Windows Software Ugly, Boring & Uninspired 924
An anonymous reader writes "CPU magazine has written a very straight-to-the-point editorial on the lack of quality and innovation in software for the mainstream OS. They compare it to the Mac, which is found in a much different light. Where has all the innovation gone?" From the article: "There's too much coal and not enough diamonds within the sphere of downloads. The greatest pieces of software are plagued by unintelligent design, and very few rise to the level of ubiquity. Windows users don't have a strong sense of belonging; there's no user community rallying around the platform. We use the computer, certainly, or is the computer using us?"
Garbage (Score:5, Insightful)
There isn't one of them that gives you functionality that your browser doesn't already afford. Sure, they're pretty, but what's going to happen is that as people amass more and more of these widgets, the dashboard becomes cluttered and slow (it already is painfully slow on my MDD 1.25GHz G4, and that's just with the stock widgets, with the default set active only). Then there's going to be the question as to how to organize them all... the faux dock at the bottom is already insufficient. I know, let's stick a menu in there! Great idea!
Why not call it the Widgets Menu? And when you choose a widget from the menu, up comes the widget! Just like if you had chosen a bookmark from the Bookmarks menu from your favorite browser: up comes the web page containing the info you sought!
Or, we could create a page of little Widgets links, and then the user could click on the link and up pops the widget! Just as if it were a web page full of links, each leading to a separate page with different and useful functionality!
So my question is, why not just use the browser? IT ALREADY DOES THESE THINGS!
Not as pretty? Find a web page that has a decent designer/artist behind it. Between CSS and the GiMP, there's no excuse for ugly web pages anymore.
If you want to throw stones, throw them at a target that deserves to get hit: the Desktop Metaphor. Menus and windows with scrollbars and dialog boxes and lions and tigers and bears. The same constraints that Windows suffers under are also felt by Mac OS X, Gnome and KDE users too.
The branding has nothing to do with it.
BTW, Chris Pirillo, the guy who wrote this, he's the one who couldn't make the cut as a TechTV ScreenSaver, isn't that right?
Re:Garbage (Score:4, Insightful)
Didn't know an ordinary browser does this too! Which one? Where do I find that feature at? Again, which browser/web page has all this stuff all at the same time? You seem to know! Tell us oh wise one!
Re:Garbage (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Garbage (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Garbage (Score:4, Insightful)
Your "Widget Menu" is coming though, and although it's already available in the form of many third-party tools [versiontracker.com], Apple will be releasing one built into the Dashboard in their upcoming update: 10.4.2 [thinksecret.com]
As for the rest of your post, you clearly seem to have a very poor understanding of OS X. I suggest reading up on it [apple.com] to find out "a ton of examples as to how, say, Mac OS X is so much more beautiful, exciting and uplifting?".
Re:Garbage (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, in my experience Widgets take a fair amount of memory. Each Widget seems to take around 150 Meg ov VM, and use several Megs of real memory. They also seem to leak real memory. This is after about four days:
Real Mem Virt Mem NAME
27.33 MB 159.59 MB Weather DashboardClient
11.51 MB 144.20 MB Stickies DashboardClient
10.85 MB 147.11 MB Oblique DashboardClient
9.13 MB 154.76 MB Unit Converter DashboardClient
9.11 MB 144.05 MB Calendar DashboardClient
8.79 MB 151.12 MB Dictionary DashboardClient
8.65 MB 144.61 MB World Clock DashboardClient
6.20 MB 126.45 MB Calculator DashboardClient
This adds up to about 90 Meg of real memory, and over a gig of virtual memory, for about eight widgets. Desk accessories the world over are hanging their head in shame.
Re:Garbage (Score:3, Informative)
I did notice, however, that my machine was quite a lot slower after installing Tiger. I poked around, and found the reason was that it was swapping a lot more. The Dashboard widgets were using around 50MB of real memory doing nothing - it seems they don't even get completely swapped
Re:Garbage (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry you took my comment as an insult, it wasn't meant to be. It's just that you really have very little clue of what OS X is.
Re:Garbage (Score:5, Informative)
No, I included expressly because I think it's a big feature. Yet again you insist that I somehow know very little about OS X and FreeBSD? I think that to make such a baseless remark demonstrates that it is you who knows very little about computers in general. Very little.
The Steve Capps' Finder delivered with the original 128K Mac *still* blows away today's Finder in terms of elegance, responsiveness and overall usability. Moreover, I see no difference between today's Finder and WIndows Explorer, except for this odd example you give us which really has nothing to do with anything. BTW, I've never had the need for force-quit Windows Explorer. You really want to call that a feature?
We were talking about GUI's, otherwise I'd give you that one.
Talking about GUI's, remember? And there is a lot of shit you can get for free on Windows. I will admit though that the free DVD Player is nice.
That has no end of bugs to it. No thanks.
That I have to download again and reinstall anyways to get it working with GNU readline. Again, no thanks.
Eh? I've found exactly the opposite IFF we're talking about networking the same machines. Different machines, all platforms have quirks, even Samba under Linux.
Click on Services. Click on the Service you want to start. Done.
Already mentioned this, and it still isn't GUI-related.
When I need fast graphics rendering, it's when I play games (ohmigod, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to bring up the GAMES you can play on Windows and not on Mac, whatever was I thinking? :) )
Is getting rather old by now. Personally I think GNOME looks the best of all of them, but then, I am a minimalist. Plus, GNOME let's me make any window fullscreen. Steve Jobs will die before allowing that to happen under Aqua.
You know it's funny, I saved this message of yours to disk, and I'm STILL hearing the disk grind away in the background.
NetInfo. ooops. (and you say I don't know what I'm talking about?)
If only that were the case. Besides, many of the preferences you're describing are located in a single folder on Windows here too. I'd call this a tie.
I prefer *nix over Windows in this regard too, but it's a preference only, one that derives from FreeBSD (remember, when you said I don't understand OS X?), and one that ultimately is of little consequence to the end-user in any event, who is simply happy to find their file in the folder where they left it the previous day.
I'm sure you could, but as we've seen, you haven't really addressed the subject of the thread. You've offered no example of where Mac OS X outshines Windows
Re:Garbage (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the UI in OSX is far more elegant and "blows away" the original Mac 128k. You see, that's an opinion, just like your statement above is an opinion. But will you also be one of those people that seems to think this opinion of yours is fact and show some website that also says that the original Finder was better because blah blah blah? Guess what,
Re:Garbage (Score:3, Insightful)
I now see one of the
Mac OS differences (was Re:Garbage) (Score:4, Interesting)
>The Steve Capps' Finder delivered with the original 128K
>Mac *still* blows away today's Finder in terms of
>elegance, responsiveness and overall usability. Moreover,
>I see no difference between today's Finder and WIndows
>Explorer, except for this odd example you give us which
>really has nothing to do with anything. BTW, I've never
>had the need for force-quit Windows Explorer. You really
>want to call that a feature?
Are you not aware that on the Mac System as shipped on a 128KB Mac Folders were purely a visual organizational cue only expressed / made use of in the Finder, aren't you? When you used a File Open dialog one saw _everything_ that was on a give floppy (except the folders) in a flat listing. Given that, I think your claims are suspect; to iterate:
1st - by hiding the toolbar as a default one can get Finder windows in Mac OS X to behave pretty much like System 6 (which was pretty much like the much older System I see on my wife's SE when I haul out my _Through the Looking Glass_ game floppy, modulo things added since like list view, folders which are actually directories as opposed to visual aids &c.).
2nd - my wife's SE (same CPU speed as my 128KB Mac I bought in 1984) is quite a bit more sluggish than the G5 at work when working from a floppy --- perceived response is about the same from the HD).
3rd - Mac OS X affords a lot of really nice features I'm not finding equivalents for on the XP box at work:
- Miller column file browser (I suppose you could use http://www.winbrowser.com/ [winbrowser.com] 'cept that last time i tried it it crashed, a lot)
- no convenient place for temporarily storing a folder one needs temporary access to --- currently at work I'm updating links to some art w/ munged filenames in an InDesign document --- I drag the current destination folder into the sidebar to drag files into, then I can click on the same folder in the sidebar in the file open dialog in ID to get there w/ a single click, when I'm done w/ that folder I drag it out of the Sidebar and it goes ``poof'' --- how does one do something like that in Windows w/ anywhere near the efficiency?
- the Dock affords one a single place to launch and switch applications --- why is it that in XP I click in one place to launch (the Start Menu) but use another area (the Task Bar) to switch --- in Mac OS X I click on the same icon either way.
Lots of other niceties in Mac OS X such as Services, pervasive
William
(who really wishes Windows XP was well-suited enough to his working style to allow him to justify purchasing a Tablet PC)
Re:Garbage (Score:3, Informative)
Not even the most zealous slashdotter would actually defend finder. It's the biggest piece of crap out there... s
Re:Garbage (Score:3, Informative)
One thing I'll say for Finder - yes, you can force-quit it. And usually, when you have to, 90% of the time, you're back in business. Not so with Explorer. Once you kill Explorer, sometimes it starts back up, sometimes it doesn't. When it does, you're still often in an unstable situtation. Worst thing about Expl
Re:Garbage (Score:3, Insightful)
WTF??
Windows: right-click, 'sharing and security', click on 'share this folder'
OSX: Umm.. well.. it shares your home directory, provided you're not a nonlocal user.. if you are you're hosed.
Anything else means hand-editing smb.conf.
Re:Garbage (Score:3, Interesting)
Thats arguably a feature. Sorting is something that should happen when you first open a view onto a folder or when you change the sort criteria. Sorting should NOT mean that when you rename a file it suddenly jumps to another part of the list, making it seem like it disappeared, or alternatively cause your place in the
iMovie and iChat AV (the poster forgot that one) (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't have kids, do you? iMovie is absolutely brilliant when it is time to send the grandparents a quick DVD -- attach the camera via Firewire, press the play button, and in less than an hour, you have something that Grandma and Grandpa just love. For free. Profession features would just be in the way at this level.
The original poster
Re:The registry (Score:3, Interesting)
What the fuck? why would Microsoft want to make things harder
The windows registry is a sort of one-size-for-all configuration database. You can configure basically everything, even some obscure kernel options like "enable swapping parts of the kernel" are configured through the registry, which is kinda weird because the system needs the kernel to read the registry in first plac
Yes, and here's what MS did wrong... (Score:5, Interesting)
2) Applications do have to use the OS to read/write/update (so far so good), but the OS *never tracks what the application puts there*. As a result, every developer puts their copy protection in obscure keys in the registry. Even worse, and unforgiveable, are applications that leave crap behind.
3) Keeping it all in one place (i.e. registry) sounds like a great idea... until you realize you can't readily *do* anything with it from a user's perspective because guess what... the OS won't let you do a simple "c:>copy registry to registry.backup".
This could be solved easily:
1) Make it impossible for an application to write to c:\windows or c:\windows\system32 or... you get the idea
2) Registry files should be stored locally in the directory the application was stored in, or better yet in "My Directory". The system would have its own registry stored in the system directory.
3) They should be text files that can be copied by the user easily using standard tools.
4) When a program is uninstalled, the OS would ensure all traces of the registry entry are deleted (this is easy because of #2)
5) The only thing allowed to alter a program's registry entry is that program. And every time its altered, a new version is kept. This would allow users to go back to old version if required.
6) A user could tell the OS to lock a registry so that nothing can alter it
7) The system registry could never be altered by any application. Requests to modify would require the root password entered by the user. Every time.
This is easy. But MS makes it hard and in the process makes registry damage fatal to the system. With no way to properly back it up. So they have goofy "restore points" that you can't explain readily what it does. So then they'll add more utilities instead of following the KISS principle.
I sometimes feel over at MS they have a bunch of brilliant programmers who have never set foot outside of Microsoft and don't understand the issues with their own product.
Re:Yes, and here's what MS did wrong... (Score:5, Interesting)
There are a lot of good reasons why the registry is better than a text file. Performance and fine-grained permissions are two.
[...] except that MS wanted to make it more difficult for end-users to poke around and understand more clearly what's going on
Yes, because a system encouraging manual configuration no input validation is such a better alternative.
Users _shouldn't_ be directly editing the registry. Ideally, users _shouldn't_ be directly editing text files in /etc, either. This is not to hide anything from them, it's so they don't break the system by making a typo.
Manual editing of text files is an incredibly bad way to configure a system by just about every measure thinkable. That there are few _better_ methods does not change this.
Applications do have to use the OS to read/write/update (so far so good), but the OS *never tracks what the application puts there*. As a result, every developer puts their copy protection in obscure keys in the registry. Even worse, and unforgiveable, are applications that leave crap behind.
Neither does any other OS I can think of - so what's your point ?
Make it impossible for an application to write to c:\windows or c:\windows\system32 or... you get the idea
They can't unless they're running as a user with sufficient privileges - just like every other multiuser OS.
Registry files should be stored locally in the directory the application was stored in, or better yet in "My Directory". The system would have its own registry stored in the system directory.
The user's registry hive is stored in their user profile. The system registry hive is stored in the system directory. Ie: it's already the way you want it.
They should be text files that can be copied by the user easily using standard tools.
How are you planning on implementing per-user, per-value ACLs on lines of text in a file ? How about making sure modifications don't end up half finished ? Are you aware parsing text is an incredibly inefficient operation ?
When a program is uninstalled, the OS would ensure all traces of the registry entry are deleted (this is easy because of #2)
But how to deal with poorly written applications that don't tell the OS everything they do ?
The only thing allowed to alter a program's registry entry is that program.
Funny, I would have thought you'd want to allow the user to manually manipulate arbitrary registry settings.
And every time its altered, a new version is kept. This would allow users to go back to old version if required.
This is about the only decent idea you've managed to come up with. Mind you, similar functionality is already available via System Restore points - but I imagine people like you automatically turn them off because you "don't like stuff going on behind your back".
A user could tell the OS to lock a registry so that nothing can alter it
Like they could now with ACLs, you mean ?
The system registry could never be altered by any application.
Regedit ? Control Panel ? How about applications that want to make system level changes for legitimate reasons ?
Requests to modify would require the root password entered by the user. Every time.
Because I'm sure the user will understand the implications of modifying arbitrary registry keys and will give nearly two full seconds' careful and considered thought before typing in their password.
Re:Yes, and here's what MS did wrong... (Score:4, Interesting)
When you're using a tool such as regedit to search the registery, it initiate a LINEAR search. The registery is an #hierarchal# database, this mean that you get super fast access if you know where you are going.
If I want to start a COM Object, I do the following query (simplified)
HKCR\ComName\GUID
HKCR\GUID\Path
Start by path...
About input validation in regedit. You're not supposed to edit the registery directly. This is reserved to when you really need it and you KNOW what you are doing.
About XML files, they are there to solve another problem, specifically, XCopy deployment. The registery is needed for super fast lookup for such things such as COM Objects, you won't get away with that using XML Files.
About backups, what exactly is preventing you from exporting the key & all its subkeys? A well designed application's setting can be backuped using the following command:
reg export hkcu\software\SomeApplication AppBkUp.reg
You want to restore, just use:
REG IMPORT AppBkUp.reg
The Windows mentality is that the user approach the computer to do a TASK, s/he doesn't need to understand the how and why and which kernel version is needed to write their book report or calculate their taxes.
And please show me how you prevent spywares in other systems the moment you'll have such a large target area as Windows has right now.
Re:Yes, and here's what MS did wrong... (Score:3, Interesting)
There was no benefit to making the registry a non-text file, except that MS wanted to make it more difficult for end-users to poke around and understand more clearly what's going on
There was a very clear benefit: operations on the registry are substantially faster than equivalent operations on text files, particularly on the FAT16 partitions that were the standard when the registry was introduced.
If MS didn't want
Re:Garbage (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, a web browser cannot do all the things as quickly and conveniently as Dashboard. Say I'd like to leave a note for myself with a list of groceries, while I'm not sure how you'd do with with a web browser, you can easily use the built-in "sticky note" widget to jot down several items.
What if you want to know the 5 day forcast for this week? You could launch up firefox and go to an easily memorizable website like weather
Re:Garbage (Score:5, Informative)
Secondly, I guess I could have been clearer, but I'm talking about the browser together with the stock desk-accessories that ALL of these OS's have... calculator, notepad. And games too.
Want to know the 5-day forecast for the week? Well, of course your browser is already open, so you're not waiting for it to load. And of course you've already bookmarked the exact place where that forecast is available, so basically, you're clicking on a link.
So let me rephrase that...
Want to know the 5-day forcecast for the week? Click on a link.
Given that you're only loading the page for that one link, and not potentially dozens of pages like you are when activating Dashboard, it's much faster.
Re:Garbage (Score:3)
Re:Garbage (Score:4, Insightful)
Weather w/Quicksilver: Cmd-Space, W-E-A-T, enter, Safari pops up and loads my weatherunderground.com bookmark.
Dashboard: F12.... wait... wait... wait... wait... oh, here it is. I need more information... double-click... wait... Safari comes up.
I actually often use Meterologist, which is even faster then both Dashboard and my bookmark.
Calculations: Cmd-Space, 4+4, tab, C-A-L-C, enter, result pops up. Or, if I want the kick-ass full Apple calculator, Cmd-Space, C-A-L-C, enter, up it pops.
Dashboard: F12... wait... wait... click... wait... type calculation.
As an added bonus, I can do as fancy calculations as I want with QS, complete with parenthesis and layered calculations.
Games: Cmd-Space, POP (or BEJ or SCU or...), enter.
Dashboard: F12... wait... wait... click... wait... (as an unfortunate bonus, you only get to play in a little window.
I'm not saying Quicksilver is the end-all be all, but even when I don't use it cmd-tabbing to Safari and clicking my Weather bookmark takes less time then Dashboard. My computer isn't horrible either - things should not be this slow on a Dual 1Ghz G4 with 1GB of RAM and a fast Seagate 7200.8 300GB drive.
In Dashboard's defense, some of the widgets are genuinely fantastic, and once I activate it for the session (read: once every few hours) it usually isn't too bad to use... but the few times it is sluggish, it makes me wonder why I use the thing.
Re:Garbage (Score:5, Interesting)
Want to work on your report? Why wait for your word processor to load when you can just press F12 and it's RIGHT THERE!
What if you want to watch a movie? Just press F12 and there's your movie player! Wow!
Dashboard is only a way to keep applications loaded in memory and display a certain subset of them at a keypress, this is absolutely nothing new. So I want to do a quick calculation, I hit the shortcut key I bound to my calculator and there it is. When I'm done with it I close it and it doesn't suck up memory. I see absolutely no value in keeping these applications running all the time when you're barely ever using them and could just pull them up on demand anyway.
The original author of this article seems bored by his functional applications. That's ok, some people like flash over functionality.
I've used OS X a fair bit and didn't see anything that I was particularly impressed by. It sure looks nice, but I'm not more productive or happy with it than any other platform.
Re:Garbage (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Garbage (Score:5, Funny)
1. Windows = Yugo (w/Automatic Transmission and Power Steering)
2. Mac OS X = DeLorean
3. GNOME = Kit Car
4. KDE = Yugo (w/Manual Transmission and Manual Steering + DeLorean cardboard facade option)
That about sums up the state of GUIs in this day and age. Let the flames begin!
Re:Garbage (Score:3, Interesting)
You need to reexamine the way you use your browser then. Bookmark the address! Stick the bookmark in your Links bar, or in a menu within your links bar. Or drag it to the desktop... one double-click and you're at the page.
Everybody should spend five minutes working to optimize their browser experience. It's easily the most productive five minutes you'll spend on your comput
Re:Garbage (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Garbage (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Internet bandwidth still sucks for the most part. Until we all have at least 100 MB/s to the desktop, broadband is a joke.
2. HTTP is a pretty shitty protocol overall. Apache makes things better than IIS in terms of performance, but beyond that it's connectionles
Re:Garbage (Score:3, Insightful)
Not so quick argument to base the question on:
HTTP is the most commonly used information transport protocol in current existance (people will argue Peer to Peer systems, but I'm not arguing bandwidth use, I'm arguing *use*, as in where has it been used). Every single waking day, us Internet users will use it for something (well, most converging to all of us; if you're one of those crazies who read Usenet and still use rlogin you might not...). Hell, I'm
It's a tool, not a piece of art (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's a tool, not a piece of art (Score:3, Insightful)
Inspired and exciting design makes people more productive.
Re:It's a tool, not a piece of art (Score:5, Insightful)
Not at all. 'intuitive' and 'consistent' makes things easy to use, 'inspired' and 'exciting' makes people want to use them. All these factors contribute to productivity.
Re:It's a tool, not a piece of art (Score:3, Insightful)
I fail to see how this is a justification for bad design. "Pleasand and stimulating" isn't about nice fluffy environments (or "Hooters"). It is about having a user interface where things are easy to find. Where menus are consistent. Where icons are designed by experts so that they are both easy on the eye and intuitive. Where the ge
Re:It's a tool, not a piece of art (Score:5, Interesting)
When I flew to Cuba, I rode on a Soviet jet, something called a Yakolev YAK-42D. It felt like something from the 1950s. I later learned it was a 1950s design that they only got around to making circa 1981.
A Soviet product is just what you want. If a Soviet plane takes off, flies for a time and lands successfully, it has done its job. There's no need to make the flying experience pleasant. Flying is for those evil bourgeois chaps who can afford to fly anyway, and there's no reason in the world to coddle them.
On-seat power outlets for your laptop? Forget it.
Seatback TV screens? Not even close.
Comfy leather seats? Those are decadant luxuries of the West, don't you know.
Well, I'm sorry.
I'm a decadant, luxury-loving product of the West. I like my Mercedes-Benz automobile, because it was carefully and thoughtfully designed. And I love my PowerMac G5 and PoweBook for the same reason. Carefully and thoughtfully and elegantly designed products are a good in and of themselves; millions of iPod users sense this even if they don't quite realize why.
Maybe a factory punch press isn't something you can design this way, although perhaps that's because nobody's even tried. In any event, we are not working in a factory, and when we work on computers all day, our comfort is essential. If the more creative software vendors realize this is most true on the Mac, and cater to it, it simply means I've chosen the right platform.
The one designed for people like me.
You can have your gloomy gus Windows 2000 interface, as long as you don't make me use it.
D
Re:Computer Consumer vs. Computer User (Score:4, Interesting)
The careful thought put into every pixel on your screen, the whole designer feel of the experience is something impossible to quantify, but it definitely makes late nights with my computer a lot more pleasant than they are under Windows.
I recently set up a new Dell for someone, and despite a pretty nice flat panel monitor it was a pretty drab experience. Of course it didn't help that every piece of software on the machine was trying to sell me something
D
Give Microsoft a Chance! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Give Microsoft a Chance! (Score:3, Funny)
Windows... (Score:5, Insightful)
Monopolies are strange that way.
Re:Windows... (Score:3, Funny)
Am I the only one who is completely unclear on what was intended by this comparison? I read it in the light of "look at the differences between vanilla, french vanilla and home made vanilla"...
Re:Windows... (Score:5, Interesting)
No, you're exactly right. The functionality of windows has been essentially static since Win95 and ugly, grey, square windows look equally bad no matter what numbers the "About Windows..." box contains.
Now, the problem with looking at the changes between NT->2k->XP is that, well, for the most part you can't look at the changes. Other than a green "start" button, what's the difference in terms of *user experience*? Where's the innovation? I can't find it.
Spotlight, Automator, Rendevous, (and yes, even Widgets) IMO all work to make the user more productive. Apple changes their OS every year. Sometimes for the better, occasionally for the worse ("two steps forward, one step back") but at least they're making progress and trying new ideas.
Microsoft is simply hung up on locking people into their technology and making it too expensive/difficult to transition away. Proof? How 'bout
Anyone still doubt? Well, then, did you hear about that beautiful, innovative new technology in Microsoft's latest OS release that makes users much more productive? Yeah, neither did I. The big stories out of Redmond mostly concern what *isn't* going to be in Longhorn.
Sorry, fanboys, but Windows innovation isn't.
Disagree? Feel free to list MSFT's post Win95 innovations that improve the user experience right here ___________________________________.
Re:Windows... (Score:5, Funny)
From 95 to XP? Man, you obviously haven't used 95 in quite awhile.
- Can now view and kill programs and processes
- Can have multiple user accounts with actual security
- Has a web browser built in
- Plug and Play is no longer "plug and pray"
- You can now re-organize the start menu
- there's a sidebar that shows you more information while browsing in explorer
- You can "stop" what you're doing, let someone else log on for a second, and then go right back to what you were doing
- The system tray now auto-hides itself, with each icon individually able to be "shown" or "hidden"
Yes, a lot of the changes are things that UNIX had before DOS or MAC has ages ago. So what? They're significant changes, and if you can't see them then you're really just trying not to.Re:Windows... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Windows... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't need two machines or a dual-boot Windows/Linux box. I have my pretty, useful, friendly desktop (fully media-capable too, in a way that linux simply never has been) and if I want my unix-y goodness, I just pop up a terminal. Life is beautiful!
What does he mean? (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, a lot of programs are ugly, but that's usually because developers aren't educated in human/computer interaction etc, but just in e.g. C++. This applies to Windows applications as well as Linux applications that I've seen. Can't speak of Apple developers' apps because I have no experience of that platform.
As for his other claims -- boring and uninspired. What is he asking for? Is he asking for more bells & whistles? What makes a software "boring"? More innovation? What is he looking for a Windows software to do but can't find?
Re:What does he mean? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What does he mean? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What does he mean? (Score:4, Interesting)
It is about design skills. The Mac has always employed good designers, both for the user interface and the computer design. Maybe it is just me, but after nearly 30 years of using computers, there is something about sitting down in front of the latest Mac computers and operating systems that makes me want to use them. They look good - they are attractive. I have never felt this about any version of Windows (and I have used them all).
Just an idea, but (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about it, who do you think of when you think of a mac user? Granted, there are many out there, but when I think of a hardcore mac user I think of somebody who is into designing music, movies, graphics editing, etc. They are designed to cater to a group of people who are more creative and right brained.
How about your average PC user? Picture an office cubicle. You'r accountant, lawyer, and doctor all use a PC.
Let us never forget that pretty software does not automatically mean functional software, and please God let us never make well structured code and functionality less of a priority than UI "prettyness".
Re:Just an idea, but (Score:5, Interesting)
A friend of my once said that OSX is the 21st century Sun workstation.
Maybe I just think that because I dig having a unix box that can also run microsoft word at the same time.
Re:Just an idea, but (Score:5, Interesting)
Really? I work for a huge company known for its big iron and most popular unix operating system and a silly coffee-related programming language and a CEO that has been ranked at the bottom of several CEO lists in terms of performance the last few years.
And do you know what most of the developers and engineers I know around here have with them? Their PowerBook.
Re:Just an idea, but (Score:4, Insightful)
The only reason Sun employees are running around with PowerBooks is the fact that Sun doesn't have a decent notebook (at least not one that's reasonably priced with good battery life) and the fact that everyone else is seen as a competitor to Sun. HP, IBM, and Dell all have server lines that compete with Sun directly. Apple is seen as a non-threat.
It's the same reason that HP is selling the iPod. HP doesn't see Apple as a threat, so it's "OK" to partner with them.
That's why you have PowerBooks. Corporate politics.
Actually, a different idea came to my mind (Score:3, Insightful)
This is partly because design is not an easy process when writing software. Many of my early attempts at writing software suck too. Sometimes I chose the wrong technology to work with, and sometimes, I just made braindead choices. Sometimes, even, I relied on kludges because I didn't know the languages I was using well enough to do things right.
So the bast majority of software on all platforms sucks... Now my
Re:Just an idea, but (Score:3, Interesting)
There's this architect I know of who maintains a 10 year old SGI workstation running some ancient CAD program. I asked him why he goes through the trouble, and he became LIVID. It'll be a cold day in HELL before he installs Windows and that Autocad garbage, apparantly.
Then there's also this interactive media artist I met once. He hand compiled his entire system from scratch, modified the video4linux driver to get better performance, and claims that he hasn't touched an Adobe product in years. I asked
Bad optical design? (Score:3, Insightful)
If something looks bland, that probably means that it's finally being used for something other than just being decorative? I mean, it's not like the average can opener had variable transparency and a shitload of useless LEDs stuck to it... One of the best applications I use in Windows (other than games) is Daemon Tools which is basically a system tray icon, a standard MFC load widget and some configuration scerens. Best. Interface. Ever.
I can appreciate a certain blandness, it allows me to actually see what I'm doing. Damn, my pencil is playing Amazing Grace again.
Re:Bad optical design? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just wait, it'll come to Linux too. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just wait, it'll come to Linux too. (Score:5, Interesting)
While this contributes to the problem, there are a ton of of ugly apps for *nix (can't speak for Mac since I don't own one). There are a lot of apps that don't even have GUIs, and are also very hard to use on the command line (cdrecord, for example). These apps are still very useful and work very well, they're just ugly in the sense that you can't "just use" them. You need to specify tons of switches, spending time reading the man page, or they require a front-end application that builds the switches for you.
You imply that a skilled developer == someone who is good at developing interfaces, while really, it's a totally different skill set. You can tell when programmers design web pages, and think that because they know HTML, CSS, javascript and photoshop very well, that they're incredibly talented graphic designers.
I think that when (not if) a high quality and easy to learn development platform for Linux comes along, we'll start to see mountains of shit for it, too.
I think you're right here too. Making it easier to develop apps will mean that more developers will come in, and they probably will also lack basic design skills, which means you get more ugly AND poorly-written code. Just don't confuse the issue and think that it's only unskilled developers that write ugly interfaces.
Re:Just wait, it'll come to Linux too. (Score:5, Informative)
I'm sure I don't know what you mean. Have you even heard of Xcode [apple.com]? It's like Visual Basic, except it's free, a little more intuitive (to me, at least), and it can import make files like they were project files.
Re:Just wait, it'll come to Linux too. (Score:3, Insightful)
So yes, great tools, but what a mess of languages and choices behind it. I'm not saying Visual Basic is even *good*, but it is *simple* (painfully so at times). And that's coming from a 15 year Mac developer.
Marketshare, Quality, and Economic Viability (Score:5, Interesting)
The result is that only the most dedicated and talented Mac developers survive whereas any idiot with a C-compiler can create a PC software title and be assured of some sales (just convince 1-in-10,000 PC users to spend $29 and you gross $600k per year). Given the huge market-share disparity, Mac software must be 30X as good as PC software to survive in its small marketplace. (OK, its a bit more complicated due to dilution by competing vendors, but I'm sure its much harder on the Mac side to attract an economically viable user-base for software package.)
Re:Marketshare, Quality, and Economic Viability (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems to me the trick with developing to sell software on Windows is to perform a delicate balancing act: to be popular and not so popular that Microsoft won't put your marketshare in their cross-hairs and slam your business model. Clearly, applications targeted at niche markets may be an answer (like productivity sof
Picassa (Score:4, Insightful)
Shell Integration (Score:5, Insightful)
And don't even get started on annoying popups and those freaking MS Office icons like the paperclip guy. [whattofix.com]
To me, a big part of design is noticability: if I take my time to notice it, it's getting in the way of the work I want to do.
Most people barely use the shell (Score:5, Interesting)
A new interface based in windows shell may be organized the same as others but is functionally different, and people end up looking for things that they are "allowed" to click, like they might an exe in Program Files, or a doc in My Documents. It is far from intuitive, as these custom hierarchies don't necessarily order things intuitively and even when they do, functionality varies from object to object whether you click, double click, or drag and drop.
Functionality of different actions should be implicit in the design, so they can be inferred by those unfamiliar with what actions are possible in a particular application context. Now if windows made it standard that right clicking on an object should not only bring up object-specific options, but also describe simply what drag and click operations are available with respect to that object, then these interfaces might not be such a mystery.
People aren't that dumb, they'll learn given context sensitive documentation like this. Finding their way to documentation is otherwise too frustrating, as it is often mired in a web of unfamiliar material. The frustration the average joe faces at a PC is enough to make him learn, if given a more accessible way to find the immediately relevant sources. He doesn't need to understand why the whole damn system works to find one particular solution, he'll generalize that with enough access to particular solutions.
-Shudder- (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a feature, not a bug. I HATE the "belonging" aspect of the Mac community. I just want to own the freaking hammer, I don't want to join a hammer cult.
I joined the hammer cult... (Score:3, Funny)
I joined a hammer cult, with cool candy-apple red toolboxes and lifetime guarantees on tools and stores that were great places to buy hammers and guys working there who were veritable gurus of how to join things together, make holes in them, and finish them off.
I've bought Sears Craftsman tools that I've never used, because they were so cool. I've got a screwdriver here with 32 unique security tips. I've never had to use a securit
Re:-Shudder- (Score:5, Funny)
*raises hand*
I need a life.
Please, no more editorials as news (Score:3, Interesting)
Windows rants: boring, ugly, uninspired (Score:5, Insightful)
The twin barbs of his attack: Dashboard (which has already been discussed to death; let's just say that as many people hate it as love it) and an application called "Comic Life", which this grizzled veteran of computing (look at the picture) thinks "is likely to drive even the most die-hard Windows user to switch to OS X." Yeah: I'm gonna dump my whole platform to make my digital pictures cuter. Uh-huh. I'm surprised he didn't sneak a 'BSOD' joke into his rant or spell Windows with 'BL' or a dollar sign.
One mark in his favor: clearly, he is an expert in boring and uninspired. A lame blog post about Windows software sucking? Wow. Next.
Re:Windows rants: boring, ugly, uninspired (Score:3, Informative)
Not a productivity app? Too bad. It's too much fun for me to care. That creative energy is what later enables me to be more productive elsewhere when
Re:Windows rants: boring, ugly, uninspired (Score:3, Funny)
OK, kill the messenger, fine - it was an extremely lame critique of Windows. But it doesn't change the fact that Windows really is boring, ugly and uninspired :)
Yet Another Pointless "Mac's Rule" Article... (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless I'm mistaken, most of us here expect to discuss topics of actual intelligence, rather than repeatedly beating each other over the head with such pointless debates like Mac vs PC.
I'm not suggesting that all Mac-related articles are bad. If Apple manages to do something truly revolutionary for the computing industry, I'm sure we'd like to know about it. But please, for the love of God, stop polluting Slashdot with this kind of nonsense to satisify your own personal biases.
Thank you.
"Comic Life" makes the baby jesus cry (Score:3, Funny)
Watching home movies makes me want to be exceptionally rude to the host.
Having to read Comic Life home comics would force me to gouge my eyes out with my ragged fingernails.
who is this nerd? (Score:5, Insightful)
That is one of the dumbest things I have read all week. Normal folks use computers as a means to an end. Just because the author gets a hardon over extraneous features and eye candy that add nothing to productivity, and is apparently thirteen and in need of being part of a group, doesn't mean the rest of us give a flying shit.
Choice quote (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd like to thank the submitter for including that quote. It prevented me from wasting my time reading the article. I would have thanked them even more for not bothering submitting such a worthless article in the first place.
Dan East
How do I mod down front page articles? (Score:4, Insightful)
Uninspiring article (Score:3, Insightful)
There is too much of this bad innovation that's spurred by the fact that MFC/WTL isn't terribly exciting and doesn't have enough pictures of naked animé girls. As you might have guessed, I hate skins. I think they're a prime example of a breakdown between function and form. So-called "innovative" interfaces break away from the Windows look and feel and clutter the desktop. If I have my desktop themed the way I want it, I resent applications that do not follow that theme. I resent crappy software that makes the text in the titlebar huge, italic Times New Roman, for example. I resent Quicktime Player. I would (and pretty much do) resent Winamp but I let it off the hook because by default it's a good example of skins done right. There's no useless bloat there (see Windows Media Player for the other side of the coin). My basic rule is: if you have to break away from the standard set of windowing controls presented to you by WTL because you feel your interface is not ergonomic, this is a failure state.
There are some special cases where it's not possible to use standard Windows controls, such as cross-platform software. But even here, suites like wxWidgets exist to allow you to keep the standard look-and-feel of the target OS.
I guess what I'm arguing for is for my desktop to be consistent across applications. It may be fair to say that Windows does not satisfy interface designers because it doesn't allow them to customize as freely as they may want to, but I believe that some restrictions are good. I am more than certain that I prefer Microsoft's idea of what a basic user interface should look like (well, Microsoft's pre-XP idea anyway) to what a 15-year-old manga fanatic or an overly arrogant designer thinks would be a totally awesome interface. Microsoft's is generally clean and simple, as it should be.
Some notes before I go:
Yes, I know that Office 2003 totally deviates from the typical style of Windows, but Office products tend to give hints about which way Microsoft would like the general look and feel of the interface to go. It also still works like a standard Windows interface with all accessibility, tab order, and customisation and hotkey features available.
I also fully understand that Windows may not be the best interface out there, and that MFC/WTL/ATL/STL totally sucks dude lollers! It's pretty good and consistent though.
Maybe I'm getting old, but I just want something that fits elegantly into my desktop paradigm, accepts my chosen font sizes and theme, and doesn't look like a pile of ass compared to all my other apps. Longhorn does not look like it's going to help me much in this regard. I just hope they don't make everything look like WMP.
Microsoft and innovation (Score:3, Interesting)
This pretty much explains the lack of innovation in the MSverse.
Also, instead of innovation, they're working on making software stable and secure. They're pretty good on stability now, and in a few more years they may even have security done. At that point, they'll be free to innovate on features and functionality again.
Google's programs are different (Score:3, Funny)
And that's why Google is not yet evil ^^ although they have copyrighted the world....
Most Women: Ugly, Boring & Uninspired (Score:4, Insightful)
The media would have you believe 80% of the women are ugly, boring and uninspired based upon what they hold up as a reference model (heroin-addict thin, vapeous, self-absorbed, etc.) This does not make most women less productive than their "beautiful" counterparts in Hollywood movies or New York runways. In fact, most succesful families and productive careers are spearheaded by women who look nothing like Paris Hilton.
Likewise, there are a bunch of ugly Windows applications doing a lot of work. Like it or not, Microsoft made it possible for mediocre programmers to make boring apps that get a lot of work done. These programs may not be innovative with pretty UI gimmicks that suck up CPU cycles, they tend to use more resources than they ought to, and they are fraught with spaghetti and bugs, but they get the work done.
The lack of innovation may help minimize training when teaching new apps. Teaching new paradigms is expensive and time consuming.
Like it or not, ugly is what most work is getting done on.
No shit Sherlock (Score:3, Insightful)
In other news, there's no 'user community' rallying about around the world. I don't see people running around and screaming "HELL YEAH EARTH FOR TEH WIN!" at least.
When something's so big and so vast and there's no majority to keep oppressing you, there's no "user community rallying". People just accept it how it is. If Mac was the dominant platform, if the niche feeling was lost, there would be no 'macintosh user community' feel anymore.
Huh?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
Marketshare for Desktop OS
Windows ~90%
MacOS ~5%
Linux ~3%
That means that for every great app, there is likely to be nearly 100x more terrible apps for Windows than for the other operating systems. Its like the Playstation. Because Sony has the greater market, they also have the larger number of terrible games. An operating system does not make an application good or bad, regardless of whether pretty widgets are in the toolbar. Personally there are quite a few Windows applications that I could not live without that do not have any sort of linux equivalent good enough to allow me to switch.
Here are a few:
Mp3tag (Best tagger out there)
Photoshop
Illustrator
Reason
Ableton Live
Reaktor
Sound Forge
Picasa2
CDex
Alcohol 120%
GAMES GAMES GAMES GAMES
I could go on, but the fact of the matter is that at the very least Linux needs to start getting some serious sound applications for me to make the switch. I used to dual boot, but in the end it was such a pain anytime I wanted to play a game or work on some music that I gave up and stuck with the one environment that has all of my needs satisfied. MacOS is kind of interesting and has all the audio software I would ever need, but at what cost? More expensive hardware and about 0 games I'd be interested in. For what I didn't have to pay for my copy of windows, I'd be awfully hard pressed to start paying apple for an OS update every 6 months.
My point is that its not the platform that it is the problem its just that a lot of lazy and piss poor developers tend to flock to the platform that is the most popular. To be perfectly honest, if you want a great example of a platform that has a lot of god awful software, just take a look at linux and the bazillion apps that never got past their second alpha prerelease.
Hell, just look at how many system tools are included in distributions that are not even version 1 yet. Granted I've had very few problems with a lot of the console tools I've used, but after a while you start to realize that a little bit of polish goes an awful long ways. For instance, apt-get:
aptluna:~# apt-get -version
apt 0.5.28.6 for linux i386 compiled on Mar 22 2005 07:17:03
Granted apt is about as solid as a console tool can get, but version
I love how when I look for linux apps in sourceforge, a great deal of what I find that would be interesting to use is at version
I know people here resent it being called open sores software, but in too many cases, calling it open sores would almost be a compliment.
After using OSX, GNU/Linux, and Windows... (Score:5, Interesting)
What a load of BS (Score:3, Insightful)
Software for Windows is generally uninspired
Computers are tools, not literature. If there is a need for a specific program, someone will make it.
generically cloned
It's called UI consistency...which the lack of is a major complain with Unix.
and overwhelmingly wrought with lackluster (read: lousy) user interfaces
Putting aside the fact that the basic elements of a GUI app are the same no matter what the platform, how's that the fault of the O/S? Why aren't app vendors blamed?
Windows users don't have a strong sense of belonging
I did not know I had to belong to somewhere to write letters and edit my taxes. Where do I register??? :-)
there's no user community rallying around the platform
Yeap, the millions of programs for Windows is the result of the ...non existent community.
One application that typifies the creative elegance that you can find on systems outside of Windows is Comic Life from Plasq (plasq.com). Be forewarned: It's likely to drive even the most die-hard Windows user to switch to OS X.
So port it to Windows then, and I'll buy it.
It runs well, looks amazing,
Kudos to the developers. What has Windows got to do with it though?
and does something so incredibly unique you'll find yourself wanting to take more digital pictures just to make another comic strip out of 'em.
I my entire life, it is the first time that I see an operating system being blamed for not having a 3rd party application that another O/S has. It's crazy!
Again, we come back to the concept that Windows software developers rarely develop any kind of pleasant UI.
Millions of happy MS Office users would disagree here.
There may be hope with Kapsules (kapsules.shellscape.org), although it suffers from a lack of useable widgets. Konfabulator (www.konfabulator.com) has an OS X and Windows version of its rendering engine with an extensive collection of sweet-smelling widgets
So now the problem is that Windows icons are not as beautiful as Mac OS X's are? Hire better artists then. Or download a better looking theme. It's absurd to blame an O/S for that, though.
Although I read /. a few years now, I've never seen such a lame column related to computers making /. headlines. There has to be a line somewhere on blaming Microsoft and Windows; after all, Windows is being used in millions of computers around the globe; they certainly can't be sooo bad!
Re:Mac isn't boring and uninteresting?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Tabbed browsing is an extension for Safari? Strange, I seem to recall having the option to use tabs right there in the options immediately upon installing Panther (And later Tiger).
Parent sounds like a Troll (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Mac isn't boring and uninteresting?! (Score:3, Insightful)
As for OS X being rigid, I think an OS should be fairly rigid, in the same way that the laws of physics are rigid. It's a constraint, but one that we all understand instinctively. And if you don't like it, there are plen
Re:Mac isn't boring and uninteresting?! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's like complaining that the Federation ships in Star Trek are oppressively minimalistic in interior design. These are things which people actually prefer. There's nothing Orwellian about it. It's why New York City is so much easier to navigate than Atlanta, why ancient Rome looks so sane, why the Spaniards were blown away when they saw Tenochtitlan. These things were all planned. The Windows and Linux interfaces show the effects of suburban sprawl, OSX doesn't allow it.
The Apple interface is just as Orwellian as the Google interface. The reason you don't get this with Windows is that Windows has always used a half-assed copy of whatever Apple's doing with its interface. Unix grew up with interfaces that you had to just deal with, and Linux is in constant flux between feature creep and slimming down.
Re:Mac isn't boring and uninteresting?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Mac isn't boring and uninteresting?! (Score:4, Interesting)
I hate Axialis IconWorkshop on windows precisely because it is custom skinned. I also hate the custom controls in Office. It makes the UI look inconsistent.
You wants skins or icons? Google "interface lift", "resexcellence" "iconfactory", or "unsanity".
Some Apps to google would be cleardock (free), shapeshifter (payware), Tinkertool, WindowsShadeX and Silk to get you started.
Ad blocking can be done in safari with a "free" usercss.css file out of the box. I'm not going to post a link to the one I made but google should turn something up for you. I got mine originally from a mozilla centric site. Once you download the ad blocking stylesheet, select it on the "Advanced" tab in the Safari prefs.
Many people like the consistency of the UI and the adherence to the UI guidelines as it promotes user friendliness by allowing a user to move from one progeam to another without having to shift gears. Do you consider skins to be innovation? I consider useful/innovative features presented in an user friendly manner to be "real" innovation and far more important that having program be "customizable" by an end user/enthusiuast. Leave UI design to the professionals.
iTunes dashboard widgets are the answer to the "desire" of some to have a "skinnable" interface for iTunes.
When I was a windows user, I spent a lot of time trying to cover up the shit that is windows with skinning/customization apps from aqua-soft and stardock but I realized that it was just skin deep and none of it fundamentally changed how windows worked. I was trying hard to not only make windows look more like a mac but also to improve the consistency of the interface. Customization is boring. Using easy to use apps to "start something" on a mac is fun.
PS. That was a half-assed attempt at a troll. Try harder next time.
PPS. If you see something lacking on the mac, tell someone or better yet, start a project yourself and start coding.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Computers use us? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Windows vs. Mac (Score:3, Insightful)
The poof is not there to look cute. It's a visual cue to the user letting them know what just happened. If they accidentally dragged an icon off the dock, the poof tells them that they just made a mistake. If there was no feedback, they quite possibly wouldn't notice what they just did, and they would probably get frustrated when they couldn't find the icon anymore.
It's not about looking "professional,"
Re:Unabashedly biased (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing personal, but what a load shit. If the state of Windows software proves anything, it's that quantity does not mean quality. I've used both Mac and Windows extensively and Windows software in general is horribly designed.
I am a long-time Mac user (but not a Mac worshipper) and when I first had to use Windows professionally in 1999, I was absolutely appalled at how clunky a lot of programs were (including stuff from Microsoft) and how badly written many of them we