| 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 |
 |
How it works: Inductive user interfaces | |
|
||
| Time: 03:51 EST/08:51 GMT | News Source: SuperSite for Windows | Posted By: Jonathan Tigner | ||
|
The text of this article is derived from an email response I sent a reader, and I thought it was valuable enough that a wider range of users would benefit from it. Many (Mac) people misunderstood the comments I made comparing Windows XP, Longhorn, and Mac OS X in my Longhorn FAQ. My aim wasn't to make a general comparison between the three OSes, but rather to focus on one specific area: While Apple can and should be credited with innovating the desktop operating system GUI we still use today, the company has done little over the years to dramatically improve this interface, though it has arguably made it more attractive, especially in OS X. My argument is that Microsoft, of all companies, has done far more innovative UI work, especially in the past eight years, working to extend to the standard desktop interface metaphor with new document-centric and task-centric user interfaces. Microsoft calls its task-centric work inductive UI. Here's the original email here, largely unedited. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 318 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:37:49 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at 11/27/2003 1:48:02 PM |
| Leave it to Paul to repeat everything I say. :-) |
| #2 By 3384 (12.224.68.149) at 11/27/2003 2:53:13 PM |
|
He concludes not only doubting ("arguably") that OS X is better looking than XP, but declaring ("certainly") that OS X is not easier to use.
Yikes. Deluded much? As a direct contradiction, in David Coursey's recent article entitled "How to fix what's wrong with Windows," he leads with this: http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/AnchorDesk/4520-7298_16-5107252.html "There's a major problem with Microsoft Windows that nobody seems to be doing anything about: It's not getting easier to use. And it should be. "I'm not talking about the baby steps that make Windows XP easier to use than Windows 98 and Windows 98 easier than Windows 95. I'm looking for the kind of radical change that would make tomorrow's Windows as easy to use as Mac OS X. "No, this isn't another angry screed from a Mac user excoriating Windows for not being Macintosh. I'm simply saying that the biggest barrier to making computers really easy to use and ubiquitous is Microsoft Windows." *** I wrote the following in an email to Paul a few days ago, which he may have never received, so I'll repeat the relevant portion of it here: "Regarding your recent post about inductive UI's, that's all well and good, and it presumes that XP users actually work that way rather than just running the app first (old habits are hard to break), but you conclude that XP is easier to use? "To answer that, I don't look to myself, but look to my friends. Some are Windows people, some are Mac people. Which group needs more help, more hand-holding, more phone time, more visits, more wasting time on bafflingly obscure issues? While my Mac group of friends is smaller, of course, they rarely need help with anything, while, as I'm sure is the case with the friends and family you have that aren't nerds, Windows users need help early and often. If it's not one thing it's another, and if it's not that, it's something else. "I think that larger view has to be the bottom line when declaring which is "easier," rather than a somewhat artificial discussion of "traditional" versus "inductive" that may not make the transition from the MS usability labs into the real world, and even if it did, is certainly not enough to tip the scales in favor of Windows, which apparently needs a lot more than an inductive interface before my friends leave me in peace." |
| #3 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 11/27/2003 4:34:54 PM |
|
blah, blah, blah...I don't find OS X to be the end all be all of OSes, and I'm quite tired of hearing it described as such. Windows XP, in my view, is much more sensible, does just what I need, works better, looks better, etc. This man needs (nor does he want) no Mac.
As for OS X being so easy to use, friends of mine that have only used Macs for years ask me Mac questions (and I haven't regularly used a Mac for years). If OS X is as rediculously easy to use as so many people claim, I wonder why there are people familiar with the Mac platform that still have problems with it. Bottom line is that how it looks and how usable it is are both subjective assessments. As such, there is no "better," there is only "better for me, my needs, and my preferences." |
| #4 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 11/27/2003 9:51:23 PM |
| You can be truly innovative and still have backward compat. One only need to look at Longhorn. It will support the next generation of innovation, yet still run ancient 20 year old apps like VisiCalc. Like Anders said at PDC (though referring to something else), "you can have your cake and eat it too." |
| #5 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at 11/28/2003 1:38:47 AM |
|
Oh come on. Coursey is an idiot.
Paul backed up his argument with specific examples, did Coursey? Nope. OS X is definitly prettier than XP. No doubt about it. But it is certainly not easier to use. |
| #6 By 442 (68.51.231.214) at 11/28/2003 2:57:51 AM |
|
HOW is Mac OS X easier to use? Let’s see…
UNINSTALLING PROGRAMS: WinXP - Open up the control panels, select Add/Remove, find the app you want to uninstall, follow a Wizard, possibly restart. Keep in mind that remnants of this app will be left behind and may cause issues with other apps or the system itself. You can thank the registry for that. OSX - drag the program/program folder to the trash can. The next time you empty the trash it's gone. Note there is NO registry to screw up other apps or the system. USING IMAGES FROM A WEB SITE IN A DOCUMENT: WinXP - Right click on the image, select Save As..., navigate to a location to save it. Then in order to actually USE this image in Word, for example, you have to go to Edit > Insert Picture > From File... , then navigate to where it's located, select it, and then insert it. OSX - Drag the image from your web browser and drop it into the Word document. Those are just two quick examples. Let’s take a look at a bullet point list of things the Mac can do that Windows can’t: • Color labels • Fast searching from the Finder (instant filtering as you type) • Superior folder management • Alias’s (shortcuts) track themselves – they’re not broken if the original item is moved. • Fonts (i.e. Font Book) • Expose for instant window management. This has got to be the best innovation in a LONG time. • Fast User Switching that’s actually easy to find. WinXP does not list this feature ANYWHERE until you go to Start > Shut Down. Only THEN do you see a Switch User option. Not very intuitive if it’s hidden. Those are a few off the top of my head. To be honest the ONLY thing I like in Windows is the Help system. I’m very impressed with how well it’s setup. The Help system on the Mac, even Panther which I love, stinks. Other than that the Mac wins hands down. I can go on but it’s 3AM. This post was edited by jaredbkt on Friday, November 28, 2003 at 02:58. |
| #7 By 2459 (24.175.137.164) at 11/28/2003 5:42:28 AM |
|
Files and/or settings left behind has nothing to do with the registry and everything to do with the developer not cleaning up properly. Reboot requirements depend on what functionality the app provides and how it integrates with OS components, or again, programmer laziness.
On MacOS, dragging the app to the trash doesn't always get rid of all files related to the app. Preference files or other files may still remain. Drag and Dop Images from the Web Browser: Works exactly the same way dragging an image from IE and dropping it into Word or any other app that supports D&D and the image type in Windows. Expose for instant window management. This has got to be the best innovation in a LONG time. Thank MS for giving Apple the idea (along with FUS). The other points are mostly subjective in their utility/greater ease of use except for instant filtering as you type (available, but not part of the default OS). Fast searching (and additionally, querying of file contents and metadata) is available via the indexing service. |
| #8 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 11/28/2003 5:57:36 AM |
| That's interesting. I just went to ebay, chose a random image, opened Word, dragged the image from IE to Word, and saw the image appear in Word. Perhaps you should verify you know what you're talking about before spouting off, jared. |
| #9 By 442 (68.51.231.214) at 11/28/2003 9:03:54 AM |
|
Show me where exactly it was that MS had a working version of Expose before Apple? Show me when MS inspired Apple to create a version of their own? I can use Expose on a Mac NOW...I don't have to wait until 2006 for Longhorn.
FUS was on Windwos before OS X, no doubt. However, I noticed you completely ignored the ease of use of FUS, which was my point. It doesn't matter how great your feature is if the user can't find it. Instant filtering IS part of the default Panther installation. As is querying of file contents and metadata. This is not an option and is built into the OS. Let's talk about the registry and DLL files for a moment. When you uninstall an app on Windows it DOES leave garbage in the registry. That, in turn, can affect other apps or the system. If an uninstaller is written poorly and it leaves DLL files or shared components throughout the system, it CAN and WILL affect other apps or the OS when they attempt to access them. When a program is dragged to the trash on the Mac, the ONLY other items that may be left behind are preference files. Those CAN NOT affect the system of any other apps in ANY way. They do not even run unles their parent app is launched. Again I see we glossed over the ease of use portion. Speaking of which, drag-and-drop on Windows DOES NOT work as it does on the Mac. Drag-and-drop is system wide on the Mac. It is NOT on Windows. Some places you can, others not. Very counter-productive when a behavior works some places but not all. What takes 5 steps on Windows takes one on the Mac. What requires a dialog box in Windows is a drag-and-drop on the Mac. Try actually USING Mac OS X for a week as your MAIN OS and you'll find it very hard to go back to Windows. This post was edited by jaredbkt on Friday, November 28, 2003 at 09:04. |
| #10 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 11/28/2003 10:39:59 AM |
|
FUS doesn't seem hard to find to me. The logout button seems very reasonable to me to switch users.
Registry. First, not all apps are the same. Many (especially .NET apps) don't even use the registry. You can simply delete the folder where the app lives and all is well. Yeah, just like on the Mac. Second, once again, not all apps are the same. Not all apps leave stuff behind after uninstall. Guess what? I could write an OS X app that behaved badly too. I could write files to places they don't belong and when you deleted the app folder, those other files would still exist. The problem is not specific to Windows as you pretend it is. Or how about this scenario - you install Rotor, so that you can run .NET apps on OS X. You delete all of your .NET apps, but Rotor is still there. Oh no, shared files polluting the precious OS X system! Of course this isn't specific to Rotor. The same would be true of any runtime. Check your facts before spouting off. BTW, leaving DLLs and reg entries won't hurt any applications on the system. It just takes up space. Since you seem to think this is not the case, I'd like you to give me 5 examples of it. My money says you won't even be able to come up with one. You should be able to do dozens if it's such a common problem as you seem to imply. Again, check your facts before spouting off. Usability. Are you telling me that every OS X application has the exact same behavior? I don't believe it for a second. Kudos that drag/drop is system wide (umm, what the heck is the point of being able to drag/drop an .mp3 file onto a terminal session?). There are times when drag/drop make no sense. The application itself should be (and is on Windows) responsible for giving users functionality. I have a hunch that I can write an app for OS X that does not support drag/drop. First, of course, you'd have to explain what you mean by "system wide" support. Since drag/drop is part of the Windows API, arguably it is sytem wide as well. What takes 5 steps on Windows? You've provided one incorrect example of that. Care to try again? I have a dialog in Windows for color picking (color picker). You can do that on a Mac with drag/drop? That doesn't make much sense. I have a dialog for notifying the user (message box), you can do that on a Mac with drag/drop? That doesn't make sense. I have a dialog for saving a file (save file dialog). You can do that with drag/drop on a Mac? That doesn't make sense. Most things that make sense for drag/drop also have dialogs in Windows. That means you have options...use whatever makes the most sense in your application. You can open a file via OpenFileDialog, via dbl clicking in Explorer, drag/drop file onto program's exe, drag/drop onto open program, etc. Use what suits your application best. I have no desire to use an OS that doesn't support my applications. I have no desire to use an OS that doesn't support as many applications. I have no desire to use an OS that.... Like I said before, OS choice is subjective. I've made mine. You've made yours. We disagree. That doesn't mean you should lie about my platform choice. That's not only rude and insulting, but it also shows a lack of integrity (or at the very least level of informedness) on your part. |
| #11 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at 11/28/2003 4:33:07 PM |
|
Anybody else find it funny that Mac zealots are claiming that Expose' is innovative when it's basically a fix for a very broken UI concept - "The Finder".
It's been easy for many years to switch between running applications in Windows. We've been able to tile them on our desktops since the days of Windows 3.0. We've had the task bar since Windows 95. And we've had task groupings since XP. Apple didn't change the finder for about 18 years. It was crap 18 years ago, and it's crap today. Instead of the major overhaul it's sorely needed, they decided to layer on top of the Finder a fancy window tiling application. Just because Apple finally decided to kinda fix an element of their UI that has been crap for 18 years doesn't mean they've innovated. |
| #12 By 3384 (12.224.68.149) at 11/28/2003 4:55:26 PM |
|
I'd be tempted to say "blah blah blah" but then that would be "rude and insulting," wouldn't you say, Bob?
That not supporting applications thing is a little bit 1993, don't you think? While I'm very sure you'll reel off 17 applications that you can't live without that don't exist on the Mac, the Mac does have thousands of applications that would fill the needs of the overwhelming majority of users, some very, very vertical applications excepted (and a handful of others, I'm sure), and those people probably wouldn't be using Mac's anyway. Which leads me to beauty. Sure, it's subjective. But put it to a poll and I'd wager that at least 90% of the people who spent 5 minutes with an OS X and XP machine side-by-side would come away readily admitting that OS X is more visually sophisticated. Could it be any more obvious? I mean, what is it called, "photo-realism" or some such thing? The Mac is simply designed to be more a graphically intense experience than Windows, and it's been that way for a long time, if not forever. That's what they do. With Longhorn, MS may meet or exceed that, but it's not there today, and who knows what the Mac will be doing by then. Longhorn probably won't even be there in 2005, based on the track records of Win2K and XP. Even MS Office on the Mac has had a look over the years that puts the Windows Offices to shame -- and that's from MS! Yes, some people may prefer XP or even the Win 98 look (some people love their '87 Camry, too), but it doesn't belie the fact that technologically one is well ahead of the other in this department. And finally again to usability, which I think is the only debatable point, part of it might be grudging habit. Who's been using Windows since its inception and can't imagine anything else? Who's been using the Mac? Most people don't switch, and most people don't give the other platform any credit, and it's not always on the merits. It's a Republican and Democrat type thing, though if asked directly, you'd find that many people who call themselves Republicans would support Democratic issues, and vice-versa. That being said, the Mac has the advantage (as far as usability is concerned) of being a limited, closed-off platform produced by one company only. There is only one cook, and she has complete control over the broth. It will have just the right amount of salt, just the right herbs, and there will be no ugly fat globules floating on top. It will be a critical component of an overall meal of her design. On the other side of the kitchen is the PC, which for this discussion is Windows, but there is no "Microsoft PC." Using their own recipe, MS creates its broth to its own satisfaction, but unfortunately for them, it must be served as part of a meal prepared by approximately 78,322 different cooks around the world (maybe a conservative number for OEM's?). That's a problem, since while the cooks adhere to certain standards, their own individuality naturally creates complications, which in turn invites problems, which in turn affects usability. There are just so many variables on a typical Windows PC system that it's almost a mathematical certainty that it's not going to be as smooth an experience as a Mac. It's just too complicated of an overall creation with too many arms. It may not be anyone's fault, it's just the result of a patchwork quilt of an open market where almost anything goes. That's good for price, but their is a price to be paid for that. A Mac user with that one almost fully homeogenous system is just not going to have the potential for such a far-reaching variety of problems, and while not problem-free, when thought about seriously, which is going to be the better system for that one person in the world you least want to support? That's the one that's easier. |
| #13 By 2459 (24.175.137.164) at 11/28/2003 7:45:46 PM |
|
Show me where exactly it was that MS had a working version of Expose before Apple? Show me when MS inspired Apple to create a version of their own?
Sorry, I can't show you a working demo. Streaming media wasn't as available back then as it is now, and Microsoft's site covering the technology used has been down for some time (1998). I can, however, point you to several links that show the technologies (Chrome aka Chromeffects, and GDI2k) or show their similarities to what is now Avalon and the DCE in Longhorn. GDI+: Next-Generation Graphics Device Interface Draft March 10, 1999 http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/hwdev/archive/video/GDInext.mspx#XSLTsection128121120120 Translated version of http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/pc/docs/article/980513/kaigai01.htm http://translate.google.com/translate?sourceid=navclient-menuext&hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ewatch%2Eimpress%2Eco%2Ejp%2Fpc%2Fdocs%2Farticle%2F980513%2Fkaigai01%2Ehtm Chromeffects http://ascii24.com/news/i/net/article/1998/09/07/612498-000.html Chromeffects: a victim of the antitrust lawsuits? http://thetechnozone.com/the3Dzone/news/3d-chrome.html |
| #14 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 11/29/2003 12:04:49 AM |
|
dp This post was edited by BobSmith on Saturday, November 29, 2003 at 00:13. |
| #15 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 11/29/2003 12:12:50 AM |
|
Applications. Do you honestly dispute that far more applications are written for Windows than for OS X? First of all, I didn't say similar type of application. I said my applications. There's a large difference. I can't take my for Windows applications (like Microsoft Office 2003) and install them on a Mac. I'd have to buy new licenses. That's a huge issue.
Second, there are far more applications for Windows than for Mac. Anything written in VB won't run on Mac. Anything commercial written in .NET won't run on Mac. That wipes out millions of custom applications, inluding but not limited to, every app I've ever written. These issues aren't sooo 1993. They are very much 2003. Beauty. Um, OK. You show me independent analysis (that is, not your own opinion of what people will say), then your statements will be worth something. Until then, it is only your opinion. As I said before, mine differs. BTW, if you get an OEM system, like most people do, it's very unlikely that you'll have hw conflicts, so that rather kills your 'better mac experience' idea. Usability. As far as user interface design goes, I'm not sure what supporting millions of device combinations vs. supporting thousands has to do with anything. The UI metaphors of Windows, IMO, make more sense than the metaphors of Mac. YMMV. Once again, this is subjective. It seems to me that the market has chosen, and continues to choose, Windows. I wonder if you can tell me why that is? Surely people have heard of Mac, so it isn't brand recognition. Surely it isn't the lack of upgrading, because Windows XP is a new thing, and tens of millions of XP boxen are out and about. What's the reason(s)? |
| #16 By 11888 (64.230.71.77) at 11/29/2003 1:40:25 AM |
|
Expose reminds me of Jef Raskin's ZoomWorld concept. A small step but it appears to be in that direction.
|
| #17 By 3384 (12.224.68.149) at 11/29/2003 8:54:28 PM |
|
Yes, by vertical I was including developers and other specialists. They know who they are, and they wouldn't be wanting a Mac if they're developing Windows applications. Of course not. But the run-of-the mill person, the 99% of us or so who don't develop Windows apps or run one-of-a-kind vertical apps, they're very well suited by the commercial software (and freeware/shareware) for the Mac, even though it's dwarfed by the amount available for Windows. They're hardly going wanting like they might have been a decade ago.
On graphical sophistication, no I don't have independent analysis, but you being a programmer, can't you speak to the graphical foundation that the Mac has that Windows obviously doesn't? Maybe not since it's two different worlds, but something must be allowing developers to do all the pretty, gee-whiz stuff on Mac's, so it's not an opinion if they're doing it, it's actually there. You don't see that stuff on Windows, but I think it's something like what MS is building towards with what they announced at the PDC. I still think the fact that there's very little uniformity in the PC/Windows world contributes to complications that makes supporting environments considerably more difficult. More variables, more complications. FrankenPC's. The market has chosen for lots of reasons. My guess is because Apple stayed closed-off and chose to build their own hardware (though they did flirt with 3rd party's many years ago) and didn't allow their OS to run on anything else. They originally catered to a niche audience (education, graphics) and charged a premium. You won't get market share doing that. They also faced a juggernaut in Wintel. If Mac's were no more expensive than PC's and suddenly appeared in as many places as PC's do, there'd be a lot more parity. All this doesn't suggest anything at all. A Ferrari is outsold by the Ford Taurus, too. |
| #18 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 11/29/2003 11:29:24 PM |
|
K, a decade ago, there's no question that the PC had orders of magnitudes more apps than the Mac. That is still quite true today.
Without anything more than your opinion, what you're saying really holds no water, does it? Nope. Microsoft's work with Longhorn is a bit misunderstood. There is a difference between what you can do and what you can do easily. It is not an easy thing to do the type of graphics that Longhorn promises. It is still possible though. To say that Windows can't <insert graphic term> is just plain wrong. To say that it can't do it easily, is a bit closer to the truth. Um, since Apple was first to the party, they didn't face Wintel. They made some very stupid choices in the beginning, so NOW they face Wintel. They continue to be a niche player. They continue to charge a premium. IOW, they continue to make stupid decisions. They continue to be a negligible component of the desktop market. Yeah, Mac is like Ferrari, and I'm Bill Gates...oh wait. Funny how the benchmarks show the PC on top. If a Ford Taurus can best a Ferrari, that's a pretty sad car. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 318 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:37:49 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
