| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Site News: Upcoming Reviews | |
|
||
| Time: 09:30 EST/14:30 GMT | News Source: ActiveWin.com | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
Hardware: iMac 17" Superdrive | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 313 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:39:04 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 116 (66.69.198.173) at 4/24/2003 11:17:17 AM |
|
Uh oh here we go with Byron's new ActiveMac...
|
| #2 By 3 (62.253.128.4) at 4/24/2003 11:21:23 AM |
| Nah, don't worry I won't be bringing that here hehe, its already happening elsewhere! |
| #3 By 7390 (198.246.16.251) at 4/24/2003 11:24:15 AM |
|
MechAssault Microsoft Game Studios November 2002 $49.99 Teen
Better late than never on that MechAssault review, keep it up Byron. Must be spending too much time battling SodaJerk. |
| #4 By 3 (62.253.128.4) at 4/24/2003 11:26:25 AM |
| It only arrived here 3 weeks ago so its pretty hard to get them up much earlier than that! |
| #5 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/24/2003 1:32:37 PM |
|
Me happy?
I just hope he accurately points out that while the UI looks pretty it's not very usable. |
| #6 By 3 (62.253.128.4) at 4/24/2003 2:02:50 PM |
| In what way isn't it usable in your view? |
| #7 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at 4/24/2003 4:00:55 PM |
|
Overall, I don't have a problem with OS X. There are a couple of issues (some of which have been around a LONG time) that anoy me.
Mystery meat There are plenty of buttons throughout OS X that don't give you any textual hints as to what they do until you mouseover them. This is a cardinal sin of UI design, and Apple should know better. It seems to me that Apple is starting to do with their OS what they've already done with their hardware - pretty takes precendence over functional. Modal Menu System This has been around since day one, and it sucks. Whatever application currently has focus shows it's menu bar at the top of the UI. Not only does this make it hard to perform menu actions on several different applications in sequence (twice as many clicks), but it confuses the HELL out of both novice users and advanced users. How many times have you thought you closed an application only to later realize it's been open the whole time and all you did was close the window for that application? The UI should follow this simple principle: All applications ARE windows, but not all windows are applications. If a window is not an application, it should give visual clues that tell the user this. (Like a smaller title bar, different color, etc.) Still Slow Guess what. Just because Steve Jobs says the Mac is fast, does not actually make the Mac fast. Imagine that. OS X, with all of it's eye candy, makes an already slow platform slower. Add this to the fact Macs cost WAY more than PCs, and that Macs don't run really anything I need to run, I'll just can't switch... no matter how pretty it is. |
| #8 By 3 (81.96.65.26) at 4/24/2003 5:19:59 PM |
|
Mystery meat
There are plenty of buttons throughout OS X that don't give you any textual hints as to what they do until you mouseover them. This is a cardinal sin of UI design, and Apple should know better. It seems to me that Apple is starting to do with their OS what they've already done with their hardware - pretty takes precendence over functional. hmmmm I haven't noticed this, and a lot of the time the hints and information given out about options, menues etc in OS X are far more detailed and logical than those in Windows XP. With Dialogue boxes such as for saving far better. Modal Menu System This has been around since day one, and it sucks. Whatever application currently has focus shows it's menu bar at the top of the UI. Not only does this make it hard to perform menu actions on several different applications in sequence (twice as many clicks), but it confuses the HELL out of both novice users and advanced users. How many times have you thought you closed an application only to later realize it's been open the whole time and all you did was close the window for that application? The UI should follow this simple principle: All applications ARE windows, but not all windows are applications. If a window is not an application, it should give visual clues that tell the user this. (Like a smaller title bar, different color, etc.) Surely that is about learning the UI? Just as new users do with Windows etc? Although my personal view is that Windows is easier to learn, I have been proven wrong a lot of times by older people learning a Mac far quicker than Windows. At first for me it was strange, but now I think nothing of it at all and this is after using Windows all my life, so for new mac users from scratch, they wouldn't care a toss. Still Slow Guess what. Just because Steve Jobs says the Mac is fast, does not actually make the Mac fast. Imagine that. OS X, with all of it's eye candy, makes an already slow platform slower. I'm not sure what Mac or PC you are running on then I have to say, I have a 1GHz iMac, it runs slightly faster and zippier than my 2.4Ghz Athlon PC in the apps I use and looks 100x better. I go by the applications that I use the most and these run just as well if not better than in Windows, yes some are slower but the same goes for in Windows, there is no better one out of the two in my view. The only slower aspect I run into is a slow boot, but considering i never need to reboot unless I turn the Mac off it doesn't matter to me. Add this to the fact Macs cost WAY more than PCs, and that Macs don't run really anything I need to run, I'll just can't switch... no matter how pretty it is. Well they don't here in the UK and thats what i'm judging the review of the iMac by as thats where I got it from. Its fine if you don't need to run one or want to run one, but putting across views that its slower etc shows what little knowledge people seem to have of Mac's in my view....on another note, i'll point out the only App crashes I've had on the Mac so far have all been in MS software such as IE and Office v X, go figure. This post was edited by Byron_Hinson[AW] on Thursday, April 24, 2003 at 17:42. |
| #9 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at 4/24/2003 5:32:08 PM |
|
#9 - Here is a tip... learn to read.
Name one button that gives no textual hint when you mouseover it. Well, I said there are plenty of buttons that don't give you a textual hint UNTIL you mouseover them, not when. An example is, oh let's see, ALL THE BUTTONS ON THE TITLE BARS OF ALL WINDOWS. You use OS X for a few days and it becomes second nature. It's no less intuitive than the way Microsoft handles windows and title bars. It's just that you are familiar with Windows. I used Macs for 5 years, and I never got used to it. I got my grandmother a Mac, and she understood almost everything except why applications did close when she closed their window. Same goes for several other relatives that I got Macs because, at the time, I felt they would be easier to use. It's a problem with the UI, not the user. Get real. I have an iMac with a 600 MHz G3 and also a PC with a 733MHz Pentium III. I can tell no perceptual speed difference between them. Both are plenty fast enough. Oh well, then it's settled. If you can't tell the difference, then there must be none. Never mind the COUNTLESS BENCHMARKS from many independent sources. (Like here: http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07_jul/features/cw_macvspc2.htm, or here: http://www.techtv.com/news/story/0,24195,3339307,00.html, or here: http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/11_nov/reviews/cw_macvspciii.htm) What you call "pretty" is more like quality engineering. I've had 10 PC's in the last 6 years. Only one still works. I've bought two Macs in roughly the same time period. They are both still humming along fine. Huh? Are you saying that the chips themselves are higher quality or something? Considering the vast majority of the raw materials for your Mac are made by the same people who make the raw materials for PCs, I find that hard to believe. If you have some kind of evidence that PC hardware is less reliable than Mac hardware, then by all means supply it. I've had 5 PCs in the past 6 years, and I still have 3 of those. I got rid of the other two because they were outdated. I've had parts fail, yes, but the mean times for hardware failure for, say, a hard drive is identical for both the MAC and PC since they typically use the SAME suppliers. Apple doesn't make hard drives; they buy them from the same place I buy them from. And on a personal note. You are a sneaky character who says things like "Overall, I don't have a problem with OS X.", yet at every opportunity you take a cheap shot at the most superior operating system on this planet. Your hypocracy knows no bounds. On a personal note, you're a troll with little or no clue. I really don't have a problem, overall, with OS X. I like the fact it runs on a BSD base. I really like the look/feel, other than the issues I pointed out. Is it not possible to point out the flaws in something while still liking it overall? That's like saying your either 100% love something, or you 100% hate it. Nothing in between. Somebody once said a sign of intelligence is the ability to keep two distinct ideas in your head at the same time, like there are problems with OS X AND it is a good OS. I guess you're not quite at the point where you can handle that. |
| #10 By 2 (24.54.154.185) at 4/24/2003 7:08:38 PM |
| Be Nice all.. RMD's VS .NET 2003 review is coming... |
| #11 By 3653 (209.149.57.116) at 4/24/2003 7:56:04 PM |
|
wow, nomdlev is shut down yet again. how many arse kickings does that make? You must be getting sore by now.
Hey, here's a tip... maccentral.com all the bias you want nomdlev. This post was edited by mooresa56 on Thursday, April 24, 2003 at 19:56. |
| #12 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at 4/24/2003 8:46:09 PM |
|
#13 - "I will not discuss this further with you RMD. I know that you will just resort to hateful remarks and absolute falsehoods."
I suspect you won't discuss this anymore because I systematically addressed each "point" you made, showing how you were wrong. Realizing this, you are now attempting to escape from further thrashing. In addition, if you would care to point out a single falsehood in any of my statements, I would be happy to address them and/or apologize. Lastly, I believe you started with the "hateful remarks". For instance: The absolute FUD spewer. You are a sneaky character... Your hypocracy knows no bounds. |
| #13 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 4/24/2003 10:28:07 PM |
|
Byron - Blah, you're going to make me go boot up our test iMac and detail specifics.
Don't like the upper menus, don't like the dock. I find things are overly difficult to find. I've just plain never cared for the MacOS UI, the OS X just made it worse with lot's of eye candy. But then I don't like many of the defaults that XP comes with. My usage is always customized. When you get right down to it, though... what's key is the interoperability, extensibility and ease of development. In this regard Windows XP with .NET is extremely difficult to beat. I've yet to see anything better in 20 years of working with computers, including a fairly wide variety of operating systems. This post was edited by sodablue on Thursday, April 24, 2003 at 22:30. |
| #14 By 11888 (64.230.25.232) at 4/24/2003 11:57:55 PM |
|
It must what one is used to. I found having the menus at the top confusing at first, but quickly caught on. I'm really enjoying using OS X.
I finally had a chance to try out XP on a friend's laptop. She was confused about how to do things, so I tried to help. I found XP to be unwieldy compared to 2000. |
| #15 By 7390 (198.246.16.251) at 4/25/2003 12:00:27 PM |
|
MrRoper,
"un·wield·y ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-wld) adj. un·wield·i·er, un·wield·i·est Difficult to carry or manage because of size, shape, weight, or complexity: an unwieldy parcel; an unwieldy bureacracy" I find XP no more complex than Win2k if anything easier to use. Granted at first it may take a little getting use to especially when you are familiar with Win2k. But you can switch to the classic view and be right at home. What do you find "unwieldy"? Clicking the start button then "All Programs" can't be that unwieldy. Oh, I know the Application grouping on the ToolBar was too much. Ok, I see your point. Or was it the "Hide idle sys tray items" that one always gets them. For safety concerns use the Mac. |
| #16 By 37 (66.82.20.150) at 4/25/2003 12:20:35 PM |
| nomdlev, WHAT are you smoking? |
| #17 By 11888 (64.230.61.240) at 4/25/2003 3:47:28 PM |
| I have limited experience with the application grouping, but it doesn't seem too bad. Hiding the sys tray items in okay too, it's nice and easy to find the ones that are being hidden. Off the top of my head the two things that got me were (1) ClearType. I knew it was there, I thought it would improve the text, but I ended up digging through the help to figure out how to turn it on. This was a first for me. In previous incarnations of Windows I could usually find settings like that pretty quickly. It felt buried under too many layers. (2) The "frequent applications" menu or whatever it's called when you use the Start button now. I had become used to having some application in there (I forget what it was). I'd click Start, launch the app, and I'm done. But this time I clicked Start, and the app was gone, replaced by something else. I end up having to read the list over to make sure it's not there and I'm just missing it, then click All Programs, find it, launch it, and try to remember what I was doing that I needed this app. Turning off the new stuff would solve this, but there are some benefits to the UI also. It's not a complete disaster. I sent for the 120 day evaluation copy of XP Pro today to try it out more on my own time. |
| #18 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at 4/26/2003 3:02:13 AM |
| #23 - You're absolutely shameless. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 313 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:39:04 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
