operates, accelerates, brakes, etc... And in some cases removing some of the most-used features.
I think it has more to do with "It's less painful to upgrade now than it is to upgrade down the line". Sure, some of them are because the management is full of morons, but there are valid reasons to move away from older applications--if the mainframe is approaching old age and there are concerns about how much longer it will live, for example. The necessity of purchasing new hardware, checking compatibility, etc. makes this "upgrade time" a perfect window of opportunity to do a mass migration to a new system while support and information exists for that mass migration.
Another "not so valid" reason is that as younger people come into the office, a lot of them will view mainframes and older interfaces as outdated, backwards, and kludgy to learn. Training will be more difficult for new/young employees.
And hey--don't most mainframe migrations go from Unix->Linux/Solaris and not Unix->Windows?
The poster of the parent is one of the sweetest little creatures when it comes to talking to users, to the point of doing step-by-step tutorials with screenshots, and would NEVER think of talking down to them or cricitizing them in any way to their face. It's counterproductive. The best way to get them to learn is to praise them to death and tell them they're wonderful when they learn the difference between click and double-click. I've been praised for my patience and wonderfulness when it comes to teaching people stuff.
But that doesn't change my view--if someone cannot and will not learn what an icon means then they're something wrong with them mentally. (All the more reason why I shouldn't be mean to them). You don't open up a file cabinet and throw your file in at random if you want to find it down the road. You don't bring the paper you want a copy of into just any store--you look at the signs in the window to determine whether or not the store has a copier in it--otherwise you'll end up running the paper through a coffee machine.
People who expect computers to read their minds are NEVER going to get anywhere.
The user that cannot recognize an icon and search a 2-foot by 2-foot area (if that) for an icon will never be able to use complex software. (The exception, of course, being bright blind people to whom icons are meaningless)
User interface improvements can make the world much better for all of us and not just the computer-stupid.
The computer-stupid have no business using a program like excel or powerpoint, or a GUI like OS X, OS 9, Windows, KDE, Gnome, or any other GUI in existance. They need a GUI like the old PCAOL (By AOL 2.5 the GUI was too complex for the average user) where they turn on the computer and a screen comes up with 4 or 5 large sized picture-icons with large text next to them that says "READ AND WRITE EMAIL", "SURF THE WEB", "PLAY SOLITAIRE", etc. and then each of these has to be TOTALLY simplistic with NO configuration, no options, no anything. In fact, remembering email addresses is WAY too hard--there should be an address book that has pictures of the people.:pbr>
You know, the type of thing that WE would never use, and that WE would be loathe to design, program, or implement.
MS should do it and call it 'Windows EZ' Computing for the comman man.
No. I'm saying that if you use a tack-hammer and upgrade to a full hammer, then you should expect the handle to be larger, and the swing to be different.
If you upgrade from a 2 speed bike to a 10 speed bike, you need to shift differently.
If you upgrade from a bike with pedal-brakes to one with hand-brakes, you really need to learn how to use the hand brakes because if you insist upon using the pedal brakes on a bike that does not have them, you WILL crash.
I'm saying that users are unable to make SIMPLE changes--and that if programmers only catered to the needs of the end-user who was unable to make SIMPLE changes, then software would still be what it was in 1995, and applications would not have the added features that DO add to productivity.
Granted, this does not apply to total destruction of user-interface guidelines in ways that do not benefit the end-user. The perfect example of a foolish/harmful leap in paradigm is OS 9 to OS X's Aqua GUI. When my father in law has to upgrade his old computer, he will have to move to Windows because it's closer to the GUI that he knows how to use. He'd never be able to understand Aqua. Too much too fast, and not very user-friendly--even for someone who understands the changes.
The user-moron I'm talking about is the one that doesn't like the upgrade from a 15 inch monitor to a 17 inch monitor because it moves things around. The person who has memorised the POSITION of an icon, and not the icon itself. The person who starts screaming like a stuck pig because he/she is unable to READ WHAT THE FREAKING ICON SAYS! Those people make up a significant portion of the complaining-users.
Err. I wasn't talking about changing the LOOK of the print button, just moving it. How hard is it to look and see "Okay, the printer-button is now over there.."? I mean- if you drive a Dodge and you buy a newer Dodge--chances are the Dodge-makers have done some studying in the meantime and have tried to improve the interface. This doesn't mean that the gas pedal has been moved to where the brake is, and vice-versa, but the position of the ignition might be changed slightly, the radio might be where you're used to having your coffee-cup-holder, and the release button on the glove compartment might be changed.
Experience with dealing with end-users who are reacting to changes in software states that if similar (non-major) changes have been made that DO increase the usability for someone who has never driven a Dodge before, the old Dodge-drivers will need to take a 6 hour training seminar to learn how to open the glove compartment.
It's NOT the fault of the software engineers--people who are comfortable with computers can adapt to these changes very easily--the problem is that most people NEVER LOOK at the button they're pressing. They memorize the area of the screen, and will similarly be fscked up by a change in SCREEN RESOLUTION because they never realized that the little icon on the "print button" is of a freaking printer.
The USER MORON makes up the majority of non-tech-software users. In a *LOT* of ways, it's better for the programmer to make things look very different and act very different--because then they'll recieve fewer support calls asking "Why is my align-right button printing?" because the user will realize that the interface is new and will instead pursue training to learn where the new right-align button is located.
Think about it--If you're a programmer, and you do need to make a few changes to accomodate the feature requests or organizational requests that you've gotten from a number of end-users, would you rather have the support staff answering crazy questions like the align-right button printing, or answer "How do I find my align-right button?". If the changes elicit clearer questions, then... Hey.
To put it simply, USERS ARE MORONS. Most user-ware (ie: officeware and consumerware, not higher-tech software like IDEs, graphics software, audio software, etc.) software these days falls into three categories:
Category 1: MAJOR overhaul from either old mainframe or DOS-based application from proprietary vendors who have long-since gone out of business, and that won't run on any computer less than 10 years old. This is VERY common, and often gets the most complaints (as it should) from disgruntled employees who are used to the old systems. These types of upgrades cause the most grief, unfortunately they're necessary because you can no longer obtain hardware that will allow you to print, run the programs, or basically be productive.
Category 2: Cross-grades. Changing from one vendor to another because the vendor has a.) gone out of business, b.) started charging astronomical fees for upgrades or support or c.) some major flaw has been discovered with the software that allows Bob from maintenance to log in as the CEO and give himself a 6 figure pay raise. This involves "transferral of concepts", ie: the brain power to realize "Hey, this is more or less the same damned software, just the buttons are in different places and the 'About' dialog says copyright 2001 Company A and not Copyright 2000 Company B.."
Category 3: Upgrades between versions. Ie: from Office 2000 to Office XP. Everything works pretty much the same, looks pretty much the same, it's just a bit less crashy and has some features that didn't exist in the old version. These are usually the most annoying upgrades of all because they cost the management a bloody fortune and reduce them to a growly mess that wants to see 3000% productivity increases. HOWEVER, it's no re-learning, despite what your secretary or co-worker says, it's just a transferral of skills and a TINY bit of new stuff to learn.
I'm not saying that a lot of stuff comes with unnecessary bulk and expense, I'm just saying that a LOT of the complaining is from someone who can't figure out that the "align center" button has moved three places over, and that the little printer icon in the area that it used to be in will NOT align center, and will--in fact--print out whatever is on screen, whether or not you want it to.
As for "the product your customer wants", NO product is for a single customer, but every product is expected to meet the requirements of every customer... Your deaf grandmother might not want to play MP3's, and Bob from maintenance might believe anything but the old fashioned vinyl is immoral, but a LARGE number of people would be very happy to see that functionality built into everything, including their hair dryers.
The big beef I have with software developers is often that functionality is REMOVED for no good reason.
Hmm.. Your rationale sounds like my reasons for being so [bitchy pissy ranty ravy angry hell-bent-against] OS X--if people would just shut up about Revolutionary-Wonderful-Thewayofthefuture-Fantasti c-100%there, then I'd admit it's one hell of an idea, but because there's at least 400% hype surrounding it, I want to take my Mac and throw it through the window whenever someone says "OS X is wonderful".
The reason this is DIFFERENT from the Linux-issue is that Linux is a GOOD OS, and it's free, and if I have a problem with it I can CHANGE it. (I have.) It gives me a variety of choices. I don't believe Linux has to triumph over Microsoft, in fact I think that everyone should have a multiboot system. Mine boots between a flavor of BSD, two flavors of Linux, Win2k, WinXP, and Win98, I wouldn't feel functional without these choices. Yes, that's right. I'm one of the Linux-heads, and I wouldn't want to try working without WinXP and 2K on my system.
Just because people are fanatics doesn't mean you need to go trashing a decent OS, and a movement that IS good. My mom can't afford a new computer, and doesn't have needs to justify taking out another mortage on her house to fund the latest and greatest of hardware--For her, Linux IS a godsend. Me- I buy nice new shiny toys that can run the latest greates MS OS and KDE (if that's not bloatware, what is?) My line of work justifies me having faster hardware. My mom doesn't need it--she uses only 5% of Windows 95's capabilities--why in the world would she need Windows XP?
The ability to run Linux on a slow machine is godsend. Not for everyone, but for those who seriously cannot afford the latest and greatest, and have no pressing need for it. When I was 15 I owned my first computer. It would only run DOS... A 286 with 512K of RAM and a 40MB hard drive. This was in 1995, and Windows95 was coming out, and I was plugging happily away on DOS, but running into limitations right and left. If I translated that situation into today, I could easily just throw Linux onto today's equivilent of that old 286 machine and have a powerful fully functional OS that wouldn't limit me in any way. With Windows I'd be stuck with Win95--something I do not consider all that functional.
Hm. Linux != soup kitchen/orphanage. Linux IS competition for Windows. Imagine it this way--if an orphanage and soup kitchen existed that rivaled the cusine and care available at the commercial institutions, was free, and was available to any level of income including the rich... Wouldn't life be harder for the commercial supermarkets and daycare?
Linux suits me with distros like Debian and Slackware, however it's also started to suit people like my grandmother--whose computer is old and cannot run Windows very well. Throw XFCE on it, and she's got a very live-able GUI that doesn't confuse her. My mom has more modern hardware but can't afford WinXPPro, and WinXPHome sucks monkey butt, Redhat Linux 8.0 works wonders on her computer, and reduces the support trips I need to make home to recover the document she accidentally put in the system folder and can't get out for fear of damaging the system. (Yes, Linux CAN be great for the computer illiterate)
Wow, I just looked at your history of posting, and I don't think I've ever seen that many "I hate this OS" posts in my life.
Do you really think that the whole idea of OSS would even SOUND like something that would work? Yet Linux and BSD and all the OSS products that are out on the market ARE working, ARE being developed, and in a lot of situations are much better than their commercial counterparts. (Think Apple, Microsoft, Sun)
While a "Linux house" is much more involved, since there needs lumber and other materials, manual labor, etc. It's not entirely un-realistic. You'd still have to purchase your lumber and building supplies--but who said geeks are opposed to spending money? We're perfectly willing to purchase the hardware that runs our OS. As for blueprints, that would be the "Open" part, and remember... The whole idea of having to buy a pre-built house or have one built for you by contractors is actually a fairly recent idea. Look back to the 1800s/1900s and there were barn raisings, house building parties, etc. That's the community.
I'd love to know the history of the bee you seem to have up your butt about Linux/OSS.
Hm. Have you installed Linux lately? Me thinks not. While Linux doesn't just take over control of your computer and make every decision on its own, certain distros like Redhat allow you to do a "Dummy's install" and the number of steps involved are extremelly limited and clear even to those who aren't entirely sure what a "Mouse" is.
Granted, what you said DOES apply to the gentoo-house.:p But the gentoo-house is not reccomended for the general public.
Err. Actually, you'll be able to close the door and lock it with your preference of locks, and the locks will work. With the MS-House you can lock it up with what looks to be an industrial-strength lock, but then someone can always climb in through the mailbox. =]
The only way to have a secure MS-house is if you situate it inside of a BSD or Linux-moat/outer castle wall.
Not necessarily. Certain elements of the "House of Tomorrow" are prototypes, or currently-working technologies that are merely faking the "futuristic" technologies that MS hopes are to come. Like the barcoder-scanner-microwave. Yeah you could do it, but you'd have to manually program in each barcode and tell the microwave how long it would take to cook--I think that MS's vision is that the microwaves or cans would come with that information and remove the manual element. Granted, if you had the cash you could hire a thousand monkeys to catalog your favorite canned delights. Although, I should hope that if you had that type of money you'd opt for a great cook instead.
Certainly you could duplicate everything that MS did, and even take it further--but the primary purpose of the "House of Tomorrow" isn't to demonstrate technology so much as it is to hint at what's to come. Like the article said--not everything is working perfectly just yet, and all of it would be more trouble to implement than it would be worth. I think the point of the whole thing is that the technology is becoming easier to deploy, things are becoming more automated and accepted in common culture, and people are becoming more accepting of technology in the household and less paranoid about the possibilities of having so much intelligent machinery around. Prices are also dropping, which means that these technologies are within the grasp of those with a few paltry millions, making the major stumbling block the IMPLEMENTATION and CHOREOGRAPHY between the parts, and not the cost, or even (ultimately) the basic technologies behind it all.
All the more reason to opt for a Linux-house or BSD-house. Everything's made with open technology, so when you don't like something you just have to poke around at it until it changes. You have your choice of how you want your house to look, and you can tweak it quite a bit. Plus, since it's open you don't have to go to the locksmith's when you want to change the keys. Just grind your own.
Applehouse and MSHouse are a tad bit too restrictive for my tastes. I'll stick it out and wait for GPLHouse, even if it won't always support the latest and greatest new House-ware.
And, of course, RedHouse will make every House-UI look alike, which will confuse you to death when you expect something to act one way, but it acts a different way... Until you realize you're in Gnome-House and not KDE-House.
Gentoo-house would be interesting.... Quite interesting. But somehow I think that most of the population would end up making a mistake and locking themselves out of it.
And bloody hell, the Everything-Drake Mandrake house with Toilet-drake, espressomachine-drake, chair-drake... Ok. I admit it, even the Linux-Houses will have their issues.
Heh. Actually, AppleHome would be see-through and striped, and come in all the colors of the rainbow or a cool titanium finish that would scratch and dent. =] You could only have 1 or 2 Rooms in it (5.25 bays), but the Rooms would do everything (Superdrive/combodrive) You'd only be permitted to run AppleHomeOS on it, until someone came out with LinuxHomeOS For the AppleHome. AppleHome users would account for only 10% of the population, but would be MUCH more vocal about their love of the AppleHome than MS users.
And if you used something in Beta, you'd erase your bedroom (iTunes, Safari)
It would definitely have better aesthetics than Microsoft-Home, though. Eeek.
Orens coffees are delicious, and fresh. I buy a half pound every week, and grind it fresh just before I make the coffee for the morning. It is quite sweet. =] And you can order online: Orens Daily Roast
Another safe bet is to get anything spanish. Even the pre-ground junk you buy in a cheesy grocery store that requires you to brush the dust off the top of the package seems to taste great compared to the American swill. =]
When I go for breakfast I bring a thermos of coffee from home to avoid drinking the junk they serve. I like it black, so masking the taste with milk/sugar just makes it taste worse.:p
The primary problem with American coffee is that people brew it, then let it sit for ages, or re-use or overuse the grounds. Two tablespoons of grounds can make maybe 8 cups of coffee before it starts getting horridly bitter.
You say that like people CARE about "open". In fact, a lot of people (non-techs, and even some MS-head techs) think that "Open Source" means two things. 1- Free (thus cheap and flawed) and 2- BAD because it's a "security risk" and so on and so forth.
They'd have to change the way people THINK in order to get them to adopt a new "standard", and that's QUITE hard. A lot of people still don't know that "Mac" is a different type of computer, and that it's not made by Microsoft, and that it's not a "Microsoft Mac". (I knew someone who called computers Microsoft-IBMs and Microsoft-Macs because they ran office, and because he didn't know what the hell he was talking about.) There are a LOT of people like this. In fact, MOST people are like this. Why do you think MS stuff is so popular? Because a lot of people STILL don't know anything else exists.
Slashdot Mirror
I liked OSes 8 and 9 despite their tendency towards crashing.
OS X, in my opinion breaks every "usability" paradigm, often to the point of causing the end-user grief.
For the record, I'm a multi-OS user as well. I use Win98, Win2k, WinXP, Redhat Linux, Debian Linux, and OpenBSD on a regular basis, and with a variety of window managers ranging from low-resource gobber XFCE to OSX's resource intensive Aqua.
That said, I LOVE OS X's Unix back-end and newfound stability, however Aqua is the most beautiful and least functional GUI that I've ever used (for an operating system, at least). It does not respond promptly, it eats more system resources, and it does not follow a consistent "paradigm" either by retaining consistency with existing GUIs, or by retaining consistency within itself.
My primary complaints being:
1- Drop shadows replacing window borders. I cannot grab and resize a window from an edge. I cannot comfortably use programs with multiple windows (think Electric Image Universe) because the shadows overlap the other windows. If I shut them off, I'm left with windows that do not have borders, and that blend into windows behind them. Neither one is livable.
2- Transparency. In some cases it's nice, in some cases it renders things unreadable. once agian, it's an "all or none" thing.
3- Placement of drives as they are mounted. It's haphazard. Sometimes my CD-ROM will come up in the expected place, sometimes it will come up in the middle of the screen, sometimes it will come up behind another icon. The same with network icons. I have to minimize every window I have open in order to find where the drive has been mounted.
4- Placement of icons within folders. The default view is "icon view", and when I open a folder for the first time in "icon view", the icons are often overlapping.
5- Application menu. It contains things that have NOTHING to do with the application, and that I don't want to even SEE on the application menu.
6- Dock. It doesn't contain text descriptions of what the hell it is that's on the dock. To find something I have to mouse-over. I have multiple applications with similar icons, and have to mouse-over to find the windows for these applications. It's mystery meat navigation, and a poor implementation of it because THE ICONS CHANGE POSITION TOO! Yes, that's right- if I have my icons nicely placed, then open an application it will show up on the Dock and move all the other icons around. Alltogether this adds up to requiring me to keep the dock 3-4 times larger than I'd like to have it, and to mouse-over every time I need to find something. Also, because the dock has to be so large in order for me to reap its functionality, I have to have it auto-hide, which means that the bottom part of my screen is unusable, because if I go down there, the dock pops up again.
7- Quartz. It offloads to my video card which increases system performance but makes my video card perform like shit until I've de-aquified OS X.
If just those complaints were taken care of, I'd consider OS X to be fairly usable. I'm even willing to let certain annoyances go--like the presence of the trash can on the dock. (I prefer mine on the desktop, but understand the rationale for having it located on the dock instead), OS X's over-use of the color white (eye burn)--it's pretty, and I can just down the contrast and brightness on my monitor until it's gray, anyway. i'm not a graphics person. Stripes. Don't like them, never will, but it's an aesthetics thing, I'm not going to nitpick too much about aesthetics... Honestly, my list of complaints is 10 miles long, but those 7 are the only "deal killers" for me. If Apple were to provide reasonable settings for these, or an "OS 9 skin", then I'd LOVE to be on my G3 24/7. I LOVE the idea of using Photoshop and hopping out to the command line for a few minutes to take care of some business. It's just the GUI that I hate, and I hate it all the more because Apple has always had a wonderful easy to use GUI. Aqua un-does all of that.
-Sara
Actually, I wasn't talking about finances. I was talking about usability. I have no doubt Apple is showing a profit, how could they not? They're selling pretty plastic things to the masses.
-Sara
*laughs*
Unfortunately most of the people I deal with are still using an older version of Fetch (fetch FTP) on an older version of the Mac OS, and have enough difficulty setting "binary transfer" vs. text or automatic.
Or worse, AOL's FTP function.
Granted, SFTP or FTP over SSL is a WONDERFUL thing, and I have had pretty good success with getting the end-user to start using it. But it's not as 100% sure-fire as straight FTP as far as "will the person be able to figure it out?"
-Sara
1.) Whether or not a Mac is a "better computer" is EXTREMELY open to debate. Almost as open as statement number three. (That one depends on the end user. Some end users are wonderful, others can't figure out how to copy and paste, let alone install a program.)
::posts and prepares to be modded flamebait. But sometimes I just don't give a damn::
2- Fugu does look quite nice, but programs with that functionality is hardly limited to OS X, which brings me back to your first point... If you want someone to listen to you, to take your comments seriously, and to take the platform seriously, don't argue with bullshit, foggy, arbitrary things. It makes you just as bad as the idiots out there who are using *ADOBE PRODUCTS* as an argument for-Mac anti-windows.
3.) I love the Mac quite dearly, but it's going through tough times right now, and everyone who blindly evangelizes it makes me want to puke.
-Sara
Good point--if no authentication is needed, then it can be pretty secure running chrooted (Although chroots are not that difficult to break.) If he did it under BSD and jailed it, it would probably be safer.
-Sara
You're also slightly less likely to be threatened with root exploits when using HTTP instead of FTP. Especially if you're already maintaining an HTTP server on the particular machine in use--because you already HAVE that security hole open. Rather than opening another hole, you're using one that's already there.
-Sara
Unfortunately HTTP is still a more secure protocol because HTTP clients can easily implement SSL encryption for passwords and sensitive data transfer. When you're dealing with a client who insists on using an outdated, but "easy" FTP client, it's not easy to tell them they have to change, and it's even less easy to tell them what they have to change to.
FTP is notoriously difficult to secure while retaining ease of use for the clueless end-user.
-Sara
*laughs* "suggest flight, mobility, and forward movement" yeah right. More like "Suggests that the art director hired someone who doesn't know how to use Photoshop/Illustrator, and is impressed by simple shapes"
Intel... The logo on your computer just got uglier.
-Sara
Interesting. I've had an extremely hard time adapting to OS X's aqua GUI (Hard time for me--that is.), while I've found frequent changes from DOS->Win3.0->Win3.1->Win95->OS7/8/9->Rhapsody->Lin uxw/KDE->Linuxw/Gnome->Win2k/WinXP painless and intuitive.
Granted, it's more the "things that just do not work right" issues than it is Apple's new paragigm. It's not even that I want OS X to behave like the old Mac OS that I'm used to. It's just simple little things like how folders open up with everything overlapping no matter what the folder is set to view as, and windows having no borders other than the shadows--which make working in multiple window environments difficult--but if the shadows are shut off, you can't see where a window begins and where one ends. And the way there's no windowshade anymore, and the way the corner of the window that's most likely to stick out has the button that turns off part of the window, instead of having a minimize button. And the way the dock moves around and there's no way to control the absolute position of something--it sucks to have to examine the dock every time you use it to find where something has moved. The dock also has to be really large in order to be beneficial--because it doesn't carry text lables. If two apps have similar icons, you're going to be lost until you do a mouse-over. There's too little you can tell from a single glance. It's mystery meat navigation--the same thing that Slashdotters scream about when it comes to the web--but somehow it's okay in a GUI?
Your post starts out making sense to me--but in the end of it, when you talk about OS X you contradict yourself. OS X is like taking a mountain bike that has a thousand features that a user might use day-in day-out, changing the frame to a lightweight but extremely durable core (Unix), but also changing the entire way that the bike looks, operates, accelerates, brakes, etc... And in some cases removing some of the most-used features.
How is that user friendly?
-Sara
I think it has more to do with "It's less painful to upgrade now than it is to upgrade down the line". Sure, some of them are because the management is full of morons, but there are valid reasons to move away from older applications--if the mainframe is approaching old age and there are concerns about how much longer it will live, for example. The necessity of purchasing new hardware, checking compatibility, etc. makes this "upgrade time" a perfect window of opportunity to do a mass migration to a new system while support and information exists for that mass migration.
Another "not so valid" reason is that as younger people come into the office, a lot of them will view mainframes and older interfaces as outdated, backwards, and kludgy to learn. Training will be more difficult for new/young employees.
And hey--don't most mainframe migrations go from Unix->Linux/Solaris and not Unix->Windows?
-Sara
The poster of the parent is one of the sweetest little creatures when it comes to talking to users, to the point of doing step-by-step tutorials with screenshots, and would NEVER think of talking down to them or cricitizing them in any way to their face. It's counterproductive. The best way to get them to learn is to praise them to death and tell them they're wonderful when they learn the difference between click and double-click. I've been praised for my patience and wonderfulness when it comes to teaching people stuff.
But that doesn't change my view--if someone cannot and will not learn what an icon means then they're something wrong with them mentally. (All the more reason why I shouldn't be mean to them). You don't open up a file cabinet and throw your file in at random if you want to find it down the road. You don't bring the paper you want a copy of into just any store--you look at the signs in the window to determine whether or not the store has a copier in it--otherwise you'll end up running the paper through a coffee machine.
People who expect computers to read their minds are NEVER going to get anywhere.
-Sara
The user that cannot recognize an icon and search a 2-foot by 2-foot area (if that) for an icon will never be able to use complex software. (The exception, of course, being bright blind people to whom icons are meaningless)
:pbr>
User interface improvements can make the world much better for all of us and not just the computer-stupid.
The computer-stupid have no business using a program like excel or powerpoint, or a GUI like OS X, OS 9, Windows, KDE, Gnome, or any other GUI in existance. They need a GUI like the old PCAOL (By AOL 2.5 the GUI was too complex for the average user) where they turn on the computer and a screen comes up with 4 or 5 large sized picture-icons with large text next to them that says "READ AND WRITE EMAIL", "SURF THE WEB", "PLAY SOLITAIRE", etc. and then each of these has to be TOTALLY simplistic with NO configuration, no options, no anything. In fact, remembering email addresses is WAY too hard--there should be an address book that has pictures of the people.
You know, the type of thing that WE would never use, and that WE would be loathe to design, program, or implement.
MS should do it and call it 'Windows EZ' Computing for the comman man.
-Sara
No. I'm saying that if you use a tack-hammer and upgrade to a full hammer, then you should expect the handle to be larger, and the swing to be different.
If you upgrade from a 2 speed bike to a 10 speed bike, you need to shift differently.
If you upgrade from a bike with pedal-brakes to one with hand-brakes, you really need to learn how to use the hand brakes because if you insist upon using the pedal brakes on a bike that does not have them, you WILL crash.
I'm saying that users are unable to make SIMPLE changes--and that if programmers only catered to the needs of the end-user who was unable to make SIMPLE changes, then software would still be what it was in 1995, and applications would not have the added features that DO add to productivity.
Granted, this does not apply to total destruction of user-interface guidelines in ways that do not benefit the end-user. The perfect example of a foolish/harmful leap in paradigm is OS 9 to OS X's Aqua GUI. When my father in law has to upgrade his old computer, he will have to move to Windows because it's closer to the GUI that he knows how to use. He'd never be able to understand Aqua. Too much too fast, and not very user-friendly--even for someone who understands the changes.
The user-moron I'm talking about is the one that doesn't like the upgrade from a 15 inch monitor to a 17 inch monitor because it moves things around. The person who has memorised the POSITION of an icon, and not the icon itself. The person who starts screaming like a stuck pig because he/she is unable to READ WHAT THE FREAKING ICON SAYS! Those people make up a significant portion of the complaining-users.
-Sara
Err. I wasn't talking about changing the LOOK of the print button, just moving it. How hard is it to look and see "Okay, the printer-button is now over there.."? I mean- if you drive a Dodge and you buy a newer Dodge--chances are the Dodge-makers have done some studying in the meantime and have tried to improve the interface. This doesn't mean that the gas pedal has been moved to where the brake is, and vice-versa, but the position of the ignition might be changed slightly, the radio might be where you're used to having your coffee-cup-holder, and the release button on the glove compartment might be changed.
Experience with dealing with end-users who are reacting to changes in software states that if similar (non-major) changes have been made that DO increase the usability for someone who has never driven a Dodge before, the old Dodge-drivers will need to take a 6 hour training seminar to learn how to open the glove compartment.
It's NOT the fault of the software engineers--people who are comfortable with computers can adapt to these changes very easily--the problem is that most people NEVER LOOK at the button they're pressing. They memorize the area of the screen, and will similarly be fscked up by a change in SCREEN RESOLUTION because they never realized that the little icon on the "print button" is of a freaking printer.
The USER MORON makes up the majority of non-tech-software users. In a *LOT* of ways, it's better for the programmer to make things look very different and act very different--because then they'll recieve fewer support calls asking "Why is my align-right button printing?" because the user will realize that the interface is new and will instead pursue training to learn where the new right-align button is located.
Think about it--If you're a programmer, and you do need to make a few changes to accomodate the feature requests or organizational requests that you've gotten from a number of end-users, would you rather have the support staff answering crazy questions like the align-right button printing, or answer "How do I find my align-right button?". If the changes elicit clearer questions, then... Hey.
-Sara
To put it simply, USERS ARE MORONS. Most user-ware (ie: officeware and consumerware, not higher-tech software like IDEs, graphics software, audio software, etc.) software these days falls into three categories:
Category 1: MAJOR overhaul from either old mainframe or DOS-based application from proprietary vendors who have long-since gone out of business, and that won't run on any computer less than 10 years old. This is VERY common, and often gets the most complaints (as it should) from disgruntled employees who are used to the old systems. These types of upgrades cause the most grief, unfortunately they're necessary because you can no longer obtain hardware that will allow you to print, run the programs, or basically be productive.
Category 2: Cross-grades. Changing from one vendor to another because the vendor has a.) gone out of business, b.) started charging astronomical fees for upgrades or support or c.) some major flaw has been discovered with the software that allows Bob from maintenance to log in as the CEO and give himself a 6 figure pay raise. This involves "transferral of concepts", ie: the brain power to realize "Hey, this is more or less the same damned software, just the buttons are in different places and the 'About' dialog says copyright 2001 Company A and not Copyright 2000 Company B.."
Category 3: Upgrades between versions. Ie: from Office 2000 to Office XP. Everything works pretty much the same, looks pretty much the same, it's just a bit less crashy and has some features that didn't exist in the old version. These are usually the most annoying upgrades of all because they cost the management a bloody fortune and reduce them to a growly mess that wants to see 3000% productivity increases. HOWEVER, it's no re-learning, despite what your secretary or co-worker says, it's just a transferral of skills and a TINY bit of new stuff to learn.
I'm not saying that a lot of stuff comes with unnecessary bulk and expense, I'm just saying that a LOT of the complaining is from someone who can't figure out that the "align center" button has moved three places over, and that the little printer icon in the area that it used to be in will NOT align center, and will--in fact--print out whatever is on screen, whether or not you want it to.
As for "the product your customer wants", NO product is for a single customer, but every product is expected to meet the requirements of every customer... Your deaf grandmother might not want to play MP3's, and Bob from maintenance might believe anything but the old fashioned vinyl is immoral, but a LARGE number of people would be very happy to see that functionality built into everything, including their hair dryers.
The big beef I have with software developers is often that functionality is REMOVED for no good reason.
-Sara
Hmm.. Your rationale sounds like my reasons for being so [bitchy pissy ranty ravy angry hell-bent-against] OS X--if people would just shut up about Revolutionary-Wonderful-Thewayofthefuture-Fantasti c-100%there, then I'd admit it's one hell of an idea, but because there's at least 400% hype surrounding it, I want to take my Mac and throw it through the window whenever someone says "OS X is wonderful".
The reason this is DIFFERENT from the Linux-issue is that Linux is a GOOD OS, and it's free, and if I have a problem with it I can CHANGE it. (I have.) It gives me a variety of choices. I don't believe Linux has to triumph over Microsoft, in fact I think that everyone should have a multiboot system. Mine boots between a flavor of BSD, two flavors of Linux, Win2k, WinXP, and Win98, I wouldn't feel functional without these choices. Yes, that's right. I'm one of the Linux-heads, and I wouldn't want to try working without WinXP and 2K on my system.
Just because people are fanatics doesn't mean you need to go trashing a decent OS, and a movement that IS good. My mom can't afford a new computer, and doesn't have needs to justify taking out another mortage on her house to fund the latest and greatest of hardware--For her, Linux IS a godsend. Me- I buy nice new shiny toys that can run the latest greates MS OS and KDE (if that's not bloatware, what is?) My line of work justifies me having faster hardware. My mom doesn't need it--she uses only 5% of Windows 95's capabilities--why in the world would she need Windows XP?
The ability to run Linux on a slow machine is godsend. Not for everyone, but for those who seriously cannot afford the latest and greatest, and have no pressing need for it. When I was 15 I owned my first computer. It would only run DOS... A 286 with 512K of RAM and a 40MB hard drive. This was in 1995, and Windows95 was coming out, and I was plugging happily away on DOS, but running into limitations right and left. If I translated that situation into today, I could easily just throw Linux onto today's equivilent of that old 286 machine and have a powerful fully functional OS that wouldn't limit me in any way. With Windows I'd be stuck with Win95--something I do not consider all that functional.
-Sara
Hm. Linux != soup kitchen/orphanage. Linux IS competition for Windows. Imagine it this way--if an orphanage and soup kitchen existed that rivaled the cusine and care available at the commercial institutions, was free, and was available to any level of income including the rich... Wouldn't life be harder for the commercial supermarkets and daycare?
Linux suits me with distros like Debian and Slackware, however it's also started to suit people like my grandmother--whose computer is old and cannot run Windows very well. Throw XFCE on it, and she's got a very live-able GUI that doesn't confuse her. My mom has more modern hardware but can't afford WinXPPro, and WinXPHome sucks monkey butt, Redhat Linux 8.0 works wonders on her computer, and reduces the support trips I need to make home to recover the document she accidentally put in the system folder and can't get out for fear of damaging the system. (Yes, Linux CAN be great for the computer illiterate)
-Sara
Wow, I just looked at your history of posting, and I don't think I've ever seen that many "I hate this OS" posts in my life.
Do you really think that the whole idea of OSS would even SOUND like something that would work? Yet Linux and BSD and all the OSS products that are out on the market ARE working, ARE being developed, and in a lot of situations are much better than their commercial counterparts. (Think Apple, Microsoft, Sun)
While a "Linux house" is much more involved, since there needs lumber and other materials, manual labor, etc. It's not entirely un-realistic. You'd still have to purchase your lumber and building supplies--but who said geeks are opposed to spending money? We're perfectly willing to purchase the hardware that runs our OS. As for blueprints, that would be the "Open" part, and remember... The whole idea of having to buy a pre-built house or have one built for you by contractors is actually a fairly recent idea. Look back to the 1800s/1900s and there were barn raisings, house building parties, etc. That's the community.
I'd love to know the history of the bee you seem to have up your butt about Linux/OSS.
-Sara
Hm. Have you installed Linux lately? Me thinks not. While Linux doesn't just take over control of your computer and make every decision on its own, certain distros like Redhat allow you to do a "Dummy's install" and the number of steps involved are extremelly limited and clear even to those who aren't entirely sure what a "Mouse" is.
:p But the gentoo-house is not reccomended for the general public.
Granted, what you said DOES apply to the gentoo-house.
-Sara
Err. Actually, you'll be able to close the door and lock it with your preference of locks, and the locks will work. With the MS-House you can lock it up with what looks to be an industrial-strength lock, but then someone can always climb in through the mailbox. =]
The only way to have a secure MS-house is if you situate it inside of a BSD or Linux-moat/outer castle wall.
-Sara
Not necessarily. Certain elements of the "House of Tomorrow" are prototypes, or currently-working technologies that are merely faking the "futuristic" technologies that MS hopes are to come. Like the barcoder-scanner-microwave. Yeah you could do it, but you'd have to manually program in each barcode and tell the microwave how long it would take to cook--I think that MS's vision is that the microwaves or cans would come with that information and remove the manual element. Granted, if you had the cash you could hire a thousand monkeys to catalog your favorite canned delights. Although, I should hope that if you had that type of money you'd opt for a great cook instead.
Certainly you could duplicate everything that MS did, and even take it further--but the primary purpose of the "House of Tomorrow" isn't to demonstrate technology so much as it is to hint at what's to come. Like the article said--not everything is working perfectly just yet, and all of it would be more trouble to implement than it would be worth. I think the point of the whole thing is that the technology is becoming easier to deploy, things are becoming more automated and accepted in common culture, and people are becoming more accepting of technology in the household and less paranoid about the possibilities of having so much intelligent machinery around. Prices are also dropping, which means that these technologies are within the grasp of those with a few paltry millions, making the major stumbling block the IMPLEMENTATION and CHOREOGRAPHY between the parts, and not the cost, or even (ultimately) the basic technologies behind it all.
-Sara
All the more reason to opt for a Linux-house or BSD-house. Everything's made with open technology, so when you don't like something you just have to poke around at it until it changes. You have your choice of how you want your house to look, and you can tweak it quite a bit. Plus, since it's open you don't have to go to the locksmith's when you want to change the keys. Just grind your own.
/me exits
Applehouse and MSHouse are a tad bit too restrictive for my tastes. I'll stick it out and wait for GPLHouse, even if it won't always support the latest and greatest new House-ware.
And, of course, RedHouse will make every House-UI look alike, which will confuse you to death when you expect something to act one way, but it acts a different way... Until you realize you're in Gnome-House and not KDE-House.
Gentoo-house would be interesting.... Quite interesting. But somehow I think that most of the population would end up making a mistake and locking themselves out of it.
And bloody hell, the Everything-Drake Mandrake house with Toilet-drake, espressomachine-drake, chair-drake... Ok. I admit it, even the Linux-Houses will have their issues.
This is corny.
-Sara
Heh. Actually, AppleHome would be see-through and striped, and come in all the colors of the rainbow or a cool titanium finish that would scratch and dent. =] You could only have 1 or 2 Rooms in it (5.25 bays), but the Rooms would do everything (Superdrive/combodrive) You'd only be permitted to run AppleHomeOS on it, until someone came out with LinuxHomeOS For the AppleHome. AppleHome users would account for only 10% of the population, but would be MUCH more vocal about their love of the AppleHome than MS users.
And if you used something in Beta, you'd erase your bedroom (iTunes, Safari)
It would definitely have better aesthetics than Microsoft-Home, though. Eeek.
-Sara
Orens coffees are delicious, and fresh. I buy a half pound every week, and grind it fresh just before I make the coffee for the morning. It is quite sweet. =] And you can order online: Orens Daily Roast
:p
Another safe bet is to get anything spanish. Even the pre-ground junk you buy in a cheesy grocery store that requires you to brush the dust off the top of the package seems to taste great compared to the American swill. =]
When I go for breakfast I bring a thermos of coffee from home to avoid drinking the junk they serve. I like it black, so masking the taste with milk/sugar just makes it taste worse.
The primary problem with American coffee is that people brew it, then let it sit for ages, or re-use or overuse the grounds. Two tablespoons of grounds can make maybe 8 cups of coffee before it starts getting horridly bitter.
-Sara
You say that like people CARE about "open". In fact, a lot of people (non-techs, and even some MS-head techs) think that "Open Source" means two things. 1- Free (thus cheap and flawed) and 2- BAD because it's a "security risk" and so on and so forth.
They'd have to change the way people THINK in order to get them to adopt a new "standard", and that's QUITE hard. A lot of people still don't know that "Mac" is a different type of computer, and that it's not made by Microsoft, and that it's not a "Microsoft Mac". (I knew someone who called computers Microsoft-IBMs and Microsoft-Macs because they ran office, and because he didn't know what the hell he was talking about.) There are a LOT of people like this. In fact, MOST people are like this. Why do you think MS stuff is so popular? Because a lot of people STILL don't know anything else exists.
-Sara