| 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 |
 |
Paradigms lost: The Windows 7 Taskbar versus the OS X Dock | |
|
||
| Time: 00:48 EST/05:48 GMT | News Source: Ars Technica | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
Windows 7's new Taskbar has drawn many comparisons to Mac OS X's Dock, and many of them negative, with the overwhelming concern that Windows is becoming too Mac-like. Even among Mac users, the new Taskbar is unlikely to be universally appreciated, as many feel that the Dock is deeply flawed.
On a superficial level, the similarity is obvious; both Dock and Taskbar are rows of large icons used for application launching and switching. Closer examination, however, reveals that there's a long way to go before anyone should worry that Microsoft is slavishly following Apple. The Windows UI isn't turning into the Mac OS X UI—not yet, at least.
| ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 326 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:09:42 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 23275 (24.196.4.141) at 1/22/2009 2:12:50 AM |
|
There really is no comparison at all. The "Dock" is deeply flawed, and the new Windows 7 Taskbar (Super Bar), is truly innovative. I did not think so right away and it took a bit of experimentation to understand its design, but in short while I found myself moving between desired windows far more quickly than I ever had - more importantly, the times I would select the wrong window were greatly reduced. The new task bar is very fluid and previewing open windows is amazingly useful and fast.
A few other things I did not expect to experience... moving the super bar to the top or side revealed some very welcome surprises... the orientation of elements moved as well... even gradients moved with the new location and down was always down and up was always up - no matter the placement, orientation and context make sense. Microsoft has a real winner on their hands with the super bar and any comparison to the OS X Dock does not do it justice. It's innovative in all the ways that word should be used and in none of the over used ways it shouldn't. OS X has a lot of catching up to do. Oddly, in some situations I move the super bar to the top - as when sitting on my couch with my laptop - the sight line favor placing it on the top, where its elements are immediately available to my eyes (screen top is lower than it would be at one's desk - making it more natural to look straight ahead). |
| #2 By 13997 (69.144.82.159) at 1/22/2009 7:02:15 AM |
|
The article is not horrible, but one strange thing...
The author tries to explain application and document centric aspects of OS X and Window, but in doing so, demonstrates them exactly backwards. In UI research circles, the multiple Document presentation methods of the two OSes are different. With OS X being application centric and Windows being document centric. Having one application host multiple documents is considered to be the older or non-preferred way, which is why MDI interfaces have been abandoned by MS. OS X is 'Application' centric, not document centric. One Application to many documents = Application centric. Window's nature of launching a separate process for each document, and therefore a separate 'application' for each document does equal a document centric design. There are technical aspects behind both models that are very different as the article tries to define, but doesn't properly explain. With OS X's model RAM and CPU cycles are often wasted with applications left running when no documents are loaded, and this tends to offset any gains in RAM efficiency it gains from using one Application process with multiple documents open. Additionally because OS X does have one Application hosting multiple documents (Application centric), this means if a document crashes, locks, has an I/O error, etc, it takes all the other documents down with it. Which is one reason this method is dated and you do not one a single application process hosting multiple documents, as it is not only less stable, but less secure depending on the nature of the documents/applications. With Windows because you usually get one application process per document (even with IE8 even though they display in the same tab interface), you don't have to worry about a document crash or lock bringing down other documents. Also if you also take multi-core processors and getting the most of out them, by tying all of one document type to a single application thread like OS X, you lose a lot of multi-tasking and multi-threading aspects because the the documents are sharing the same process/thread, again this is the older model. Anyway, ironically the article tries to define these two roles, but paints OS X as document centric when technically it is application centric, and it tries to paint Windows as application centric, when technically it is document centric. So, one process/thread/application per document is an aspect of being document centric(Windows), and one process/thread/application per multiple documents is an aspect of being application centric(OS X). For security, stability, and multi-tasking aspects OS X and its Application centric model is dated and also more wasteful of resources with users leaving so many application hosts running and not realizing it. Windows and Microsoft use to be part of the MDI and application centric models as well back in the Win3.1 era, but they abandoned this during the 90s, especially on the NT platform, as the MDI and application centric model strangles multi-tasking OS constructs, especially when scaling on multiple CPUs where today we are getting the most of our performance gains in hardware. |
| #3 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 1/22/2009 8:19:06 AM |
| #1: Would you care to explain to those users who don't use the Mac Dock how it's "deeply flawed", and how the SuperBar is "truly innovative"? I'm not taking you to task here, as I have zero knowledge of the Dock, but your argument would carry a little more weight if you could provide an example of what you mean. |
| #4 By 23275 (24.196.4.141) at 1/22/2009 10:17:21 AM |
|
#3, Sure - for starters running applications in the doc are very hard to discern from non running applications - they are only distinguished by a small glowing dot, which is not always easy to see. In Windows 7 running applications feature a tile which surrounds the app icon and on hover, running apps in 7 glow a unique color - unique to that application. The visual cues are not only very pretty, they are very useful.
In Windows 7 spawning new instances (per #2 above) of the same app is easy - shift left-click and in the same live preview above the super bar, new instances open and feed to the right - as they fill the preview above the super bar, they begin to get slightly smaller and gracefully so... as the preview fills up with 20 or so open instances. Moving laterally among any of these, switches the desktop to that instance and one may close any instance directly from the super bar's preview. None of this is possible with the Dock. So in demos the dock looks good, but in real world use when it becomes busy, it fails miserably. While only one distinction, it is a big one. There are many more - like options and as I said above, the orientation and context which is preserved no matter where one places it. |
| #5 By 23275 (24.196.4.141) at 1/22/2009 10:30:54 AM |
|
#3, Again, I don't want to appear to pick on Apple's dock, but when I say it is deeply flawed, design is only one factor - Leopard's dock in particular is problematic and opposite Apple's own software. One of the most common problems OS X users face is, that it sometimes becomes transparent, and "Stacks" only show as label backgrounds - often iTunes Cover Flow mode stops working, too. To fix it, users have ot open a terminal command and issue:
sudo killall -HUP WindowServer This being Awin and not a Mac support forum. I'll stop there. (but yes, we do help Mac users, too.. and Linux and Unix and old PL-1 programmers...) |
| #6 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 1/22/2009 10:45:48 AM |
| #4,5: Thanks. I had previously played around with Stardock's ObjectDock, but discarded it as a nifty toy that looks nice but offers little. Sounds like the Mac Dock from what you describe, plus a whole lot of extra bogus design decisions thrown in to boot. |
| #7 By 23275 (24.196.4.141) at 1/22/2009 11:07:58 AM |
|
#6, Yeah, I agree with you on that one - I've tried many of their products and had some fun with them, but ended up taking them off.
The Windows 7 Task (super) bar is different. It is truly useful and it is clear that it is intended for a new age of low cost wide format displays of good quality. I mean, a 22" HANNS-G is only 134 dollars (USD)! - about 15 dollars cheaper than a standard 17" LCD from Acer, or Viewsonic. I think people will like it and as I have said, one may customize it - adding text labels, small icons, etc... whatever they wish. I suspect few will - as the default design after a few days makes a lot of sense. |
| #8 By 2960 (72.196.201.130) at 1/22/2009 11:46:30 AM |
|
I, for one, would have no worries at all about Windows becoming more Mac like. Hell, bring it on!
TL |
| #9 By 16797 (65.95.10.212) at 1/22/2009 1:30:18 PM |
|
#7 "...one may customize it - adding text labels,.."
Well.. once you add text labels, icons that are pinned to the taskbar start floating along the bar as you launch applications. It gets even worse if grouping is disabled. Highly problematic, because now I have to chase icons on the taskbar. One good thing is that at least we can add Quick launch bar so it partially solves the problem. #8 I would. I want Windows to be, well, Windows. Just buy Mac if you want OSX. |
| #10 By 37 (192.251.125.85) at 1/22/2009 1:32:14 PM |
|
For the record, I have to say my experience with the dock on my Mac doesn't match that of Lloyd's.
I have never had a problem discerning the difference between an open/closed app. The "glowing dots" are easy to notice at a glance. I have never had any Stack issues, cover flow issues, nor have I ever had to open the Terminal in the almost 2 years I have had my Mac. The best thing about the Dock isn't really the dock, but the Expose and Spaces feature that is exposed from the dock. Far better than anything Windows 7 is offering. Having multple desktop previews, desktops and spaces and access at the touch of a button is by far better than having thumbnail images of open apps in the superbar. I am not saying the problems that Lloyd mentions DON'T exist, but I am not seeing them. This post was edited by AWBrian on Thursday, January 22, 2009 at 13:38. |
| #11 By 2960 (72.196.201.130) at 1/22/2009 3:23:27 PM |
| I haven't had a support call from my sister in 4 years since she started using MacOS X. And that says something :) |
| #12 By 16797 (65.95.10.212) at 1/22/2009 3:56:23 PM |
| #11 You should do the same. And take Latch with you. Hopefully we'll be able to say that too - that we haven't heard you or him complaining here in 4 years. Win-win.. |
| #13 By 23275 (24.196.4.141) at 1/22/2009 6:44:52 PM |
|
Surely we undertand that all platforms opposite very diverse uses, will manifest problems.
Similarly, we must understand that the greater the number of application one runs and the more diverse the mix, the more likely they are to have issues of some kind. It does no good to assume that one type of platform is "better" or "worse" than any other, unless they are subject to identical use. The subject however is not about that broad issue, it is about the new task bar and what about it makes it better than the OS X dock it is being inappropriately compared to - there is no good basis for comparison really - they are quite different. One has to try both over a good bit of time to see what the differences are. |
| #14 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 1/23/2009 8:44:52 AM |
| #12: Do you always get this angry when someone praises a Mac? |
| #15 By 23275 (24.196.4.141) at 1/23/2009 9:15:56 AM |
|
Latch, I don't think he's angry, and certainly not at TL or AWbrian, but frustrated at the lack of objectivity around the Mac as a platform. We support enough Mac users and Mac centric families to know from a technical perspective, that the Mac is not some kind of magical computing nirvana where everything "just works" and troubles are never experienced. While it is a good and suitable platform for many kinds of users, the Mac is just a computer platform - good for some people; great for some people and lousy for just as many.
We also know that the Windows platform has a lot going for it and the new Windows is especially good - an evolved and well tuned Vista with some truly innovative new features that large numbers of people will like a great deal. I think too that there is a lot of justifiable frustration on the Windows side opposite old and now inapplicable "truths" - security for example - Windows is now very secure and keeping it more secure is easier than ever. The days of unrestricted admin access are long since passed - for those that have moved beyond the practical limitations of XP. Similarly, the Microsoft of the 90's is gone, too. The iron fisted "our way or the highway" is as dated as the phrase "bloated" is - that is just tiresome... most especially when one considers hardware resources across the platform relative to actual growth in the Windows code base - massive amounts of processing power, cheap memory and dirt cheap and very large and fast hard drives really have made such comparisons seem silly. It really is time to move past the usual nonsense and work to discuss, engage and interoperate with a variety of platforms. To get to that place, some give has to be offered from the other side - recognition that while others may not "be" evil, that they too have done things which "are" evil - or at least not very nice... and equally, that as much as any one person may love their Mac, that it too has very real limitations and it is okay to discuss them without being burned at the virtual stake, or branded a mindless Microsoft shill. |
| #16 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 1/23/2009 11:50:32 AM |
|
#15: Well, it sure looked like a petulant outburst to me. "If you like Mac so much, fine! Go use it!" And all because TL said his sister's been happy with a Mac. How dare he comment positively about a Mac!
I think too that there is a lot of justifiable frustration on the Windows side opposite old and now inapplicable "truths" - security for example - Windows is now very secure and keeping it more secure is easier than ever. OK, I was following along just fine until that last bit. I have a hard time juxtaposing your claims of Windows security with the reality of the vast array of malware that affects Windows, including the downadup worm that is hitting Windows hard as we speak. |
| #17 By 16797 (65.93.30.22) at 1/23/2009 12:29:03 PM |
|
#16 It's not at all that he's commenting positively about Mac. It's just that he's (like you) constantly trashing MS/Windows, yet he's still running it, obviously.. If I was that dissatisfied with any OS, I'd switch, especially if another option is so problem free.
Simply, he (TL) should put his money where his mouth is. |
| #18 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 1/23/2009 1:16:22 PM |
| #17: It's never that black & white. TL said Mac suits his sister better, and in turn this helps him not strangle her on a regular basis, so he's fine with that. Nobody said Mac was problem-free. If, as you say, you're supposed to quit something if you aren't happy with it, half the US would have moved to Canada over the past 8 years and the other half should be making their moving plans right about now. As far as I'm aware, AW isn't an MS propaganda centre. Differences in opinion and the sometimes heated debate that goes along with it are what make this site interesting. How fun would it be if AW were a Borg-like Microbot hive mind? |
| #19 By 16797 (65.93.30.22) at 1/23/2009 1:51:17 PM |
|
#18 Spin, spin, spin..
He said that he would welcome more Mac-like Windows. And then, to explain that, he said, basically, that his sister is not calling him for help since she switched... "and that says something :)" It is clear what, at least it is clear to me, is it that he wanted to say: that you'll have less problems if you're running Mac/OSX. So, why wait? Go, switch. Do what your big sister already did. Be happy family again :) P.S. (You're saying that switching operating systems is equal to moving from one country to another? LOL Man, I knew you're dumb, but now you're taking it to a whole new level.) |
| #20 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 1/23/2009 2:12:08 PM |
|
#19: He said that he would welcome more Mac-like Windows.
Yes, and what did he mean? The UI? The ease of use? I don't know for sure but you seem pretty confident that you know. And then, to explain that, he said, basically, that his sister is not calling him for help since she switched... "and that says something :)" How are you making that presumptuous connection? His sister doesn't call him because she can manage on her own with a Mac, something she apparently couldn't do with Windows. So, you've taken a generic statement from him about wishing Windows were more Mac-like (in some way) and his sister having an easier time with Mac, and you turn it into him being a Mac fanboy? You must be a hay farmer with all the strawmen you keep making. You're saying that switching operating systems is equal to moving from one country to another? Sure, why not? It's the same principle at work. If you don't like something, just switch. No need to try and change what you don't like, no need to add your voice to others with the same gripes -- just quit. The level of difficulty is irrelevant if you believe in your principles, right? That's what you're advocating, isn't it? The reason it sounds so dumb is because it IS that dumb, just like your original statement. I admire Porsches and I can afford one, but I won't be buying one because it's impractical for me to do so. But I can still admire them or a specific feature of them even though I'm currently driving a Chev. |
| #21 By 8556 (12.208.163.37) at 1/23/2009 2:33:12 PM |
| I like the OS that makes me the most money on service. Windows is on about 90% of PCs. Ya gotta eat. |
| #22 By 23275 (172.16.10.31) at 1/23/2009 5:32:10 PM |
|
Latch - you simply have to understand that NO FORM OF MALWARE can do didly on a Vista/Windows 7 box that a user does not allow and approve. The admin account is disabled by default. ASLR+NX/DEP are on by default. Even remote code executions for KNOWN remote code exploits FAIL. All users run as standard users and all users must in one form or another, approve all changes to the system.
XP users are wide open, but XP is well beyond any consideration for the majority of users - regardless of installed base. Similarly, the vuln. you speak of was patched in October... We have to get past these "truths" you keep going BACK to - we need to move on. |
| #23 By 197078 (71.75.165.238) at 1/23/2009 8:40:20 PM |
|
Iketchum makes a solid point. Yesterday Macworld reported that (at least!) 20,000 Mac users were infected with OSX-specific malware when they were pirating iWorks software.
http://www.macworld.com/article/138380/iworktrojan.html Does this mean Macs are now insecure? This post was edited by MonsE on Friday, January 23, 2009 at 20:40. |
| #24 By 3 (80.6.17.178) at 1/25/2009 8:33:36 AM |
|
#23 - less so than windows - but it was always able to have viruses and such like. The main point of that story is that it serves the pirates right.
#10 - agree there - expose and spaces offers far more than Windows 7 has for the desktop and taskbar right now. Again same as Brian - doesn't mean the problems lloyd mentions dont happen, but through 4 years of using OSX I haven't run into them. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 326 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:09:42 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
