There are still ham radio operators? In this day and age when we can use a cellphone to call a specific person on the other side of the world? When we can chat to anyone and everyone of whatever interest set via the internet?
Did you start before or after these wonders of modern technology arrived?
It's like they're creating a big holiday for a guy who happened to build a bunch of builds because they were really nice while at the same time ignoring the death of the guy who invented the concrete that is the basis for the construction that everybody uses, including that first guy.(Go ahead everybody, come up with your own analogy, it's fun.)
Ah, I get your analogy. You mean like how Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web, but he built it with a NeXT development system, So we have SJ to thank for the Internet too.
I mentioned the system tray in the first post to which you answered. It's fine for the purpose for which it's intended - background services which need a limited UI. But it's not suitable for somewhere to put normal applications once the last window is closed. Take my example of closing one document, then going to File|Open to open the next. If that File|Open is on a pop-up menu from a small icon in the system tray, then that's completely non-standard and non-intuitive for the user. Are there really any mainstream document applications that do that kludge? I suspect or at least hope not.
If you really need further convincing, consider this: Microsoft only does it the way they do because they feared following the Mac UI too closely for fear of being sued. Thats the reason menus are attached to Windows, not because it's better. And the automatic quitting when the last window closes is a symptom of that decision.
Remember when Microsoft came up with the Multiple Document Interface (MDI) concept? They were keen on the idea for a while, then dropped it. It's intended purpose was to fix this very problem I've described. To keep the application open, with a standard interface, even when the last document was closed. And also to save space by having a single menu for all the documents. MDI was an attempt to be more Mac like. Microsoft knew the Mac way was better. But they had to abandon it because it made things MORE complicated for users. It wasn't the simple and elegant method the Mac uses afterall. It only applied to a single application, ordinary users didn't understand the concept of nested windows, and it didn't work well with the taskbar.
Incidentally theres a similar story on the operation of menus. Mac has pull down menus. Windows, just to be different from the Mac has drop down menus. Drop down menus are a nuisance when you are wanting to do something somewhere near a menu and you overshoot, and the thing you wanted to click on is covered up. It then involves moving away from the area again and retrying.
A lot of the interface elements people think of as being normal/natural they are just used to because Windows does them that way. And very often they are not that way because it's the best way, but for legal reasons or follow on's from earlier bad decisions.
9 and 7 seconds are not a long time to start a program and load a file.
It's better than 30 seconds. It's a whole lot worse than zero seconds.
And since you brought up phones, I have a Nexus One. When I got it it would go about 1.5 days on a charge. Then I installed an application to kill background apps. Now the phone goes easily 2.5 days and is generally more responsive.
Which is why the iPhone doesn't multi-task. It keeps a background app in memory, if there is space, so that going back to it wastes no no time on loading. But background apps do not do any processing of their own. Best of both worlds.
In other words you're not a Mac user. So what the fuck do you know? The acceleration was different from what you're used to that's all. Not wrong but different.
Your description of what the Mac mouse acceleration is simply isn't true. At least mot with an Apple mouse. Perhaps the person who's Mac you used had a non-Mac mouse with it's own acceleration tuned to something freaky. Or perhaps the mouse acceleration you are used to on your Linux setup is the freaky one.
"Your Fitts' law argument ignores the critical step of shifting mental focus from the application window to the desktop"
What the fuck has the desktop got to do with it? Focus shifts from the window client area to the menu, whatever OS you're on. If anything that's easier on the Mac because the Menu is always in the same position.
You're whining about something you don't even use. And that's the only reason it seems odd to you. You're just used to something different. You're used to a GUI that is a bad copy of Windows.
I've never heard a Mac user complain about either one before. Personally I've been using mice since the Atari ST in 1987. Many computers, countless mice. And I've never noticed anything wrong with the mouse movement on OS X. Are you sure the problem isn't you?
Oh sure, now you mention it, googling OS X mouse acceleration finds other people complaining. But that's the nature of the internet, whatever you look for you'll find. I mean, some people complain that overhead power lines give them headaches. But most people don't have that problem.
For sane people, there's not a problem with the menu being at the top of a single window. Fit's Law makes it easy to hit, and mouse/trackpad acceleration means it's not far away.
You misunderstand. Services are the very opposite of what's being talked about. They, like daemons on Unix, are programs without a UI. Every modern OS has those under one name or another.
If a program has something useful to do in the background than it should be implemented as a light-weight daemon, rather than a full blown app like iTunes.
A demon, by definition, is a background task with no UI. Yet a music player needs a UI. That isn't the same thing as having a window. OSX makes that distinction at the fundamental level. Windows doesn't, and Linux UIs typically follow Windows even when it's broken.
Xcode isn't an editor, dumbass. Source file? Singular? When you've progressed to developing software with many source files, then you can comment, not before.
Mac applications act this way due to legacy decisions made for the original circa 1984 Mac, not because it's the right way to do things. At the time, it took the Mac a long time to start applications. Apple decided on this behavior to make the computer more responsive when opening new documents. Now days, document open much more quickly and this behavior is no longer required.
Fine if you have a brand new high spec Mac. But I've got a 2008 MacBook, upgraded to Lion. I've just timed reopening xcode (with a single project and the organizer open). It took 9 seconds. Pages took 7 seconds.
And of course if you don't have it in the dock, you need to add the time taken to find the app in to apps folder or Launchpad.
And what't the benefit to closing when the last window closes? You potentially save a a space in the dock. and... No, that's it. Vitual memory means that memory consumption isn't really an issue.
Mac OS does it be right way.
Note that new OS designs on phones and tablets tend to not close apps either. They only get closed when lack of resources demand it. And then the OS does it's best to hide the fact that it was closed by restarting in the exact same state.
Windows (and the way Linux GUIs copy it) are a suboptimal way. It always was, and it still is. It's just that because of market share most people are used to that way and consider it normal.
Reasons unknown? How very ignorant of you. The internet is a wonderful invention - with it you can discover the reasons people have for making different decisions from yours. To pretend they don't have reasons is nothing but ignorance.
And since you mention cults, refusing to accept that people who make different decisions have good reasons for doing so is very much the action of a cultist. I suggest you take a long hard look at yourself in the mirror.
It's true. But the advantages of a single menu apply to most users. The disadvantage only applies to the minority that are using multiple monitors.
I do both. Most of the time I'm roaming with a MacBook. But in certain development situations I hook up to a separate larger monitor. I can't say that the single menu thing causes me that must bother. I tend to put the windows I don't need a menu for on the monitor with no menu. (Documentation, web browser, iOS Simulator) The app I'm interacting with lives on the monitor with the menu.
But it'd certainly be a nice option if Apple allowed you to mirror the menu on multiple monitors.
The fact that the X button sometimes closes the application, and sometimes leaves the application running without a UI is also bad.
Why is it bad? It's a developer choice do do whichever is more appropriate for the app. On Windows an app MUST close when its last window closes, unless the developer puts it into the system tray.
The reasoning for leaving the app open when a multiple document app has it's last window closed is straight forward. It's a common usage pattern to finish working on one document and then start working on another. If apps quit when the last window closes, then this happens: The user closes the first document, and the UI to open the next document (File/Open) disappears. They then have to restart the app, which involves waiting, before they ca open their next document.
But for apps which are not document based, that argument doesn't apply. Closing the window on a single window app really does mean you've finished working with that app for the time being.
Then there are other reasons for choosing one behaviour or another. If an app does useful work even when there are no Windows, then of course it makes sense to keep it open. iTunes is an obvious example.
There's a reason why Mac developers have this choice and Windows developers don't get it (apart from the system tray utility option). Because with Windows, the disappearance of the last window means that access to the menu has also disappeared. That's not the case with Mac.
It's a culture shock that all switchers go through. I had it myself, and I've seen it umpteen times in others. It just tales a little time to get used to what's different from your previous platform.
If you were switching from Mac to PC you'd be wondering where the eject, volume up/down, brightness up/down, media control, and Expose/Spaces/Dashboard buttons were on your new keyboard.
You make a good point about the menu. But you don't have to have the menu on your primary monitor. You can put it on any monitor, it's an option in System Preferences. But after a while you'll find you're rarely using the menu in apps that you're familiar with. You get used to keyboard shortcuts. And most actions tend to be on toolbars that are attached to application windows, and these are generally customisable.
But there's no point me or anyone else trying to persuade you. If you are using the Mac as you primary computer, then as I say you'll get used to it. You'll develop a whole new muscle memory different to your Linux muscle memory. And you'll discover a whole bundle of things you prefer abut the Mac UI from what was on your old OS.
Funny, at first I was going to ask what you were smoking, but I resisted because it wasn't an actual argument.
Who says tablets have to have black fascias flush with the screen from a functional perspective?
This is more typical of the design of tablets before the iPad. Silver bezel raised above the level of the screen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP_Compaq_TC1100 It's stylus based but there's no "functional" reason the design wouldn't work for a finger operated tablet.
And the pictured JooJoo is the one that came out 6 months after the iPad. In it's pre-iPad form as the Crunchpad concept, it looked like this: http://news.cnet.com/i/bto/20090410/crunchpad_600x415.jpg Even more different from the iPad.
You would certainly be able to distinguish either of them from an iPad if a judge held them up 10 feet away from you. Well I could anyway, I can't vouch for other people's eyesight.
While speech between people is natural, it is not a natural interface with our devices.
Widespread ownership of mobile phones has ony been a phenomenon for about 15 years. In the early days they seemed very awkward to most people. People didn't like ringing mobile numbers, not just because of the cost, but because they didn't know where the other person would be. Conversations often started with something "I haven't caught you at a bad time have I?" or "Are you OK to talk?".
Now mobile phone calls are very natural, and for most people that awkwardness is gone.
Then there was that new awkwardness when people started to walk along the street talking into handsfree kits. The first few seemed like mad people. But soon enough we got used to it.
People adapt to technology.
For the most part when people are talking to Siri, you won't be able to distinguish it from them talking to someone on the phone. Unless you listen in to what they are actually saying.
Slashdot Mirror
There are still ham radio operators? In this day and age when we can use a cellphone to call a specific person on the other side of the world? When we can chat to anyone and everyone of whatever interest set via the internet?
Did you start before or after these wonders of modern technology arrived?
Whoosh!
It's like they're creating a big holiday for a guy who happened to build a bunch of builds because they were really nice while at the same time ignoring the death of the guy who invented the concrete that is the basis for the construction that everybody uses, including that first guy.(Go ahead everybody, come up with your own analogy, it's fun.)
Ah, I get your analogy. You mean like how Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web, but he built it with a NeXT development system, So we have SJ to thank for the Internet too.
I mentioned the system tray in the first post to which you answered. It's fine for the purpose for which it's intended - background services which need a limited UI. But it's not suitable for somewhere to put normal applications once the last window is closed. Take my example of closing one document, then going to File|Open to open the next. If that File|Open is on a pop-up menu from a small icon in the system tray, then that's completely non-standard and non-intuitive for the user. Are there really any mainstream document applications that do that kludge? I suspect or at least hope not.
If you really need further convincing, consider this: Microsoft only does it the way they do because they feared following the Mac UI too closely for fear of being sued. Thats the reason menus are attached to Windows, not because it's better. And the automatic quitting when the last window closes is a symptom of that decision.
Remember when Microsoft came up with the Multiple Document Interface (MDI) concept? They were keen on the idea for a while, then dropped it. It's intended purpose was to fix this very problem I've described. To keep the application open, with a standard interface, even when the last document was closed. And also to save space by having a single menu for all the documents. MDI was an attempt to be more Mac like. Microsoft knew the Mac way was better. But they had to abandon it because it made things MORE complicated for users. It wasn't the simple and elegant method the Mac uses afterall. It only applied to a single application, ordinary users didn't understand the concept of nested windows, and it didn't work well with the taskbar.
Incidentally theres a similar story on the operation of menus. Mac has pull down menus. Windows, just to be different from the Mac has drop down menus. Drop down menus are a nuisance when you are wanting to do something somewhere near a menu and you overshoot, and the thing you wanted to click on is covered up. It then involves moving away from the area again and retrying.
A lot of the interface elements people think of as being normal/natural they are just used to because Windows does them that way. And very often they are not that way because it's the best way, but for legal reasons or follow on's from earlier bad decisions.
9 and 7 seconds are not a long time to start a program and load a file.
It's better than 30 seconds. It's a whole lot worse than zero seconds.
And since you brought up phones, I have a Nexus One. When I got it it would go about 1.5 days on a charge. Then I installed an application to kill background apps. Now the phone goes easily 2.5 days and is generally more responsive.
Which is why the iPhone doesn't multi-task. It keeps a background app in memory, if there is space, so that going back to it wastes no no time on loading. But background apps do not do any processing of their own. Best of both worlds.
"The last time I used a Mac"
In other words you're not a Mac user. So what the fuck do you know? The acceleration was different from what you're used to that's all. Not wrong but different.
Your description of what the Mac mouse acceleration is simply isn't true. At least mot with an Apple mouse. Perhaps the person who's Mac you used had a non-Mac mouse with it's own acceleration tuned to something freaky. Or perhaps the mouse acceleration you are used to on your Linux setup is the freaky one.
"Your Fitts' law argument ignores the critical step of shifting mental focus from the application window to the desktop"
What the fuck has the desktop got to do with it? Focus shifts from the window client area to the menu, whatever OS you're on. If anything that's easier on the Mac because the Menu is always in the same position.
You're whining about something you don't even use. And that's the only reason it seems odd to you. You're just used to something different. You're used to a GUI that is a bad copy of Windows.
I've never heard a Mac user complain about either one before. Personally I've been using mice since the Atari ST in 1987. Many computers, countless mice. And I've never noticed anything wrong with the mouse movement on OS X. Are you sure the problem isn't you?
Oh sure, now you mention it, googling OS X mouse acceleration finds other people complaining. But that's the nature of the internet, whatever you look for you'll find. I mean, some people complain that overhead power lines give them headaches. But most people don't have that problem.
For sane people, there's not a problem with the menu being at the top of a single window. Fit's Law makes it easy to hit, and mouse/trackpad acceleration means it's not far away.
You misunderstand. Services are the very opposite of what's being talked about. They, like daemons on Unix, are programs without a UI. Every modern OS has those under one name or another.
If a program has something useful to do in the background than it should be implemented as a light-weight daemon, rather than a full blown app like iTunes.
A demon, by definition, is a background task with no UI. Yet a music player needs a UI. That isn't the same thing as having a window. OSX makes that distinction at the fundamental level. Windows doesn't, and Linux UIs typically follow Windows even when it's broken.
Xcode isn't an editor, dumbass. Source file? Singular? When you've progressed to developing software with many source files, then you can comment, not before.
Fit's law still applies whether you want to accept it or not. It's not about inaccurate mice.
And Fit's law isn't the only reason. Conserving screen space and removing clutter are other reasons.
Appart from the multi-monitor issue, there's no benefit to having a menu per window.
Mac applications act this way due to legacy decisions made for the original circa 1984 Mac, not because it's the right way to do things. At the time, it took the Mac a long time to start applications. Apple decided on this behavior to make the computer more responsive when opening new documents. Now days, document open much more quickly and this behavior is no longer required.
Fine if you have a brand new high spec Mac. But I've got a 2008 MacBook, upgraded to Lion. I've just timed reopening xcode (with a single project and the organizer open). It took 9 seconds. Pages took 7 seconds.
And of course if you don't have it in the dock, you need to add the time taken to find the app in to apps folder or Launchpad.
And what't the benefit to closing when the last window closes? You potentially save a a space in the dock. and... No, that's it. Vitual memory means that memory consumption isn't really an issue.
Mac OS does it be right way.
Note that new OS designs on phones and tablets tend to not close apps either. They only get closed when lack of resources demand it. And then the OS does it's best to hide the fact that it was closed by restarting in the exact same state.
Windows (and the way Linux GUIs copy it) are a suboptimal way. It always was, and it still is. It's just that because of market share most people are used to that way and consider it normal.
Reasons unknown? How very ignorant of you. The internet is a wonderful invention - with it you can discover the reasons people have for making different decisions from yours. To pretend they don't have reasons is nothing but ignorance.
And since you mention cults, refusing to accept that people who make different decisions have good reasons for doing so is very much the action of a cultist. I suggest you take a long hard look at yourself in the mirror.
It's true. But the advantages of a single menu apply to most users. The disadvantage only applies to the minority that are using multiple monitors.
I do both. Most of the time I'm roaming with a MacBook. But in certain development situations I hook up to a separate larger monitor. I can't say that the single menu thing causes me that must bother. I tend to put the windows I don't need a menu for on the monitor with no menu. (Documentation, web browser, iOS Simulator) The app I'm interacting with lives on the monitor with the menu.
But it'd certainly be a nice option if Apple allowed you to mirror the menu on multiple monitors.
The fact that the X button sometimes closes the application, and sometimes leaves the application running without a UI is also bad.
Why is it bad? It's a developer choice do do whichever is more appropriate for the app. On Windows an app MUST close when its last window closes, unless the developer puts it into the system tray.
The reasoning for leaving the app open when a multiple document app has it's last window closed is straight forward. It's a common usage pattern to finish working on one document and then start working on another. If apps quit when the last window closes, then this happens:
The user closes the first document, and the UI to open the next document (File/Open) disappears. They then have to restart the app, which involves waiting, before they ca open their next document.
But for apps which are not document based, that argument doesn't apply. Closing the window on a single window app really does mean you've finished working with that app for the time being.
Then there are other reasons for choosing one behaviour or another. If an app does useful work even when there are no Windows, then of course it makes sense to keep it open. iTunes is an obvious example.
There's a reason why Mac developers have this choice and Windows developers don't get it (apart from the system tray utility option). Because with Windows, the disappearance of the last window means that access to the menu has also disappeared. That's not the case with Mac.
It's a culture shock that all switchers go through. I had it myself, and I've seen it umpteen times in others. It just tales a little time to get used to what's different from your previous platform.
If you were switching from Mac to PC you'd be wondering where the eject, volume up/down, brightness up/down, media control, and Expose/Spaces/Dashboard buttons were on your new keyboard.
You make a good point about the menu. But you don't have to have the menu on your primary monitor. You can put it on any monitor, it's an option in System Preferences. But after a while you'll find you're rarely using the menu in apps that you're familiar with. You get used to keyboard shortcuts. And most actions tend to be on toolbars that are attached to application windows, and these are generally customisable.
But there's no point me or anyone else trying to persuade you. If you are using the Mac as you primary computer, then as I say you'll get used to it. You'll develop a whole new muscle memory different to your Linux muscle memory. And you'll discover a whole bundle of things you prefer abut the Mac UI from what was on your old OS.
As I said, you're out of rational arguments.
The new Kindle is rectangular, doesn't have sharp corners, and doesn't look like an iPad.
http://www.stuff.tv/review/amazon-kindle-2011
You have no rational argument. Just a lack of imagination.
The iPhone looks nothing like the LG Prada.
http://www.cnet.co.uk/i/c/blg/cat/mobiles/lgprada2/4.jpg
http://www.newlaunches.com/archives/lg_prada_redeveloped_and_marketed_by_nttdocomo_in_japan.php
Funny, at first I was going to ask what you were smoking, but I resisted because it wasn't an actual argument.
Who says tablets have to have black fascias flush with the screen from a functional perspective?
This is more typical of the design of tablets before the iPad. Silver bezel raised above the level of the screen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP_Compaq_TC1100
It's stylus based but there's no "functional" reason the design wouldn't work for a finger operated tablet.
HP Slate is easily distinguishable from the iPad.
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2010/01/01-06-10hpslate.jpg
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2010/03/hp-slate.jpg
And the pictured JooJoo is the one that came out 6 months after the iPad. In it's pre-iPad form as the Crunchpad concept, it looked like this:
http://news.cnet.com/i/bto/20090410/crunchpad_600x415.jpg
Even more different from the iPad.
You would certainly be able to distinguish either of them from an iPad if a judge held them up 10 feet away from you. Well I could anyway, I can't vouch for other people's eyesight.
You remind me of the 1980s and 90s, when computer companies thought PCs had to be beige.
The industry (and you) are just as lacking in imagination now.
Yes, the hardware was Toshiba's. But the software was Microsoft's own Portable Media Centre. And it's is not a rip off of someone else's UI.
This is all moral - Designing their own software, buying in the hardware.
Unlike Samsung and Google who are ripping off the look and feel of another company's products.
Not when the Samsung is a copy of the iPad, no. That's the point.
If you took ANY pre-iPad tablet and tried to tell the difference, it would be simple.
http://www.idownloadblog.com/2011/08/19/tablets-before-after-ipad/
Case proved. Now why is Samsung wasting everyone's time in court?
While speech between people is natural, it is not a natural interface with our devices.
Widespread ownership of mobile phones has ony been a phenomenon for about 15 years. In the early days they seemed very awkward to most people. People didn't like ringing mobile numbers, not just because of the cost, but because they didn't know where the other person would be. Conversations often started with something "I haven't caught you at a bad time have I?" or "Are you OK to talk?".
Now mobile phone calls are very natural, and for most people that awkwardness is gone.
Then there was that new awkwardness when people started to walk along the street talking into handsfree kits. The first few seemed like mad people. But soon enough we got used to it.
People adapt to technology.
For the most part when people are talking to Siri, you won't be able to distinguish it from them talking to someone on the phone. Unless you listen in to what they are actually saying.