What's the use of plug-and-play devices if you still have to manually dismount them before you go?
Yeah, it's so onerous to click a little "eject" icon. It takes whole fractions of a second! This clearly makes plug-n-play useless.
I say we go back to SCSI for our thumbdrives and portable external HDs. After all, you only have to power down your system, set the correct SCSI ID numbers, make sure the SCSI chain is terminated correctly, and then reboot your system.
There are people out there who license their shrinkwrap? That doesn't make any sense. I just buy mine in rolls from the office supply store. I can understand licensing something less tangible like software, but shrinkwrap?
I was just stating how it is, not talking about cause and effect, or blame. The fact is that Apples run more software. Just because you don't like the reason that is so, doesn't make it untrue.
I have years of experience using mice on the Alto and Star and never had a problem with them.
But they were very expensive - and you probably took care of them. If you had put those early designs into the hands of the general public, they would be destroyed within weeks. The mouse had to be made much tougher and more reliable to make a worthy commercial product. Shipping those early mouses with the Mac might have caused a huge backlash against the mouse and GUIs in general. It would have been a massive risk.
The Mac's functionality was a subset of Xerox's with some ideas Apple added. It would be many years later before Apple's computers could do everything the Xerox computers could do.
Generally, usability is much more important than functionality. Which is why any other company probably would have failed at what Apple did, because they'd have people talking about features - but nobody looking at the human interaction and usability aspects. The sad thing is, most companies still haven't learned this - and Apple is still almost unique in understanding how form and function work together. Really amazing, actually. How can so many software (and electronics) companies be so ignorant, to this day?
Fanboyism is nothing new--I was the most rabid Amiga devotee in its days, and we put you Mac drones to shame without question in that department.
I know. I was a rabid Amiga devotee too. In fact, you can't be the most rabid Amiga devotee, because I was.
Anyway, seeing as I am a Mac fanatic, don't you think I'm a good person to give insight into how a Mac fanatic thinks? Of course there are people who like Macs for superficial appearance. But those people are not Mac fanatics, almost by definition. You don't become fanatical about a Mac, just because it looks good. There has to be something more there to cause these levels of devotion.
Around most of the rest of the world the Mac does indeed primarily appeal to human magpies, including around my neck of the woods.
I don't think so - the Mac would be dead if it weren't for professional users in graphics and publishing during the "dark days." And Macs weren't shiny then, they were beige.
You can tell a magpie from the relatively shallow reasons for their liking of the Mac. If you dig deeper regarding why they like the Mac, the answers pretty much dry up after "ease of use" and "iPhoto" and tend to peter out in the "oooh, shiny" territory.
That's funny. I speak to tons of different Mac users, and none have ever told me they bought it because of "shininess." And what's wrong with ease of use and iPhoto being your main reasons to like it? For many people, iPhoto is the most challenging thing they do with a machine. But that's just an ordinary user. A Mac fanatic would have a much longer list of reasons, especially of software applications.
Regarding the question of why Mac users don't mod their machines as opposed to the apparently more shallow hordes of PC users who do, the answer is quite simple: the closed hardware platform makes it much harder.
That's ridiculous. How is it any harder to use a screwdriver to take the parts out of a Mac and put them in another case? How is it difficult to stick neon lights in your Mac? The Powermac/Mac Pro even has a transparent side-panel that can be used instead of the aluminium to put all those lights on the inside. The closed platform of the iPod didn't stop the numerous casemods and "bedazzling" of it.
I think the real reason comes from the PC users. They want to overcompensate for their crappy machines and dull OS by blinging it up. Just like somebody who blings up their Hyundai shitbox with flashing lights because they can't afford a better car.
There is also OS skinning software available for the Mac, but it isn't popular. There's nothing to stop people from modding their Mac hardware or software, I think they are just too busy enjoying their OS, and don't need to compensate for it.
There is one popular case-mod - turning old Macs into fishtanks and terrariums. But that's a bit different.
But they believe they can distribute Linux, regardless of what the FSF says. It wouldn't be the first time that a company ignored licensing agreements or copyrights. They probably hope to either ignore the FSF or bully them out of the picture.
The Ipod isn't the and wasn't the best damn mp3 player out there. I remember when it first came out a company (I think gateway, its been a few years now) had a superior and cheaper mp3 player. It had everything the Ipod had,
Yeah right. Which other player had Firewire on it back then? There was no USB 2.0, so all the other players were stuck with horribly slow USB 1.1 transfer speeds. That's a big deal when you want to sync a lot of songs. AFAIK, the iPod was the first MP3 player with high-speed transfer.
Also AFAIK, it was the only player with so much storage in such a small space, because it was the first to use the micro HDs. The other options were either extremely bulky units with larger HDs, or flash-based units with a fraction of the storage space (256MB was typical at the time).
So, maybe you can remember, and show me a link to this superior player that existed when the first iPod came out?
But the implication of the other poster was that it is Mac users specifically who like shiny things, and they make irrational decisions because of it. Again, if that's the case, then what explains the "skinning" and "case mods" in the Windows scene?
Actually, the post I was replying to was specifically addressing Mac "fanatics." Those people browsing in stores probably aren't huge Mac fans, probably aren't even Mac users yet. At best they would be casual users. If you focus in on the real fan base, the people who love their Macs, it's all about the software first and foremost. The iPod gawkers and the "Mac faithful" are very different crowds, and the serious fans aren't as swayed by the bling. In fact, many Mac fans have a growing distaste for the iPod's popularity because of the focus on fashion.
Your really over estimating the rational behavoir of the general public,
Since when were the general public considered "Mac fans"? After all, that was the topic of discussion.
Why would anyone go out and install Vista at launch? It's just such a dumb idea to be an early adopter of new Microsoft products. Shouldn't they just wait until Vista version 3.1, like everybody else?
So? It was still far from the evolved implementation Apple developed for the average user. Again, how much work did Xerox do on things like the mouse, which they recognized as crucial to the success of the GUI? How much did they study human interaction?
Also, if the GP wasn't talking about concepts, then why did he only mention concepts, and admit that all the implementation wasn't there? I go by what he wrote, not what you seem to imagine he wrote.
I say we use the moon as a place to exile enemies of humanity like George Bush and Dick Cheney. Throw Osama bin Laden in there too, make them share a bunk-bed.
I'll be blasting all the curmudgeons in the world!
I'll be blasting all the curmudgeons in the world.
I'll be blasting all the curmudgeons, I'll be blasting all the curmudgeons, I'll be blasting all the curmudgeons in the world.
You're all wrong. The funniest joke is when Stewie imitates William Shatner singing "Rocket Man" like he did in that 1978 clip. With the multiple Shatners and the cigarette-smoking.
And I'm going to be... high... as a kite by then. I'm a... Rocket Man... Rock-it man.
To have Stewie covering Shatner was the Best. Homage. Ever.
So what? Nobody is denying Xerox had the basic concepts. So did many other people outside of Xerox. But you can't sell a concept from a retail store. the implementation is a lot more important than the concept in most cases. That's what Apple did, and too many people under-rate that effort.
For example, Apple did not invent the mouse. But they engineered the mouse from an unreliable, expensive piece of crap, into a practical tool that anyone could use, and was very inexpensive. And they studied how people actually interact with computers and software.
Any schmoe can come up with ideas. It takes talent to make those ideas work in a practical, human way that makes economic sense. I never said we didn't owe anything to PARC, but to think that Apple didn't do a lot of hard work, and plenty of innovation to make those ideas work, is laughable. Ideas don't just jump from the brain and materialize as good products.
Walking is often quicker than driving and looking for a parking space. Also, it serves a double-purpose, as you get exercise. I find it hilarious that people drive to the gym to work out. They could save a heap of money by cancelling the gym subscription, and walking and exercising in the local park.
There are limits to how far you can adjust the thermostat before you have to deal with adverse effects on the people inside.
Adverse effects? I find that laughable for the majority of cases. How did people survive before air-conditioning was invented? O rif it's too cold? Put on a jumper! It's obscene how much people waste on household heating/cooling and lighting. I'm not talking about people's lives in risk - I'm talking about people who absolutely MUST have some sort of artificial climate control at all times, even in temperate climates! It is nothing but waste. Or people who feel they must drive 5 minutes down the road to the corner store.
It can't solve everything, but isn't it at least a start? It would be nice if the politicians would at least mention it as an option, rather than implying that it's our patriotic duty to consume as much as possible. Just the psychological benefit would be huge. Once people start thinking about the little ways to reduce their impact, it has an amazing effect, and people actually start understanding the issue. At the moment I see many people who just aren't aware of much, they are hardly conscious to the world around them. It's like they are zombies, and know no other way to live than excessive consumption. Worst of all, the excessive consumption doesn't even benefit them, it's pure waste.
There's no free lunch.
Actually, there is. I find your zero-sum mentality quite unsettling, because that's not how things work. People have been conditioned to think they need a bunch of plastic trinkets made by slave-labor and petrochemicals. When they would probably enjoy life much more without it. Many people are in this manic-depressive consumerism cycle, where they feel happy shopping - and then alternately feel depressed that their latest purchase doesn't fulfil their lives like the ad said it would. Plastic trinket gets thrown in the garbage, and the net result is negative feelings and a lower bank-balance.
Another example - say there is a water shortage (as there is in many parts of the world). You put a bucket in the shower with you. You have the same shower you normally would, but now you have some "free" water to use on the garden or in the washing machine.
I used to consume a lot more, and be very dependant on my car. Now I live simpler life, and ride my bicycle a lot more. There has been no downside. I am a LOT happier, fitter, and I have more money because I don't waste it. And the environment benefits. Society benefits by being less dependent on oil. Cycling has been a great activity for me - practical, social, cost-effective. No parking hassles or tickets and fines.
Of course, cycling is not for everybody, but almost everybody has some simple thing they can do to reduce their consumption. It's simply a matter of awareness. Say you want to keep driving your car. OK, then - plan your shopping lists in advance, instead of making compulsive multiple trips to the store for a few items - go and do your shopping at one time. You use less fuel, spend less time shopping and more with your family, and save money. What's the negative? Where's the cost?
Actually, most I know ARE. Everything else they own is also shiny. Very few Mac fans I know like it for the "right" reasons, but because it's shiny.
I've never met one of these mythical "I like Macs because they are shiny" people. Perhaps you live in a very strange neck of the woods, like Beverly Hills or something?
The vast majority of Mac users I know are people who like them because they make a lot of money out of them - in areas like publishing, music, photography and video. Macs have only become "shiny" recently. They used to be beige, just like PCs. So why did people buy them then? Why did so many Mac users switch to Mac clones that were boring and fairly ugly, when Apple licensed the OS?
Remember the world before Photoshop, the laser printer, and Desktop Publishing? You could only get Photoshop for the Mac. Apple brought the Postscript laser printer to the masses, and revolutionized the publishing industry. Same with music. For a long time, Pro Tools on a Mac was the only thing worth using for professional-grade digital recording. And today Apple has powerful and easy-to-use video editing software. Most Mac users are users first - they care more about their field of work (often a creative field) than they do about the Mac itself. It's just the Mac makes otherwise complex things very easy, so you can focus on the work, and not "operating a computer." There's a whole generation of filmmakers who are growing up on Final Cut Pro right now, because they want to make films, not because they want a shiny computer.
I think most likely it is you who has the superficial tastes, and are projecting your own interpretation onto people, rather than trying to understand their true motivations. Sure, users might appreciate the looks as well, they might like the Aqua interface. That doesn't mean they bought it because it is pretty. I doubt they wouldn't have bought it if it wasn't a great system as well as being pretty.
In fact, that pretty much sums up how Microsoft thinks, and how a lot of Windows users think. They think if they copy the "look" of the Mac, then they can have the Mac's appeal. But that's just superficial, "skin deep" beauty - the Mac offers form and function together. I'm reminded of when the original iMac was a huge hit, and other companies thought they could capture market-share by adding colored panels to their machines, while maintaining the same clunky form-factor and Windows OS. Notice how you didn't see Mac users buying those machines based on appearance, and they ultimately failed to interest anyone?
As an example of this in user-space, why do so many Windows users use absurd animated cursors, or elaborate screen-savers, or "skins" on applications? Why do so many Windows gamers "pimp" their PC with neon and case-mods? Those trends never caught on in the Mac world - especially the "skinning" thing. So, what explains the desire of Windows users to change the surface appearance of their system, without improving the functionality? Often these appearance mods actually get in the way of usability, let alone enhance it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, it's so onerous to click a little "eject" icon. It takes whole fractions of a second! This clearly makes plug-n-play useless.
I say we go back to SCSI for our thumbdrives and portable external HDs. After all, you only have to power down your system, set the correct SCSI ID numbers, make sure the SCSI chain is terminated correctly, and then reboot your system.
Added more kittens?
There are people out there who license their shrinkwrap? That doesn't make any sense. I just buy mine in rolls from the office supply store. I can understand licensing something less tangible like software, but shrinkwrap?
I was just stating how it is, not talking about cause and effect, or blame. The fact is that Apples run more software. Just because you don't like the reason that is so, doesn't make it untrue.
But they were very expensive - and you probably took care of them. If you had put those early designs into the hands of the general public, they would be destroyed within weeks. The mouse had to be made much tougher and more reliable to make a worthy commercial product. Shipping those early mouses with the Mac might have caused a huge backlash against the mouse and GUIs in general. It would have been a massive risk.
The Mac's functionality was a subset of Xerox's with some ideas Apple added. It would be many years later before Apple's computers could do everything the Xerox computers could do.Generally, usability is much more important than functionality. Which is why any other company probably would have failed at what Apple did, because they'd have people talking about features - but nobody looking at the human interaction and usability aspects. The sad thing is, most companies still haven't learned this - and Apple is still almost unique in understanding how form and function work together. Really amazing, actually. How can so many software (and electronics) companies be so ignorant, to this day?
I know. I was a rabid Amiga devotee too. In fact, you can't be the most rabid Amiga devotee, because I was.
Anyway, seeing as I am a Mac fanatic, don't you think I'm a good person to give insight into how a Mac fanatic thinks? Of course there are people who like Macs for superficial appearance. But those people are not Mac fanatics, almost by definition. You don't become fanatical about a Mac, just because it looks good. There has to be something more there to cause these levels of devotion.
Around most of the rest of the world the Mac does indeed primarily appeal to human magpies, including around my neck of the woods.I don't think so - the Mac would be dead if it weren't for professional users in graphics and publishing during the "dark days." And Macs weren't shiny then, they were beige.
You can tell a magpie from the relatively shallow reasons for their liking of the Mac. If you dig deeper regarding why they like the Mac, the answers pretty much dry up after "ease of use" and "iPhoto" and tend to peter out in the "oooh, shiny" territory.That's funny. I speak to tons of different Mac users, and none have ever told me they bought it because of "shininess." And what's wrong with ease of use and iPhoto being your main reasons to like it? For many people, iPhoto is the most challenging thing they do with a machine. But that's just an ordinary user. A Mac fanatic would have a much longer list of reasons, especially of software applications.
Regarding the question of why Mac users don't mod their machines as opposed to the apparently more shallow hordes of PC users who do, the answer is quite simple: the closed hardware platform makes it much harder.That's ridiculous. How is it any harder to use a screwdriver to take the parts out of a Mac and put them in another case? How is it difficult to stick neon lights in your Mac? The Powermac/Mac Pro even has a transparent side-panel that can be used instead of the aluminium to put all those lights on the inside. The closed platform of the iPod didn't stop the numerous casemods and "bedazzling" of it.
I think the real reason comes from the PC users. They want to overcompensate for their crappy machines and dull OS by blinging it up. Just like somebody who blings up their Hyundai shitbox with flashing lights because they can't afford a better car.
There is also OS skinning software available for the Mac, but it isn't popular. There's nothing to stop people from modding their Mac hardware or software, I think they are just too busy enjoying their OS, and don't need to compensate for it.
There is one popular case-mod - turning old Macs into fishtanks and terrariums. But that's a bit different.
I blame the Dutch. We might not be having these wind problems if they haqdn't built all those damn windmills.
OK. So, what do you do about all the 12 year-old girls stalking you?
Shouldn't that be "Blow. Blow like the wind"? I don't think the wind runs.
But they believe they can distribute Linux, regardless of what the FSF says. It wouldn't be the first time that a company ignored licensing agreements or copyrights. They probably hope to either ignore the FSF or bully them out of the picture.
Yeah right. Which other player had Firewire on it back then? There was no USB 2.0, so all the other players were stuck with horribly slow USB 1.1 transfer speeds. That's a big deal when you want to sync a lot of songs. AFAIK, the iPod was the first MP3 player with high-speed transfer.
Also AFAIK, it was the only player with so much storage in such a small space, because it was the first to use the micro HDs. The other options were either extremely bulky units with larger HDs, or flash-based units with a fraction of the storage space (256MB was typical at the time).
So, maybe you can remember, and show me a link to this superior player that existed when the first iPod came out?
Actually, The Daily Show and other Comedy Central offerings are quite good.
Actually, the post I was replying to was specifically addressing Mac "fanatics." Those people browsing in stores probably aren't huge Mac fans, probably aren't even Mac users yet. At best they would be casual users. If you focus in on the real fan base, the people who love their Macs, it's all about the software first and foremost. The iPod gawkers and the "Mac faithful" are very different crowds, and the serious fans aren't as swayed by the bling. In fact, many Mac fans have a growing distaste for the iPod's popularity because of the focus on fashion.
Your really over estimating the rational behavoir of the general public,Since when were the general public considered "Mac fans"? After all, that was the topic of discussion.
My God, you can actually search for applications? Wow, what will they think of next, using an innovative input device called a mouse?
That disguise is made of fnord and comes from a top-secret fnord, in East fnord.
Why would anyone go out and install Vista at launch? It's just such a dumb idea to be an early adopter of new Microsoft products. Shouldn't they just wait until Vista version 3.1, like everybody else?
Also, if the GP wasn't talking about concepts, then why did he only mention concepts, and admit that all the implementation wasn't there? I go by what he wrote, not what you seem to imagine he wrote.
I say we use the moon as a place to exile enemies of humanity like George Bush and Dick Cheney. Throw Osama bin Laden in there too, make them share a bunk-bed.
I'll be blasting all the curmudgeons in the world.
I'll be blasting all the curmudgeons,
I'll be blasting all the curmudgeons,
I'll be blasting all the curmudgeons in the world.
ONE MORE TIME!
And I'm going to be ... high ... as a kite by then.
I'm a... Rocket Man... Rock-it man.
To have Stewie covering Shatner was the Best. Homage. Ever.
The Simpsons did it!
For example, Apple did not invent the mouse. But they engineered the mouse from an unreliable, expensive piece of crap, into a practical tool that anyone could use, and was very inexpensive. And they studied how people actually interact with computers and software.
Any schmoe can come up with ideas. It takes talent to make those ideas work in a practical, human way that makes economic sense. I never said we didn't owe anything to PARC, but to think that Apple didn't do a lot of hard work, and plenty of innovation to make those ideas work, is laughable. Ideas don't just jump from the brain and materialize as good products.
Adverse effects? I find that laughable for the majority of cases. How did people survive before air-conditioning was invented? O rif it's too cold? Put on a jumper! It's obscene how much people waste on household heating/cooling and lighting. I'm not talking about people's lives in risk - I'm talking about people who absolutely MUST have some sort of artificial climate control at all times, even in temperate climates! It is nothing but waste. Or people who feel they must drive 5 minutes down the road to the corner store.
It can't solve everything, but isn't it at least a start? It would be nice if the politicians would at least mention it as an option, rather than implying that it's our patriotic duty to consume as much as possible. Just the psychological benefit would be huge. Once people start thinking about the little ways to reduce their impact, it has an amazing effect, and people actually start understanding the issue. At the moment I see many people who just aren't aware of much, they are hardly conscious to the world around them. It's like they are zombies, and know no other way to live than excessive consumption. Worst of all, the excessive consumption doesn't even benefit them, it's pure waste.
There's no free lunch.Actually, there is. I find your zero-sum mentality quite unsettling, because that's not how things work. People have been conditioned to think they need a bunch of plastic trinkets made by slave-labor and petrochemicals. When they would probably enjoy life much more without it. Many people are in this manic-depressive consumerism cycle, where they feel happy shopping - and then alternately feel depressed that their latest purchase doesn't fulfil their lives like the ad said it would. Plastic trinket gets thrown in the garbage, and the net result is negative feelings and a lower bank-balance.
Another example - say there is a water shortage (as there is in many parts of the world). You put a bucket in the shower with you. You have the same shower you normally would, but now you have some "free" water to use on the garden or in the washing machine.
I used to consume a lot more, and be very dependant on my car. Now I live simpler life, and ride my bicycle a lot more. There has been no downside. I am a LOT happier, fitter, and I have more money because I don't waste it. And the environment benefits. Society benefits by being less dependent on oil. Cycling has been a great activity for me - practical, social, cost-effective. No parking hassles or tickets and fines.
Of course, cycling is not for everybody, but almost everybody has some simple thing they can do to reduce their consumption. It's simply a matter of awareness. Say you want to keep driving your car. OK, then - plan your shopping lists in advance, instead of making compulsive multiple trips to the store for a few items - go and do your shopping at one time. You use less fuel, spend less time shopping and more with your family, and save money. What's the negative? Where's the cost?
I've never met one of these mythical "I like Macs because they are shiny" people. Perhaps you live in a very strange neck of the woods, like Beverly Hills or something?
The vast majority of Mac users I know are people who like them because they make a lot of money out of them - in areas like publishing, music, photography and video. Macs have only become "shiny" recently. They used to be beige, just like PCs. So why did people buy them then? Why did so many Mac users switch to Mac clones that were boring and fairly ugly, when Apple licensed the OS?
Remember the world before Photoshop, the laser printer, and Desktop Publishing? You could only get Photoshop for the Mac. Apple brought the Postscript laser printer to the masses, and revolutionized the publishing industry. Same with music. For a long time, Pro Tools on a Mac was the only thing worth using for professional-grade digital recording. And today Apple has powerful and easy-to-use video editing software. Most Mac users are users first - they care more about their field of work (often a creative field) than they do about the Mac itself. It's just the Mac makes otherwise complex things very easy, so you can focus on the work, and not "operating a computer." There's a whole generation of filmmakers who are growing up on Final Cut Pro right now, because they want to make films, not because they want a shiny computer.
I think most likely it is you who has the superficial tastes, and are projecting your own interpretation onto people, rather than trying to understand their true motivations. Sure, users might appreciate the looks as well, they might like the Aqua interface. That doesn't mean they bought it because it is pretty. I doubt they wouldn't have bought it if it wasn't a great system as well as being pretty.
In fact, that pretty much sums up how Microsoft thinks, and how a lot of Windows users think. They think if they copy the "look" of the Mac, then they can have the Mac's appeal. But that's just superficial, "skin deep" beauty - the Mac offers form and function together. I'm reminded of when the original iMac was a huge hit, and other companies thought they could capture market-share by adding colored panels to their machines, while maintaining the same clunky form-factor and Windows OS. Notice how you didn't see Mac users buying those machines based on appearance, and they ultimately failed to interest anyone?
As an example of this in user-space, why do so many Windows users use absurd animated cursors, or elaborate screen-savers, or "skins" on applications? Why do so many Windows gamers "pimp" their PC with neon and case-mods? Those trends never caught on in the Mac world - especially the "skinning" thing. So, what explains the desire of Windows users to change the surface appearance of their system, without improving the functionality? Often these appearance mods actually get in the way of usability, let alone enhance it.
Eric Raymond. "Use Linux or I'll blow your fucking head off, you camel-riding communist!"