Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Why Macs Suck
Carol Haynes:
To be fair the Mac has right click context menus - you just don't need to right click to get them as they are already at the top of the screen.
OK Unix/Linux/BSD who cares (and what's the difference anyway) - basically they have taken the UNIX route now.
Can't remember who asked but no you can't tell you are on a UNIX box at all - the OSX interface is designed to insulate everyone (and I mean everyone) from the inner workings of the underlying system. The biggest problem with OSX (and all other earlier Mac OS systems was that when hings work they work great, when they don't you have a MAJOR ... REALLY MAJOR headache on your hands.
There are two trouble shooting scenarios on Macs ...
1) Something doesn't work, no messages, no way to find out why ...
2) You get system bombs (literally a picture of a bomb) with an undocumented number - pretty much like Windows BSODS except that with BSODs you can pretty much guarantee it is your fault and it will be a driver you have installed that hasn't past Windows certification or a recent software installation. BSODS rarely are the fault of Windows these days (certainly very unusual in Windows 200/XP). In all the time I have run Windows 2000 and then XP (5-6 yeras) I have had only one series of BSODS and they all followed installing Outpost Firewall. Since removing it from my system I have not had a single BSOD. OK Win9x/ME were crap and seemed to exist for crashes and BSODS but then ...
During the same period when I managed a Mac network all the machines had daily Bombs - even the Apple engineers (who talked to people in those days) didn't know what the numbers meant. These wer machines that came with MacOS and software preinstalled by Apple and nothing else - they were purchased with the required package. Most were only used for Word processing, Spreadsheets and Adobe PageMaker and yet the daily grind went on.
I now have a friend using an iMac (and iPod) and I seem to spend nearly as much time troubleshooting her system as mine. Everytime I visit her house either there is a System Bomb, or the machine has to be rebooted to get something to work.
This myth that a closed system (she only has Apple hardware, fitted by Apple dealers) prove much more stable than Doze is just that a myth.
She also uses an iPod and it currently gives her about 2 hours per charge. She could get a new battery but it will cost her about £75 where my Zen Micro has a spare battery and after more than a year I still get 12 hours per battery. Not bad when it cost considerably less ... oo and mine has a radio too (ok its a crap radio but it is there ;))
By the way iMacs are an executive toy - she proves it - the only reason she won't have a Doze box in the house is because the Mac lloks prettier. Personally I tink it looks like something that wouldn't have been out of place in a hippy commune but she is happy paying 50-60% more for a system considerably less powerful than mine.
Rover:
From the article mouse linked:
Apple wants all developers to follow their interface guidelines. [..] If every application can be expected to work the same way, the learning curve for the user is minimized. Apple has gone through great pains and great expense to study human-computer interaction.
--- End quote ---
The author goes on to explain all features should be accessable from a menu, which is his main point. The other thing that struck me, was they want all developers to follow their interface guidelines.
In other words, we're [Apple] the experts on human/computer interfaces, so you need to do things our way.
Personally, I think the computer industry is still too young and growing to have some barefoot hippie tell us how things ought to be done. Interfaces change all of the time as developers learn more about what people want and how to deliver it.
Mac users (according to the support theory above) can't deal with a second button on their mouse. Windoze users can have 3 more with a clickable scroll wheel and use them all.
As long as we don't end up with MS Bob in the end, I think it'll be OK.
@mouser: agreed, "every OS sucks." Of course you'll notice they didn't mention OS/2 in that song. And yes, it was alive and very well when the song was written and recorded.
mouser:
i have to say, much to the chagrin of many of my friends, i am in favor of enforced standards. i am generally against skinning and non-standard user interfaces, so in that sense i actually support apple's attempt to standardize interface guidelines and insist on them.. and i do have respect for some of the hci (human computer interface) research.. but if a company decides to go with what to me is an obviously inefficient design (one button mouse) for the benefit of aethetics and easier tech support over the phone, then i know it's not a set of standards i want to be part of.
Rover:
[snip] if a company decides to go with what to me is an obviously inefficient design (one button mouse) for the benefit of aethetics and easier tech support over the phone, then i know it's not a set of standards i want to be part of.
-mouser (January 18, 2006, 11:02 PM)
--- End quote ---
Which is the point that I failed to make. Different users, different skill levels.
The stereotypical mac user calls tech support to ask where the "any" key is on the keyboard & can't handle the whole right click thing.
Linux users create a new term cap to invent an "any" key.
Windoze users just click on the "any" button.
There is no single interface that is the "best" for everyone and/or the easiest to learn. Most corp. users live in MS Office all day; I rarely see it. It just doesn't make sense that everyone should to things the same way. Especially when it only has 1 freaking mouse button...
Now if I was in charge, we'd be enforcing standards. ;D
Carol Haynes:
Actually I agree too - user interface design standardisation should be adhered to - that doesn't mean that all apps have to look like clones- but standard ways of working should be common to all applications. Problems really arise under all OS's when developers go their own way - especially when they take over the whole screen and stop you working with multiple apps, or hog the CPU so much that the system grinds to a halt.
Both Doze and OSX suffer from the same design floor though - fixed place menu access is inefficient, especially if you are doing something keyboard based. In Doze it is worse as the menus are at the top of the current window but below the window title - it is therefore very easy to move the mouse and miss. OSX menus are at the top of the screen but they also suffer from a similar problem - if you move the mouse to the top of the screen you hit a row of dead pixels.
I read an article a while ago where a group of users were studied using cameras and screen capture software to measure eye/hand movement and interface usage, and the common problem with OSs at the present time is that they are all inefficient in their use of menus in terms of forcing care onto users motor skills. They cam to the conclusion that a good design criteria is that over shooting with a mouse should have no consequences to efficiency - ie. on a Mac bash the pointer to the top of the screen however hard you like and menu opens.
The other major criticism they had could be levelled at many developers and especially MS and Adobe for the plethora of small buttons which need to be hit very accurately and the speed cost of using this method.
Shame I can't remember where I saw the article.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version