OSX vs XP
Nicholas Buenk
windows for 10 years, I recently brought an ibook. Now I think that both
OS's are actually about equal, each has advantages disadvantages.
The good parts of OSX:
1. OSX is so much better at installing and uninstalling programs, simply
dragging and dropping things works much better than uninstall programs
which won't always remove every part of the program
2. better security, although i think this is largely due to spyware and
virus makers not spending much time programming for a OS with 4% of the
marketshare. Still it doesn't run by default as adminstrator, yet it
also doesn't bother you much with user rights like linux does.
3. pretty, OSX is the prettest OS ever compiled in the history of computers.
4.features like spotlight and dashboard, which are as cool as apple
claims they are in my opinion
5.right click has a spelling check in most applications! Now if only
they had a right click.
The good parts of XP:
1.range of software for it, especially in regards to entertainment,
gaming and videos. now that is a major advantage, which limits the
useablity of osx to laptops for me
2. more of a focus on tasks, making it easier to switch between windows
and that it's UI is better at dealing with a large number of programs
than OSX, it would not be unusual for a XP machine to be found with over
200 programs.
3. doesn't attempt to hide so much of the file system from the user
4. more control over hardware and OS settings, for example swap file
location and size, what version of the driver you have and many more, XP
gives you much more control over your OS and hardware than OSX and it's
GUI tools for doing such are better than linux also.
Both are solid robust and stable OS's with many features in common.
I've found OSX's method of dealing with switching between windows and
programs not as nice as windows, in windows the x closes the program not
just the window, that means less for the user to do to quit a program.
Also you can switch right between windows rather than switching to the
program and then to one of it's windows.
But overall I think both OS's are excellent, both solid and robost. Also
OSX is the best Unix os I've seen.
LawsonE
"Nicholas Buenk" <mo...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
[...]
> Both are solid robust and stable OS's with many features in common.
> I've found OSX's method of dealing with switching between windows and
> programs not as nice as windows, in windows the x closes the program not
> just the window, that means less for the user to do to quit a program.
> Also you can switch right between windows rather than switching to the
> program and then to one of it's windows.
> But overall I think both OS's are excellent, both solid and robost. Also
> OSX is the best Unix os I've seen.
>
>
Have you tried the Epose windows controls? Generally they're F9 F10 F11...
Snit
42ddac7e$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au on 7/19/05 6:44 PM:
> I claim objectivity, because I hate neither. Although I have been using
> windows for 10 years, I recently brought an ibook. Now I think that both
> OS's are actually about equal, each has advantages disadvantages.
> The good parts of OSX:
> 1. OSX is so much better at installing and uninstalling programs, simply
> dragging and dropping things works much better than uninstall programs
> which won't always remove every part of the program
Agreed - though this would be better if it were more consistent. Another
cool area OS X has here is that installed programs - for the most part - can
be moved freely.
> 2. better security, although i think this is largely due to spyware and
> virus makers not spending much time programming for a OS with 4% of the
> marketshare. Still it doesn't run by default as adminstrator, yet it
> also doesn't bother you much with user rights like linux does.
I do not worry much about the reasons - but OS X simply kills XP here. (as
does Linux)
> 3. pretty, OSX is the prettest OS ever compiled in the history of computers.
To some extent, of course, a matter of taste - but Apple certainly does
focus on that.
> 4.features like spotlight and dashboard, which are as cool as apple
> claims they are in my opinion
Try Exposé... also cool. :)
> 5.right click has a spelling check in most applications! Now if only
> they had a right click.
There is good to that, too... though I can see it as a BTO option...
> The good parts of XP:
> 1.range of software for it, especially in regards to entertainment,
> gaming and videos. now that is a major advantage, which limits the
> useablity of osx to laptops for me
Another area: quilting software... I am sure there are others.
Then again, in multimedia apps - at least some areas, OS X has XP beat.
> 2. more of a focus on tasks, making it easier to switch between windows
> and that it's UI is better at dealing with a large number of programs
> than OSX, it would not be unusual for a XP machine to be found with over
> 200 programs.
While I do not have recent data, at one time research showed Mac users had
more programs on average than Win users. I find that likely to still be
true.
> 3. doesn't attempt to hide so much of the file system from the user
OK...
> 4. more control over hardware and OS settings, for example swap file
> location and size, what version of the driver you have and many more, XP
> gives you much more control over your OS and hardware than OSX and it's
> GUI tools for doing such are better than linux also.
Ok...
>
> Both are solid robust and stable OS's with many features in common.
Very much true...
> I've found OSX's method of dealing with switching between windows and
> programs not as nice as windows, in windows the x closes the program not
> just the window, that means less for the user to do to quit a program.
Apple Q quits almost any program. Or File > Quit.
> Also you can switch right between windows rather than switching to the
> program and then to one of it's windows.
True - though there is shareware that gives OS X this ability... but good
point.
> But overall I think both OS's are excellent, both solid and robost. Also
> OSX is the best Unix os I've seen.
Some will nit pick this... how about best Unix-like OS. :)
--
God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority?
Nicholas Buenk
Yes, still that's F9, move mouse and click, more steps.
StormDrain
Nicholas Buenk <mo...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
<snip>
> 2. more of a focus on tasks, making it easier to switch between windows
> and that it's UI is better at dealing with a large number of programs
> than OSX, it would not be unusual for a XP machine to be found with over
> 200 programs.
Glad you were able to work the term "tasks" into you thesis. How would
XP help with this task:
a) Search the web for various collectable pocket knives
b) assemble the various images, prices and web links into a document
that can be snail mailed to someone?
--
SD
"...merely a preponderance of evidence."
Nicholas Buenk
> "Nicholas Buenk" <mo...@tpg.com.au> stated in post
> 42ddac7e$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au on 7/19/05 6:44 PM:
>
>
>>I claim objectivity, because I hate neither. Although I have been using
>>windows for 10 years, I recently brought an ibook. Now I think that both
>> OS's are actually about equal, each has advantages disadvantages.
>>The good parts of OSX:
>>1. OSX is so much better at installing and uninstalling programs, simply
>>dragging and dropping things works much better than uninstall programs
>>which won't always remove every part of the program
>
>
> Agreed - though this would be better if it were more consistent. Another
> cool area OS X has here is that installed programs - for the most part - can
> be moved freely
Yes, but there is a disadvantage to this, not being able to see all the
programs files easily, which can be useful if the program is misbehaving.
>
>
>>2. better security, although i think this is largely due to spyware and
>>virus makers not spending much time programming for a OS with 4% of the
>> marketshare. Still it doesn't run by default as adminstrator, yet it
>>also doesn't bother you much with user rights like linux does.
>
>
> I do not worry much about the reasons - but OS X simply kills XP here. (as
> does Linux)
Yeah although windows is not that hard to maintain, you just need a
virus scanner really, though that's of course not a perfect solution.
>
>>3. pretty, OSX is the prettest OS ever compiled in the history of computers.
>
>
> To some extent, of course, a matter of taste - but Apple certainly does
> focus on that.
>
>
>>4.features like spotlight and dashboard, which are as cool as apple
>>claims they are in my opinion
>
>
> Try Exposé... also cool. :)
>
>
>>5.right click has a spelling check in most applications! Now if only
>>they had a right click.
>
>
> There is good to that, too... though I can see it as a BTO option...
Yes it is good especially for someone like me who sucks at spelling, for
windows i've been using ICQ as a general purpose spell checker heh.
What is BTO?
>
>
>>The good parts of XP:
>>1.range of software for it, especially in regards to entertainment,
>>gaming and videos. now that is a major advantage, which limits the
>>useablity of osx to laptops for me
>
>
> Another area: quilting software... I am sure there are others.
>
> Then again, in multimedia apps - at least some areas, OS X has XP beat.
OSX has good tools for making multimedia at least.
>
>
>>2. more of a focus on tasks, making it easier to switch between windows
>>and that it's UI is better at dealing with a large number of programs
>>than OSX, it would not be unusual for a XP machine to be found with over
>>200 programs.
>
>
> While I do not have recent data, at one time research showed Mac users had
> more programs on average than Win users. I find that likely to still be
> true.
Well it depends on the user, i think your windows power user is bound to
have more software just to the huge amount out there that can be installed.
>
>
>>3. doesn't attempt to hide so much of the file system from the user
>
>
> OK...
>
>
>>4. more control over hardware and OS settings, for example swap file
>>location and size, what version of the driver you have and many more, XP
>>gives you much more control over your OS and hardware than OSX and it's
>>GUI tools for doing such are better than linux also.
>
>
> Ok...
>
>>Both are solid robust and stable OS's with many features in common.
>
>
> Very much true...
>
>
>>I've found OSX's method of dealing with switching between windows and
>>programs not as nice as windows, in windows the x closes the program not
>>just the window, that means less for the user to do to quit a program.
>
>
> Apple Q quits almost any program. Or File > Quit
Yes, personally I think it's faster and less work just to click an x on
the window.
Snit
Depends on how many windows you have open... I prefer that to
Alt+Tab+Tab+Tab_Tab+Tab+Tab. :)
--
BU__SH__
Snit
on 7/19/05 8:19 PM:
> Snit wrote:
>> "Nicholas Buenk" <mo...@tpg.com.au> stated in post
>> 42ddac7e$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au on 7/19/05 6:44 PM:
>>
>>
>>> I claim objectivity, because I hate neither. Although I have been using
>>> windows for 10 years, I recently brought an ibook. Now I think that both
>>> OS's are actually about equal, each has advantages disadvantages.
>>> The good parts of OSX:
>>> 1. OSX is so much better at installing and uninstalling programs, simply
>>> dragging and dropping things works much better than uninstall programs
>>> which won't always remove every part of the program
>>
>>
>> Agreed - though this would be better if it were more consistent. Another
>> cool area OS X has here is that installed programs - for the most part - can
>> be moved freely
>
> Yes, but there is a disadvantage to this, not being able to see all the
> programs files easily, which can be useful if the program is misbehaving.
Aha... no problem: right click (or control) and select "Show Package
Contents".
>>
>>> 2. better security, although i think this is largely due to spyware and
>>> virus makers not spending much time programming for a OS with 4% of the
>>> marketshare. Still it doesn't run by default as adminstrator, yet it
>>> also doesn't bother you much with user rights like linux does.
>>
>> I do not worry much about the reasons - but OS X simply kills XP here. (as
>> does Linux)
>
> Yeah although windows is not that hard to maintain, you just need a
> virus scanner really, though that's of course not a perfect solution.
I do tech support and tech teaching for a living - much of my work comes
from people who want me to get rid of viruses. It is a *huge* problem on
Windows - but you are right that with knowledge it is not that big of a
deal.
>>
>>> 3. pretty, OSX is the prettest OS ever compiled in the history of computers.
>>
>> To some extent, of course, a matter of taste - but Apple certainly does
>> focus on that.
>>
>>> 4.features like spotlight and dashboard, which are as cool as apple
>>> claims they are in my opinion
>>
>> Try Exposé... also cool. :)
>>
>>> 5.right click has a spelling check in most applications! Now if only
>>> they had a right click.
>>
>> There is good to that, too... though I can see it as a BTO option...
>
> Yes it is good especially for someone like me who sucks at spelling, for
> windows i've been using ICQ as a general purpose spell checker heh.
> What is BTO?
Build to order. Sorry about that. I thought you meant if only Apple had a
right click - talking about the one button mouse.
>>
>>> The good parts of XP:
>>> 1.range of software for it, especially in regards to entertainment,
>>> gaming and videos. now that is a major advantage, which limits the
>>> useablity of osx to laptops for me
>>
>> Another area: quilting software... I am sure there are others.
>>
>> Then again, in multimedia apps - at least some areas, OS X has XP beat.
>
> OSX has good tools for making multimedia at least.
Very much true... nothing like it on Windows or Linux (as far as I have
seen, anyway).
>>
>>> 2. more of a focus on tasks, making it easier to switch between windows
>>> and that it's UI is better at dealing with a large number of programs
>>> than OSX, it would not be unusual for a XP machine to be found with over
>>> 200 programs.
>>
>> While I do not have recent data, at one time research showed Mac users had
>> more programs on average than Win users. I find that likely to still be
>> true.
>
> Well it depends on the user, i think your windows power user is bound to
> have more software just to the huge amount out there that can be installed.
I know I have hundreds of applications in my Applications folder - and use
many of them on a regular basis.
On XP installing and uninstalling programs comes with a much greater risk
than it does on OS X... registry corruption and DLL hell...
>>
>>> 3. doesn't attempt to hide so much of the file system from the user
>>
>> OK...
>>
>>
>>> 4. more control over hardware and OS settings, for example swap file
>>> location and size, what version of the driver you have and many more, XP
>>> gives you much more control over your OS and hardware than OSX and it's
>>> GUI tools for doing such are better than linux also.
>>
>>
>> Ok...
>>
>>> Both are solid robust and stable OS's with many features in common.
>>
>>
>> Very much true...
>>
>>
>>> I've found OSX's method of dealing with switching between windows and
>>> programs not as nice as windows, in windows the x closes the program not
>>> just the window, that means less for the user to do to quit a program.
>>
>>
>> Apple Q quits almost any program. Or File > Quit
>
> Yes, personally I think it's faster and less work just to click an x on
> the window.
I can see that - but on Windows most programs have to have a window open
just to stay open... I do not like that. Still, I can see your point...
>
>>
>>
>>> Also you can switch right between windows rather than switching to the
>>> program and then to one of it's windows.
>>
>>
>> True - though there is shareware that gives OS X this ability... but good
>> point.
>>
>>
>>> But overall I think both OS's are excellent, both solid and robost. Also
>>> OSX is the best Unix os I've seen.
>>
>>
>> Some will nit pick this... how about best Unix-like OS. :)
>>
>>
--
BU__SH__
Snit
> LawsonE wrote:
Oh, also - right click on the app in the dock.
Not trying to say you are wrong, just trying to give you options in OS X
that you might not have known about...
--
"Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to
all but the most crucial features." -- Steve Jobs
Peter Ammon
> I claim objectivity, because I hate neither. Although I have been using
> windows for 10 years, I recently brought an ibook. Now I think that both
> OS's are actually about equal, each has advantages disadvantages.
> The good parts of OSX:
> 1. OSX is so much better at installing and uninstalling programs, simply
> dragging and dropping things works much better than uninstall programs
> which won't always remove every part of the program
> 2. better security, although i think this is largely due to spyware and
> virus makers not spending much time programming for a OS with 4% of the
> marketshare. Still it doesn't run by default as adminstrator, yet it
> also doesn't bother you much with user rights like linux does.
> 3. pretty, OSX is the prettest OS ever compiled in the history of
> computers.
> 4.features like spotlight and dashboard, which are as cool as apple
> claims they are in my opinion
> 5.right click has a spelling check in most applications! Now if only
> they had a right click.
> The good parts of XP:
> 1.range of software for it, especially in regards to entertainment,
> gaming and videos. now that is a major advantage, which limits the
> useablity of osx to laptops for me
Why do you explain away Windows' malware by pointing out that the Mac
has less marketshare, but not do the same favor for the Mac's software
selection? You can't have it both ways.
> 2. more of a focus on tasks, making it easier to switch between windows
> and that it's UI is better at dealing with a large number of programs
> than OSX, it would not be unusual for a XP machine to be found with over
> 200 programs.
> 3. doesn't attempt to hide so much of the file system from the user
> 4. more control over hardware and OS settings, for example swap file
> location and size, what version of the driver you have and many more, XP
> gives you much more control over your OS and hardware than OSX and it's
> GUI tools for doing such are better than linux also.
All due respect, but these ALL seem completely backwards to me.
Regarding number 2, I have about 50 windows open on my Mac right now,
spread over 13 running applications. This is what my Dock looks like
with 13 apps open:
http://homepage.mac.com/gershwin/temp/dock.jpg
This is what my Windows taskbar looks like with 13 apps open:
http://homepage.mac.com/gershwin/temp/taskbar.jpg
It seems obvious to me that OS X's UI is doing a better job than Windows
here, and I didn't even have to mention Expose.
Incidentally, my Mac has well over 200 programs.
Regarding point 3, when I open up the Windows directory, it warns me
"This folder contains files that keep your system working properly. You
should not modify its contents." My Mac doesn't try to scare me away
like that. In Windows, you launch your applications via a
psuedo-filesystem embedded in the Start menu. With the Mac, you
navigate to the program in the filesystem itself. It sure seems to me
that Windows is trying harder to hide filesystem details.
Regarding 4, I'm not sure why you think Windows has the advantage here.
Mac OS X's virtual memory scheme is much more sophisticated than a
single swap file. It can swap to multiple volumes, coalesce multiple
swap files, etc. There are all sorts of utilities to control it that
are available, and of course that whole area is open source. That seems
like a lot more control compared to Windows.
And it seems to me like my Mac offers more information about my hardware
too. For example, in Apple System Profiler, I can see that my Mac has
two memory slots, and each one has 512 MB of PC2700U DDR SDRAM in it.
But that I can find on Windows on my Dell is that I have 1 GB of RAM.
The Mac seems a lot better in this respect.
>
> Both are solid robust and stable OS's with many features in common.
> I've found OSX's method of dealing with switching between windows and
> programs not as nice as windows, in windows the x closes the program not
> just the window, that means less for the user to do to quit a program.
Well, command-Q quits a program on the Mac. And, of course, the X may
or may not quit the program on Windows - for example, on Yahoo!
Messenger, it doesn't.
> Also you can switch right between windows rather than switching to the
> program and then to one of it's windows.
Sure, if you have a few windows open. If you have more than that,
Windows' UI quickly runs into trouble.
> But overall I think both OS's are excellent, both solid and robost. Also
> OSX is the best Unix os I've seen.
One of my largest complaints about Windows is the lack of UI
consistency. For example:
Should Control-W close a window (IE) or open "Stretch and Skew" (MS
Paint)? Should the Exit menu item show the Alt-F4 mnemonic (MS Paint)
or shouldn't it (Notepad)? Should Options go under the View menu
(WordPad) or the Tools menu (IE)? And what is UP with the Command Line
program?
The Mac, of course, has easy answers - splat-W always closes a window,
Quit always shows the keyboard mnemonic, Preferences are always under
the title menu, and Terminal is like any other app.
Coming from Windows to the Mac, you may not notice immediately how much
more consistent Mac applications are, but going the other way it's
pretty apparent.
I didn't intend for this to turn into a brow-beating rant. I hope you
like your iBook :)
-Peter
--
Pull out a splinter to reply.
Nicholas Buenk
> "Nicholas Buenk" <mo...@tpg.com.au> stated in post 42dd...@dnews.tpgi.com.au
> on 7/19/05 8:19 PM:
>
>
>>Snit wrote:
>>
>>>"Nicholas Buenk" <mo...@tpg.com.au> stated in post
>>>42ddac7e$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au on 7/19/05 6:44 PM:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I claim objectivity, because I hate neither. Although I have been using
>>>>windows for 10 years, I recently brought an ibook. Now I think that both
>>>> OS's are actually about equal, each has advantages disadvantages.
>>>>The good parts of OSX:
>>>>1. OSX is so much better at installing and uninstalling programs, simply
>>>>dragging and dropping things works much better than uninstall programs
>>>>which won't always remove every part of the program
>>>
>>>
>>>Agreed - though this would be better if it were more consistent. Another
>>>cool area OS X has here is that installed programs - for the most part - can
>>>be moved freely
>>
>>Yes, but there is a disadvantage to this, not being able to see all the
>>programs files easily, which can be useful if the program is misbehaving.
>
>
> Aha... no problem: right click (or control) and select "Show Package
> Contents".
Cool thanks for that tip.
I did mean that.
>
>>>>The good parts of XP:
>>>>1.range of software for it, especially in regards to entertainment,
>>>>gaming and videos. now that is a major advantage, which limits the
>>>>useablity of osx to laptops for me
>>>
>>>Another area: quilting software... I am sure there are others.
>>>
>>>Then again, in multimedia apps - at least some areas, OS X has XP beat.
>>
>>OSX has good tools for making multimedia at least.
>
>
> Very much true... nothing like it on Windows or Linux (as far as I have
> seen, anyway).
>
>>>>2. more of a focus on tasks, making it easier to switch between windows
>>>>and that it's UI is better at dealing with a large number of programs
>>>>than OSX, it would not be unusual for a XP machine to be found with over
>>>>200 programs.
>>>
>>>While I do not have recent data, at one time research showed Mac users had
>>>more programs on average than Win users. I find that likely to still be
>>>true.
>>
>>Well it depends on the user, i think your windows power user is bound to
>>have more software just to the huge amount out there that can be installed.
>
>
> I know I have hundreds of applications in my Applications folder - and use
> many of them on a regular basis.
>
> On XP installing and uninstalling programs comes with a much greater risk
> than it does on OS X... registry corruption and DLL hell...
Well those problems are usually rare in my experience, but there is
always the chance of some UI intergrating features stuffing up or the
program not uninstalling properly.
Nicholas Buenk
I"m not sure, though how would OSX do it better?
Snit
>>>> Agreed - though this would be better if it were more consistent. Another
>>>> cool area OS X has here is that installed programs - for the most part -
>>>> can be moved freely
>>>>
>>> Yes, but there is a disadvantage to this, not being able to see all the
>>> programs files easily, which can be useful if the program is misbehaving.
>>
>> Aha... no problem: right click (or control) and select "Show Package
>> Contents".
>
> Cool thanks for that tip.
My pleasure.
<SNIP />
>>>> There is good to that, too... though I can see it as a BTO option...
>>>
>>> Yes it is good especially for someone like me who sucks at spelling, for
>>> windows i've been using ICQ as a general purpose spell checker heh.
>>> What is BTO?
>>
>>
>> Build to order. Sorry about that. I thought you meant if only Apple had a
>> right click - talking about the one button mouse.
>
> I did mean that.
Aha... if you did not know, OS X can use multi-button mice just fine. I use
a Logitech scroll mouse - just plug it in and all buttons / scroll bar work
as expected. The System Pref's will let you change settings.
It comes with third party drivers - but I am happy with what Apple offers.
<SNIP />
>>>> While I do not have recent data, at one time research showed Mac users had
>>>> more programs on average than Win users. I find that likely to still be
>>>> true.
>>>
>>> Well it depends on the user, i think your windows power user is bound to
>>> have more software just to the huge amount out there that can be installed.
>>
>> I know I have hundreds of applications in my Applications folder - and use
>> many of them on a regular basis.
>>
>> On XP installing and uninstalling programs comes with a much greater risk
>> than it does on OS X... registry corruption and DLL hell...
>
> Well those problems are usually rare in my experience, but there is
> always the chance of some UI intergrating features stuffing up or the
> program not uninstalling properly.
I see reg problems quite a bit - though admittedly less often than in 98 and
previous. XP also has better tools to deal with it.
--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
Nicholas Buenk
Me too, I was really complaining about the mouse apples makes don't have
a right mouse button even though the OS can use it.
Nicholas Buenk
Because I'm pointing out that macs better security is not all due to
design but circumstance.
>
>> 2. more of a focus on tasks, making it easier to switch between
>> windows and that it's UI is better at dealing with a large number of
>> programs than OSX, it would not be unusual for a XP machine to be
>> found with over 200 programs.
>> 3. doesn't attempt to hide so much of the file system from the user
>> 4. more control over hardware and OS settings, for example swap file
>> location and size, what version of the driver you have and many more,
>> XP gives you much more control over your OS and hardware than OSX and
>> it's GUI tools for doing such are better than linux also.
>
>
> All due respect, but these ALL seem completely backwards to me.
>
> Regarding number 2, I have about 50 windows open on my Mac right now,
> spread over 13 running applications. This is what my Dock looks like
> with 13 apps open:
> http://homepage.mac.com/gershwin/temp/dock.jpg
>
> This is what my Windows taskbar looks like with 13 apps open:
> http://homepage.mac.com/gershwin/temp/taskbar.jpg
>
> It seems obvious to me that OS X's UI is doing a better job than Windows
> here, and I didn't even have to mention Expose.
Your screenshots reveal what I'm getting at. I think the mac will slow
you down in accessing the individual windows, where on windows you can
just click on the window in the task bar and get straight to it with one
click. I mean, look you have 5o windows open, and the dock hides them
all, you have to switch between the windows once you switch on the
program button, that is an extra step. Also with todays large widescreen
displays I think that the taskbar is able to deal with a large number of
open windows.
> Incidentally, my Mac has well over 200 programs.
>
> Regarding point 3, when I open up the Windows directory, it warns me
> "This folder contains files that keep your system working properly. You
> should not modify its contents." My Mac doesn't try to scare me away
> like that. In Windows, you launch your applications via a
> psuedo-filesystem embedded in the Start menu. With the Mac, you
> navigate to the program in the filesystem itself. It sure seems to me
> that Windows is trying harder to hide filesystem details.
Right but that's intended for newbies and is easy to disable, newbie
protection features are easy to bypass and turn off in XP and don't
obstruct power users.
The start menu has the advantage of being able to fit more programs than
the dock can. If you have 200 programs on your mac surely you can't put
them all on the dock, meaning you have to either use the finder or put
the applications folder on the dock and right click on it, which is some
what slower probably due to a lack of caching than the start menu and
needs a lot of scrolling. However the start menu is some what less than
ideal, it becomes cluttered after a while. Although KDE has a simple
solution for this, catagories.
>
> Regarding 4, I'm not sure why you think Windows has the advantage here.
> Mac OS X's virtual memory scheme is much more sophisticated than a
> single swap file. It can swap to multiple volumes, coalesce multiple
> swap files, etc.
Yes but it's highly automated, doesn't give you and option to configure
it in the system preferences panel at all from what I've seen.
> There are all sorts of utilities to control it that
> are available, and of course that whole area is open source. That seems
> like a lot more control compared to Windows.
>
> And it seems to me like my Mac offers more information about my hardware
> too. For example, in Apple System Profiler, I can see that my Mac has
> two memory slots, and each one has 512 MB of PC2700U DDR SDRAM in it.
> But that I can find on Windows on my Dell is that I have 1 GB of RAM.
> The Mac seems a lot better in this respect.
I can get that same information and more on my XP box with a 3rd party
program, where you say you need a 3rd party program to configure the
swap file.
http://download.guru3d.com/sandra/
>
>>
>> Both are solid robust and stable OS's with many features in common.
>> I've found OSX's method of dealing with switching between windows and
>> programs not as nice as windows, in windows the x closes the program
>> not just the window, that means less for the user to do to quit a
>> program.
>
>
> Well, command-Q quits a program on the Mac. And, of course, the X may
> or may not quit the program on Windows - for example, on Yahoo!
> Messenger, it doesn't.
Right, it just closes the window it stays open in the task bar
notification icon area. Doesn't seem too inconsisant to me the x is not
meant to be a quit button but a close window button, but it's more
simple than the mac in that if it's the last window the program closes.
>
>
>> Also you can switch right between windows rather than switching to the
>> program and then to one of it's windows.
>
>
> Sure, if you have a few windows open. If you have more than that,
> Windows' UI quickly runs into trouble.
On a large resolution display you can fit a huge amount of windows in
the task bar. If you have a screen like say apples own Cinema HD ones.
>
>> But overall I think both OS's are excellent, both solid and robost.
>> Also OSX is the best Unix os I've seen.
>
>
> One of my largest complaints about Windows is the lack of UI
> consistency. For example:
>
> Should Control-W close a window (IE) or open "Stretch and Skew" (MS
> Paint)? Should the Exit menu item show the Alt-F4 mnemonic (MS Paint)
> or shouldn't it (Notepad)? Should Options go under the View menu
> (WordPad) or the Tools menu (IE)? And what is UP with the Command Line
> program?
Well you have a point, but there are keyboard shortcuts that are
consistant, however a lot is left up to each program to pick a combination.
> The Mac, of course, has easy answers - splat-W always closes a window,
> Quit always shows the keyboard mnemonic, Preferences are always under
> the title menu, and Terminal is like any other app.
>
> Coming from Windows to the Mac, you may not notice immediately how much
> more consistent Mac applications are, but going the other way it's
> pretty apparent.
Right but issues like this are more important for newbies, what I'm more
concerned is how fast and efficient the UI is for doing every day tasks.
> I didn't intend for this to turn into a brow-beating rant. I hope you
> like your iBook :)
>
> -Peter
>
I do, however one thing I don't like about it is apples dvd player, is
there a better one out there up to the standard of windvd with
functioning adaptive deinterlacing?
Snit
>> Aha... if you did not know, OS X can use multi-button mice just fine. I use
>> a Logitech scroll mouse - just plug it in and all buttons / scroll bar work
>> as expected. The System Pref's will let you change settings.
>>
>> It comes with third party drivers - but I am happy with what Apple offers.
>
> Me too, I was really complaining about the mouse apples makes don't have
> a right mouse button even though the OS can use it.
While I know many folks who are used to computers do not understand it,
there are advantages to the one button mouse:
- keeps the UI "cleaner" and less dependant on contextual menus for common
tasks
- eliminates problems for left and right handed users of the same computer
- easier to learn; as a teacher I cannot tell you how often people ask which
button to use
- better for people with certain handicaps.
- I am happy that Apple added support for two button mice in OS X - used to
not be there in Classic Mac OS... at least not built in.
--
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)
Mr. T
> I claim objectivity, because I hate neither. Although I have been using
> windows for 10 years, I recently brought an ibook. Now I think that both
> OS's are actually about equal, each has advantages disadvantages.
> The good parts of OSX:
> 1. OSX is so much better at installing and uninstalling programs, simply
> dragging and dropping things works much better than uninstall programs
> which won't always remove every part of the program
yes, except small harmless pref files.
> 2. better security, although i think this is largely due to spyware and
> virus makers not spending much time programming for a OS with 4% of the
> marketshare. Still it doesn't run by default as adminstrator, yet it
> also doesn't bother you much with user rights like linux does.
marketshare has NOTHING to do with why OSX is so secure, never been hit
with viruses, etc. it's all about the out of the box security settings,
apple constant attention to fixes, a 7 day update default, etc.
4% is 20 million machines on the net 24/7, and NONE have them have been
infected? come on, it's not related to marketshare, it's all about it
being a secure os.
> 3. pretty, OSX is the prettest OS ever compiled in the history of computers.
yes, true.
> 4.features like spotlight and dashboard, which are as cool as apple
> claims they are in my opinion
yes, true.
> 5.right click has a spelling check in most applications! Now if only
> they had a right click.
add a 2 button mouse, osx fully supports them.
> The good parts of XP:
> 1.range of software for it, especially in regards to entertainment,
> gaming and videos. now that is a major advantage, which limits the
> useablity of osx to laptops for me
yes, games.
> 2. more of a focus on tasks, making it easier to switch between windows
> and that it's UI is better at dealing with a large number of programs
> than OSX, it would not be unusual for a XP machine to be found with over
> 200 programs.
you need to start using Windowshade.
> 3. doesn't attempt to hide so much of the file system from the user
???
> 4. more control over hardware and OS settings, for example swap file
> location and size, what version of the driver you have and many more,
you have all of that through utilities, and Apple's System Profiler will
show you driver versions for everything installed.
> XP
> gives you much more control over your OS and hardware than OSX and it's
> GUI tools for doing such are better than linux also.
sound like you aren't as familiar with OSX's software and hardware
options. it's basically the same as XP/Windows.
> Both are solid robust and stable OS's with many features in common.
> I've found OSX's method of dealing with switching between windows and
> programs not as nice as windows, in windows the x closes the program not
> just the window, that means less for the user to do to quit a program.
but it makes getting back into a document a snap, no more relaunching
apps. it's a smarter, faster way to deal with many tasks.
> Also you can switch right between windows rather than switching to the
> program and then to one of it's windows.
you need to start using Windowshade.
http://www.unsanity.com/haxies/wsx
> But overall I think both OS's are excellent, both solid and robost. Also
> OSX is the best Unix os I've seen.
yes.
Mr. T
> The start menu has the advantage of being able to fit more programs than
> the dock can. If you have 200 programs on your mac surely you can't put
> them all on the dock, meaning you have to either use the finder or put
> the applications folder on the dock and right click on it, which is some
> what slower probably due to a lack of caching than the start menu and
> needs a lot of scrolling. However the start menu is some what less than
> ideal, it becomes cluttered after a while. Although KDE has a simple
> solution for this, catagories.
you can always use DragThing
StormDrain
Nicholas Buenk <mo...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
I thought you had some insight into XP's superior task based computing.
My apologies.
Snit
<SNIP />
>> Why do you explain away Windows' malware by pointing out that the Mac
>> has less marketshare, but not do the same favor for the Mac's software
>> selection? You can't have it both ways.
>
> Because I'm pointing out that macs better security is not all due to
> design but circumstance.
Not all. Correct. Whatever the reason, however, this is a *huge*
weakness of Windows.
>>
>>> 2. more of a focus on tasks, making it easier to switch between
>>> windows and that it's UI is better at dealing with a large number of
>>> programs than OSX, it would not be unusual for a XP machine to be
>>> found with over 200 programs.
>>> 3. doesn't attempt to hide so much of the file system from the user
>>> 4. more control over hardware and OS settings, for example swap file
>>> location and size, what version of the driver you have and many more,
>>> XP gives you much more control over your OS and hardware than OSX and
>>> it's GUI tools for doing such are better than linux also.
>>
>>
>> All due respect, but these ALL seem completely backwards to me.
>>
>> Regarding number 2, I have about 50 windows open on my Mac right now,
>> spread over 13 running applications. This is what my Dock looks like
>> with 13 apps open:
>> http://homepage.mac.com/gershwin/temp/dock.jpg
>>
>> This is what my Windows taskbar looks like with 13 apps open:
>> http://homepage.mac.com/gershwin/temp/taskbar.jpg
>>
>> It seems obvious to me that OS X's UI is doing a better job than Windows
>> here, and I didn't even have to mention Expose.
>
> Your screenshots reveal what I'm getting at. I think the mac will slow
> you down in accessing the individual windows, where on windows you can
> just click on the window in the task bar and get straight to it with one
> click.
If you have more than a few windows open in Windows you get a menu...
otherwise you do not. On a Mac you always have a menu - right click,
or click and hold, on the Dock icons. You will get a list of windows,
the option to quit the program, the option to show the program in the
Finder, etc.
> I mean, look you have 5o windows open, and the dock hides them
> all, you have to switch between the windows once you switch on the
> program button, that is an extra step.
Again, use the menus on the Dock.
> Also with todays large widescreen displays I think that the taskbar is able to
> deal with a large number of open windows.
See above - Windows creates menus, too (though you can turn them off -
but then the tasks become so crowded you can not tell what is what...
and worse yet you get multiple rows you "get" to scroll between - or
increase the size of the task bar.
>
>> Incidentally, my Mac has well over 200 programs.
>>
>> Regarding point 3, when I open up the Windows directory, it warns me
>> "This folder contains files that keep your system working properly. You
>> should not modify its contents." My Mac doesn't try to scare me away
>> like that. In Windows, you launch your applications via a
>> psuedo-filesystem embedded in the Start menu. With the Mac, you
>> navigate to the program in the filesystem itself. It sure seems to me
>> that Windows is trying harder to hide filesystem details.
>
> Right but that's intended for newbies and is easy to disable, newbie
> protection features are easy to bypass and turn off in XP and don't
> obstruct power users.
> The start menu has the advantage of being able to fit more programs than
> the dock can.
Incorrect. I have well over a hundred programs accessible from my
Dock. Here is an image:
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/tmp/dock.png
> If you have 200 programs on your mac surely you can't put
> them all on the dock, meaning you have to either use the finder or put
> the applications folder on the dock and right click on it, which is some
> what slower probably due to a lack of caching than the start menu and
> needs a lot of scrolling. However the start menu is some what less than
> ideal, it becomes cluttered after a while. Although KDE has a simple
> solution for this, catagories.
I can make my own categories in OS X - though it is, of course, a bit
more work than to just accept the clutter of the Start menu.
>>
>> Regarding 4, I'm not sure why you think Windows has the advantage here.
>> Mac OS X's virtual memory scheme is much more sophisticated than a
>> single swap file. It can swap to multiple volumes, coalesce multiple
>> swap files, etc.
>
> Yes but it's highly automated, doesn't give you and option to configure
> it in the system preferences panel at all from what I've seen.
It can be configured via the command line or third party tools - but I
have never seen a good reason to do so.
>
>> There are all sorts of utilities to control it that
>> are available, and of course that whole area is open source. That seems
>> like a lot more control compared to Windows.
>>
>> And it seems to me like my Mac offers more information about my hardware
>> too. For example, in Apple System Profiler, I can see that my Mac has
>> two memory slots, and each one has 512 MB of PC2700U DDR SDRAM in it.
>> But that I can find on Windows on my Dell is that I have 1 GB of RAM.
>> The Mac seems a lot better in this respect.
>
> I can get that same information and more on my XP box with a 3rd party
> program, where you say you need a 3rd party program to configure the
> swap file.
> http://download.guru3d.com/sandra/
I would say there is much more need to know if you have an open memory
slot than to configure virtual memory. Do you disagree?
>>>
>>> Both are solid robust and stable OS's with many features in common.
>>> I've found OSX's method of dealing with switching between windows and
>>> programs not as nice as windows, in windows the x closes the program
>>> not just the window, that means less for the user to do to quit a
>>> program.
>>
>>
>> Well, command-Q quits a program on the Mac. And, of course, the X may
>> or may not quit the program on Windows - for example, on Yahoo!
>> Messenger, it doesn't.
>
> Right, it just closes the window it stays open in the task bar
> notification icon area. Doesn't seem too inconsisant to me the x is not
> meant to be a quit button but a close window button, but it's more
> simple than the mac in that if it's the last window the program closes.
But with Yahoo! and other programs it does not... that is a good point
I overlooked before... and do not have listed on my comparison page:
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win/
>>
>>> Also you can switch right between windows rather than switching to the
>>> program and then to one of it's windows.
>>
>> Sure, if you have a few windows open. If you have more than that,
>> Windows' UI quickly runs into trouble.
>
> On a large resolution display you can fit a huge amount of windows in
> the task bar. If you have a screen like say apples own Cinema HD ones.
If you minimize windows in OS X you have access to them - if they are
not minimized you likely can see them if you have a large display... or
you have so many that on Windows the task bar would be cluttered.
>
>>
>>> But overall I think both OS's are excellent, both solid and robost.
>>> Also OSX is the best Unix os I've seen.
>>
>>
>> One of my largest complaints about Windows is the lack of UI
>> consistency. For example:
>>
>> Should Control-W close a window (IE) or open "Stretch and Skew" (MS
>> Paint)? Should the Exit menu item show the Alt-F4 mnemonic (MS Paint)
>> or shouldn't it (Notepad)? Should Options go under the View menu
>> (WordPad) or the Tools menu (IE)? And what is UP with the Command Line
>> program?
>
> Well you have a point, but there are keyboard shortcuts that are
> consistant, however a lot is left up to each program to pick a combination.
>
OS X progs tend to be more consistent...
>> The Mac, of course, has easy answers - splat-W always closes a window,
>> Quit always shows the keyboard mnemonic, Preferences are always under
>> the title menu, and Terminal is like any other app.
>>
>> Coming from Windows to the Mac, you may not notice immediately how much
>> more consistent Mac applications are, but going the other way it's
>> pretty apparent.
>
> Right but issues like this are more important for newbies, what I'm more
> concerned is how fast and efficient the UI is for doing every day tasks.
Consistency is important not just for new users.
>
>> I didn't intend for this to turn into a brow-beating rant. I hope you
>> like your iBook :)
>>
>> -Peter
>>
>
> I do, however one thing I don't like about it is apples dvd player, is
> there a better one out there up to the standard of windvd with
> functioning adaptive deinterlacing?
I use VLC for much of my multimedia... not the best UI, but a pretty
good program.
Nicholas Buenk
> "Nicholas Buenk" <mo...@tpg.com.au> stated in post 42dd...@dnews.tpgi.com.au
> on 7/19/05 10:30 PM:
>
>
>>>Aha... if you did not know, OS X can use multi-button mice just fine. I use
>>>a Logitech scroll mouse - just plug it in and all buttons / scroll bar work
>>>as expected. The System Pref's will let you change settings.
>>>
>>>It comes with third party drivers - but I am happy with what Apple offers.
>>
>>Me too, I was really complaining about the mouse apples makes don't have
>>a right mouse button even though the OS can use it.
>
>
> While I know many folks who are used to computers do not understand it,
> there are advantages to the one button mouse:
>
> - keeps the UI "cleaner" and less dependant on contextual menus for common
> tasks
I consider contextual menus an advantage, they give quick access to
functions.
>
> - eliminates problems for left and right handed users of the same computer
Hmm, but mouse buttons can be switched over by software.
> - easier to learn; as a teacher I cannot tell you how often people ask which
> button to use
Right well you're usually able to do every function with just one button.
> - better for people with certain handicaps.
Hmm.
> - I am happy that Apple added support for two button mice in OS X - used to
> not be there in Classic Mac OS... at least not built in.
>
>
Control click is not as nice to use as a right click.
Nicholas Buenk
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>> "Nicholas Buenk" <mo...@tpg.com.au> stated in post 42dd...@dnews.tpgi.com.au
>> on 7/19/05 10:30 PM:
>>
>>
>>>> Aha... if you did not know, OS X can use multi-button mice just fine. I
>>>> use
>>>> a Logitech scroll mouse - just plug it in and all buttons / scroll bar work
>>>> as expected. The System Pref's will let you change settings.
>>>>
>>>> It comes with third party drivers - but I am happy with what Apple offers.
>>>
>>> Me too, I was really complaining about the mouse apples makes don't have
>>> a right mouse button even though the OS can use it.
>>
>>
>> While I know many folks who are used to computers do not understand it,
>> there are advantages to the one button mouse:
>>
>> - keeps the UI "cleaner" and less dependant on contextual menus for common
>> tasks
>
> I consider contextual menus an advantage, they give quick access to
> functions.
Oh, if OS X did not have then that would be a disadvantage. I am not
suggesting they are a bad thing. I am happy Mac OS X supports them
better than Classic Mac OS.
There are advantages to having non-contextual methods as well. A
couple of examples of this: OS X's Action Menus and XP's common tasks
area.
>>
>> - eliminates problems for left and right handed users of the same computer
>
> Hmm, but mouse buttons can be switched over by software.
Sure - but it takes time and can be a pain for a mouse set the "wrong"
way. For years I have thought they should make a switch on *mice* that
would let you swap the buttons... finally saw one advertised recently.
>
>> - easier to learn; as a teacher I cannot tell you how often people ask which
>> button to use
>
> Right well you're usually able to do every function with just one button.
But people *still* ask. Repeatedly. Maddeningly.
>
>> - better for people with certain handicaps.
>
> Hmm.
I have known folks with cerebral palsy and similar disorder who got
Macs mostly for the mouse...
>
>> - I am happy that Apple added support for two button mice in OS X - used to
>> not be there in Classic Mac OS... at least not built in.
>
> Control click is not as nice to use as a right click.
I am happy to have both - but agree that right click is easier for me.
Also love the middle click for Safari - opens a link in a new tab.
Firefox on Windows does the same thing.
MR_ED_of_Course
wrote on 7/19/05 10:27 PM:
> Peter Ammon wrote:
>> Nicholas Buenk wrote:
>>
>>> I claim objectivity, because I hate neither. Although I have been
>>> using windows for 10 years, I recently brought an ibook. Now I think
>>> that both OS's are actually about equal, each has advantages
>>> disadvantages.
I hope you don't take any of this as an offense, but I followed this thread
from the bottom and it seemed easy to tell that you were a more experienced
Windows user. I think you've just not learned/discovered many ways of doing
things on the Mac that I think may lead to different conclusions.
See below...
[snip]
>>> 1.range of software for it, especially in regards to entertainment,
>>> gaming and videos. now that is a major advantage, which limits the
>>> useablity of osx to laptops for me
Totally 100% agree with gaming, but in what ways would you say entertainment
and video? I find video on OS X to be a entire level above Windows, of
course, I may be looking on that from more of a production perspective, but
from a consumption perspective I still see OS X with a slight advantage.
>> Why do you explain away Windows' malware by pointing out that the Mac
>> has less marketshare, but not do the same favor for the Mac's software
>> selection? You can't have it both ways.
>
> Because I'm pointing out that macs better security is not all due to
> design but circumstance.
I agree, it's part design, mostly user base, and to some slight degree
hatred towards Microsoft.
>>> 2. more of a focus on tasks, making it easier to switch between
>>> windows and that it's UI is better at dealing with a large number of
>>> programs than OSX, it would not be unusual for a XP machine to be
>>> found with over 200 programs.
Wow, I really disagree with this. I have never had a Windows machine with
even 10% of the number of applications that I have on my Mac. This is
mostly due to registry hell. On OS X, there are tens of thousands of
applications available, and as long as you have a large enough hard drive,
you can easily install just about all of them (except for conflicting system
modifiers).
In addition to navigating through the Finder, you can switch/open OS X apps
in *MANY* more ways than XP...
1) Dock (in fixed locations)
2) Dock (hierarchical folders)
3) Sidebar
4) 3rd Dock (toolbar)
5) Command-Tab
6) Spotlight
7) Dashboard*
8) Expose
*Dashboard is a great place for mini-apps such as the calculator. Little
functional things that you use often but don't want to clutter navigation by
having them in the way.
Of course there are also 3rd party apps that allow other ways, but the point
is that with time on OS X after having used Windows, you should start to see
ways of organizing apps (and documents) in ways that allow much
faster/easier access.
[snip]
> Your screenshots reveal what I'm getting at. I think the mac will slow
> you down in accessing the individual windows, where on windows you can
> just click on the window in the task bar and get straight to it with one
> click. I mean, look you have 5o windows open, and the dock hides them
> all, you have to switch between the windows once you switch on the
> program button, that is an extra step. Also with todays large widescreen
> displays I think that the taskbar is able to deal with a large number of
> open windows.
I think the big difference between those screenshots is that there is no
order to where stuff lives on the Windows taskbar. Items move around, and
as it fills up you end up either with documents living under one item,
taskbar items being things like "U...", or both of those problems.
Of course, as time with OS X increases, you're more likely to simply use
Expose, or if you minimize your documents select them from the right.
>
>> Incidentally, my Mac has well over 200 programs.
>>
>> Regarding point 3, when I open up the Windows directory, it warns me
>> "This folder contains files that keep your system working properly. You
>> should not modify its contents." My Mac doesn't try to scare me away
>> like that. In Windows, you launch your applications via a
>> psuedo-filesystem embedded in the Start menu. With the Mac, you
>> navigate to the program in the filesystem itself. It sure seems to me
>> that Windows is trying harder to hide filesystem details.
>
> Right but that's intended for newbies and is easy to disable, newbie
> protection features are easy to bypass and turn off in XP and don't
> obstruct power users.
I think the issue here is that many things newbies must do end up taking
them past these "power user only" roadblocks. Don't even get me started on
how many default settings I usually change on a Windows machine and how most
of the time there's no reset to default option.
> The start menu has the advantage of being able to fit more programs than
> the dock can. If you have 200 programs on your mac surely you can't put
> them all on the dock, meaning you have to either use the finder or put
> the applications folder on the dock and right click on it, which is some
> what slower probably due to a lack of caching than the start menu and
> needs a lot of scrolling. However the start menu is some what less than
> ideal, it becomes cluttered after a while. Although KDE has a simple
> solution for this, catagories.
I have a dual-G4 PowerMac and I have my main hard drive in my Dock. I can
easily (and swiftly) get a hierarchical view of everything, including my
Applications directory. It's faster than my Dell Pentium 4 3.2 GHz and its
Start Menu.
And it took Spotlight 4 seconds to find all 2,104 installed apps on my Mac.
>> Regarding 4, I'm not sure why you think Windows has the advantage here.
>> Mac OS X's virtual memory scheme is much more sophisticated than a
>> single swap file. It can swap to multiple volumes, coalesce multiple
>> swap files, etc.
>
>
> Yes but it's highly automated, doesn't give you and option to configure
> it in the system preferences panel at all from what I've seen.
>
>> There are all sorts of utilities to control it that
>> are available, and of course that whole area is open source. That seems
>> like a lot more control compared to Windows.
>>
>> And it seems to me like my Mac offers more information about my hardware
>> too. For example, in Apple System Profiler, I can see that my Mac has
>> two memory slots, and each one has 512 MB of PC2700U DDR SDRAM in it.
>> But that I can find on Windows on my Dell is that I have 1 GB of RAM.
>> The Mac seems a lot better in this respect.
>
> I can get that same information and more on my XP box with a 3rd party
> program, where you say you need a 3rd party program to configure the
> swap file.
> http://download.guru3d.com/sandra/
HUGE difference here. First off, you don't need a 3rd party app to
configure the swap file on OS X. You can do this in the Terminal. Of
course the Terminal could be considered a "power user utility", but NOBODY
should be wanting to mess with the swap file unless they're a power user to
begin with....even then, there's some debate...keep in mind the system in
much different in OS X than XP and there is less of a reason to go messing
with it on OS X.
Meanwhile, having it be easier to get hardware profile information is
definitely a good thing for newbies.
Mac user with a problem related to hardware:
Tech - Go to Apple menu and select About this Mac
User - OK
Windows user with a problem related to hardware:
Tech - Go to http://download.guru3d.com/sandra/
User - Oh Damn!
>>> Both are solid robust and stable OS's with many features in common.
>>> I've found OSX's method of dealing with switching between windows and
>>> programs not as nice as windows, in windows the x closes the program
>>> not just the window, that means less for the user to do to quit a
>>> program.
>>
>>
>> Well, command-Q quits a program on the Mac. And, of course, the X may
>> or may not quit the program on Windows - for example, on Yahoo!
>> Messenger, it doesn't.
>
> Right, it just closes the window it stays open in the task bar
> notification icon area. Doesn't seem too inconsisant to me the x is not
> meant to be a quit button but a close window button, but it's more
> simple than the mac in that if it's the last window the program closes.
You're making a huge assumption that the user is going to want to quit the
application. How do you close all windows of an application without
quitting it in XP? The answer is that only *some* Windows apps allow you to
do this (that's the inconsistency) and the rest won't let you keep an app
open without an open window (that's the inconvenience).
On OS X, you get very used to Command-Q for quitting apps as a separate task
course of action as opposed to closing windows. These are two totally
different things that should be different actions. It may not always be a
problem, but it's a royal bitch when you accidentally quit an app that has
some special startup.
>> One of my largest complaints about Windows is the lack of UI
>> consistency. For example:
>>
>> Should Control-W close a window (IE) or open "Stretch and Skew" (MS
>> Paint)? Should the Exit menu item show the Alt-F4 mnemonic (MS Paint)
>> or shouldn't it (Notepad)? Should Options go under the View menu
>> (WordPad) or the Tools menu (IE)? And what is UP with the Command Line
>> program?
> Well you have a point, but there are keyboard shortcuts that are
> consistant, however a lot is left up to each program to pick a combination.
Why would that be a good thing?
>> The Mac, of course, has easy answers - splat-W always closes a window,
>> Quit always shows the keyboard mnemonic, Preferences are always under
>> the title menu, and Terminal is like any other app.
>>
>> Coming from Windows to the Mac, you may not notice immediately how much
>> more consistent Mac applications are, but going the other way it's
>> pretty apparent.
>
> Right but issues like this are more important for newbies, what I'm more
> concerned is how fast and efficient the UI is for doing every day tasks.
Try this...
Work on a large project with lots of documents that you need to organize in
multiple hierarchical folders. Now in various apps try opening, creating,
editing and saving these documents. As you get deeper into various levels
of directories this becomes a royal pain in the ass on Windows...and as you
work with various apps, the interfaces for the file system actions are all
going to be different.
On OS X, simply add shortcuts to the sidebar. Projects like video or things
requiring asset files can also be facilitated with Expose...simply click on
the assigned Expose button (Fkey or mouse button) and drag the item to the
work space.
>> I didn't intend for this to turn into a brow-beating rant. I hope you
>> like your iBook :)
Me too, I don't want to seem like I'm ranting against you too and also hope
you enjoy your iBook.
Keep in mind that I was a PC user before becoming a Mac user, and I've
always had at least one PC to this day. I just see a lot of things that
make me greatly prefer the Mac.
Sandman
> The good parts of XP:
>
> 1.range of software for it, especially in regards to entertainment,
> gaming and videos. now that is a major advantage, which limits the
> useablity of osx to laptops for me
Windows is for gaming, that's for sure.
> 2. more of a focus on tasks, making it easier to switch between windows
> and that it's UI is better at dealing with a large number of programs
> than OSX, it would not be unusual for a XP machine to be found with over
> 200 programs.
Eh? The Start Menu is an awful place to put 200 applications in and hope the
user finds them.
> 3. doesn't attempt to hide so much of the file system from the user
Quite the opposite. The start menu is used instead of the filesystem. Most
folders are hidden to the user, and some are hidden behind a "we've hidden this
folder to you since you're to stupid to use it" screen.
Windows does it best to hide its messy file system to the user.
> 4. more control over hardware and OS settings, for example swap file
> location and size, what version of the driver you have and many more, XP
> gives you much more control over your OS and hardware than OSX and it's
> GUI tools for doing such are better than linux also.
Perhaps, not that I've really ever wanted to change the swap file size or
location.
> Both are solid robust and stable OS's with many features in common.
> I've found OSX's method of dealing with switching between windows and
> programs not as nice as windows, in windows the x closes the program not
> just the window, that means less for the user to do to quit a program.
There are two types of apps in Windows - "ordinary" and "MDI" apps. MDI apps
have a huge window which all sub-windows live in. These have multiple close
widgets where the b ig one quits the program and the small ones closes the
windows.
OSX also does this, but not as ugly. Some apps will quit after you close the
window - such as system preferences or iPhoto. Some apps will stay open.
OSX is a application-centric OS, while Windows is more of a document-centric
OS. For instance, if you have a jpg image in a folder in Windows and you want
to open it in an open application instead of the default, you can't drag it to
an application icon, since there is no application icon in the task bar - only
document icons. The Dock in OSX holds applications, so there you just drag it
to the app and it will open the image.
> Also you can switch right between windows rather than switching to the
> program and then to one of it's windows.
You can do this in OSX as well, when in an application, hit cmd-> and cmd-< to
switch windows (I hope, this is how it's done on a swedish keyboard).
> But overall I think both OS's are excellent, both solid and robost. Also
> OSX is the best Unix os I've seen.
--
Sandman[.net]
Travelinman
Peter Ammon <gers...@splintermac.com> wrote:
That's even giving Windows an advantage. If you had 50 windows open on
Windows like you do on the Mac, the Task Bar would be even worse.
>
> Incidentally, my Mac has well over 200 programs.
>
> Regarding point 3, when I open up the Windows directory, it warns me
> "This folder contains files that keep your system working properly. You
> should not modify its contents." My Mac doesn't try to scare me away
> like that. In Windows, you launch your applications via a
> psuedo-filesystem embedded in the Start menu. With the Mac, you
> navigate to the program in the filesystem itself. It sure seems to me
> that Windows is trying harder to hide filesystem details.
>
> Regarding 4, I'm not sure why you think Windows has the advantage here.
> Mac OS X's virtual memory scheme is much more sophisticated than a
> single swap file. It can swap to multiple volumes, coalesce multiple
> swap files, etc. There are all sorts of utilities to control it that
> are available, and of course that whole area is open source. That seems
> like a lot more control compared to Windows.
Like many of his complaints, he's speaking from lack of knowledge - like
not understanding that you can select a window from the Dock.
>
> And it seems to me like my Mac offers more information about my hardware
> too. For example, in Apple System Profiler, I can see that my Mac has
> two memory slots, and each one has 512 MB of PC2700U DDR SDRAM in it.
> But that I can find on Windows on my Dell is that I have 1 GB of RAM.
> The Mac seems a lot better in this respect.
>
> >
> > Both are solid robust and stable OS's with many features in common.
> > I've found OSX's method of dealing with switching between windows and
> > programs not as nice as windows, in windows the x closes the program not
> > just the window, that means less for the user to do to quit a program.
>
> Well, command-Q quits a program on the Mac. And, of course, the X may
> or may not quit the program on Windows - for example, on Yahoo!
> Messenger, it doesn't.
>
>
> > Also you can switch right between windows rather than switching to the
> > program and then to one of it's windows.
>
> Sure, if you have a few windows open. If you have more than that,
> Windows' UI quickly runs into trouble.
Not to mention the extremely confusing MDI vs SDI interface issues on
Windows.
Travelinman
Nicholas Buenk <mo...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> Peter Ammon wrote:
> >
> > Why do you explain away Windows' malware by pointing out that the Mac
> > has less marketshare, but not do the same favor for the Mac's software
> > selection? You can't have it both ways.
>
> Because I'm pointing out that macs better security is not all due to
> design but circumstance.
How do you explain that less popular OSs than OS X have malware then?
You're using the common argument, but there's no evidence to support it.
> >
> > All due respect, but these ALL seem completely backwards to me.
> >
> > Regarding number 2, I have about 50 windows open on my Mac right now,
> > spread over 13 running applications. This is what my Dock looks like
> > with 13 apps open:
> > http://homepage.mac.com/gershwin/temp/dock.jpg
> >
> > This is what my Windows taskbar looks like with 13 apps open:
> > http://homepage.mac.com/gershwin/temp/taskbar.jpg
> >
> > It seems obvious to me that OS X's UI is doing a better job than Windows
> > here, and I didn't even have to mention Expose.
>
>
> Your screenshots reveal what I'm getting at. I think the mac will slow
> you down in accessing the individual windows, where on windows you can
> just click on the window in the task bar and get straight to it with one
> click. I mean, look you have 5o windows open, and the dock hides them
> all, you have to switch between the windows once you switch on the
> program button, that is an extra step. Also with todays large widescreen
> displays I think that the taskbar is able to deal with a large number of
> open windows.
Apparently, you're not paying attention.
The Windows task bar is almost unusable with 13 panes - you can't tell
which file is which. Now, expand that to 50 panes and you won't be able
to see a thing - so you're reduced to trial and error.
>
> > Incidentally, my Mac has well over 200 programs.
> >
> > Regarding point 3, when I open up the Windows directory, it warns me
> > "This folder contains files that keep your system working properly. You
> > should not modify its contents." My Mac doesn't try to scare me away
> > like that. In Windows, you launch your applications via a
> > psuedo-filesystem embedded in the Start menu. With the Mac, you
> > navigate to the program in the filesystem itself. It sure seems to me
> > that Windows is trying harder to hide filesystem details.
>
> Right but that's intended for newbies and is easy to disable, newbie
> protection features are easy to bypass and turn off in XP and don't
> obstruct power users.
How does the Mac restrict your access to the file system, then? You can
do ANYTHING with files in the Mac that you can with Windows.
> The start menu has the advantage of being able to fit more programs than
> the dock can. If you have 200 programs on your mac surely you can't put
> them all on the dock, meaning you have to either use the finder or put
> the applications folder on the dock and right click on it, which is some
> what slower probably due to a lack of caching than the start menu and
> needs a lot of scrolling. However the start menu is some what less than
> ideal, it becomes cluttered after a while. Although KDE has a simple
> solution for this, catagories.
Sadly, you're not being fair again.
If you put all your apps into a folder and put the folder into the Dock,
you have exactly the same situation you have with Windows.
Windows: Click on 'start', then drag to submenus, then application (with
a few of your more frequently used apps bypassing the submenus)
Mac: Click on 'app folder' then drag to application.
Not to mention that your most commonly used apps are easier to get to on
the Mac:
Windows: Click on 'start' then drag to app
Mac: Click on app
>
> >
> > Regarding 4, I'm not sure why you think Windows has the advantage here.
> > Mac OS X's virtual memory scheme is much more sophisticated than a
> > single swap file. It can swap to multiple volumes, coalesce multiple
> > swap files, etc.
>
>
> Yes but it's highly automated, doesn't give you and option to configure
> it in the system preferences panel at all from what I've seen.
Why would you need to? For a power user, it can be done. For a newbie,
the option isn't there.
>
> > There are all sorts of utilities to control it that
> > are available, and of course that whole area is open source. That seems
> > like a lot more control compared to Windows.
> >
> > And it seems to me like my Mac offers more information about my hardware
> > too. For example, in Apple System Profiler, I can see that my Mac has
> > two memory slots, and each one has 512 MB of PC2700U DDR SDRAM in it.
> > But that I can find on Windows on my Dell is that I have 1 GB of RAM.
> > The Mac seems a lot better in this respect.
>
> I can get that same information and more on my XP box with a 3rd party
> program, where you say you need a 3rd party program to configure the
> swap file.
> http://download.guru3d.com/sandra/
Wrong. You need a third party App. Apple System Profiler is part of OS
X. Mac wins here.
Travelinman
Then buy a two button mouse. BFD.
H Huntzinger
>
> Your screenshots reveal what I'm getting at. I think the mac will slow
> you down in accessing the individual windows, where on windows you can
> just click on the window in the task bar and get straight to it with one
As a longtime user of both OS's, what I've found is as follows:
First, its generally counterproductive to have a large number ("50"?) of
windows open on either system. There's only one of me, so splintering
can only go so far. Pragmatically, I'd say that I have less than 20
windows open 99.5% of the time, and no more than a dozen open 95% of the
time.
FWIW, part of this is probably also be due to a longstanding and highly
deserved distrust of the stability of Windows...having fewer windows
open also means less work to lose when the BSOD makes its visit.
Granted, its become less of a risk under XP, but old habits die hard.
Second, when you have a ton of windows open on XP, its rarely a "one
click" task as is being represented here...at least with the default
configuration. First off, some applications will stack their documents
within their little block on the bottom, so while it may be one click to
identify the block, its then a scroll & select to get to the actual
document...some pretty detailed mouse control, which is a pain when
using a laptop on an airline flight. Next, when the taskbar at the
bottom becomes too crowded, XP will go to a double-decker stack that in
some configurations then requires you to go to an up/down arrow
selection by which you then scroll through the different floors/layers
to the one that has the app/doc that you're looking for. It works, but
it also takes time.
The net result of these GUI interface factors has conditioned me to be
more aggressive in closing out App's with documents if I don't think
that I'm going to need it for 15 minutes. Of course, the side benefit
of doing so is that while this burns some time, its easy for me to do,
it reduces organizational clutter and it frees up RAM on the machine.
On the Mac OS X side, having a lot of documents stashed down in the dock
does cause the dock's icon size to get pretty small pretty quick,
especially on a 17" and similiarly 'small' monitors (alluding to Edwin's
comment on the 'This is a 'lousy' monitor?' thread). What it all comes
down to is space management, and as can be seen in my screenshot...
http://www.huntzinger.com/pic/screenshot.jpg
...at least the lower right part of the desktop isn't being occupied by
XP's row of status icons. To a certain degree, Apple moved them to the
upper right.
And of course, overlaid windows on the desktop don't occupy Dock space
on OS X, so its effectively another place to "store" documents that you
want nearby, and Expose is the tool that helps find them quickly.
Overall, you adapt to the tools that you have, and you generally will
follow and prefer the paradigm of whichever tool you use more. Not a
huge surprise here. More perhaps later.
-hh
Nicholas Buenk
> in article 42dd...@dnews.tpgi.com.au, Nicholas Buenk at mo...@tpg.com.au
> wrote on 7/19/05 10:27 PM:
>
>
>>Peter Ammon wrote:
>>
>>>Nicholas Buenk wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I claim objectivity, because I hate neither. Although I have been
>>>>using windows for 10 years, I recently brought an ibook. Now I think
>>>>that both OS's are actually about equal, each has advantages
>>>>disadvantages.
>
>
> I hope you don't take any of this as an offense, but I followed this thread
> from the bottom and it seemed easy to tell that you were a more experienced
> Windows user. I think you've just not learned/discovered many ways of doing
> things on the Mac that I think may lead to different conclusions.
>
> See below...
>
> [snip]
>
That is possible.
>
>>>>1.range of software for it, especially in regards to entertainment,
>>>>gaming and videos. now that is a major advantage, which limits the
>>>>useablity of osx to laptops for me
>
>
> Totally 100% agree with gaming, but in what ways would you say entertainment
> and video? I find video on OS X to be a entire level above Windows, of
> course, I may be looking on that from more of a production perspective, but
> from a consumption perspective I still see OS X with a slight advantage.
>
The support for HD digital tv is excellent on windows, plus the range
tools for things like xvid, divx etc. WMV HD is also excellent.
>
>>>Why do you explain away Windows' malware by pointing out that the Mac
>>>has less marketshare, but not do the same favor for the Mac's software
>>>selection? You can't have it both ways.
>>
>>Because I'm pointing out that macs better security is not all due to
>>design but circumstance.
>
>
> I agree, it's part design, mostly user base, and to some slight degree
> hatred towards Microsoft.
>
>
>>>>2. more of a focus on tasks, making it easier to switch between
>>>>windows and that it's UI is better at dealing with a large number of
>>>>programs than OSX, it would not be unusual for a XP machine to be
>>>>found with over 200 programs.
>
>
> Wow, I really disagree with this. I have never had a Windows machine with
> even 10% of the number of applications that I have on my Mac. This is
> mostly due to registry hell. On OS X, there are tens of thousands of
> applications available, and as long as you have a large enough hard drive,
> you can easily install just about all of them (except for conflicting system
> modifiers).
There are many more programs for XP, and registory hell, in my
experience is a rare problem.
> In addition to navigating through the Finder, you can switch/open OS X apps
> in *MANY* more ways than XP...
> 1) Dock (in fixed locations)
> 2) Dock (hierarchical folders)
> 3) Sidebar
> 4) 3rd Dock (toolbar)
> 5) Command-Tab
> 6) Spotlight
> 7) Dashboard*
> 8) Expose
Is there any way to do it with a few mouse movements as clicks as the
task bar lets you.
> *Dashboard is a great place for mini-apps such as the calculator. Little
> functional things that you use often but don't want to clutter navigation by
> having them in the way.
>
> Of course there are also 3rd party apps that allow other ways, but the point
> is that with time on OS X after having used Windows, you should start to see
> ways of organizing apps (and documents) in ways that allow much
> faster/easier access.
>
> [snip]
>
>>Your screenshots reveal what I'm getting at. I think the mac will slow
>>you down in accessing the individual windows, where on windows you can
>>just click on the window in the task bar and get straight to it with one
>>click. I mean, look you have 5o windows open, and the dock hides them
>>all, you have to switch between the windows once you switch on the
>>program button, that is an extra step. Also with todays large widescreen
>>displays I think that the taskbar is able to deal with a large number of
>>open windows.
>
>
> I think the big difference between those screenshots is that there is no
> order to where stuff lives on the Windows taskbar. Items move around, and
> as it fills up you end up either with documents living under one item,
> taskbar items being things like "U...", or both of those problems.
One letter and an icon is often enough to know what you're clicking on.
Yes, the task bar is all out of order, but every open window is listed
on it, making it faster and more efficient to switch to an individual
window.
> Of course, as time with OS X increases, you're more likely to simply use
> Expose, or if you minimize your documents select them from the right.
>
>>>Incidentally, my Mac has well over 200 programs.
>>>
>>>Regarding point 3, when I open up the Windows directory, it warns me
>>>"This folder contains files that keep your system working properly. You
>>>should not modify its contents." My Mac doesn't try to scare me away
>>>like that. In Windows, you launch your applications via a
>>>psuedo-filesystem embedded in the Start menu. With the Mac, you
>>>navigate to the program in the filesystem itself. It sure seems to me
>>>that Windows is trying harder to hide filesystem details.
>>
>>Right but that's intended for newbies and is easy to disable, newbie
>>protection features are easy to bypass and turn off in XP and don't
>>obstruct power users.
>
>
> I think the issue here is that many things newbies must do end up taking
> them past these "power user only" roadblocks. Don't even get me started on
> how many default settings I usually change on a Windows machine and how most
> of the time there's no reset to default option.
True, but I think it's vitally important for a UI to be efficient and
easy for a power user to get their tasks done.
I dislike an OS that forces you to use remember and type to configure
it's vital functions rather than point and click.
> Meanwhile, having it be easier to get hardware profile information is
> definitely a good thing for newbies.
>
> Mac user with a problem related to hardware:
> Tech - Go to Apple menu and select About this Mac
> User - OK
>
> Windows user with a problem related to hardware:
> Tech - Go to http://download.guru3d.com/sandra/
> User - Oh Damn!
You have a point, though i must say that sandra utlity is a top knotch
program for getting hardware info. And it includes benchmark functions.
>>>>Both are solid robust and stable OS's with many features in common.
>>>>I've found OSX's method of dealing with switching between windows and
>>>>programs not as nice as windows, in windows the x closes the program
>>>>not just the window, that means less for the user to do to quit a
>>>>program.
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, command-Q quits a program on the Mac. And, of course, the X may
>>>or may not quit the program on Windows - for example, on Yahoo!
>>>Messenger, it doesn't.
>>
>>Right, it just closes the window it stays open in the task bar
>>notification icon area. Doesn't seem too inconsisant to me the x is not
>>meant to be a quit button but a close window button, but it's more
>>simple than the mac in that if it's the last window the program closes.
>
>
> You're making a huge assumption that the user is going to want to quit the
> application. How do you close all windows of an application without
> quitting it in XP? The answer is that only *some* Windows apps allow you to
> do this (that's the inconsistency) and the rest won't let you keep an app
> open without an open window (that's the inconvenience).
Leaving an application open that you arne't using is a waste of ram. A
limited resource on an ibook ;)
>
> On OS X, you get very used to Command-Q for quitting apps as a separate task
> course of action as opposed to closing windows. These are two totally
> different things that should be different actions. It may not always be a
> problem, but it's a royal bitch when you accidentally quit an app that has
> some special startup.
Yes, but I think it's easier and faster to click an x.
>>>One of my largest complaints about Windows is the lack of UI
>>>consistency. For example:
>>>
>>>Should Control-W close a window (IE) or open "Stretch and Skew" (MS
>>>Paint)? Should the Exit menu item show the Alt-F4 mnemonic (MS Paint)
>>>or shouldn't it (Notepad)? Should Options go under the View menu
>>>(WordPad) or the Tools menu (IE)? And what is UP with the Command Line
>>>program?
>>
>>Well you have a point, but there are keyboard shortcuts that are
>>consistant, however a lot is left up to each program to pick a combination.
>
>
> Why would that be a good thing?
I'm not saying it's a good thing, although I guess it frees up keyboard
combinations for use, at the cost of ease of use.
>
>
>>>The Mac, of course, has easy answers - splat-W always closes a window,
>>>Quit always shows the keyboard mnemonic, Preferences are always under
>>>the title menu, and Terminal is like any other app.
>>>
>>>Coming from Windows to the Mac, you may not notice immediately how much
>>>more consistent Mac applications are, but going the other way it's
>>>pretty apparent.
>>
>>Right but issues like this are more important for newbies, what I'm more
>>concerned is how fast and efficient the UI is for doing every day tasks.
>
>
> Try this...
>
> Work on a large project with lots of documents that you need to organize in
> multiple hierarchical folders. Now in various apps try opening, creating,
> editing and saving these documents. As you get deeper into various levels
> of directories this becomes a royal pain in the ass on Windows...and as you
> work with various apps, the interfaces for the file system actions are all
> going to be different.
>
> On OS X, simply add shortcuts to the sidebar. Projects like video or things
> requiring asset files can also be facilitated with Expose...simply click on
> the assigned Expose button (Fkey or mouse button) and drag the item to the
> work space.
You could put shortcuts to folders and documents on the start menu or
quick launch bar and drag them into programs to open them.
>>>I didn't intend for this to turn into a brow-beating rant. I hope you
>>>like your iBook :)
>
>
> Me too, I don't want to seem like I'm ranting against you too and also hope
> you enjoy your iBook.
>
> Keep in mind that I was a PC user before becoming a Mac user, and I've
> always had at least one PC to this day. I just see a lot of things that
> make me greatly prefer the Mac.
>
Currently I feel comfortable with both, although there are a few things
about osx that annoy me a bit, same for windows though. ;)
Nicholas Buenk
That's not so easy if you have a laptop. The mouse is err... built into
the case.
Nicholas Buenk
> In article <42dd...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
> Nicholas Buenk <mo...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>Peter Ammon wrote:
>
>
>>>Why do you explain away Windows' malware by pointing out that the Mac
>>>has less marketshare, but not do the same favor for the Mac's software
>>>selection? You can't have it both ways.
>>
>>Because I'm pointing out that macs better security is not all due to
>>design but circumstance.
>
>
> How do you explain that less popular OSs than OS X have malware then?
Like what?
> You're using the common argument, but there's no evidence to support it.
>
Well, I wonder. How easy would it be in osx to have a website load a
program, or a program you download, install a spyware program that
started when the OS booted.
>
>>>All due respect, but these ALL seem completely backwards to me.
>>>
>>>Regarding number 2, I have about 50 windows open on my Mac right now,
>>>spread over 13 running applications. This is what my Dock looks like
>>>with 13 apps open:
>>>http://homepage.mac.com/gershwin/temp/dock.jpg
>>>
>>>This is what my Windows taskbar looks like with 13 apps open:
>>>http://homepage.mac.com/gershwin/temp/taskbar.jpg
>>>
>>>It seems obvious to me that OS X's UI is doing a better job than Windows
>>>here, and I didn't even have to mention Expose.
>>
>>
>>Your screenshots reveal what I'm getting at. I think the mac will slow
>>you down in accessing the individual windows, where on windows you can
>>just click on the window in the task bar and get straight to it with one
>>click. I mean, look you have 5o windows open, and the dock hides them
>>all, you have to switch between the windows once you switch on the
>>program button, that is an extra step. Also with todays large widescreen
>>displays I think that the taskbar is able to deal with a large number of
>>open windows.
>
>
> Apparently, you're not paying attention.
>
> The Windows task bar is almost unusable with 13 panes - you can't tell
> which file is which. Now, expand that to 50 panes and you won't be able
> to see a thing - so you're reduced to trial and error.
It will always show at least one letter, I find that most often I switch
between windows that I opened at around the same time. It's not so
unusable, your memory and the icon and letter are quite good clues ;)
>
>>>Incidentally, my Mac has well over 200 programs.
>>>
>>>Regarding point 3, when I open up the Windows directory, it warns me
>>>"This folder contains files that keep your system working properly. You
>>>should not modify its contents." My Mac doesn't try to scare me away
>>>like that. In Windows, you launch your applications via a
>>>psuedo-filesystem embedded in the Start menu. With the Mac, you
>>>navigate to the program in the filesystem itself. It sure seems to me
>>>that Windows is trying harder to hide filesystem details.
>>
>>Right but that's intended for newbies and is easy to disable, newbie
>>protection features are easy to bypass and turn off in XP and don't
>>obstruct power users.
>
>
> How does the Mac restrict your access to the file system, then? You can
> do ANYTHING with files in the Mac that you can with Windows.
Look at the diffence if you browse the file system with the terminal
compared to the finder.
>
>
>>The start menu has the advantage of being able to fit more programs than
>>the dock can. If you have 200 programs on your mac surely you can't put
>>them all on the dock, meaning you have to either use the finder or put
>>the applications folder on the dock and right click on it, which is some
>>what slower probably due to a lack of caching than the start menu and
>>needs a lot of scrolling. However the start menu is some what less than
>>ideal, it becomes cluttered after a while. Although KDE has a simple
>>solution for this, catagories.
>
>
> Sadly, you're not being fair again.
>
> If you put all your apps into a folder and put the folder into the Dock,
> you have exactly the same situation you have with Windows.
> Windows: Click on 'start', then drag to submenus, then application (with
> a few of your more frequently used apps bypassing the submenus)
> Mac: Click on 'app folder' then drag to application.
Yes actually you are right, I just have a minor complant, I wish the
left mouse button brought up the menu for the application folder ;)
>
> Not to mention that your most commonly used apps are easier to get to on
> the Mac:
> Windows: Click on 'start' then drag to app
> Mac: Click on app
Microsoft made a quick launch bar for easy access to commonly used apps
way back for windows 98. I don't use it though, takes up too much space
from the task bar which I need cause I multitask like a nut.
>>>Regarding 4, I'm not sure why you think Windows has the advantage here.
>>> Mac OS X's virtual memory scheme is much more sophisticated than a
>>>single swap file. It can swap to multiple volumes, coalesce multiple
>>>swap files, etc.
>>
>>
>>Yes but it's highly automated, doesn't give you and option to configure
>>it in the system preferences panel at all from what I've seen.
>
>
> Why would you need to? For a power user, it can be done. For a newbie,
> the option isn't there.
Why should they make it difficult for the power user by not putting a
function to do it in the GUI?
>
>
>>> There are all sorts of utilities to control it that
>>>are available, and of course that whole area is open source. That seems
>>>like a lot more control compared to Windows.
>>>
>>>And it seems to me like my Mac offers more information about my hardware
>>>too. For example, in Apple System Profiler, I can see that my Mac has
>>>two memory slots, and each one has 512 MB of PC2700U DDR SDRAM in it.
>>>But that I can find on Windows on my Dell is that I have 1 GB of RAM.
>>>The Mac seems a lot better in this respect.
>>
>>I can get that same information and more on my XP box with a 3rd party
>>program, where you say you need a 3rd party program to configure the
>>swap file.
>>http://download.guru3d.com/sandra/
>
>
> Wrong. You need a third party App. Apple System Profiler is part of OS
> X. Mac wins here.
Yes, but originally I was talking about the fact that the control panel
lets you configure more aspects of hardware and the os than the system
proferences do.
Nicholas Buenk
> Nicholas Buenk <mo...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Your screenshots reveal what I'm getting at. I think the mac will slow
>>you down in accessing the individual windows, where on windows you can
>>just click on the window in the task bar and get straight to it with one
>>click. I mean, look you have 5o windows open...
>
>
>
> As a longtime user of both OS's, what I've found is as follows:
>
> First, its generally counterproductive to have a large number ("50"?) of
> windows open on either system. There's only one of me, so splintering
> can only go so far. Pragmatically, I'd say that I have less than 20
> windows open 99.5% of the time, and no more than a dozen open 95% of the
> time.
Currently I have 14 windows open on my Xp machine. What am I doing?
Nothing more than downloading a file, chating to people on msn and
watching TV, light tasks. (I'm using my ibook to post here though) I'll
easily have 30 windows open if I'm doing something more complex.
> FWIW, part of this is probably also be due to a longstanding and highly
> deserved distrust of the stability of Windows...having fewer windows
> open also means less work to lose when the BSOD makes its visit.
> Granted, its become less of a risk under XP, but old habits die hard.
Does mac os deserve a better reputation, remember os9 with it's poor
memory protection and co-operative mulitasking, technologically it was
worse than windows 95, which was a crippled OS in order for it to have
compatablity with the majority of windows 3.1 programs.
Unix and NT kernels are very robust though, NT was designed for an
industrial level of stablity.
>
> Second, when you have a ton of windows open on XP, its rarely a "one
> click" task as is being represented here...at least with the default
> configuration. First off, some applications will stack their documents
> within their little block on the bottom, so while it may be one click to
> identify the block, its then a scroll & select to get to the actual
> document...some pretty detailed mouse control, which is a pain when
> using a laptop on an airline flight.
I agree, I disabled that feature immediately.
> Next, when the taskbar at the
> bottom becomes too crowded, XP will go to a double-decker stack that in
> some configurations then requires you to go to an up/down arrow
> selection by which you then scroll through the different floors/layers
> to the one that has the app/doc that you're looking for. It works, but
> it also takes time.
Right, but the larger your display the less often you'll have to do
that, and I have one of those 24inch dell screens. ;)
>
> The net result of these GUI interface factors has conditioned me to be
> more aggressive in closing out App's with documents if I don't think
> that I'm going to need it for 15 minutes. Of course, the side benefit
> of doing so is that while this burns some time, its easy for me to do,
> it reduces organizational clutter and it frees up RAM on the machine.
>
>
> On the Mac OS X side, having a lot of documents stashed down in the dock
> does cause the dock's icon size to get pretty small pretty quick,
> especially on a 17" and similiarly 'small' monitors (alluding to Edwin's
> comment on the 'This is a 'lousy' monitor?' thread). What it all comes
> down to is space management, and as can be seen in my screenshot...
>
> http://www.huntzinger.com/pic/screenshot.jpg
>
>
> ...at least the lower right part of the desktop isn't being occupied by
> XP's row of status icons. To a certain degree, Apple moved them to the
> upper right.
>
> And of course, overlaid windows on the desktop don't occupy Dock space
> on OS X, so its effectively another place to "store" documents that you
> want nearby, and Expose is the tool that helps find them quickly.
>
> Overall, you adapt to the tools that you have, and you generally will
> follow and prefer the paradigm of whichever tool you use more. Not a
> huge surprise here. More perhaps later.
>
>
> -hh
Yes well what I like about the dock is it is neat, and an easy way to
launch applications without wasting any space because it has multiple
functions, what I don't like about is that it adds an extra step into
switching between windows.
Nicholas Buenk
> Nicholas Buenk <mo...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>I claim objectivity, because I hate neither. Although I have been using
>>windows for 10 years, I recently brought an ibook. Now I think that both
>> OS's are actually about equal, each has advantages disadvantages.
>>The good parts of OSX:
>>1. OSX is so much better at installing and uninstalling programs, simply
>>dragging and dropping things works much better than uninstall programs
>>which won't always remove every part of the program
>
>
> yes, except small harmless pref files.
>
>
>>2. better security, although i think this is largely due to spyware and
>>virus makers not spending much time programming for a OS with 4% of the
>> marketshare. Still it doesn't run by default as adminstrator, yet it
>>also doesn't bother you much with user rights like linux does.
>
>
> marketshare has NOTHING to do with why OSX is so secure, never been hit
> with viruses, etc. it's all about the out of the box security settings,
> apple constant attention to fixes, a 7 day update default, etc.
>
> 4% is 20 million machines on the net 24/7, and NONE have them have been
> infected? come on, it's not related to marketshare, it's all about it
> being a secure os.
Well I'm not sure, I'd have to find more out about how easy it is for an
installer on osx to make a program run in the background and start up on
load. You see a lot of the spyware with windows is either activex
controls on web sites installing spyware, tricking the user into
agreeing to install it or attaching it to a legimate programs as a means
of income. It's usually about tricking the user into taking down the
OS's security features. Now how much could a malicious program do on OSX
if the user allows it to be installed?
>
>
>>3. pretty, OSX is the prettest OS ever compiled in the history of computers.
>
>
> yes, true.
>
>
>>4.features like spotlight and dashboard, which are as cool as apple
>>claims they are in my opinion
>
>
> yes, true.
>
>
>>5.right click has a spelling check in most applications! Now if only
>>they had a right click.
>
>
> add a 2 button mouse, osx fully supports them.
I have, 2 problems with that though. Not many 2 button mouses match
apples design aesthetics ;) And with a laptop, you're stick with it's
touchpad unless you're using it on a desk.
Nicholas Buenk
> more aggressive in closing out App's with documents if I don't think
> that I'm going to need it for 15 minutes. Of course, the side benefit
> of doing so is that while this burns some time, its easy for me to do,
> it reduces organizational clutter and it frees up RAM on the machine.
>
>
> On the Mac OS X side, having a lot of documents stashed down in the dock
> does cause the dock's icon size to get pretty small pretty quick,
> especially on a 17" and similiarly 'small' monitors (alluding to Edwin's
> comment on the 'This is a 'lousy' monitor?' thread). What it all comes
> down to is space management, and as can be seen in my screenshot...
>
> http://www.huntzinger.com/pic/screenshot.jpg
>
>
> ...at least the lower right part of the desktop isn't being occupied by
> XP's row of status icons. To a certain degree, Apple moved them to the
> upper right.
>
> And of course, overlaid windows on the desktop don't occupy Dock space
> on OS X, so its effectively another place to "store" documents that you
> want nearby, and Expose is the tool that helps find them quickly.
>
> Overall, you adapt to the tools that you have, and you generally will
> follow and prefer the paradigm of whichever tool you use more. Not a
> huge surprise here. More perhaps later.
>
>
> -hh
Here is how it looks for me on my XP machine:
http://members.tpg.com.au/adsl4ljn/xp.JPG
And on my ibook:
http://members.tpg.com.au/adsl4ljn/osx.jpg
On the XP machine I can switch straight from this message I am writing to
mspaint. ;) Maybe switch to the view of the newsgroup and select another
message to view, switch to firefox to view your screenshot, switch to the
ftp program to upload the screenshot, back to this message i'm writing. All
this switching just taking 1 click, from document to document, that's not so
efficient on an application centric OS, regardless of the fact that OSX is
more orderly and cleanly designed. Switching between documents is something
you'll do often when using the computer for doing lots of things, to
assemible and acquire information for your task. I think XP does this
better.
zara
"Nicholas Buenk" <mo...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:42ddac7e$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>I claim objectivity, because I hate neither. Although I have been using
>windows for 10 years, I recently brought an ibook. Now I think that both
>OS's are actually about equal, each has advantages disadvantages.
> The good parts of OSX:
> 1. OSX is so much better at installing and uninstalling programs, simply
> dragging and dropping things works much better than uninstall programs
> which won't always remove every part of the program
> virus makers not spending much time programming for a OS with 4% of the
> marketshare. Still it doesn't run by default as adminstrator, yet it also
> doesn't bother you much with user rights like linux does.
> computers.
> they are in my opinion
> had a right click.
> and videos. now that is a major advantage, which limits the useablity of
> osx to laptops for me
> programs.
> 4. more control over hardware and OS settings, for example swap file
> location and size, what version of the driver you have and many more, XP
> gives you much more control over your OS and hardware than OSX and it's
> GUI tools for doing such are better than linux also.
>
> I've found OSX's method of dealing with switching between windows and
> program and then to one of it's windows.
> OSX is the best Unix os I've seen.
To give ANY credit to Windows automatically puts you on the Maccie
Blacklist. Watch the responses and you will see how they march in
lockstep - what a bunch.
>
>
TravelinMan
"Nicholas Buenk" <mo...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
You're making a huge number of assumptions.
In the case you just cited, you only have one document open for each
application. That means that switching on the Mac is just as easy - you
click on the app's icon in the Dock, and the window is open.
TheLetterK
> I claim objectivity, because I hate neither. Although I have been using
> windows for 10 years, I recently brought an ibook. Now I think that both
> OS's are actually about equal, each has advantages disadvantages.
> The good parts of OSX:
> 1. OSX is so much better at installing and uninstalling programs, simply
> dragging and dropping things works much better than uninstall programs
> which won't always remove every part of the program
> 2. better security, although i think this is largely due to spyware and
> virus makers not spending much time programming for a OS with 4% of the
> marketshare. Still it doesn't run by default as adminstrator, yet it
> also doesn't bother you much with user rights like linux does.
Actually, it bothers you about as much (or more) than GNU/Linux does.
Ever been asked for an admin username and password when trying to do
something?
> 3. pretty, OSX is the prettest OS ever compiled in the history of
> computers.
I disagree.
> 4.features like spotlight and dashboard, which are as cool as apple
> claims they are in my opinion
Dashboards is almost a clone of Konfabulator, without the resident
widgets. There exists several applications on GNU/Linux that do the same
as well (Gdesklets, SuperKaramba, etc). Spotlight really ISN'T that
special--there's Beagle on the Linux side, and at least a half dozen
FFDB indexed search utilities for Windows.
> 5.right click has a spelling check in most applications! Now if only
> they had a right click.
"Context click", and they do. 'Control-click' if you use Apple's default
mouse. 'Right click' if you use any othe rmouse (which should work OOTB
if it's a USB mouse. No driver installations or strange settings). It'll
also do on-the-fly spellcheck. Note; this feature only exists in Cocoa apps.
> The good parts of XP:
> 1.range of software for it, especially in regards to entertainment,
> gaming and videos. now that is a major advantage, which limits the
> useablity of osx to laptops for me
> 2. more of a focus on tasks, making it easier to switch between windows
> and that it's UI is better at dealing with a large number of programs
> than OSX, it would not be unusual for a XP machine to be found with over
> 200 programs.
Quicksilver on OS X allows support for what amounts to an umlimited
number of applications with no slowdown or additional complexity.
> 3. doesn't attempt to hide so much of the file system from the user
Bad thing, IMO. Though you can make Finder show these 'superinvisible'
files.
> 4. more control over hardware and OS settings, for example swap file
> location and size, what version of the driver you have and many more, XP
> gives you much more control over your OS and hardware than OSX and it's
> GUI tools for doing such are better than linux also.
IMO, GNU/Linux is the best here, followed by OS X. Both of them are very
easy to tweak (though Apple does it's best to hide this fact).
>
> Both are solid robust and stable OS's with many features in common.
> I've found OSX's method of dealing with switching between windows and
> programs not as nice as windows, in windows the x closes the program not
> just the window, that means less for the user to do to quit a program.
Different paradigm. On OS X, there's little reason to close an
application that has no windows and isn't currently doing anything. It
shouldn't be using much in the way of resources.
> Also you can switch right between windows rather than switching to the
> program and then to one of it's windows.
Use Expose, that's what it's there for.
TheLetterK
"they've only started this slow transition". My apologies.
TheLetterK
> Travelinman wrote:
>
>> In article <42dd...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
>> Nicholas Buenk <mo...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Peter Ammon wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Why do you explain away Windows' malware by pointing out that the
>>>> Mac has less marketshare, but not do the same favor for the Mac's
>>>> software selection? You can't have it both ways.
>>>
>>>
>>> Because I'm pointing out that macs better security is not all due to
>>> design but circumstance.
>>
>>
>>
>> How do you explain that less popular OSs than OS X have malware then?
>
>
> Like what?
>
>> You're using the common argument, but there's no evidence to support it.
>>
>
> Well, I wonder. How easy would it be in osx to have a website load a
> program, or a program you download, install a spyware program that
> started when the OS booted.
Virtually impossible. It would certainly require the admin to be a
willing participant in the attack.
Why not just unhide the files in the Finder? There's two ways to do it,
the easiest of which is to simply edit com.apple.finder.plist
>
>>
>>
>>> The start menu has the advantage of being able to fit more programs
>>> than the dock can. If you have 200 programs on your mac surely you
>>> can't put them all on the dock, meaning you have to either use the
>>> finder or put the applications folder on the dock and right click on
>>> it, which is some what slower probably due to a lack of caching than
>>> the start menu and needs a lot of scrolling. However the start menu
>>> is some what less than ideal, it becomes cluttered after a while.
>>> Although KDE has a simple solution for this, catagories.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sadly, you're not being fair again.
>>
>> If you put all your apps into a folder and put the folder into the
>> Dock, you have exactly the same situation you have with Windows.
>> Windows: Click on 'start', then drag to submenus, then application
>> (with a few of your more frequently used apps bypassing the submenus)
>> Mac: Click on 'app folder' then drag to application.
>
>
> Yes actually you are right, I just have a minor complant, I wish the
> left mouse button brought up the menu for the application folder ;)
>
>
>>
>> Not to mention that your most commonly used apps are easier to get to
>> on the Mac:
>> Windows: Click on 'start' then drag to app
>> Mac: Click on app
>
>
> Microsoft made a quick launch bar for easy access to commonly used apps
> way back for windows 98. I don't use it though, takes up too much space
> from the task bar which I need cause I multitask like a nut.
The Windows quicklaunch bar doesn't make much sense at all. It's a waste
of space. OS X's dock makes a LOT of sense because it condenses so many
other on-screen elements into the same space.
>
>>>> Regarding 4, I'm not sure why you think Windows has the advantage
>>>> here. Mac OS X's virtual memory scheme is much more sophisticated
>>>> than a single swap file. It can swap to multiple volumes, coalesce
>>>> multiple swap files, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes but it's highly automated, doesn't give you and option to
>>> configure it in the system preferences panel at all from what I've seen.
>>
>>
>>
>> Why would you need to? For a power user, it can be done. For a newbie,
>> the option isn't there.
>
>
> Why should they make it difficult for the power user by not putting a
> function to do it in the GUI?
Because it's a *really* bad idea to mess with OS X's virtual memory.
It'll *always* do a better job of managing virtual memory than you will.
They do it to improve performance and keep support calls to a minimum.
OS X and Windows are radically different when it comes to virtual
memory. Trying to compare the two with an issue like this is pointless.
There's absolutely no reason to allow the user to have influence over
how OS X handles virtual memory. It's like asking "Why doesn't Microsoft
allow users to manually define how much memory to reserve for an
application?".
>
>>
>>
>>>> There are all sorts of utilities to control it that are available,
>>>> and of course that whole area is open source. That seems like a lot
>>>> more control compared to Windows.
>>>>
>>>> And it seems to me like my Mac offers more information about my
>>>> hardware too. For example, in Apple System Profiler, I can see that
>>>> my Mac has two memory slots, and each one has 512 MB of PC2700U DDR
>>>> SDRAM in it. But that I can find on Windows on my Dell is that I
>>>> have 1 GB of RAM. The Mac seems a lot better in this respect.
>>>
>>>
>>> I can get that same information and more on my XP box with a 3rd
>>> party program, where you say you need a 3rd party program to
>>> configure the swap file.
>>> http://download.guru3d.com/sandra/
>>
>>
>>
>> Wrong. You need a third party App. Apple System Profiler is part of OS
>> X. Mac wins here.
>
>
> Yes, but originally I was talking about the fact that the control panel
> lets you configure more aspects of hardware and the os than the system
> proferences do.
System Preferences are for UI preferences, not core system functions.
TheLetterK
what your describing. You should always view pkg installations as
suspect anyway.
> You see a lot of the spyware with windows is either activex
> controls on web sites installing spyware, tricking the user into
> agreeing to install it or attaching it to a legimate programs as a means
> of income.
Installers on OS X are rather sparse. Sparse enough to be paranoid when
encountering them. If 'Paint Genie Pro X 10,000,000' comes in a pkg...
they can forget it. There's no reason for anything like that to need to
alter system files, which means an app package should be sufficient.
> It's usually about tricking the user into taking down the
> OS's security features. Now how much could a malicious program do on OSX
> if the user allows it to be installed?
If they're an admin? Anything. If they're a regular user? It's
restricted to that user. If your admins are running about installing
things in such a manner, you have a bigger problem than the malware.
>
>>
>>
>>> 3. pretty, OSX is the prettest OS ever compiled in the history of
>>> computers.
>>
>>
>>
>> yes, true.
>>
>>
>>> 4.features like spotlight and dashboard, which are as cool as apple
>>> claims they are in my opinion
>>
>>
>>
>> yes, true.
>>
>>
>>> 5.right click has a spelling check in most applications! Now if only
>>> they had a right click.
>>
>>
>>
>> add a 2 button mouse, osx fully supports them.
>
>
> I have, 2 problems with that though. Not many 2 button mouses match
> apples design aesthetics
But some do exist, and they're prerfectly viable options.
> ;) And with a laptop, you're stick with it's
> touchpad unless you're using it on a desk.
I prefer control-click anyway. The only reason I use a mouse with my
iBook when at a desk is Expose.
TheLetterK
think it was a better system--the only version of 'Mac OS' that I've
*ever* liked is OS X. And that's probably because I first learned to
work with computers on a NeXTstep clone.). It depends on your point of view.
> Unix and NT kernels are very robust though, NT was designed for an
> industrial level of stablity.
NT the kernel is quite acceptable. I'd prefer it to Linux if I could
build a GNU/WinNT distribution. It's the Windows userspace that I loathe.
>
>>
>> Second, when you have a ton of windows open on XP, its rarely a "one
>> click" task as is being represented here...at least with the default
>> configuration. First off, some applications will stack their
>> documents within their little block on the bottom, so while it may be
>> one click to identify the block, its then a scroll & select to get to
>> the actual document...some pretty detailed mouse control, which is a
>> pain when using a laptop on an airline flight.
>
>
> I agree, I disabled that feature immediately.
I happen to like taskbar grouping when the taskbar would be otherwise
full. It's one of the things I wish someone would write a Litestep
module for.
So don't use the dock to switch applications!!! That's why Apple added
Expose!
TheLetterK
side tabs a bit, it would be perfect.
TheLetterK
> Snit wrote:
>
>> "Nicholas Buenk" <mo...@tpg.com.au> stated in post
>> 42dd...@dnews.tpgi.com.au
>> on 7/19/05 10:30 PM:
>>
>>
>>>> Aha... if you did not know, OS X can use multi-button mice just
>>>> fine. I use
>>>> a Logitech scroll mouse - just plug it in and all buttons / scroll
>>>> bar work
>>>> as expected. The System Pref's will let you change settings.
>>>>
>>>> It comes with third party drivers - but I am happy with what Apple
>>>> offers.
>>>
>>>
>>> Me too, I was really complaining about the mouse apples makes don't have
>>> a right mouse button even though the OS can use it.
>>
>>
>>
>> While I know many folks who are used to computers do not understand it,
>> there are advantages to the one button mouse:
>>
>> - keeps the UI "cleaner" and less dependant on contextual menus for
>> common
>> tasks
>
>
> I consider contextual menus an advantage, they give quick access to
> functions.
like them--at all). This is entirely your opinion.
>
>>
>> - eliminates problems for left and right handed users of the same
>> computer
>
>
> Hmm, but mouse buttons can be switched over by software.
Yes they can, but 'ergonomic' mouse designs will favor one hand or the
other. Apple's design doesn't favor one hand or the other (there might
be an interesting relationship here. Is there an inordinate amount of
left-handed Mac users? This might also be supported by the USB ports
being on the left side of an iBook).
>
>> - easier to learn; as a teacher I cannot tell you how often people ask
>> which
>> button to use
>
>
>
> Right well you're usually able to do every function with just one button.
>
>> - better for people with certain handicaps.
>
>
> Hmm.
>
>> - I am happy that Apple added support for two button mice in OS X -
>> used to
>> not be there in Classic Mac OS... at least not built in.
>>
>>
>
> Control click is not as nice to use as a right click.
I prefer it, but I've almost always got my left pinky within reach of
the control key.
TheLetterK
contortions with your thumb (generally putting your thumb directly under
you palm). At least, for me.
MR ED
wrote on 7/20/05 5:35 AM:
> MR_ED_of_Course wrote:
>> Totally 100% agree with gaming, but in what ways would you say entertainment
>> and video? I find video on OS X to be a entire level above Windows, of
>> course, I may be looking on that from more of a production perspective, but
>> from a consumption perspective I still see OS X with a slight advantage.
>>
>
> The support for HD digital tv is excellent on windows, plus the range
> tools for things like xvid, divx etc. WMV HD is also excellent.
What HD editing tools come with Windows and how do they compare with iLife,
FinalCut Express, FinalCut Pro, DVD Studio Pro and all the other apps that
newbies and professionals are doing with Macs?
Did you know that every OS X capable Mac can be hooked up to a HD cable box
via the built-in FireWire and be used as a HD TiVo-like device?
As far as codecs, yep, they're all there on OS X too, including my favorite
H.264.
I guess the question here is that I see you're impressed with what video can
be done with Windows, but are you really comparing that to OS X, and/or are
you in a position to do so?
What does Windows offer that OS X doesn't or isn't better in this regard?
Games are easy, because you can point to missing games on OS X and games
that don't provide the same level of experience. However having worked in a
television studio that migrated to being all Mac based, I'm having a very
hard time understanding where you're coming from on this.
>>>>> 2. more of a focus on tasks, making it easier to switch between
>>>>> windows and that it's UI is better at dealing with a large number of
>>>>> programs than OSX, it would not be unusual for a XP machine to be
>>>>> found with over 200 programs.
>>
>>
>> Wow, I really disagree with this. I have never had a Windows machine with
>> even 10% of the number of applications that I have on my Mac. This is
>> mostly due to registry hell. On OS X, there are tens of thousands of
>> applications available, and as long as you have a large enough hard drive,
>> you can easily install just about all of them (except for conflicting system
>> modifiers).
>
>
> There are many more programs for XP, and registory hell, in my
> experience is a rare problem.
Ah, but your point was that the UI for XP was better at dealing with large
numbers of programs (and as if 200 was a lot). Can you find one instance of
someone with OS X having a problem with too many apps being installed (even
as we post about the thousands some of us have on OS X?) On the other hand,
there are entire books dealing with the resolving problems caused by too
many application installation problems.
There are tens of thousands of OS X applications, while there are some very
specific areas where there is more software for Windows, and that software
is better, often there "more software" count is really about things not
needed on OS X (Registry editors, anti-virus apps, defragmenters, etc..) or
about crapware.
Ironically, most of the software I want to use is either only available on
OS X, or is much better on OS X.
>
>> In addition to navigating through the Finder, you can switch/open OS X apps
>> in *MANY* more ways than XP...
>> 1) Dock (in fixed locations)
>> 2) Dock (hierarchical folders)
>> 3) Sidebar
>> 4) 3rd Dock (toolbar)
>> 5) Command-Tab
>> 6) Spotlight
>> 7) Dashboard*
>> 8) Expose
>
> Is there any way to do it with a few mouse movements as clicks as the
> task bar lets you.
Sure.
If the app is open simply click on the icon in the Dock, just like you would
with the Taskbar...only with the Dock, the location of the icon isn't going
to change...advantage (slightly) to OS X.
If the app is not open, but it's a commonly used app, simply click on the
icon in the Dock as opposed to clicking the Quicklaunch bar and then
selecting the item in the Taskbar...advantage (significance based on amount)
to OS X.
If the app is not open and not commonly used, simply go through the App
folder hierarchy in the Dock, just as you would the Start Menu, only with
the Dock, it can be better organized and not littered with other
stuff...advantage (significance based on level of use and customization) to
OS X.
Let's say it's a commonly used utility like an iTunes controller, calendar,
calculator, weather checker (see where I'm going?). One click of my 3rd
mouse button and I have it brought up on the screen. This eliminates the
need to have shortcuts for all of these little things in my Quicklaunch bar
on the Taskbar. Try using the calculator on XP versus Dashboard. I've
talked to several people who have a calculator on their desk simply because
they can't stand the trade-off of having a shortcut versus navigating to it
in XP...advantage OS X
Let's say you work with a lot of files that you open in multiple
applications...like .html documents that you open sometimes in BBEdit,
Safari, Explorer, FireFox, Dreamweaver, etc... (or on Windows with HTML-Kit
and Windows browsers). Then let's say you open a folder of these files and
you want to open one of them in a common app. Sure, you could right click
in both systems and select open with, but on OS X you can easily just drag a
file to an app icon that exists either in your Dock (open or closed) or
sidebar, or toolbar. Furthermore, on OS X, unlike Windows, you can specify
a file type for an application independently of file extension. In other
words, you can specify that one set of .html files opens with BBEdit and one
set opens with Dreamweaver. This is a totally friggin huge advantage for OS
X.
I could go on and on here...
>>
>> I think the big difference between those screenshots is that there is no
>> order to where stuff lives on the Windows taskbar. Items move around, and
>> as it fills up you end up either with documents living under one item,
>> taskbar items being things like "U...", or both of those problems.
>
> One letter and an icon is often enough to know what you're clicking on.
> Yes, the task bar is all out of order, but every open window is listed
> on it, making it faster and more efficient to switch to an individual
> window.
When you have 10 Word icons all with "U..." how do you know which is which
when they aren't in any order? You have to mouse over, and that's not
efficient.
>> I think the issue here is that many things newbies must do end up taking
>> them past these "power user only" roadblocks. Don't even get me started on
>> how many default settings I usually change on a Windows machine and how most
>> of the time there's no reset to default option.
>
> True, but I think it's vitally important for a UI to be efficient and
> easy for a power user to get their tasks done.
Right, but how does this roadblock make it any easier for power users?
>> HUGE difference here. First off, you don't need a 3rd party app to
>> configure the swap file on OS X. You can do this in the Terminal. Of
>> course the Terminal could be considered a "power user utility", but NOBODY
>> should be wanting to mess with the swap file unless they're a power user to
>> begin with....even then, there's some debate...keep in mind the system in
>> much different in OS X than XP and there is less of a reason to go messing
>> with it on OS X.
>
> I dislike an OS that forces you to use remember and type to configure
> it's vital functions rather than point and click.
Again, here you are bringing XP experience and applying it to OS X. If you
were to switch to OS X full time, you could wipe all knowledge from your
mind about he existence of swap files and be much better off since OS X
deals with swap files in a much better way and changing the configuration
really just isn't done much...except for those that really have no problem
living in the Terminal.
I've played with changing my swap file configurations and have yet to come
across any situation where any change would make any difference for the
better.
>> Meanwhile, having it be easier to get hardware profile information is
>> definitely a good thing for newbies.
>>
>> Mac user with a problem related to hardware:
>> Tech - Go to Apple menu and select About this Mac
>> User - OK
>>
>> Windows user with a problem related to hardware:
>> Tech - Go to http://download.guru3d.com/sandra/
>> User - Oh Damn!
>
> You have a point, though i must say that sandra utlity is a top knotch
> program for getting hardware info. And it includes benchmark functions.
That may well be, but Windows should make it easier to find the basic info
the way OS X does.
>> You're making a huge assumption that the user is going to want to quit the
>> application. How do you close all windows of an application without
>> quitting it in XP? The answer is that only *some* Windows apps allow you to
>> do this (that's the inconsistency) and the rest won't let you keep an app
>> open without an open window (that's the inconvenience).
>
>
> Leaving an application open that you arne't using is a waste of ram. A
> limited resource on an ibook ;)
So then quit the application, as you have that as a choice with OS X. But
once again, you're making assumption based on a faulty understanding of the
way OS X works. An open application without any windows or background
activity shouldn't be consuming any cpu/memory resources requested by other
active apps.
Again, this is annoying as hell on Windows if you don't want to keep and
open document, but the application takes a long time to startup (due to
loading pluggins, logging in, etc...)
>> On OS X, you get very used to Command-Q for quitting apps as a separate task
>> course of action as opposed to closing windows. These are two totally
>> different things that should be different actions. It may not always be a
>> problem, but it's a royal bitch when you accidentally quit an app that has
>> some special startup.
>
> Yes, but I think it's easier and faster to click an x.
When you step out of your assumptions, you'll find that you are wrong. I
don't mean that as a jab against you, just that you're making a false set of
assumptions that when you click that X it most often results in something
where quitting the application is the desired action. While this may be
true for certain users of Windows, I don't think it's universal, and it's
certainly untrue for OS X.
>>>> One of my largest complaints about Windows is the lack of UI
>>>> consistency. For example:
>>>>
>>>> Should Control-W close a window (IE) or open "Stretch and Skew" (MS
>>>> Paint)? Should the Exit menu item show the Alt-F4 mnemonic (MS Paint)
>>>> or shouldn't it (Notepad)? Should Options go under the View menu
>>>> (WordPad) or the Tools menu (IE)? And what is UP with the Command Line
>>>> program?
>>>
>>> Well you have a point, but there are keyboard shortcuts that are
>>> consistant, however a lot is left up to each program to pick a combination.
>>
>>
>> Why would that be a good thing?
>
>
> I'm not saying it's a good thing, although I guess it frees up keyboard
> combinations for use, at the cost of ease of use.
Why not over-write poorly implemented keyboard shortcuts with your own
user-defined ones? The functionality for doing this is built-in OS X and is
system-wide...meaning you can specify a shortcut that lives across apps or
is app specific.
>> Try this...
>>
>> Work on a large project with lots of documents that you need to organize in
>> multiple hierarchical folders. Now in various apps try opening, creating,
>> editing and saving these documents. As you get deeper into various levels
>> of directories this becomes a royal pain in the ass on Windows...and as you
>> work with various apps, the interfaces for the file system actions are all
>> going to be different.
>>
>> On OS X, simply add shortcuts to the sidebar. Projects like video or things
>> requiring asset files can also be facilitated with Expose...simply click on
>> the assigned Expose button (Fkey or mouse button) and drag the item to the
>> work space.
>
> You could put shortcuts to folders and documents on the start menu or
> quick launch bar and drag them into programs to open them.
Huh? One of us really doesn't understand what the other is trying to
describe as an advantage. Go to any Windows application and save a new
document. See that sidebar on the left? Why is it inconsistent amongst
Windows apps? Why can't it be customized? Why can't it automatically
display my list of favorite folders? Why has it been its same sucky self
for so damn long?
George Graves
Nicholas Buenk <mo...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> I claim objectivity, because I hate neither. Although I have been using
> windows for 10 years, I recently brought an ibook. Now I think that both
> OS's are actually about equal, each has advantages disadvantages.
> The good parts of OSX:
> 1. OSX is so much better at installing and uninstalling programs, simply
> dragging and dropping things works much better than uninstall programs
> which won't always remove every part of the program
> 2. better security, although i think this is largely due to spyware and
> virus makers not spending much time programming for a OS with 4% of the
> marketshare. Still it doesn't run by default as adminstrator, yet it
> also doesn't bother you much with user rights like linux does.
> 3. pretty, OSX is the prettest OS ever compiled in the history of computers.
> 4.features like spotlight and dashboard, which are as cool as apple
> claims they are in my opinion
> 5.right click has a spelling check in most applications! Now if only
> they had a right click.
> The good parts of XP:
> 1.range of software for it, especially in regards to entertainment,
> gaming and videos. now that is a major advantage, which limits the
> useablity of osx to laptops for me
> 2. more of a focus on tasks, making it easier to switch between windows
> and that it's UI is better at dealing with a large number of programs
> than OSX, it would not be unusual for a XP machine to be found with over
> 200 programs.
> 3. doesn't attempt to hide so much of the file system from the user
> 4. more control over hardware and OS settings, for example swap file
> location and size, what version of the driver you have and many more, XP
> gives you much more control over your OS and hardware than OSX and it's
> GUI tools for doing such are better than linux also.
>
> Both are solid robust and stable OS's with many features in common.
> I've found OSX's method of dealing with switching between windows and
> programs not as nice as windows,
Do you KNOW about expose? Next time you have multiple apps open in OSX,
hit F9 and tell us what happens. If you don't think this is better than
XP, then its just a matter of taste,
> in windows the x closes the program not
> just the window, that means less for the user to do to quit a program.
'Command-Q' is more to do to quit a program than the procedure under
Windows? I don't see how it could get any simpler.
> Also you can switch right between windows rather than switching to the
> program and then to one of it's windows.
Ah, you do seem to be unaware of expose.
> But overall I think both OS's are excellent, both solid and robost. Also
> OSX is the best Unix os I've seen.
No argument there.
--
George Graves
------------------
A sports car makes the journey more fun than the destination.
LawsonE
Standardization issue. All applications should be able to limp along using
only one button, if need be. BTW, Expose can be modifed so that mouse
buttons (2 or more) can control the whole interface. No F-button,
mouse-click combos needed.
LawsonE
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote in message
news:BF033161.2521D%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID...> on 7/19/05 10:30 PM:
>
>>> Aha... if you did not know, OS X can use multi-button mice just fine. I
>>> use
>>> a Logitech scroll mouse - just plug it in and all buttons / scroll bar
>>> work
>>> as expected. The System Pref's will let you change settings.
>>>
>>> It comes with third party drivers - but I am happy with what Apple
>>> offers.
>>
>> a right mouse button even though the OS can use it.
>
> there are advantages to the one button mouse:
>
> - keeps the UI "cleaner" and less dependant on contextual menus for common
> tasks
>
>
> which
> button to use
>
>
> to
> not be there in Classic Mac OS... at least not built in.
>
map the alt/command/shift/etc keys + click to the extra buttons. Been the
case for many versions of MacOS , starting about 10 years ago, at least.
>
> --
> If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
> Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)
>
>
>
>
>
>
Snit
mr-7A12C3.10...@individual.net on 7/20/05 1:10 AM:
> In article <42ddac7e$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Nicholas Buenk <mo...@tpg.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> The good parts of XP:
>>
>> 1.range of software for it, especially in regards to entertainment,
>> gaming and videos. now that is a major advantage, which limits the
>> useablity of osx to laptops for me
>
> Windows is for gaming, that's for sure.
Agreed... though not sure I would prefer Windows to a PlayStation or
something similar...
>
>> 2. more of a focus on tasks, making it easier to switch between windows
>> and that it's UI is better at dealing with a large number of programs
>> than OSX, it would not be unusual for a XP machine to be found with over
>> 200 programs.
>
> Eh? The Start Menu is an awful place to put 200 applications in and hope the
> user finds them.
Hard for anyone to deal with 200 + programs unless they organize them
themselves. I know I do - on both XP and OS X.
>
>> 3. doesn't attempt to hide so much of the file system from the user
>
> Quite the opposite. The start menu is used instead of the filesystem. Most
> folders are hidden to the user, and some are hidden behind a "we've hidden
> this folder to you since you're to stupid to use it" screen.
>
> Windows does it best to hide its messy file system to the user.
True, but there are lots of hidden folders and files with no built in
GUI method to see (you can edit a pref file, but not a GUI setting
(other than third party)).
>
>> 4. more control over hardware and OS settings, for example swap file
>> location and size, what version of the driver you have and many more, XP
>> gives you much more control over your OS and hardware than OSX and it's
>> GUI tools for doing such are better than linux also.
>
> Perhaps, not that I've really ever wanted to change the swap file size or
> location.
I am still waiting to here what real-world advantage this gives. Peter
J at one point went on and on about the advantages of swap file options
in Linux, as though messing with the swap file is an end into itself.
Loony if you ask me.
>
>> Both are solid robust and stable OS's with many features in common.
>> I've found OSX's method of dealing with switching between windows and
>> programs not as nice as windows, in windows the x closes the program not
>> just the window, that means less for the user to do to quit a program.
>
> There are two types of apps in Windows - "ordinary" and "MDI" apps. MDI apps
> have a huge window which all sub-windows live in. These have multiple close
> widgets where the b ig one quits the program and the small ones closes the
> windows.
Worse than that - for some programs they have both the big and little
X, but they do the same thing, such as PowerPoint 2003. The small X
has no corresponding minimize or maximize buttons. Why is the X even
there? Oh, but if you have only one window in PPoint open the X is not
there... so it signifies nothing other than there are other windows
open and that closing this window will not close the application.
Word does the same thing - except the final window keeps the small X
and hitting it does something *different* than closing the big X... the
only time there is a difference in Word. So PowerPoint and Word, part
of the same suite, act differently... but at least Windows seems to
tell you if closing that window will close the application.
Then there is Excel - another part of the same suite. I works in yet a
third way, each window has the small X but also the small minimize and
maximize. Closing the last small window does not close the
application, but, unlike Word and PPoint, closing the big X closes the
application...
Access, however, does things yet *another* way, even though it is still
part of the same suite. If you have multiple windows in one file it
has a small X with a minimize and maximize, but if you have different
files open it does not... nor does it have the small X at all.
Bizarre. And that is in one suite - and one of MS's most visible
programs.
>
> OSX also does this, but not as ugly. Some apps will quit after you close the
> window - such as system preferences or iPhoto. Some apps will stay open.
And there is no good way to tell which is which. Maybe having the red
dot have a dark line around it if closing it will quit the application?
Having it where Command-closing it always closes the app? Not sure
what to suggest here...
>
> OSX is a application-centric OS, while Windows is more of a document-centric
> OS. For instance, if you have a jpg image in a folder in Windows and you want
> to open it in an open application instead of the default, you can't drag it to
> an application icon, since there is no application icon in the task bar - only
> document icons. The Dock in OSX holds applications, so there you just drag it
> to the app and it will open the image.
>
>> Also you can switch right between windows rather than switching to the
>> program and then to one of it's windows.
>
> You can do this in OSX as well, when in an application, hit cmd-> and cmd-< to
> switch windows (I hope, this is how it's done on a swedish keyboard).
Command ~ in the US.
Snit
stated in post
{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba2005-4F3...@news.giganews.com
on 7/20/05 5:03 AM:
> Nicholas Buenk <mo...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> Your screenshots reveal what I'm getting at. I think the mac will slow
>> you down in accessing the individual windows, where on windows you can
>> just click on the window in the task bar and get straight to it with one
>> click. I mean, look you have 5o windows open...
>
>
> As a longtime user of both OS's, what I've found is as follows:
>
> First, its generally counterproductive to have a large number ("50"?) of
> windows open on either system. There's only one of me, so splintering
> can only go so far. Pragmatically, I'd say that I have less than 20
> windows open 99.5% of the time, and no more than a dozen open 95% of the
> time.
Hmmm, I have 9 programs, other than the Finder, menu icons types, and
the like, open right now... while some are hidden, if they were not I
would have a least 13 open, and I am not doing any "real" work right
now.
>
> FWIW, part of this is probably also be due to a longstanding and highly
> deserved distrust of the stability of Windows...having fewer windows
> open also means less work to lose when the BSOD makes its visit.
> Granted, its become less of a risk under XP, but old habits die hard.
Understandable... Though OS 9 was also prone to such things...
>
> Second, when you have a ton of windows open on XP, its rarely a "one
> click" task as is being represented here...at least with the default
> configuration. First off, some applications will stack their documents
> within their little block on the bottom, so while it may be one click to
> identify the block, its then a scroll & select to get to the actual
> document...some pretty detailed mouse control, which is a pain when
> using a laptop on an airline flight.
And depending on what was opened or used when, things can be in
constant flux on Windows. On OS X, each app had a menu from the dock
to get to its windows. I rarely use it - but some people do.
> Next, when the taskbar at the bottom becomes too crowded, XP will go to a
> double-decker stack that in some configurations then requires you to go to an
> up/down arrow selection by which you then scroll through the different
> floors/layers to the one that has the app/doc that you're looking for. It
> works, but it also takes time.
Saying that "works" is being kind. :)
>
> The net result of these GUI interface factors has conditioned me to be
> more aggressive in closing out App's with documents if I don't think
> that I'm going to need it for 15 minutes. Of course, the side benefit
> of doing so is that while this burns some time, its easy for me to do,
> it reduces organizational clutter and it frees up RAM on the machine.
With virtual memory it is frees up little RAM... though some program do
keep taking processor cycles.
>
> On the Mac OS X side, having a lot of documents stashed down in the dock
> does cause the dock's icon size to get pretty small pretty quick,
> especially on a 17" and similiarly 'small' monitors (alluding to Edwin's
> comment on the 'This is a 'lousy' monitor?' thread). What it all comes
> down to is space management, and as can be seen in my screenshot...
>
> http://www.huntzinger.com/pic/screenshot.jpg
>
>
> ...at least the lower right part of the desktop isn't being occupied by
>
> XP's row of status icons. To a certain degree, Apple moved them to the
> upper right.
>
> And of course, overlaid windows on the desktop don't occupy Dock space
> on OS X, so its effectively another place to "store" documents that you
> want nearby, and Expose is the tool that helps find them quickly.
Exposé makes a *big* difference when I am doing serious work.
>
> Overall, you adapt to the tools that you have, and you generally will
> follow and prefer the paradigm of whichever tool you use more. Not a
> huge surprise here. More perhaps later.
Look forward to it. :)
Snit
nByDe.156632$go.35745@fed1read05 on 7/20/05 1:36 PM:
>> Me too, I was really complaining about the mouse apples makes don't have a
>> right mouse button even though the OS can use it.
>
> Standardization issue. All applications should be able to limp along using
> only one button, if need be. BTW, Expose can be modifed so that mouse
> buttons (2 or more) can control the whole interface. No F-button,
> mouse-click combos needed.
Correct - makes me want to get a mouse with more than the three buttons
mine has. :)
--
"Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO
to
all but the most crucial features." -- Steve Jobs
Snit
4mwDe.8773$dz....@bignews4.bellsouth.net on 7/20/05 11:06 AM:
>>> While I know many folks who are used to computers do not understand it,
>>> there are advantages to the one button mouse:
>>>
>>> - keeps the UI "cleaner" and less dependant on contextual menus for common
>>> tasks
>>
>> I consider contextual menus an advantage, they give quick access to
>> functions.
>
> And I consider them the bane of my existance (not really, but I don't
> like them--at all). This is entirely your opinion.
No problem with that - for some people, including myself, contextual
menus are excellent... for others, they simply do not like them.
Windows is far more dependant on them - even for such simple tasks as
creating a new folder on the desktop... it can be done without
contextual menus, but it is not intuitive.
<SNIP />
>> Control click is not as nice to use as a right click.
> I prefer it, but I've almost always got my left pinky within reach of
> the control key.
I, for one, am glad Apple has both as defaults.
--
BU__SH__
Snit
Right - but until OS X Apple did not have the second button (and scroll
wheel) work by default - you needed a third party driver. Not a big
deal, but OS X improved on that by providing an Apple supplied driver.
Walk up to any OS X Mac, plug in the mouse... away you go...
--
"If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson
StormDrain
TheLetterK <thele...@spymac.nosppam.com> wrote:
Oh I've acknowledged MS hype, it's unfortunate some people still believe
it. If you've followed MS for any length of time you'll know their well
hyped next greatest thing doesn't even come close to their released
product. Even the leading MS shills are starting to realize this:
http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/longhorn_5048.asp
...especially the part under "Um, you're joking, right?"
If you've read anything about task-based theory (Masters thesis etc)
they usually involve web sites, limited purpose apps or some other task
where the result is/can be well defined.
To call an OS's UI task-based , where the users have vastly different
needs, goals and depend on different apps, requires more than Longhorn
screenshots and regurgitating MS hype.
You may want to revisit the features Apple includes: the ones that
actually speed up tasks, makes repetitive tasks easily repeatable and
new tasks easy to define. The "slow transition" has already started
just don't look to MS for leadersship.
--
SD
"...merely a preponderance of evidence."
George Graves
"LawsonE" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
I use it that way. I have a Logitech cordless trackball and in the
'thumb depression' there is the left-click button and above it are two
auxiliary buttons marked < and > The < button invokes Expose, and >
dismisses it. Works like a charm - I wouldn't want to be without it.
Tim Smith
>
> Yes, still that's F9, move mouse and click, more steps.
Try this: F9, and then start hitting TAB. It will cycle between showing the
windows of each app. Hit F9 or ENTER when you are at the app you want.
(Exact keystrokes may be off, as I'm typing this from work, not from my
Mac).
--
--Tim Smith
Mr. T
> > marketshare has NOTHING to do with why OSX is so secure, never been hit
> > with viruses, etc. it's all about the out of the box security settings,
> > apple constant attention to fixes, a 7 day update default, etc.
> >
> > 4% is 20 million machines on the net 24/7, and NONE have been
> > infected? come on, it's not related to marketshare, it's all about it
> > being a secure os.
>
> Well I'm not sure, I'd have to find more out about how easy it is for an
> installer on osx to make a program run in the background and start up on
> load.
It's technically impossible unless the USER okays that action, so there
is no "automatic" way to install such malware.
> You see a lot of the spyware with windows is either activex
> controls on web sites installing spyware, tricking the user into
> agreeing to install it or attaching it to a legimate programs as a means
> of income. It's usually about tricking the user into taking down the
> OS's security features. Now how much could a malicious program do on OSX
> if the user allows it to be installed?
Yes, but the USER has to "okay" the altering of his/her system. You
can't throw up a Dialog saying, "Win a Million Dollars" by clicking
"okay, yes, alter my system" OSX doesn't work that way.
> > add a 2 button mouse, osx fully supports them.
>
> I have, 2 problems with that though. Not many 2 button mouses match
> apples design aesthetics ;) And with a laptop, you're stick with it's
> touchpad unless you're using it on a desk.
wrong, plenty of 2 button mice look similar to Apple's 1 button mouse.
untrue, the newer powerbooks also allow for 2 button clicking. several
utilities do it also.
sounds like you still have plenty to learn about the mac world.
Mr. T
> > Overall, you adapt to the tools that you have, and you generally will
> > follow and prefer the paradigm of whichever tool you use more. Not a
> > huge surprise here. More perhaps later.
> >
> >
> > -hh
>
> Here is how it looks for me on my XP machine:
> http://members.tpg.com.au/adsl4ljn/xp.JPG
> And on my ibook:
> http://members.tpg.com.au/adsl4ljn/osx.jpg
>
> On the XP machine I can switch straight from this message I am writing to
> mspaint. ;) Maybe switch to the view of the newsgroup and select another
> message to view, switch to firefox to view your screenshot, switch to the
> ftp program to upload the screenshot, back to this message i'm writing. All
> this switching just taking 1 click, from document to document, that's not so
> efficient on an application centric OS, regardless of the fact that OSX is
> more orderly and cleanly designed. Switching between documents is something
> you'll do often when using the computer for doing lots of things, to
> assemible and acquire information for your task. I think XP does this
> better.
you need to learn about Windowshade, nothing more.
http://www.unsanity.com/haxies/wsx/
you can do all that and more in OSX, it's just you are a Newbie to the
OS and don't understand the deeper levels of use.
Mr. T
> Currently I have 14 windows open on my Xp machine. What am I doing?
> Nothing more than downloading a file, chating to people on msn and
> watching TV, light tasks. (I'm using my ibook to post here though) I'll
> easily have 30 windows open if I'm doing something more complex.
and how big is your screen on the XP box, compare to the iBook. Set them
to exactly the same Rez and get back with us.
> > FWIW, part of this is probably also be due to a longstanding and highly
> > deserved distrust of the stability of Windows...having fewer windows
> > open also means less work to lose when the BSOD makes its visit.
> > Granted, its become less of a risk under XP, but old habits die hard.
>
> Does mac os deserve a better reputation, remember os9 with it's poor
> memory protection and co-operative mulitasking, technologically it was
> worse than windows 95, which was a crippled OS in order for it to have
> compatablity with the majority of windows 3.1 programs.
> Unix and NT kernels are very robust though, NT was designed for an
> industrial level of stablity.
Yes, but OS9 worked quite well within those limits, Windows never
reached that level. Technology is one thing, but real world use is
another. OS9 worked far better than any Windows version of similar
vintage.
> Right, but the larger your display the less often you'll have to do
> that, and I have one of those 24inch dell screens. ;)
And is your iBook screen 24 inches? opppps, looks like your comments
are not based on "all things equal".
> > The net result of these GUI interface factors has conditioned me to be
> > more aggressive in closing out App's with documents if I don't think
> > that I'm going to need it for 15 minutes. Of course, the side benefit
> > of doing so is that while this burns some time, its easy for me to do,
> > it reduces organizational clutter and it frees up RAM on the machine.
never close an OSX app. NEVER.
> > On the Mac OS X side, having a lot of documents stashed down in the dock
> > does cause the dock's icon size to get pretty small pretty quick,
> > especially on a 17" and similiarly 'small' monitors (alluding to Edwin's
> > comment on the 'This is a 'lousy' monitor?' thread). What it all comes
> > down to is space management, and as can be seen in my screenshot...
Yes, but you aren't using Windowshade! There is absolutely no reason to
EVER have a document in the Dock. that's stupid!
> Yes well what I like about the dock is it is neat, and an easy way to
> launch applications without wasting any space because it has multiple
> functions, what I don't like about is that it adds an extra step into
> switching between windows.
just use Windowshade and put us out of your misery.
thanks.
(and technically the Dock goes on Right side of the Screen. You have it
incorrectly placed for optimum use on a Mac)
TheLetterK
intermingled with these sorts of taks, this progression *makes sense*.
>
> To call an OS's UI task-based , where the users have vastly different
> needs, goals and depend on different apps, requires more than Longhorn
> screenshots and regurgitating MS hype.
It won't appear in Longhorn either. What part of 'it will take a long
time' is so difficult to understand? They've just started a transition
that could well take 15 years!
>
> You may want to revisit the features Apple includes: the ones that
> actually speed up tasks, makes repetitive tasks easily repeatable and
> new tasks easy to define. The "slow transition" has already started
> just don't look to MS for leadersship.
Apple isn't going in this direction at all, they seem content with their
current model, and simply keep refining it.
StormDrain
TheLetterK <thele...@spymac.nosppam.com> wrote:
> StormDrain wrote:
> > In article <ClvDe.7938$dz...@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
> > TheLetterK <thele...@spymac.nosppam.com> wrote:
<snip>
> >>
> >>I see you've missed the point entirely--especially the one about
> >>"they've only started this slow transition". My apologies.
> >
> >
> > Oh I've acknowledged MS hype, it's unfortunate some people still believe
> > it. If you've followed MS for any length of time you'll know their well
> > hyped next greatest thing doesn't even come close to their released
> > product. Even the leading MS shills are starting to realize this:
> >
> > http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/longhorn_5048.asp
> >
> > ...especially the part under "Um, you're joking, right?"
> >
> > If you've read anything about task-based theory (Masters thesis etc)
> > they usually involve web sites, limited purpose apps or some other task
> > where the result is/can be well defined.
> And since the way people are using computers is becoming much more
> intermingled with these sorts of taks, this progression *makes sense*.
And that is why is will be a slow progression, not some announcement
from MS...the users won't even notice. Many web sites are designed this
way. iLife is a pretty good example of task-based and becoming more so
with each release.
> > To call an OS's UI task-based , where the users have vastly different
> > needs, goals and depend on different apps, requires more than Longhorn
> > screenshots and regurgitating MS hype.
> It won't appear in Longhorn either. What part of 'it will take a long
> time' is so difficult to understand? They've just started a transition
> that could well take 15 years!
Naaaa, by then they will have announced some other latest and greatest
concept while selling their normal crappy implementation of the previous
concept.
> > You may want to revisit the features Apple includes: the ones that
> > actually speed up tasks, makes repetitive tasks easily repeatable and
> > new tasks easy to define. The "slow transition" has already started
> > just don't look to MS for leadersship.
> Apple isn't going in this direction at all, they seem content with their
> current model, and simply keep refining it.
Apple hasn't announce the "great paradigm shift" but you _do_ overlook
all the task based enhancements I've already mentioned and think Apple
will be stagnant for the next 15 years. After all, who will MS be able
to copy in order to achieve this nirvana.
Nicholas Buenk
> in article 42de...@dnews.tpgi.com.au, Nicholas Buenk at mo...@tpg.com.au
> wrote on 7/20/05 5:35 AM:
>
>
>>MR_ED_of_Course wrote:
>
>
>>>Totally 100% agree with gaming, but in what ways would you say entertainment
>>>and video? I find video on OS X to be a entire level above Windows, of
>>>course, I may be looking on that from more of a production perspective, but
>>>from a consumption perspective I still see OS X with a slight advantage.
>>>
>>
>>The support for HD digital tv is excellent on windows, plus the range
>>tools for things like xvid, divx etc. WMV HD is also excellent.
>
>
> What HD editing tools come with Windows and how do they compare with iLife,
> FinalCut Express, FinalCut Pro, DVD Studio Pro and all the other apps that
> newbies and professionals are doing with Macs?
HD tools for windows are poor, I was refering to the tools for viewing
HD content.
>
> Did you know that every OS X capable Mac can be hooked up to a HD cable box
> via the built-in FireWire and be used as a HD TiVo-like device?
No, however seeing as we don't have HD cable in my country that is
hardly something i'd be aware of.
> As far as codecs, yep, they're all there on OS X too, including my favorite
> H.264.
>
> I guess the question here is that I see you're impressed with what video can
> be done with Windows, but are you really comparing that to OS X, and/or are
> you in a position to do so?
>
> What does Windows offer that OS X doesn't or isn't better in this regard?
>
> Games are easy, because you can point to missing games on OS X and games
> that don't provide the same level of experience. However having worked in a
> television studio that migrated to being all Mac based, I'm having a very
> hard time understanding where you're coming from on this.
Well I was hardly refering to professional production video. The
aviablity of HD digital tv cards on windows is excellent. And I can rip
video off tv or a dvd and convert it into a xvid all with free tools.
In my 10 years of using windows I've never really had problems with
registory hell. Of course the OSX system of dealing with settings and
applications is much more elegant.
>
>>>In addition to navigating through the Finder, you can switch/open OS X apps
>>>in *MANY* more ways than XP...
>>>1) Dock (in fixed locations)
>>>2) Dock (hierarchical folders)
>>>3) Sidebar
>>>4) 3rd Dock (toolbar)
>>>5) Command-Tab
>>>6) Spotlight
>>>7) Dashboard*
>>>8) Expose
>>
>>Is there any way to do it with a few mouse movements as clicks as the
>>task bar lets you.
>
>
> Sure.
>
> If the app is open simply click on the icon in the Dock, just like you would
> with the Taskbar...only with the Dock, the location of the icon isn't going
> to change...advantage (slightly) to OS X.
But the advantage to XP is that clicking on the icon on the dock will
bring up all the apps windows and you'll have to click through those or
right click on the dock to get to the one you want. XP, you just click
straight on the window you want to get to.
Look, I might be reading a newsgroup, want to switch between a messaging
i'm writing or the newsgroup, in xp I can switch between those quickly
with task bar, in OSX, usually I'll be clicking on window menu and then
the document.
>
> If the app is not open, but it's a commonly used app, simply click on the
> icon in the Dock as opposed to clicking the Quicklaunch bar and then
> selecting the item in the Taskbar...advantage (significance based on amount)
> to OS X.
>
> If the app is not open and not commonly used, simply go through the App
> folder hierarchy in the Dock, just as you would the Start Menu, only with
> the Dock, it can be better organized and not littered with other
> stuff...advantage (significance based on level of use and customization) to
> OS X.
>
The start menu can be organised as much as the app folder, if you can be
bothered to do so that is.
> Let's say it's a commonly used utility like an iTunes controller, calendar,
> calculator, weather checker (see where I'm going?). One click of my 3rd
> mouse button and I have it brought up on the screen. This eliminates the
> need to have shortcuts for all of these little things in my Quicklaunch bar
> on the Taskbar. Try using the calculator on XP versus Dashboard. I've
> talked to several people who have a calculator on their desk simply because
> they can't stand the trade-off of having a shortcut versus navigating to it
> in XP...advantage OS X
Windows keyboards now days have a calculator button on them to bring it
up with one press of a button.
>
> Let's say you work with a lot of files that you open in multiple
> applications...like .html documents that you open sometimes in BBEdit,
> Safari, Explorer, FireFox, Dreamweaver, etc... (or on Windows with HTML-Kit
> and Windows browsers). Then let's say you open a folder of these files and
> you want to open one of them in a common app. Sure, you could right click
> in both systems and select open with, but on OS X you can easily just drag a
> file to an app icon that exists either in your Dock (open or closed) or
> sidebar, or toolbar. Furthermore, on OS X, unlike Windows, you can specify
> a file type for an application independently of file extension. In other
> words, you can specify that one set of .html files opens with BBEdit and one
> set opens with Dreamweaver. This is a totally friggin huge advantage for OS
> X.
>
> I could go on and on here...
Ahh yes, metadata hey?
But in XP I can actually drag a document to a program on the quicklaunch
bar and it will open the document, both OS's don't need you to use open
with.
>
>
>>>I think the big difference between those screenshots is that there is no
>>>order to where stuff lives on the Windows taskbar. Items move around, and
>>>as it fills up you end up either with documents living under one item,
>>>taskbar items being things like "U...", or both of those problems.
>>
>>One letter and an icon is often enough to know what you're clicking on.
>>Yes, the task bar is all out of order, but every open window is listed
>>on it, making it faster and more efficient to switch to an individual
>>window.
>
>
> When you have 10 Word icons all with "U..." how do you know which is which
> when they aren't in any order? You have to mouse over, and that's not
> efficient.
Right, but that is an extreme situation, often you'll be able to tell
documents apart in the task bar.
>>>I think the issue here is that many things newbies must do end up taking
>>>them past these "power user only" roadblocks. Don't even get me started on
>>>how many default settings I usually change on a Windows machine and how most
>>>of the time there's no reset to default option.
>>
>>True, but I think it's vitally important for a UI to be efficient and
>>easy for a power user to get their tasks done.
>
>
> Right, but how does this roadblock make it any easier for power users?
The power user can easily disable it and will never have to touch it
again until they reinstall. Protection for newbies that's easy for
powerusers to turn off.
>
>
>>>HUGE difference here. First off, you don't need a 3rd party app to
>>>configure the swap file on OS X. You can do this in the Terminal. Of
>>>course the Terminal could be considered a "power user utility", but NOBODY
>>>should be wanting to mess with the swap file unless they're a power user to
>>>begin with....even then, there's some debate...keep in mind the system in
>>>much different in OS X than XP and there is less of a reason to go messing
>>>with it on OS X.
>>
>>I dislike an OS that forces you to use remember and type to configure
>>it's vital functions rather than point and click.
>
>
> Again, here you are bringing XP experience and applying it to OS X. If you
> were to switch to OS X full time, you could wipe all knowledge from your
> mind about he existence of swap files and be much better off since OS X
> deals with swap files in a much better way and changing the configuration
> really just isn't done much...except for those that really have no problem
> living in the Terminal.
>
> I've played with changing my swap file configurations and have yet to come
> across any situation where any change would make any difference for the
> better.
Possibly, but why should a power user want an os that wants you to
forget about it's deeper functions rather than being able to easily
tweak them without having to go through an arcane command line.
>
>
>>>Meanwhile, having it be easier to get hardware profile information is
>>>definitely a good thing for newbies.
>>>
>>>Mac user with a problem related to hardware:
>>>Tech - Go to Apple menu and select About this Mac
>>>User - OK
>>>
>>>Windows user with a problem related to hardware:
>>>Tech - Go to http://download.guru3d.com/sandra/
>>>User - Oh Damn!
>>
>>You have a point, though i must say that sandra utlity is a top knotch
>>program for getting hardware info. And it includes benchmark functions.
>
>
> That may well be, but Windows should make it easier to find the basic info
> the way OS X does.
Right, though it's clear the main purpose of the built in system
information program by microsoft is to help solve hardware and driver
conflicts rather than acquire information to help with upgrading.
>
>
>>>You're making a huge assumption that the user is going to want to quit the
>>>application. How do you close all windows of an application without
>>>quitting it in XP? The answer is that only *some* Windows apps allow you to
>>>do this (that's the inconsistency) and the rest won't let you keep an app
>>>open without an open window (that's the inconvenience).
>>
>>
>>Leaving an application open that you arne't using is a waste of ram. A
>>limited resource on an ibook ;)
>
>
> So then quit the application, as you have that as a choice with OS X. But
> once again, you're making assumption based on a faulty understanding of the
> way OS X works. An open application without any windows or background
> activity shouldn't be consuming any cpu/memory resources requested by other
> active apps.
I have safari open on my ibook, with no windows open, it wastes 20MB of
ram. Yes choice is good, but I can imagine that this application still
open but no windows open could be confusing for new users. Also it means
you have to quit the program after you close the window, more clicks,
less efficency. It's a nice idea though, I just wish you could turn it
off and make it act like windows.
>
> Again, this is annoying as hell on Windows if you don't want to keep and
> open document, but the application takes a long time to startup (due to
> loading pluggins, logging in, etc...)
I find it annoying as hell that the program won't close when I close
it's last window. :)
>
>
>>>On OS X, you get very used to Command-Q for quitting apps as a separate task
>>>course of action as opposed to closing windows. These are two totally
>>>different things that should be different actions. It may not always be a
>>>problem, but it's a royal bitch when you accidentally quit an app that has
>>>some special startup.
>>
>>Yes, but I think it's easier and faster to click an x.
>
>
> When you step out of your assumptions, you'll find that you are wrong. I
> don't mean that as a jab against you, just that you're making a false set of
> assumptions that when you click that X it most often results in something
> where quitting the application is the desired action. While this may be
> true for certain users of Windows, I don't think it's universal, and it's
> certainly untrue for OS X.
Windows works quite simply, x is close window button, if it's the last
open window program will quit.
Good point, however about inconsistant, microsoft has slowly tried to
improve it, different programs will use standards from different eras. ;)
Nicholas Buenk
> Nicholas Buenk wrote:
>
>> Travelinman wrote:
>>
>>> In article <42dd...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
>>> Nicholas Buenk <mo...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Peter Ammon wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Why do you explain away Windows' malware by pointing out that the
>>>>> Mac has less marketshare, but not do the same favor for the Mac's
>>>>> software selection? You can't have it both ways.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because I'm pointing out that macs better security is not all due to
>>>> design but circumstance.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> How do you explain that less popular OSs than OS X have malware then?
>>
>>
>>
>> Like what?
>
> GNU/Linux. It's a target because of it's dominance in the web server
> market.
>
>>
>>> You're using the common argument, but there's no evidence to support it.
>>>
>>
>> Well, I wonder. How easy would it be in osx to have a website load a
>> program, or a program you download, install a spyware program that
>> started when the OS booted.
>
> Virtually impossible. It would certainly require the admin to be a
> willing participant in the attack.
That's how most windows spyware and viruses are spread, by tricking the
user into opening or executing a file.
Interesting, not quite as easy as clicking a box that says show hidden
files and folders like in windows.
Yes you are correct, but the disadvantage of condensing so many
functions into one object is that certain functions will require more
clicks.
Yes, why does a so called easy to use OS make it hard to change core
system functions? I think easy to use should not just mean easy for
beginners to learn.
Nicholas Buenk
> Nicholas Buenk wrote:
>
>> using windows for 10 years, I recently brought an ibook. Now I think
>> that both OS's are actually about equal, each has advantages
>> disadvantages.
>> The good parts of OSX:
>> 1. OSX is so much better at installing and uninstalling programs,
>> simply dragging and dropping things works much better than uninstall
>> programs which won't always remove every part of the program
>
Well, aptitude is a nice program, yes I have played around with debian,
took me forever to get samba working properly on it with my anonymous
shares hehe. Anyway apt-get, I think of command line tools as arcane
Linux is not an OS that is good at installing programs, those bloody tar
files that you have to compile yourself, which is ridiculous.
>
>> 2. better security, although i think this is largely due to spyware
>> and virus makers not spending much time programming for a OS with 4%
>> of the marketshare. Still it doesn't run by default as adminstrator,
>> yet it also doesn't bother you much with user rights like linux does.
>
> Actually, it bothers you about as much (or more) than GNU/Linux does.
> Ever been asked for an admin username and password when trying to do
> something?
Well I suppose so, it's just that I'd prefer to be bothered by the GUI
than the command line.
>
>> 3. pretty, OSX is the prettest OS ever compiled in the history of
>> computers.
>
> I disagree.
Surely you don't think KDE is pretter ;)
>
>> 4.features like spotlight and dashboard, which are as cool as apple
>> claims they are in my opinion
>
> Dashboards is almost a clone of Konfabulator, without the resident
> widgets. There exists several applications on GNU/Linux that do the same
> as well (Gdesklets, SuperKaramba, etc). Spotlight really ISN'T that
> special--there's Beagle on the Linux side, and at least a half dozen
> FFDB indexed search utilities for Windows.
Yes, msn toolbar has the same functions as spotlight, although spotlight
doesn't need a few hours to index your hard drive and doesn't waste so
much ram. I've never played around with Konfabulator, not yet, although
I think it's better to have such features built into the OS.
>
>> 5.right click has a spelling check in most applications! Now if only
>> they had a right click.
>
> "Context click", and they do. 'Control-click' if you use Apple's default
> mouse. 'Right click' if you use any othe rmouse (which should work OOTB
> if it's a USB mouse. No driver installations or strange settings). It'll
> also do on-the-fly spellcheck. Note; this feature only exists in Cocoa
> apps.
>
>> The good parts of XP:
>> 1.range of software for it, especially in regards to entertainment,
>> gaming and videos. now that is a major advantage, which limits the
>> useablity of osx to laptops for me
>> 2. more of a focus on tasks, making it easier to switch between
>> windows and that it's UI is better at dealing with a large number of
>> programs than OSX, it would not be unusual for a XP machine to be
>> found with over 200 programs.
>
> Quicksilver on OS X allows support for what amounts to an umlimited
> number of applications with no slowdown or additional complexity.
>
>> 3. doesn't attempt to hide so much of the file system from the user
>
> Bad thing, IMO. Though you can make Finder show these 'superinvisible'
> files.
Yes, but it's easier to make explorer show hidden files than it is to
make finder do such.
>
>> 4. more control over hardware and OS settings, for example swap file
>> location and size, what version of the driver you have and many more,
>> XP gives you much more control over your OS and hardware than OSX and
>> it's GUI tools for doing such are better than linux also.
>
> IMO, GNU/Linux is the best here, followed by OS X. Both of them are very
> easy to tweak (though Apple does it's best to hide this fact).
Linux is great, gives you so many options. The problem, uses arcane
methods like config files and command line rather than a GUI if you want
to tweak it by any amount. I want an OS that is as configurable as linux
without you ever having to touch a config file or command line, that is
my dream and windows is the closest to it. ;)
>
>>
>> Both are solid robust and stable OS's with many features in common.
>> I've found OSX's method of dealing with switching between windows and
>> programs not as nice as windows, in windows the x closes the program
>> not just the window, that means less for the user to do to quit a
>> program.
>
> Different paradigm. On OS X, there's little reason to close an
> application that has no windows and isn't currently doing anything. It
> shouldn't be using much in the way of resources.
Except ram. Come on, on a ibook with say 256MB, if you have a program
doing nothing and taking up 20MB of ram that is a problem.
>
>
>> Also you can switch right between windows rather than switching to the
>> program and then to one of it's windows.
>
> Use Expose, that's what it's there for.
What is expose? I'm new to mac remember.
Nicholas Buenk
Ahh that's expose, yes i've noticed that feature, do you know why I
don't like it, you have to go to the keyboard, press a key. Look around,
click on the window you want. It's so much faster to just look on
taskbar and click on the window you want to open.
>
>>in windows the x closes the program not
>>just the window, that means less for the user to do to quit a program.
>
>
> 'Command-Q' is more to do to quit a program than the procedure under
> Windows? I don't see how it could get any simpler.
Well I'd rather a method just as quick to use with the mouse, because
your hand is not always over the keyboard.
George Graves
Nicholas Buenk <mo...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
Try the taskbar with a dozen windows open. The tabs are so small that
you have to literally hover over each to see what it is. Taskbar might
be easy with just 1 or 2 windows open, but with a lot of them Expose
works much better. Of course you can always tab through open apps just
as in Windows. I use mouse buttons to invoke and close Expose, I can
open expose, click on the window I want, and be back in it long before I
can move the cursor down to the taskbar in Windows and chose a window to
open. It's just a difference in the way in which we work, I suspect. I
find the taskbar primitive.
> >>in windows the x closes the program not
> >>just the window, that means less for the user to do to quit a program.
> >
> >
> > 'Command-Q' is more to do to quit a program than the procedure under
> > Windows? I don't see how it could get any simpler.
>
> Well I'd rather a method just as quick to use with the mouse, because
> your hand is not always over the keyboard.
>
> >
> >
> >>Also you can switch right between windows rather than switching to the
> >>program and then to one of it's windows.
> >
> >
> > Ah, you do seem to be unaware of expose.
> >
> >
> >>But overall I think both OS's are excellent, both solid and robost. Also
> >>OSX is the best Unix os I've seen.
> >
> >
> > No argument there.
> >
--
George Graves
Nicholas Buenk <mo...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
Or as easy to use as OSX
Snit
>> Why not just unhide the files in the Finder? There's two ways to do it,
>> the easiest of which is to simply edit com.apple.finder.plist
>
> Interesting, not quite as easy as clicking a box that says show hidden
> files and folders like in windows.
I prefer TinkerTool than the Apple built in methods... between that and
some tool like YASU most of the mods I would want to make are handled.
I will say I wish Apple had such tools - even if they were "buried" in
the Utilities folder where few people would use them.
<SNIP />
>>> Yes, but originally I was talking about the fact that the control
>>> panel lets you configure more aspects of hardware and the os than the
>>> system proferences do.
>>
>> System Preferences are for UI preferences, not core system functions.
>
> Yes, why does a so called easy to use OS make it hard to change core
> system functions? I think easy to use should not just mean easy for
> beginners to learn.
Do you have an example of such functions that a user would likely want
to change in order? Not just for the sake of change, of course, but in
order to make something better.
Peter Ammon
>>The net result of these GUI interface factors has conditioned me to be
>>more aggressive in closing out App's with documents if I don't think
>>that I'm going to need it for 15 minutes. Of course, the side benefit
>>of doing so is that while this burns some time, its easy for me to do,
>>it reduces organizational clutter and it frees up RAM on the machine.
>>
>>
>>does cause the dock's icon size to get pretty small pretty quick,
>>especially on a 17" and similiarly 'small' monitors (alluding to Edwin's
>>comment on the 'This is a 'lousy' monitor?' thread). What it all comes
>>down to is space management, and as can be seen in my screenshot...
>>
>>
>>
>>...at least the lower right part of the desktop isn't being occupied by
>>XP's row of status icons. To a certain degree, Apple moved them to the
>>upper right.
>>
>>And of course, overlaid windows on the desktop don't occupy Dock space
>>on OS X, so its effectively another place to "store" documents that you
>>want nearby, and Expose is the tool that helps find them quickly.
>>
>>follow and prefer the paradigm of whichever tool you use more. Not a
>>huge surprise here. More perhaps later.
>>
>>
>>-hh
>
>
> Here is how it looks for me on my XP machine:
> http://members.tpg.com.au/adsl4ljn/xp.JPG
> And on my ibook:
> http://members.tpg.com.au/adsl4ljn/osx.jpg
>
> On the XP machine I can switch straight from this message I am writing to
> mspaint. ;) Maybe switch to the view of the newsgroup and select another
> message to view, switch to firefox to view your screenshot, switch to the
> ftp program to upload the screenshot, back to this message i'm writing. All
> this switching just taking 1 click, from document to document, that's not so
> efficient on an application centric OS, regardless of the fact that OSX is
> more orderly and cleanly designed. Switching between documents is something
> you'll do often when using the computer for doing lots of things, to
> assemible and acquire information for your task. I think XP does this
> better.
As Travelinman points out, when you only have one document in an
application, switching to that application brings it forwards. If you
have multiple small windows in your application, like you appear to with
that instant messaging client, switching to the application brings them
all forwards. In neither case does OS X require more clicking. It's
only when you want to switch to a document that wasn't frontmost and is
obscured by other documents from the same application that you maybe
have to click twice.
And, of course, when you have a lot of windows, Windows will coalesce
them into a single icon as well.
-Peter
--
Pull out a splinter to reply.
Nicholas Buenk
Yes/
> If you
> have multiple small windows in your application, like you appear to with
> that instant messaging client, switching to the application brings them
> all forwards.
Right, then I have to click on the window I have to access, that is more
clicking.
> In neither case does OS X require more clicking. It's
> only when you want to switch to a document that wasn't frontmost and is
> obscured by other documents from the same application that you maybe
> have to click twice.
Which happens often.
>
> And, of course, when you have a lot of windows, Windows will coalesce
> them into a single icon as well.
Only if you let it.
Nicholas Buenk
I'll have to think about that, but what about tweaking settings like
FSAA on graphic cards, I notice that ATI provides a tool to do that on
osx but not nvidia. Also, to get newer drivers for bug fixes and new
features, what files are considered executables, file cache tweaks and
task scheduling tweaks.
TheLetterK
>
>
>>>You may want to revisit the features Apple includes: the ones that
>>>actually speed up tasks, makes repetitive tasks easily repeatable and
>>>new tasks easy to define. The "slow transition" has already started
>>>just don't look to MS for leadersship.
>>
>>Apple isn't going in this direction at all, they seem content with their
>>current model, and simply keep refining it.
>
>
> Apple hasn't announce the "great paradigm shift" but you _do_ overlook
> all the task based enhancements I've already mentioned and think Apple
> will be stagnant for the next 15 years. After all, who will MS be able
> to copy in order to achieve this nirvana.
What task based accomplishments? Apple hasn't made any. They've taken
some old NeXT concepts in that regard, and applied them in the same
manner. 'They' (Using Apple and NeXT collectively) haven't really made
any progress towards a task-based interface for the last... 15 years or
so. It's *certainly* not the direction they want to go. The principles
they *are* following are sound, but they aren't going to a task-based
interface. OS X still uses a document-based model, and there's *nothing*
to suggest a shift away from this.
TheLetterK
or manually dump it in /System/Library/Startup. Regular users couldn't
do it even if they wanted to. Unlike on Windows (where you've basically
got to be running as Admin to do anything), it's actually reasonable to
assume the majority aren't using elevated rights.
A pkg could, in theory, do this. If the *admin* were stupid enough to
give it his username/password without first knowing what it does. It's
certainly less likely than on Windows, where looking at a malicious jpeg
in Outlook Express can hose your system. There's nothing that can
protect against user stupidity, but at least OS X protects against the
automated approach. If your Mac gets messed up in such a way, you have
noone to blame for it, but yourself--because it WAS your stupidity that
caused the problem.
Oh, and fixing a virus on OS X? Doesn't require a tool. You just have to
delete the binary. If it comes down to it, you can mount it in Target
Disk Mode and use another box to fix the problem.
IMO, it's not much more difficult. The OS X method also offers more fine
control other other aspects.
Which, as previously explained, would be counteracted by the reduced
time taken to visually acquire a target. Mouse clicks take no time, when
compared with the time taken visually acquire a target. It'll also
reduce the complexity of the interface, which makes determining the
proper course of action less time consuming. It saves *far* more time
than what is added by removing a click or two.
Simplicity is found in a reduction of obvious options. They don't make
it difficult, they just keep it hidden.
> I think easy to use should not just mean easy for
> beginners to learn.
It doesn't it means easy to use. They do this by giving a relatively
consistant, and obvious bar. One that it set very low, and can be
reached almost intutively. By comparison, Windows' interface is complex,
quirky, and bloated.
TheLetterK
It's already fully anti-aliased. For games? they've got independent
controls.
> I notice that ATI provides a tool to do that on
> osx but not nvidia. Also, to get newer drivers for bug fixes and new
> features, what files are considered executables, file cache tweaks and
> task scheduling tweaks.
Shouldn't be as nessesary on a Mac. If Apple is providing the driver, it
should work sufficiently. If someone else is, there's nothing preventing
you from updating the driver.
Snit
>>> Yes, why does a so called easy to use OS make it hard to change core
>>> system functions? I think easy to use should not just mean easy for
>>> beginners to learn.
>>
>> Do you have an example of such functions that a user would likely want
>> to change in order? Not just for the sake of change, of course, but in
>> order to make something better.
>
> I'll have to think about that, but what about tweaking settings like
> FSAA on graphic cards, I notice that ATI provides a tool to do that on
> osx but not nvidia.
Aha.... yes, video drivers on OS X are not always as "advanced" as they are
on Windows - I agree here, and it is a frustration.
> Also, to get newer drivers for bug fixes and new features
This sort of goes with the last one - video drivers are focused on more on
Windows... a shame for Mac users, esp. game players.
> , what files are considered executables,
Not sure what you mean here - Apple Sytem Profiler will list executables,
though.
> file cache tweaks and task scheduling tweaks.
At least with task scheduling it can be done with the CL or third party GUI
tools (renice) but OS X does not have a built in GUI method... I can see
that as a complaint.
Thanks for explaining.
--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
Snit
Take the last example - task scheduling. Apple provides no "easy" method to
renice... I can see where an advanced user would want to do this. Of
course, an advanced user would more likely be able to use the CL or third
party tools, but it would be good if Apple built this in - say to the
Activity Monitor.
StormDrain
TheLetterK <thele...@spymac.nosppam.com> wrote:
<snip>
> >
> >
> > Naaaa, by then they will have announced some other latest and greatest
> > concept while selling their normal crappy implementation of the previous
> > concept.
> This doesn't fit their historical trends.
LOL...that's the best reply I can give here.
> >
> >>>You may want to revisit the features Apple includes: the ones that
> >>>actually speed up tasks, makes repetitive tasks easily repeatable and
> >>>new tasks easy to define. The "slow transition" has already started
> >>>just don't look to MS for leadersship.
> >>
> >>Apple isn't going in this direction at all, they seem content with their
> >>current model, and simply keep refining it.
> >
> >
> > Apple hasn't announce the "great paradigm shift" but you _do_ overlook
> > all the task based enhancements I've already mentioned and think Apple
> > will be stagnant for the next 15 years. After all, who will MS be able
> > to copy in order to achieve this nirvana.
> What task based accomplishments? Apple hasn't made any. They've taken
> some old NeXT concepts in that regard, and applied them in the same
> manner. 'They' (Using Apple and NeXT collectively) haven't really made
> any progress towards a task-based interface for the last... 15 years or
> so. It's *certainly* not the direction they want to go. The principles
> they *are* following are sound, but they aren't going to a task-based
> interface. OS X still uses a document-based model, and there's *nothing*
> to suggest a shift away from this.
OK then, let me try this. What do _you_ think a task-based interface
is? Please point to a document, screenshot of an existing system or
some general UI guidelines.
Snit
uc6dnUDBZ-X...@comcast.com on 7/21/05 2:39 AM:
And when that happens you have to click on the button in the task bar and
select the correct window - much as on OS X, though you do have to right
click - or click and hold for a second - on OS X. I can see where this is a
slight advantage for Windows - as right clicking is not as intuitive. Also
OS X gives you not just the open windows but other options, so you have to
"filter" out those other options.
--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
TheLetterK
> In article <VJNDe.10425$do5....@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
> TheLetterK <thele...@spymac.nosppam.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>
>>>Naaaa, by then they will have announced some other latest and greatest
>>>concept while selling their normal crappy implementation of the previous
>>>concept.
>>
>>This doesn't fit their historical trends.
>
>
> LOL...that's the best reply I can give here.
Windows 95, and has been moving that way ever since. Microsoft just
recently went out and declared it, as a way to market XP to 2000 users.
>
>
>>>>>You may want to revisit the features Apple includes: the ones that
>>>>>actually speed up tasks, makes repetitive tasks easily repeatable and
>>>>>new tasks easy to define. The "slow transition" has already started
>>>>>just don't look to MS for leadersship.
>>>>
>>>>Apple isn't going in this direction at all, they seem content with their
>>>>current model, and simply keep refining it.
>>>
>>>
>>>Apple hasn't announce the "great paradigm shift" but you _do_ overlook
>>>all the task based enhancements I've already mentioned and think Apple
>>>will be stagnant for the next 15 years. After all, who will MS be able
>>>to copy in order to achieve this nirvana.
>>
>>What task based accomplishments? Apple hasn't made any. They've taken
>>some old NeXT concepts in that regard, and applied them in the same
>>manner. 'They' (Using Apple and NeXT collectively) haven't really made
>>any progress towards a task-based interface for the last... 15 years or
>>so. It's *certainly* not the direction they want to go. The principles
>>they *are* following are sound, but they aren't going to a task-based
>>interface. OS X still uses a document-based model, and there's *nothing*
>>to suggest a shift away from this.
>
>
> OK then, let me try this. What do _you_ think a task-based interface
> is? Please point to a document, screenshot of an existing system or
> some general UI guidelines.
IMO? It's a type of interface where windows, data, etc are
irrelivent--the *task* is what matters, everything else is just a vector
to reach the end point of any particular task. Windows would simply be
used as composition areas for ideas. Actions would be applied to content
via some kind of verb-noun metaphor (such as an 'action bar', or
somesuch). The ideas behind WinFS (dissasociating data from files), and
Longhorn's savable workspaces (tasks are groups of workareas, not
specific windows) are good examples of a progression towards this. I
think their next step should be a reorganization of how applications are
designed and packaged. Users should be the ones building interfaces, not
some programmer the user has never met. Have a Window be retermed
'Canvas' or something, with the interface built from a collection of
available elements (which would also fit into the pricing model of this
kind of system; rather than buying 'applications', you would buy
'objects' and 'methods', then organize them how you want onto a Canvas).
TheLetterK
> TheLetterK wrote:
>
>> Nicholas Buenk wrote:
>>
>>> I claim objectivity, because I hate neither. Although I have been
>>> using windows for 10 years, I recently brought an ibook. Now I think
>>> that both OS's are actually about equal, each has advantages
>>> disadvantages.
>>> The good parts of OSX:
>>> 1. OSX is so much better at installing and uninstalling programs,
>>> simply dragging and dropping things works much better than uninstall
>>> programs which won't always remove every part of the program
>>
>>
>> But not better than something like apt-get and Synaptic.
>
>
>
> Well, aptitude is a nice program, yes I have played around with debian,
> took me forever to get samba working properly on it with my anonymous
> shares hehe. Anyway apt-get, I think of command line tools as arcane
> Linux is not an OS that is good at installing programs, those bloody tar
> files that you have to compile yourself, which is ridiculous.
is an X11 frontend for apt-get (and some other package managers, IIRC).
Manual installation from source is rarely needed these days, unless your
using Fedora/Redhat. With a decent distribution, you'll ahve an
automated package management system of some-sort. Debian's is the most
robust of them, with the greatest number of available packages.
How is hunting around on the web looking for an installation disk image
or executable easier than clicking 'Search' in Synaptic, typing in what
your looking for, selecting the package(s) that meet(s) your needs, and
selecting "Install all this". With apt-get going out and automagically
grabbing the software you wanted, along with it's dependencies,
installing all of it, and putting in a workable configuration OOTB. Oh,
and it handles updates too.
But no, Linux is still in the dark ages when it comes to software
installation! I mean, damn, it's all automated and easy to work with!
God forbid!
>
>>
>>> 2. better security, although i think this is largely due to spyware
>>> and virus makers not spending much time programming for a OS with 4%
>>> of the marketshare. Still it doesn't run by default as adminstrator,
>>> yet it also doesn't bother you much with user rights like linux does.
>>
>>
>> Actually, it bothers you about as much (or more) than GNU/Linux does.
>> Ever been asked for an admin username and password when trying to do
>> something?
>
>
> Well I suppose so, it's just that I'd prefer to be bothered by the GUI
> than the command line.
Eh? What are you talking about? If your using GNOME or KDE, it pops up a
little dialog (in X11) prompting you for your root password. Simple,
non-intrusive.
>
>
>>
>>> 3. pretty, OSX is the prettest OS ever compiled in the history of
>>> computers.
>>
>>
>> I disagree.
>
>
> Surely you don't think KDE is pretter ;)
IMO, the bleeding edge testing versions of GNOME/Metacity (Luminocity)
looks better.
>
>>
>>> 4.features like spotlight and dashboard, which are as cool as apple
>>> claims they are in my opinion
>>
>>
>> Dashboards is almost a clone of Konfabulator, without the resident
>> widgets. There exists several applications on GNU/Linux that do the
>> same as well (Gdesklets, SuperKaramba, etc). Spotlight really ISN'T
>> that special--there's Beagle on the Linux side, and at least a half
>> dozen FFDB indexed search utilities for Windows.
>
>
> Yes, msn toolbar has the same functions as spotlight, although spotlight
> doesn't need a few hours to index your hard drive and doesn't waste so
> much ram.
Ever tried to get Spotlight to index an existing drive? It's not, by any
means, instant. And they 'waste' about the same amount. Apple just
conveniently spreads it out a bunch.
> I've never played around with Konfabulator, not yet, although
> I think it's better to have such features built into the OS.
Konfabulator was an OS X app that provided the same thing as Dashboard,
along with resident desktop widgets. Needless to say, Apple has
essentially killed Konfabulator on OS X.
>
>
>>
>>> 5.right click has a spelling check in most applications! Now if only
>>> they had a right click.
>>
>>
>> "Context click", and they do. 'Control-click' if you use Apple's
>> default mouse. 'Right click' if you use any othe rmouse (which should
>> work OOTB if it's a USB mouse. No driver installations or strange
>> settings). It'll also do on-the-fly spellcheck. Note; this feature
>> only exists in Cocoa apps.
>>
>>> The good parts of XP:
>>> 1.range of software for it, especially in regards to entertainment,
>>> gaming and videos. now that is a major advantage, which limits the
>>> useablity of osx to laptops for me
>>> 2. more of a focus on tasks, making it easier to switch between
>>> windows and that it's UI is better at dealing with a large number of
>>> programs than OSX, it would not be unusual for a XP machine to be
>>> found with over 200 programs.
>>
>>
>> Quicksilver on OS X allows support for what amounts to an umlimited
>> number of applications with no slowdown or additional complexity.
>>
>>> 3. doesn't attempt to hide so much of the file system from the user
>>
>>
>> Bad thing, IMO. Though you can make Finder show these 'superinvisible'
>> files.
>
>
> Yes, but it's easier to make explorer show hidden files than it is to
> make finder do such.
If you consider editing com.apple.finder.plist difficult, you shouldn't
be unhiding these files in the first place.
>
>
>>
>>> 4. more control over hardware and OS settings, for example swap file
>>> location and size, what version of the driver you have and many more,
>>> XP gives you much more control over your OS and hardware than OSX and
>>> it's GUI tools for doing such are better than linux also.
>>
>>
>> IMO, GNU/Linux is the best here, followed by OS X. Both of them are
>> very easy to tweak (though Apple does it's best to hide this fact).
>
>
> Linux is great, gives you so many options. The problem, uses arcane
> methods like config files and command line rather than a GUI if you want
> to tweak it by any amount.
Config files are *easier* to work with. It allows much more in the way
of comments and notations, and makes it easier to export/save settings.
CLI tools are also easier to work with when you bother to take the time
to learn about them. 'Arcane' they are not.
> I want an OS that is as configurable as linux
> without you ever having to touch a config file or command line, that is
> my dream and windows is the closest to it. ;)
Why? I'll keep to the easiest method, thanks. If Microsoft ever offers
that level of choice WITHOUT config files, I guarantee you I won't be
touching it with a 10 foot pole.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Both are solid robust and stable OS's with many features in common.
>>> I've found OSX's method of dealing with switching between windows and
>>> programs not as nice as windows, in windows the x closes the program
>>> not just the window, that means less for the user to do to quit a
>>> program.
>>
>>
>> Different paradigm. On OS X, there's little reason to close an
>> application that has no windows and isn't currently doing anything. It
>> shouldn't be using much in the way of resources.
>
>
> Except ram.
They don't use much in the way of RAM when no windows are open, and no
actions are being performed.
> Come on, on a ibook with say 256MB, if you have a program
> doing nothing and taking up 20MB of ram that is a problem.
20MiB total. Your talking MAYBE 4MiB wired. Inactive and Cache (the
majority there) don't matter one iota. OS X will reallocate that space
if needed. Though you make a good point--don't run OS X on a machine
with a quarter of a gibi of RAM. This platform (Nextstep/OS X) has never
been known for it's low system requirements.
>
>>
>>
>>> Also you can switch right between windows rather than switching to
>>> the program and then to one of it's windows.
>>
>>
>> Use Expose, that's what it's there for.
>
>
> What is expose? I'm new to mac remember.
Window management application. IIRC they talk about it in the manual.
Open a few windows and tap 'f9' sometime.
TheLetterK
TheLetterK
> Look around,
> click on the window you want. It's so much faster to just look on
> taskbar and click on the window you want to open.
Not when the taskbar is crowded. The taskbar gets progressively more
difficult to work with as you start to do more. Cooincidentally, users
start to do more work as they become more familiar with an interface. It
could be said that Windows gets progressively more difficult to use as
you become more experienced working with it. I think this might be a
first in the history of computing.
steve....@gmail.com
That's actually not even a valid point. I use a MS 5 button mouse, and
I've mapped the thumb button to do the same thing as F9. It's weird
when I'm on an XP machine with that type of mouse, cause I keep pushing
it (expecting the Expose feature), but of course nothing happens.
TheLetterK
steve....@gmail.com
TheLetterK wrote:
> steve....@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > That's actually not even a valid point. I use a MS 5 button mouse, and
> > I've mapped the thumb button to do the same thing as F9. It's weird
> > when I'm on an XP machine with that type of mouse, cause I keep pushing
> > it (expecting the Expose feature), but of course nothing happens.
> Might I suggest:
> http://www.oxygen-inc.com/premium/InsaniSoft/iEx.htm
Thanks for the link. Took a quick look and it looks ok, but (and now
I'm going to be my usual prick self), it's written in VB. I usally
avoid running software written in VB. I don't know why, I just have a
really big problem with it. (Cue it tards saying I'm jealous cause I
don't program in VB, etc).
MR_ED_of_Course
With a lot of things in this thread, you're getting off the original points
you made...generalizations made earlier that favored XP are being narrowed
down to defend some minor perspective.
This is especially true of entertainment and video as it pertains to:
"The good parts of XP:
1.range of software for it, especially in regards to entertainment,
gaming and videos. now that is a major advantage, which limits the
useablity of osx to laptops for me"
See below...
in article 42df...@dnews.tpgi.com.au, Nicholas Buenk at mo...@tpg.com.au
wrote on 7/20/05 9:58 PM:
> MR ED wrote:
>> in article 42de...@dnews.tpgi.com.au, Nicholas Buenk at mo...@tpg.com.au
>> wrote on 7/20/05 5:35 AM:
>>
>>
>>> MR_ED_of_Course wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Totally 100% agree with gaming, but in what ways would you say
>>>> entertainment
>>>> and video? I find video on OS X to be a entire level above Windows, of
>>>> course, I may be looking on that from more of a production perspective, but
>>>> from a consumption perspective I still see OS X with a slight advantage.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The support for HD digital tv is excellent on windows, plus the range
>>> tools for things like xvid, divx etc. WMV HD is also excellent.
>>
>>
>> What HD editing tools come with Windows and how do they compare with iLife,
>> FinalCut Express, FinalCut Pro, DVD Studio Pro and all the other apps that
>> newbies and professionals are doing with Macs?
>
> HD tools for windows are poor, I was refering to the tools for viewing
> HD content.
Ok, so not "video" software, but "viewing HD content" since all the major
codecs are available cross-platform., since H.264 is built into QuickTime,
since the better respected tools such as VLC are cross-platform, etc... What
is lacking in "viewing HD content" on OS X?
>> Did you know that every OS X capable Mac can be hooked up to a HD cable box
>> via the built-in FireWire and be used as a HD TiVo-like device?
>
> No, however seeing as we don't have HD cable in my country that is
> hardly something i'd be aware of.
Fair enough.
>> As far as codecs, yep, they're all there on OS X too, including my favorite
>> H.264.
>>
>> I guess the question here is that I see you're impressed with what video can
>> be done with Windows, but are you really comparing that to OS X, and/or are
>> you in a position to do so?
>>
>> What does Windows offer that OS X doesn't or isn't better in this regard?
>>
>> Games are easy, because you can point to missing games on OS X and games
>> that don't provide the same level of experience. However having worked in a
>> television studio that migrated to being all Mac based, I'm having a very
>> hard time understanding where you're coming from on this.
>
>
> Well I was hardly refering to professional production video. The
> aviablity of HD digital tv cards on windows is excellent. And I can rip
> video off tv or a dvd and convert it into a xvid all with free tools.
Well, you did use the word "range". My point is that the Mac is covered
from a newbie/consumer level with tools like iLife all the way up to
professional film and television, and from free bundled solutions and open
source, to the best professional tools in the business.
But to the point you're making now, there are cards and external converters
for the Mac and free tools for encoding from TV or ripping from DVD into
XVID on OS X as well.
Though, most of us in the USA would simply attach the FireWire cable to the
required by law FireWire port on the HD cable box and rip the stream. This
would be a $0 cost solution....Even the highly rated editing software is
free. Any current Mac can do this.
>> Ah, but your point was that the UI for XP was better at dealing with large
>> numbers of programs (and as if 200 was a lot). Can you find one instance of
>> someone with OS X having a problem with too many apps being installed (even
>> as we post about the thousands some of us have on OS X?) On the other hand,
>> there are entire books dealing with the resolving problems caused by too
>> many application installation problems.
>>
>> There are tens of thousands of OS X applications, while there are some very
>> specific areas where there is more software for Windows, and that software
>> is better, often there "more software" count is really about things not
>> needed on OS X (Registry editors, anti-virus apps, defragmenters, etc..) or
>> about crapware.
>>
>> Ironically, most of the software I want to use is either only available on
>> OS X, or is much better on OS X.
>>
>
> In my 10 years of using windows I've never really had problems with
> registory hell. Of course the OSX system of dealing with settings and
> applications is much more elegant.
No problems with your registry at all or just nothing you would consider
hell? Certainly enough other people have had problems that it supports an
industry of magazines, websites and books to deal with it.
But be that as it may, you're now saying that the OSX system of dealing with
settings and applications is much more elegant. I totally agree with that.
Especially with drag & drop installing and the general lack of a need for
uninstallers. So this begs the question, what did you mean by "the UI for
XP was better at dealing with large numbers of programs", and did you really
mean to imply that 200 was a lot?
>>>> In addition to navigating through the Finder, you can switch/open OS X apps
>>>> in *MANY* more ways than XP...
>>>> 1) Dock (in fixed locations)
>>>> 2) Dock (hierarchical folders)
>>>> 3) Sidebar
>>>> 4) 3rd Dock (toolbar)
>>>> 5) Command-Tab
>>>> 6) Spotlight
>>>> 7) Dashboard*
>>>> 8) Expose
>>>
>>> Is there any way to do it with a few mouse movements as clicks as the
>>> task bar lets you.
>>
>>
>> Sure.
>>
>> If the app is open simply click on the icon in the Dock, just like you would
>> with the Taskbar...only with the Dock, the location of the icon isn't going
>> to change...advantage (slightly) to OS X.
>
> But the advantage to XP is that clicking on the icon on the dock will
> bring up all the apps windows and you'll have to click through those or
> right click on the dock to get to the one you want. XP, you just click
> straight on the window you want to get to.
> Look, I might be reading a newsgroup, want to switch between a messaging
> i'm writing or the newsgroup, in xp I can switch between those quickly
> with task bar, in OSX, usually I'll be clicking on window menu and then
> the document.
I get what you're saying, but now load up both OS X and XP with a lot of
apps and a lot of documents (a lot by OS X standards;)
Now, go to switch through from document to document or app to app. On OS X,
everything will be in a specific place, where on Windows things will be in
random places and you have to visually hunt for what you want. This is made
even worse since there is far less of a visual cue for what you
want...perhaps a whole bunch of generic icons with "U..." that you have to
mouse over each to see what they are.
It gets worse...
Suppose you're dealing with say editing a bunch of untitled documents or
documents with similar names. On OS X, you can easily switch between
windows based on what the documents look like using Expose. On Windows, it
depends on the app that created the files (SDI versus MDI) and either way
there's no way that's as elegant or easy as using Expose would be.
>> If the app is not open, but it's a commonly used app, simply click on the
>> icon in the Dock as opposed to clicking the Quicklaunch bar and then
>> selecting the item in the Taskbar...advantage (significance based on amount)
>> to OS X.
>>
>> If the app is not open and not commonly used, simply go through the App
>> folder hierarchy in the Dock, just as you would the Start Menu, only with
>> the Dock, it can be better organized and not littered with other
>> stuff...advantage (significance based on level of use and customization) to
>> OS X.
>>
>
> The start menu can be organised as much as the app folder, if you can be
> bothered to do so that is.
How is it then easier, if the app folder in OS X is already organized and
the Start Menu is something you need to "bother with organizing"? Even
still, there are limits to how much you can organize the Start Menu, and one
of them is that it can *not* be made to replicate an app folder on OS X
(without serious hacking of the OS) ...nor would you want it to.
What if I don't want all 2,000+ apps in my quicklaunch bar? Not that I ever
had that many on a PC, but on OS X I do.
Secondly, there are advantages beyond just what the task would be for
dragging a bunch of files, but even with that, it's much easier to
double-click and have them open the way you want them to as opposed to
dragging to an icon nested down somewhere.
What if you wanted an app to only *see* documents that were associated with
it? You can do this on OS X without changing the extension, you can't do
this in XP.
What if you wanted to automate a task where files of a specific type were
open with their associated applications wherein one type has different
associations? Again, not possible in XP, and totally easy on OS X. And,
this is one task that I do *very* often.
There are more issues that come up here as well...too many to list, but
there easy to come up with. Say you wanted to do some accounting of what
apps were used most often to create a certain type of document, or just to
*find* all of them...easy on OS X, not possible on XP.
>>>> I think the big difference between those screenshots is that there is no
>>>> order to where stuff lives on the Windows taskbar. Items move around, and
>>>> as it fills up you end up either with documents living under one item,
>>>> taskbar items being things like "U...", or both of those problems.
>>>
>>> One letter and an icon is often enough to know what you're clicking on.
>>> Yes, the task bar is all out of order, but every open window is listed
>>> on it, making it faster and more efficient to switch to an individual
>>> window.
>>
>>
>> When you have 10 Word icons all with "U..." how do you know which is which
>> when they aren't in any order? You have to mouse over, and that's not
>> efficient.
>
> Right, but that is an extreme situation, often you'll be able to tell
> documents apart in the task bar.
It's a very common problem for me using XP in terms of "can from the moment
I first want to initiate the action, can I start the mouse moving in the
exact correct direction without hesitation".
This problem simply does not exist in OS X.
>>>> I think the issue here is that many things newbies must do end up taking
>>>> them past these "power user only" roadblocks. Don't even get me started on
>>>> how many default settings I usually change on a Windows machine and how
>>>> most
>>>> of the time there's no reset to default option.
>>>
>>> True, but I think it's vitally important for a UI to be efficient and
>>> easy for a power user to get their tasks done.
>>
>>
>> Right, but how does this roadblock make it any easier for power users?
>
> The power user can easily disable it and will never have to touch it
> again until they reinstall. Protection for newbies that's easy for
> powerusers to turn off.
Again, divergence from the point. Your point was "3. doesn't attempt to
hide so much of the file system from the user"
So how does this roadblock of intimidation make it any easier for users?
You've gone from claiming XP doesn't hide so much, to now trying to argue
why hiding things somehow makes things easier.
There are other areas too, such as why are extensions turned off by default?
>>>> HUGE difference here. First off, you don't need a 3rd party app to
>>>> configure the swap file on OS X. You can do this in the Terminal. Of
>>>> course the Terminal could be considered a "power user utility", but NOBODY
>>>> should be wanting to mess with the swap file unless they're a power user to
>>>> begin with....even then, there's some debate...keep in mind the system in
>>>> much different in OS X than XP and there is less of a reason to go messing
>>>> with it on OS X.
>>>
>>> I dislike an OS that forces you to use remember and type to configure
>>> it's vital functions rather than point and click.
>>
>>
>> Again, here you are bringing XP experience and applying it to OS X. If you
>> were to switch to OS X full time, you could wipe all knowledge from your
>> mind about he existence of swap files and be much better off since OS X
>> deals with swap files in a much better way and changing the configuration
>> really just isn't done much...except for those that really have no problem
>> living in the Terminal.
>>
>> I've played with changing my swap file configurations and have yet to come
>> across any situation where any change would make any difference for the
>> better.
>
> Possibly, but why should a power user want an os that wants you to
> forget about it's deeper functions rather than being able to easily
> tweak them without having to go through an arcane command line.
Mostly because I have yet to see where tweaking them on OS X would be
beneficial in any way, wherein in many cases tweaking them on XP is a
necessity/beneficial.
You can't just slop on UI for features and have them not have an impact on
the ease of learning and ease of use.
Think about this for a second...
With Microsoft, they created an operating system wherein the swap file
functionality is not as efficient, and needs to be tweaked in many cases for
improved operation. Rather than fixing the swap file mechanism, they
slapped onto the interface a method for users to do it themselves.
With Apple, they created (bought/borrowed/stole/whatever) a swap file
mechanism that is much more efficient, and extremely hard to debate that it
could be tweaked for improved operation. Certainly those that could even
possibly have a need and would have an understanding friggin live in the
Terminal...why clutter the UI with something that if used improperly would
make things worse, especially when it's argued that pretty much *any* change
would do so?
>>>> Meanwhile, having it be easier to get hardware profile information is
>>>> definitely a good thing for newbies.
>>>>
>>>> Mac user with a problem related to hardware:
>>>> Tech - Go to Apple menu and select About this Mac
>>>> User - OK
>>>>
>>>> Windows user with a problem related to hardware:
>>>> Tech - Go to http://download.guru3d.com/sandra/
>>>> User - Oh Damn!
>>>
>>> You have a point, though i must say that sandra utlity is a top knotch
>>> program for getting hardware info. And it includes benchmark functions.
>>
>>
>> That may well be, but Windows should make it easier to find the basic info
>> the way OS X does.
>
> Right, though it's clear the main purpose of the built in system
> information program by microsoft is to help solve hardware and driver
> conflicts rather than acquire information to help with upgrading.
How does OS X's profiler not provide both in a way inferior to Windows? I
can easily see all information about all of my hardware, all drivers,
applications, fonts, log files, pretty much everything about my system all
in one well organized GUI app built-into OS X, complete with a mechanism for
sending a report to Apple or elsewhere for support.
>>>> You're making a huge assumption that the user is going to want to quit the
>>>> application. How do you close all windows of an application without
>>>> quitting it in XP? The answer is that only *some* Windows apps allow you
>>>> to
>>>> do this (that's the inconsistency) and the rest won't let you keep an app
>>>> open without an open window (that's the inconvenience).
>>>
>>>
>>> Leaving an application open that you arne't using is a waste of ram. A
>>> limited resource on an ibook ;)
>>
>>
>> So then quit the application, as you have that as a choice with OS X. But
>> once again, you're making assumption based on a faulty understanding of the
>> way OS X works. An open application without any windows or background
>> activity shouldn't be consuming any cpu/memory resources requested by other
>> active apps.
>
> I have safari open on my ibook, with no windows open, it wastes 20MB of
> ram. Yes choice is good, but I can imagine that this application still
> open but no windows open could be confusing for new users. Also it means
> you have to quit the program after you close the window, more clicks,
> less efficency. It's a nice idea though, I just wish you could turn it
> off and make it act like windows.
The most confusing part is that it's not wasting 20MB of RAM. Also, you
don't have to quit after you close a window, simply quit *before* you close
a window.
>> Again, this is annoying as hell on Windows if you don't want to keep and
>> open document, but the application takes a long time to startup (due to
>> loading pluggins, logging in, etc...)
>
> I find it annoying as hell that the program won't close when I close
> it's last window. :)
Right, but this isn't about two different preferences, one to keep an app
open after closing all its windows and one to quit an app after closing all
of its windows. This is about your preference to not allow you to keep an
app open without open windows, and my preference to allow the *option* of
keeping an app open without any open windows.
In OS X, simply quit the app to close the windows and get out of the habit
of doing it the Windows way to get your preference as stated above. There's
no way to get my preference on Windows as stated above.
>>>> On OS X, you get very used to Command-Q for quitting apps as a separate
>>>> task
>>>> course of action as opposed to closing windows. These are two totally
>>>> different things that should be different actions. It may not always be a
>>>> problem, but it's a royal bitch when you accidentally quit an app that has
>>>> some special startup.
>>>
>>> Yes, but I think it's easier and faster to click an x.
>>
>>
>> When you step out of your assumptions, you'll find that you are wrong. I
>> don't mean that as a jab against you, just that you're making a false set of
>> assumptions that when you click that X it most often results in something
>> where quitting the application is the desired action. While this may be
>> true for certain users of Windows, I don't think it's universal, and it's
>> certainly untrue for OS X.
>
> Windows works quite simply, x is close window button, if it's the last
> open window program will quit.
Even PhotoShop? Excel? Are you sure about this?
OS X is simpler...QUIT the application you want to QUIT. Again, many
applications have *very* long launch times...not Explorer or NotePad, but
some that have lots of plug-ins or logins. It's a royal pain to have to
remember to check and maintain an open window to prevent the application
from needing to go through a lengthy launch again.
And I still don't understand why Command-Q is more difficult than clicking
on the X where ever it may be for each open window.
>> Huh? One of us really doesn't understand what the other is trying to
>> describe as an advantage. Go to any Windows application and save a new
>> document. See that sidebar on the left? Why is it inconsistent amongst
>> Windows apps? Why can't it be customized? Why can't it automatically
>> display my list of favorite folders? Why has it been its same sucky self
>> for so damn long?
>
> Good point, however about inconsistant, microsoft has slowly tried to
> improve it, different programs will use standards from different eras. ;)
True, I really wish Microsoft would create a next-generation OS from the
ground up the way Apple did with OS X...maintaining compatibility only as a
transition path, not as a end means goal. I think it's amazing that
PhotoShop 1.0 still runs on a G5 with 10.4 despite Apple's forward looking
(at the expense of backward compatibility), when I had so many compatibility
issues going from Windows 98 to XP. Not that I'm saying Microsoft hasn't
maintained greater compatibility, but rather the balance of compatibility
versus evolution seems to have dragged Microsoft down with OS development
while the practicality of compatibility has not been worth it.
Flint
> I claim objectivity, because I hate neither. Although I have been using
> windows for 10 years, I recently brought an ibook. Now I think that both
> OS's are actually about equal, each has advantages disadvantages.
> The good parts of OSX:
> 1. OSX is so much better at installing and uninstalling programs, simply
> dragging and dropping things works much better than uninstall programs
> which won't always remove every part of the program
> 2. better security, although i think this is largely due to spyware and
> virus makers not spending much time programming for a OS with 4% of the
> marketshare. Still it doesn't run by default as adminstrator, yet it
> also doesn't bother you much with user rights like linux does.
> 3. pretty, OSX is the prettest OS ever compiled in the history of
> computers.
> 4.features like spotlight and dashboard, which are as cool as apple
> claims they are in my opinion
> 5.right click has a spelling check in most applications! Now if only
> they had a right click.
> 1.range of software for it, especially in regards to entertainment,
> gaming and videos. now that is a major advantage, which limits the
> useablity of osx to laptops for me
> and that it's UI is better at dealing with a large number of programs
> than OSX, it would not be unusual for a XP machine to be found with over
> 200 programs.
> gives you much more control over your OS and hardware than OSX and it's
> GUI tools for doing such are better than linux also.
>
> Both are solid robust and stable OS's with many features in common.
> I've found OSX's method of dealing with switching between windows and
> program and then to one of it's windows.
> OSX is the best Unix os I've seen.
What a breath of fresh air in this ng! Finally, an informed
opinion/objective observation from *someone* who uses both OS's.
I pretty much concur with you on just about every one of your points of
comparison.
-Rick
Mr Ed Of Course
Flint wrote:
> What a breath of fresh air in this ng! Finally, an informed
> opinion/objective observation from *someone* who uses both OS's.
>
> I pretty much concur with you on just about every one of your points of
> comparison.
And I, respectfully, disagree with just about every one of his points,
but totally agree that his post and this thread have been a breath of
fresh air. I wish we could more of this kind of debate here. Often,
as in this case, there's a lot to learn even when you still ultimately
disagree with the other side. This is probably the main reason why I
come here, to learn, and I had just about given up until this thread.
Flint
> "Nicholas Buenk" <mo...@tpg.com.au> stated in post 42dd...@dnews.tpgi.com.au
> on 7/19/05 10:30 PM:
>
>
>>>Aha... if you did not know, OS X can use multi-button mice just fine. I use
>>>a Logitech scroll mouse - just plug it in and all buttons / scroll bar work
>>>as expected. The System Pref's will let you change settings.
>>>
>>>It comes with third party drivers - but I am happy with what Apple offers.
>>
>>Me too, I was really complaining about the mouse apples makes don't have
>>a right mouse button even though the OS can use it.
>
>
> While I know many folks who are used to computers do not understand it,
> there are advantages to the one button mouse:
>
> - keeps the UI "cleaner" and less dependant on contextual menus for common
> tasks
True, although this isn't so much a function of a one button mouse, but
a the OS.
> - eliminates problems for left and right handed users of the same computer
Most two button mice can reverse the button functions quite easily.
> - easier to learn; as a teacher I cannot tell you how often people ask which
> button to use
Choices do present another layer complexity, no doubt. Still though, I
prefer the choice being available and not needing it rather than needing
it and having no choice.
> - better for people with certain handicaps.
Unless the handicap is a non-functional or missing 'bird' finger, I
don't see how it is 'better'... different maybe, but not necessarilly
better.
Limiting the interaction with the user interface for the sake of a small
minority of users that compromises the added functionality for the
majority never did seem like a good idea. It's too 'ADA-ish' if you ask
me. But, like you said (below), at least OS X supports two button mice
for those who do use them.
> - I am happy that Apple added support for two button mice in OS X - used to
> not be there in Classic Mac OS... at least not built in.
Snit
1121981617.9...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com on 7/21/05 2:33 PM:
Here here!
At its best CSMA is not just the silly BS flame wars - and I openly admit to
having been sucked in to many myself.
--
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)
Snit
on 7/21/05 2:35 PM:
> Snit wrote:
>> "Nicholas Buenk" <mo...@tpg.com.au> stated in post 42dd...@dnews.tpgi.com.au
>> on 7/19/05 10:30 PM:
>>
>>
>>>> Aha... if you did not know, OS X can use multi-button mice just fine. I
>>>> use
>>>> a Logitech scroll mouse - just plug it in and all buttons / scroll bar work
>>>> as expected. The System Pref's will let you change settings.
>>>>
>>>> It comes with third party drivers - but I am happy with what Apple offers.
>>>
>>> Me too, I was really complaining about the mouse apples makes don't have
>>> a right mouse button even though the OS can use it.
>>
>>
>> While I know many folks who are used to computers do not understand it,
>> there are advantages to the one button mouse:
>>
>> - keeps the UI "cleaner" and less dependant on contextual menus for common
>> tasks
>
> True, although this isn't so much a function of a one button mouse, but
> a the OS.
The one button mouse helps keep third party programmers "focused" on this...
and likely even Apple programmers.
>
>> - eliminates problems for left and right handed users of the same computer
>
> Most two button mice can reverse the button functions quite easily.
Using software - and then you have to know how to get to the control panel,
how to swap the buttons, etc... and do so while using a mouse set the
"wrong" way. It is a big pain for many...
>
>> - easier to learn; as a teacher I cannot tell you how often people ask which
>> button to use
>
> Choices do present another layer complexity, no doubt. Still though, I
> prefer the choice being available and not needing it rather than needing
> it and having no choice.
Oh, I am happy that Apple offers two button (plus) mouse drivers....
>
>> - better for people with certain handicaps.
>
> Unless the handicap is a non-functional or missing 'bird' finger, I
> don't see how it is 'better'... different maybe, but not necessarilly
> better.
Folks with limited muscular control. I have worked with folks with muscular
dystrophy and similar conditions that use a Mac largely for the one button
mouse... it makes a big difference to them. While I do not particularly
like the current Apple mice, the fact that the whole front is the button is
excellent for them... though I would think picking it up and moving it as
the button is pressed would be a problem. I do not recall anyone ever
making that complaint.
>
> Limiting the interaction with the user interface for the sake of a small
> minority of users that compromises the added functionality for the
> majority never did seem like a good idea. It's too 'ADA-ish' if you ask
> me. But, like you said (below), at least OS X supports two button mice
> for those who do use them.
Exactly... I do wish Apple had the two button choice as a build to order
option - but with the one button as the default.
>
>> - I am happy that Apple added support for two button mice in OS X - used to
>> not be there in Classic Mac OS... at least not built in.
>
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
StormDrain
TheLetterK <thele...@spymac.nosppam.com> wrote:
> StormDrain wrote:
> > In article <VJNDe.10425$do5....@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
> > TheLetterK <thele...@spymac.nosppam.com> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>>
> >>>Naaaa, by then they will have announced some other latest and greatest
> >>>concept while selling their normal crappy implementation of the previous
> >>>concept.
> >>
> >>This doesn't fit their historical trends.
> >
> >
> > LOL...that's the best reply I can give here.
> Explain? Their progression towards a task-based interface started with
> Windows 95, and has been moving that way ever since. Microsoft just
> recently went out and declared it, as a way to market XP to 2000 users.
I was referring to the much reduced feature set of the shipping product.
For example: WinFS will _not_ be a part of longhorn.
> >>>>>You may want to revisit the features Apple includes: the ones that
> >>>>>actually speed up tasks, makes repetitive tasks easily repeatable and
> >>>>>new tasks easy to define. The "slow transition" has already started
> >>>>>just don't look to MS for leadersship.
> >>>>
> >>>>Apple isn't going in this direction at all, they seem content with their
> >>>>current model, and simply keep refining it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Apple hasn't announce the "great paradigm shift" but you _do_ overlook
> >>>all the task based enhancements I've already mentioned and think Apple
> >>>will be stagnant for the next 15 years. After all, who will MS be able
> >>>to copy in order to achieve this nirvana.
> >>
> >>What task based accomplishments? Apple hasn't made any. They've taken
> >>some old NeXT concepts in that regard, and applied them in the same
> >>manner. 'They' (Using Apple and NeXT collectively) haven't really made
> >>any progress towards a task-based interface for the last... 15 years or
> >>so. It's *certainly* not the direction they want to go. The principles
> >>they *are* following are sound, but they aren't going to a task-based
> >>interface. OS X still uses a document-based model, and there's *nothing*
> >>to suggest a shift away from this.
> >
> >
> > OK then, let me try this. What do _you_ think a task-based interface
> > is? Please point to a document, screenshot of an existing system or
> > some general UI guidelines.
> IMO?
Well I did ask what you thought. :) I really wanted something like this:
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/longhorn_task-based_ui.asp
although I think this is a better discussion but need a Tiger update.
> It's a type of interface where windows, data, etc are
> irrelivent--the *task* is what matters, everything else is just a vector
> to reach the end point of any particular task. Windows would simply be
> used as composition areas for ideas. Actions would be applied to content
> via some kind of verb-noun metaphor (such as an 'action bar', or
> somesuch). The ideas behind WinFS (dissasociating data from files), and
> Longhorn's savable workspaces (tasks are groups of workareas, not
> specific windows) are good examples of a progression towards this. I
> think their next step should be a reorganization of how applications are
> designed and packaged. Users should be the ones building interfaces, not
> some programmer the user has never met. Have a Window be retermed
> 'Canvas' or something, with the interface built from a collection of
> available elements (which would also fit into the pricing model of this
> kind of system; rather than buying 'applications', you would buy
> 'objects' and 'methods', then organize them how you want onto a Canvas).
I really think you need to take a closer look at spotlight and Automator
(and tiger in general.) Automator looks to be very extensible.
Developers can write objects for this. Actually it's a pretty nice task
building system, quite useful. All Apple need to do is add a few "What
do you want to do now" panes and they've surpassed anything MS has.
I'm also not sure that users should, or even want, to build interfaces.
Unless every possible task is predefined, programming (scripting, task
writing etc) in one form or another, will be required.
The thrust of MS task-based interfaces is aimed at _new_ users, and
almost guarantees they will never experience the full possibilities of
their system/apps. We'll have to look at the SHIPPING version of
Longhorn to see if this changes.
As I said before, Apple's moving in the right direction.
TheLetterK
The curren tprocuts ar e*nowhere near the result*. They've making a
*slow progression towards a concept*. It's not something you'll see in
Longhorn, and likely not the next consumer version either. Why do you
keep asking for current examples? I've said numerous times that the
*current interface is not even remotely close*.
>
>
>>It's a type of interface where windows, data, etc are
>>irrelivent--the *task* is what matters, everything else is just a vector
>>to reach the end point of any particular task. Windows would simply be
>>used as composition areas for ideas. Actions would be applied to content
>>via some kind of verb-noun metaphor (such as an 'action bar', or
>>somesuch). The ideas behind WinFS (dissasociating data from files), and
>>Longhorn's savable workspaces (tasks are groups of workareas, not
>>specific windows) are good examples of a progression towards this. I
>>think their next step should be a reorganization of how applications are
>>designed and packaged. Users should be the ones building interfaces, not
>>some programmer the user has never met. Have a Window be retermed
>>'Canvas' or something, with the interface built from a collection of
>>available elements (which would also fit into the pricing model of this
>>kind of system; rather than buying 'applications', you would buy
>>'objects' and 'methods', then organize them how you want onto a Canvas).
>
>
> I really think you need to take a closer look at spotlight and Automator
> (and tiger in general.) Automator looks to be very extensible.
> Developers can write objects for this. Actually it's a pretty nice task
> building system, quite useful. All Apple need to do is add a few "What
> do you want to do now" panes and they've surpassed anything MS has.
Spotlight doesn't provide the crucial shift in perspective. It's a
search utility. A very fast one, but a search utility nonetheless. WinFS
is a change in perspective. It's a leap from files, to *data*. Well,
whenever it's released anyway (I'm banking on Windows 'FX' SP1).
Automator is entirely different from what I was talking about. It's the
same old song and dance in an easier package. It doesn't provide what I
was talking about, just a way to put together a workflow easier than it
was before.
>
> I'm also not sure that users should, or even want, to build interfaces.
They do. They might not know it yet, because noone has presented it to
them right. But people do want the ability. The very notion of an
'interface', that we've been using all along would be radically changed
by such a shift in perspective.
> Unless every possible task is predefined, programming (scripting, task
> writing etc) in one form or another, will be required.
Why? Unixes have been using something vaguely like this for, well, going
on 30 years now. Ever noticed that Unix tools tend to have a single
function? And that shell scripting acts as a sort of 'glue' to combine
them? It's that sort of 'glue' effect that I'm talking about. You
combine a bunch of single purpose methods and objects into a utility
uniquely suited for the task at hand.
>
> The thrust of MS task-based interfaces is aimed at _new_ users, and
> almost guarantees they will never experience the full possibilities of
> their system/apps. We'll have to look at the SHIPPING version of
> Longhorn to see if this changes.
Why? I'm *not talking about Longhorn*. Please get that through your
head. What I'm talking about is the concept of a fully task-based
interface, not what Microsoft is piddling around with currently. What
I'm talking about is one potential turn they might choose to take to get
to a task-based interface. It's not something we'll see next year. Or
the year after that, or probably within the next decade (though the
technology certainly exists today). You asked why, and what. I'm
attempting to explain. I'm not talking about current products (And
Longhorn is close enough to be 'current').
>
> As I said before, Apple's moving in the right direction.
No they're not. They're taking a path that is ultimately limited.
They're forgetting their roots and going in the same direction everyone
else is. When was the last time Apple was ever able to successfully play
this game? Their greatest successes have been 'revolutionary' products
(even if they weren't the first to make them), not refinement of what
everyone else is doing.
Where is OS X going in the future? Do you see any kind of real change
coming? I don't. Sure, they'll tack on new features. New effects and
dazzling displays of graphical brilliance. But they aren't going to make
the corrections nessesary to compete in the far future. Microsoft draws
ever closer to a product superior to what Apple offers. This day isn't
today, and it's not next year. But consider Apple/NeXT's lead 10 years
ago, then compare it with today. XP's not as good as OS X. Longhorn
probably won't be. But it'll be damned close. In 5 years, when Microsoft
releases the next version of Windows, might it be better than OS X? Very
possibly.
Nicholas Buenk
> "Flint" <age...@section31.org> stated in post IK-cnXSND82...@ptd.net
> on 7/21/05 2:35 PM:
>
>
>>Snit wrote:
>>
>>>"Nicholas Buenk" <mo...@tpg.com.au> stated in post 42dd...@dnews.tpgi.com.au
>>>on 7/19/05 10:30 PM:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Aha... if you did not know, OS X can use multi-button mice just fine. I
>>>>>use
>>>>>a Logitech scroll mouse - just plug it in and all buttons / scroll bar work
>>>>>as expected. The System Pref's will let you change settings.
>>>>>
>>>>>It comes with third party drivers - but I am happy with what Apple offers.
>>>>
>>>>Me too, I was really complaining about the mouse apples makes don't have
>>>>a right mouse button even though the OS can use it.
>>>
>>>
>>>While I know many folks who are used to computers do not understand it,
>>>there are advantages to the one button mouse:
>>>
>>>- keeps the UI "cleaner" and less dependant on contextual menus for common
>>>tasks
>>
>>True, although this isn't so much a function of a one button mouse, but
>>a the OS.
>
>
> The one button mouse helps keep third party programmers "focused" on this...
> and likely even Apple programmers.
On the other hand it encourages them to make more simple context menus
that can't do as much.
>
>>>- eliminates problems for left and right handed users of the same computer
>>
>>Most two button mice can reverse the button functions quite easily.
>
>
> Using software - and then you have to know how to get to the control panel,
> how to swap the buttons, etc... and do so while using a mouse set the
> "wrong" way. It is a big pain for many...
>
>>>- easier to learn; as a teacher I cannot tell you how often people ask which
>>>button to use
>>
>>Choices do present another layer complexity, no doubt. Still though, I
>>prefer the choice being available and not needing it rather than needing
>>it and having no choice.
>
>
> Oh, I am happy that Apple offers two button (plus) mouse drivers....
I'd rather than apple offered a 2 button mouse by default, it would
encourage the developement of powerful context menus as it has on windows.
>
>>>- better for people with certain handicaps.
>>
>>Unless the handicap is a non-functional or missing 'bird' finger, I
>>don't see how it is 'better'... different maybe, but not necessarilly
>>better.
>
>
> Folks with limited muscular control. I have worked with folks with muscular
> dystrophy and similar conditions that use a Mac largely for the one button
> mouse... it makes a big difference to them. While I do not particularly
> like the current Apple mice, the fact that the whole front is the button is
> excellent for them... though I would think picking it up and moving it as
> the button is pressed would be a problem. I do not recall anyone ever
> making that complaint.
>
>>Limiting the interaction with the user interface for the sake of a small
>>minority of users that compromises the added functionality for the
>>majority never did seem like a good idea. It's too 'ADA-ish' if you ask
>>me. But, like you said (below), at least OS X supports two button mice
>>for those who do use them.
>
>
> Exactly... I do wish Apple had the two button choice as a build to order
> option - but with the one button as the default.
That's a good idea, but I'd rather it the other way around with the 2
button as default.
Snit
>> The one button mouse helps keep third party programmers "focused" on this...
>> and likely even Apple programmers.
>
> On the other hand it encourages them to make more simple context menus
> that can't do as much.
Do you have an example?
>> Oh, I am happy that Apple offers two button (plus) mouse drivers....
>
> I'd rather than apple offered a 2 button mouse by default, it would
> encourage the developement of powerful context menus as it has on windows.
Again: example?
Snit
>> The one button mouse helps keep third party programmers "focused" on this...
>> and likely even Apple programmers.
>
> On the other hand it encourages them to make more simple context menus
> that can't do as much.
Do you have an example?
>> Oh, I am happy that Apple offers two button (plus) mouse drivers....
>
> I'd rather than apple offered a 2 button mouse by default, it would
> encourage the developement of powerful context menus as it has on windows.
Again: example?
Nicholas Buenk
You're assuming regular users aren't home users who installed the OS
themselves or brought the computer with it preinstalled. Users who set
up their own password. I'm not sure how it's reasonable to assume the
majority of OSX don't have elevated rights, businesses that use OSX
sure. OSX asks for passwords often when installing programs in my
experience, why spyware could quite easily be attached to a program they
wanted to use.
What do you edit in com.apple.finder.plist? that file is chaos and hard
to follow. In windows you can find out how just by browsing through the GUI.
Perhaps, however that applies only if you've lost the area on the task
bar where your window is. Which only happens sometimes.
It would better if they just kept such functions in an advanced settings
tab, that would be easier.
>
>> I think easy to use should not just mean easy for beginners to learn.
>
> It doesn't it means easy to use. They do this by giving a relatively
> consistant, and obvious bar. One that it set very low, and can be
> reached almost intutively. By comparison, Windows' interface is complex,
> quirky, and bloated.
It may be quirky and complex, but all it's major functions are well
labelled and not hard to understand. Bloated, I'd argue that XP is less
bloated than KDE and OSX ;) But mainly because it's older.
Nicholas Buenk
Not every game, and an override function is useful.
>
>> I notice that ATI provides a tool to do that on osx but not nvidia.
>> Also, to get newer drivers for bug fixes and new features, what files
>> are considered executables, file cache tweaks and task scheduling tweaks.
>
> Shouldn't be as nessesary on a Mac. If Apple is providing the driver, it
> should work sufficiently. If someone else is, there's nothing preventing
> you from updating the driver.
Sure, but handy and also, fun, to get minor bugs fixes and new features
from the latest drivers.
steve....@gmail.com
Snit wrote:
> "Nicholas Buenk" <mo...@tpg.com.au> stated in post
> 42e0...@dnews.tpgi.com.au on 7/22/05 12:51 AM:
>
> >> The one button mouse helps keep third party programmers "focused" on this...
> >> and likely even Apple programmers.
> >
> > On the other hand it encourages them to make more simple context menus
> > that can't do as much.
>
> Do you have an example?
Final Cut Pro is a good example of a program that uses the 2nd button
very effectively.
>
> >> Oh, I am happy that Apple offers two button (plus) mouse drivers....
> >
> > I'd rather than apple offered a 2 button mouse by default, it would
> > encourage the developement of powerful context menus as it has on windows.
>
> Again: example?
A simple example perhaps...The 2nd button mouse within Windows Explorer
allows me to get a to a lot of useful functions (particularly when a
lot of plug-ins attach to that menu-such as TortoiseSVN).