|
Sydney2287 Posts
This was originally a reply to the current discussion in Buy Mac or PC laptop? that became a lot longer than I was expecting. And I ran into a few topics I'd like to cover in other blog posts, so I made a blog instead of replying.
This is me talking about why I use OSX. If people like it, or want to know why I also have an iPad, and other apple stuff that I'm happy to talk about, I'll be happy to write more. If people couldn't care less, then I'll just use this to link to next time someone asks why I use OSX.
Please excuse me if I wax lyrical on this topic. I am trying very hard to remain objective but this piece is by nature biased, it's why I believe OSX is a better operating system to be running than Windows. My background here is a fierce apple hater from about the age of 7 when we were forced to use macs in primary school and they were absolutely horrible. I would classify myself as having been a 'power user' of XP/Windows Vista like many of you would yourselves, I can't classify myself as such with windows 7, but I have used it more than the average person. Only 3 years ago did I finally have cause to question this, and didn't get a mac till 1.5 years ago when I got my current macbook pro.
I will also preface this entire piece by saying that as a gaming operating system, at the current time, OSX loses to Windows. Not so horribly as it used to with Steam recently coming to Mac and Blizzard has always supported the platform. Even games like HoN have native clients. I am hopeful that this will expand in the future, but it will be years down the track if it ever happens. If you're after a gaming machine that you want to keep up to date with the latest specs (You replace parts on a year-two yearly basis), then sure, get a PC. If, like me, you find that you don't buy new parts for 3~ years, then boot camping a mac will suffice. Macs have a great resale market if you keep them in great condition, it's entirely feasible to resell and buy a new mac every 3 years, keeping up with the general specs race. You'll never have absolutely state of the art, but I find that this is rarely necessary. You will have the capability to run just about anything though. Enough disclaimers, onto some specifics about OSX.
Final thing, i'm not trying to convince you to get OSX. I'm explaining why I choose to use it.
The first thing to mention is the window manager OSX uses, and how it is fundamentally different to the way Windows works. In Windows, typically you run an exe file and a window will pop up. E.g. word, you run word and you get a Word window. This window is also the Word process. You close the window, you close both. The window holds the document you're working on, and the program itself. In OSX, you open a program and an icon will appear in the dock. This is the program itself. Now if you open a file, make a new file, do anything with that program, you open windows, which are tied only to the document being opened. So I open word, and open a document, close the document, word is still open. There are no windows open, but the program is still running. Where this becomes useful is when you would typically alt tab to change windows on a Windows machine, if you have 4 copies of word open, then you'll see 4 word icons. On OSX you'll only see 1, and then if you want to go between your open Word documents, you'll use command + ~ to swap between open windows of the current program. A lot of people miss this, and it causes a lot of the confusion that I encounter in new mac users, expecting things to work like they do in windows.
What is happening there is 2 different metaphors to deal with the same problem. In this case, I'm not going to say that one is definitively better than the other. I will say that I prefer the OSX way of doing things after having used it and windows, but it took me about 2 weeks of using it to actually understand what was going on after being frustrated with it not acting like Windows. This brings me to the point that a lot of concerns Windows users typically have with OSX is that the metaphors they're used to aren't present or are subtly different. Having your habits forcibly changed to work with the new system causes confusion and usually resentment, usually without spending the time to understand the metaphor and trying to use it the way its intended, rather than forcing it to work the way you're expecting, only because of what you're used to with another operating system.
Going back to the whole alt tabbing thing, Exposé. Exposé for those who don't know it is OSX's primary way of finding your window amongst the clutter. It has 3 functions.
1) Arrange every open window so that they're all showing (shrink them down so they all fit on the screen) and let the user pick which window they want to have focus.
2) The same thing, but only windows of the current program.
3) Shove every window off the screen so you have uninterrupted view of the desktop.
It is infinitely easier to find the window you're looking for than alt tab, making it faster. I spend less time looking for my window, making me more productive.
Spaces will be familiar to a lot of linux users, basically spaces are multiple desktops, in the sense that each desktop is a receptacle for program windows to reside in. This comes in very handy when I'm working between programs, with multiple windows for each program. I generally have my browser in 1 or 2 spaces, finder windows for each of the folder locations I'm working with in 1 space, next to a terminal for ssh or whatever commands I'll need to run on the files I'm making. I'll then have my editor taking up it's own 3rd space, and I haven't really had a need for any others. It's probably very likely that something like this exists as a 3rd party windows program. In my experience it's also likely that this 3rd party program will experience 1 or more of these problems:
1) Abandoned project
2) Will crash
3) Functionality is slow
4) Has user experience problems (10 million unnecessary settings, complicated system to change desktops, etc)
I'm not even making these up. In 10 years of working with windows, every time I have tried to add this kind of functionality to the system, be it expose replacement, a launchbar, multiple desktops, one or more of these problems will crop up.
Spaces on OSX is nearly unnoticeable once you work out how to use it in your workflow. Command 1 2 3 4 5 or 6 (Can set up to 9 spaces, I have 6, only use 3. Very much personal preference) for whatever space I want to be working in at the time, and if I click on the dock icon of a program that doesn't have any windows open in the space I'm working in, it'll immediately move me to the space that it is working in.
Almost all software utilises the cocoa framework and benefits from shared UI components, creating a user experience that is unsurpassed in consistency. Elaborating on this, it's very easy to learn how to use new software on OSX. They have shared ui components, the current trend is to have programs that look like this:
![[image loading]](http://www.jameshiscock.com/files/coda.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.jameshiscock.com/files/things.png)
Now I'm not going to try and argue why that's the best way for the ui to be (though as someone who is professionally invested in the field I definitely agree with a lot of what they do even if there could be improvements) but what I will say is that the consistency across almost all 3rd party and 1st party software is so, so helpful. Each program has its own little twists on the paradigm, but they keep to the guidelines. Just a little example of how this consistency is nice, every program has the options/settings/preferences window in the same location of the menu, and is almost always accessible by command + comma. No matter where I'm in in what program, I know that if I hit command + comma I'm going to get the settings window, or command + i to get the information window for what I've selected. This doesn't happen with windows software, and I honestly can't explain why other than that they don't have the same ubiquitous development framework for all applications (I realise that it's just a choice of everyone using the same thing, but it's not happening in Windows land. Would be a very interesting world if it was).
On the topic of OSX software, the level of integration between programs is a step above what you experience in windows. In windows your programs exist in silos. This is my Word silo, this is my Browser silo, this is my Calendar silo. To interoperate, you almost always have to save a file, and then open that file in another program. Sometimes you can drag and drop between programs. OSX dragging and dropping between program windows is commonplace, also you have situations where one program, for example calendar, will sync its stuff with mail automatically. And if you want to disable/enable/modify this functionality there will be a preferences section to control the behaviour.
If you're familiar with unix you're familiar with the concept of piping input and output between programs. OSX achieves a similar effect with GUI programs though the use of what they call Services. When you run an application it signs itself up for a set of services. Services can be run on a set amount of types of content, be it files, text, images etc. But basically I'll have my todo list manager called Things (one of the previous screenshots I showed) which has signed up for the a text service. OSX then puts into the context menu for when you right click highlighted text an option to make a new todo with highlighted text as an attached note. This is one example, but you can imagine the types of uses this can, and is put to.
![[image loading]](http://www.jameshiscock.com/files/Services.png)
To summarise the last few points, 3rd party software on OSX is simply put, better quality and better integrated into the OS than 3rd party software on Windows. There is an argument that this is independent of the platform, but I would argue that it's the case because OSX does more to enable it. I wish Windows software was more like this, but it isn't.
On top of the OS features, there are some 'killer' applications for me that make it worthwhile:
- Launchbar / Quicksilver Application launcher(s) on steroids. Launching an application comes in 3 parts. Application, File, Action. Most of the time I only use Application, but if I know what I'm doing to what I'm doing, in what I'm doing I'll ctrl + space and type it in. Then it happens.
- Textmate The best text editor I've ever used. Closest thing I can think of on windows is Notepad++. Some people might prefer vi, emacs or some variant of those two, but lo and behold, you've got them on OSX. Not on Windows (without serious hassle)
- Things Changed my life. Todo list manager with a deep level of integration into the OS and other programs. Best todo list manager GUI that enabled a Getting Things Done approach that I've been able to find. I realise this is anecdotal but I do know 1 person who uses a mac purely for this application.
- Growl Notification unifier. All programs can send growl content to put in notification form, you can customise how these notifications appear with growl preferences. Has become de facto standard for popup notifications (a la your MSN notifications for those that use MSN) across OSX.
There are more to be honest, but I am trying to cut down to the absolutely must have applications that I really, really miss when I'm working in Windows. One that I'll add that I know will cause contention is iTunes. I realise that it's available on Windows, and that a *lot* of people hate it. I think it's shit on windows, the UI is clunky and it's missing functionality, on OSX it runs beautifully smooth and other media organisation programs I've tried don't match it.
Something I see from a lot of posters is that you can't customise OSX. Back when I actually cared (When I realised how good OSX is) this used to piss me off. Anyway, any menu item of any application can be configured to have a hotkey. I have hotkeys for bookmarks in safari because bookmarks show up in the menu (via a bunch of submenus but they're accessible through the central hotkey registry). Doesn't exist in windows, kills me when I go back there and find menu items in programs that I can't get a hotkey for.
There's one more major feature of OSX for me, Unix. As a developer, specifically a web developer, if all the rest of the features I've talked about didn't exist, I would still use OSX for this reason. It also puts to bed anyone who says that OSX limits you. Just open up a terminal and start typing. There has been absolutely nothing I wanted to do that I can't do on this machine. This point deserves more, but I suspect it's not relevant to half the people who would read this, so I'll leave it at that.
Final feature I'd like to talk about is Quick Look. While navigating through files/folders in Finder, press space on any file and it will open the file in a temporary lightbox-like popup and show the file in that. Media will play, images can be viewed, html will be rendered, programs can also register how their associated files should be quick-viewed. You can then press up/down/left/right to navigate through folders/files with quickview open still.
To wrap it all up, some small things which I can't be bothered explaining but will explain if you want to know about them in replies:
- Screenshotting
- Ctrl + scroll for zooming in/out of the screen
- say
- AppleScript / Automator / Shell Scripts
- Dashboard
- Finder vs Explorer
That's a rundown of a lot of the features that I can't replicate in Windows to a degree of quality that I would expect, that I very much miss when I go back to working on a Windows machine.
|
I just typed a really long response, and then my internet crashed, can't recover what I typed...
In short, magnificent post. command + ~ is an amazing shortcut, Growl seemed annoying at first, but it was actually very useful. I just downloaded TextMate trial... and I wish it was free. Seems like an amazing application.
|
This first quote is from the Mac or PC laptop thread where you posted your blog entry link.
On June 11 2010 20:10 Bockit wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2010 19:32 space_yes wrote:On June 11 2010 15:28 -SaRiS- wrote:
Mac OS X is so incredibly superior to Windows that I couldn't even image the possibility that I would ever buy a PC again.
Feel free to support your argument  I'll throw out there that Mac OS X has the worst mouse acceleration curve among any operating system. Any comparison also depends on what version of windows you're talking about.. Did it for him.
No offense but your blog entry lacks any substantive OS comparisons and is mostly a dense comparison of UI elements that strongly suggests you've never used Windows 7. Most of the UI benefits you bring up about OS X are implemented in Windows 7. You also have some random stuff tacked on at the end that made me lol:
# Screenshotting
# Ctrl + scroll for zooming in/out of the screen
# say
# AppleScript / Automator / Shell Scripts
# Dashboard
# Finder vs Explorer
Your most persuasive argument is third party software integration but you don't impact this at all so it's difficult to evaluate; impact analysis is important b/c Windows has significantly more third party software. How do I compare an OS that has way more software versus an OS that has better integration (by integration you actually mean consistent UI)? There's also a strong argument against UI consistency given that many applications do completely different things that may necessitate a standards-based UI divergence. For example, why would I necessarily want the same UI elements in Mathematica that are in Word?
You'll notice I've strategically not actually taken a position on which OS is intrinsically better b/c it mostly depends on user needs. Even though your post was lengthy I didn't find it very helpful or clear 
There are numerous better comparisons you can find online by googling that are more insightful and beneficial towards the average user. If you're that average user here are two well-written comparisons from gizmodo:
Taskbar or Doc
Mac OS X or Win 7
Also, thanks for blogging this instead of inserting it into the thread which might have taken it off topic
EDIT: Clarity and background. I want to add I've used all flavors of Windows, Mac OS X and several flavors of Linux. I've generally been of the opinion that Macs OSes had a better user experience in terms of UI design until Win 7 and now it's kind of a wash. I don't consider Linux something for the average user but I use it frequently as a computer science major.
|
Pretty much sums up my experience with Mac, and why I miss lots of these features (especially things like Quicksilver). I'm forced to use windows and ubuntu for my job and college and they're pretty good (windows 7), but imo they're still behind in overall user experience OSX has.
|
I totally agree. I have been a windows using all my life, but decided to try out OSX with my new macbook pro and I can't agree more. The harmony between the trackpad and functions like expose just make my day so much easier.
|
I am very well-acquainted with both Mac OS X and Windows 7, so I'd like to offer my own opinion, as well as responding to several points.
On June 11 2010 20:08 Bockit wrote:
I will also preface this entire piece by saying that as a gaming operating system, at the current time, OSX loses to Windows.
Mac OS X will continue to lose to Windows in gaming until they include an option to disable the mouse acceleration. They don't even have to change the current acceleration, but have a way to turn it *off.*
Where this becomes useful is when you would typically alt tab to change windows on a Windows machine, if you have 4 copies of word open, then you'll see 4 word icons.
Interesting thing to point out: I love what Microsoft did with the taskbar in Windows 7. All windows of the same application are gathered under one icon in the taskbar. When you click on that icon, you can then choose which window you want to switch to. Very, very useful. I've actually gotten in the habit of minimizing windows when I change focus because I'm so used to using the taskbar to switch tasks instead of Expose.
The difference between alt-tab in Windows 7 and command-tab in OS X is in Windows 7, alt-tab switches between windows, but in OS X, command-tab switches through running applications.
This brings me to the point that a lot of concerns Windows users typically have with OSX is that the metaphors they're used to aren't present or are subtly different. Having your habits forcibly changed to work with the new system causes confusion and usually resentment, usually without spending the time to understand the metaphor and trying to use it the way its intended, rather than forcing it to work the way you're expecting, only because of what you're used to with another operating system.
Mac users do the same thing to Windows as well. Windows 7 really isn't that bad, if you take the time to learn how to use it.
Almost all software utilises the cocoa framework and benefits from shared UI components, creating a user experience that is unsurpassed in consistency. Elaborating on this, it's very easy to learn how to use new software on OSX. They have shared ui components, the current trend is to have programs that look like this:
[images removed]
Now I'm not going to try and argue why that's the best way for the ui to be (though as someone who is professionally invested in the field I definitely agree with a lot of what they do even if there could be improvements) but what I will say is that the consistency across almost all 3rd party and 1st party software is so, so helpful. Each program has its own little twists on the paradigm, but they keep to the guidelines. Just a little example of how this consistency is nice, every program has the options/settings/preferences window in the same location of the menu, and is almost always accessible by command + comma. No matter where I'm in in what program, I know that if I hit command + comma I'm going to get the settings window, or command + i to get the information window for what I've selected. This doesn't happen with windows software, and I honestly can't explain why other than that they don't have the same ubiquitous development framework for all applications (I realise that it's just a choice of everyone using the same thing, but it's not happening in Windows land. Would be a very interesting world if it was).
Another note about the UI: Mac OS X has a shared menu bar at the top of the screen, that changes when you shift focus to a different application. Windows has menu bars on individual windows. I'll give a comparison of the two ways in the spoiler.
+ Show Spoiler [Mac OS X vs. Windows 7 menu bars] +The most basic advantage of Windows 7-style menu bars, with menu bars on each window, is that you don't have to change applications before you can click on something on the menu bar. However, the Mac way of doing things has several advantages.
Firstly, having menu bars on every window wastes space. Considering that monitors are usually wider than they are tall, wasting vertical space isn't a good thing to do. This really comes into play on small monitors like those on netbooks (ironic because Mac OS X doesn't run on netbooks anyways, and almost all Linux distributions use Windows-style menu bars).
Secondly, from a usability standpoint, the Mac OS X menu bar is superior. Most of us probably don't notice this since we're all used to very precise mouse movements, but think about the target size of the menu bars in windows. Now, in Mac OS X, the menu bar at the top of the screen is approximately the same size in terms of pixels, but because it's at a screen edge, the target size is actually significantly larger. Because the mouse doesn't move beyond the edge of the display, you don't have to factor in vertical precision at all if you want to choose a menu option quickly.
To illustrate this example, suppose your mouse cursor is in the exact center of your monitor. Suppose you wanted to hit a target that was exactly one pixel large. Where are the five places you could place that pixel and consistently hit it? The answer is the four corners of the screen and the pixel where the mouse cursor currently is. When the target is in the corners, you don't have to worry about any precision whatsoever. Your target is, effectively, a mile high and a mile wide. As long as you don't under shoot the distance, you'll hit it. When the target is the cursor your mouse is currently occupying, you only have to worry about not moving at all.
On the topic of OSX software, the level of integration between programs is a step above what you experience in windows. In windows your programs exist in silos. This is my Word silo, this is my Browser silo, this is my Calendar silo. To interoperate, you almost always have to save a file, and then open that file in another program. Sometimes you can drag and drop between programs. OSX dragging and dropping between program windows is commonplace, also you have situations where one program, for example calendar, will sync its stuff with mail automatically. And if you want to disable/enable/modify this functionality there will be a preferences section to control the behaviour.
If you're familiar with unix you're familiar with the concept of piping input and output between programs. OSX achieves a similar effect with GUI programs though the use of what they call Services. When you run an application it signs itself up for a set of services. Services can be run on a set amount of types of content, be it files, text, images etc. But basically I'll have my todo list manager called Things (one of the previous screenshots I showed) which has signed up for the a text service. OSX then puts into the context menu for when you right click highlighted text an option to make a new todo with highlighted text as an attached note. This is one example, but you can imagine the types of uses this can, and is put to.
[Image removed]
To summarise the last few points, 3rd party software on OSX is simply put, better quality and better integrated into the OS than 3rd party software on Windows. There is an argument that this is independent of the platform, but I would argue that it's the case because OSX does more to enable it. I wish Windows software was more like this, but it isn't.
This is one of the true strengths of Mac OS X, and one that most people don't notice. Most people consider Apple as the best UI designer in the industry. What they don't realize is that this extends to third-party applications as well. Most third-party applications could pass as Apple-designed applications. Also, the level of integration of Apple applications is ridiculously good. I've never found anything close anywhere else, not even in Linux. Even the KDE desktop environment has nothing on OS X in terms of application integration.
On top of the OS features, there are some 'killer' applications for me that make it worthwhile: - Launchbar / Quicksilver Application launcher(s) on steroids. Launching an application comes in 3 parts. Application, File, Action. Most of the time I only use Application, but if I know what I'm doing to what I'm doing, in what I'm doing I'll ctrl + space and type it in. Then it happens.
QUICKSILVER! OMG QUICKSILVER! Best third-party application for anything *ever.* I'm surprised Apple hasn't simply taken it and put it in as a standard part of mac os x.
- Textmate The best text editor I've ever used. Closest thing I can think of on windows is Notepad++. Some people might prefer vi, emacs or some variant of those two, but lo and behold, you've got them on OSX. Not on Windows (without serious hassle)
- Things Changed my life. Todo list manager with a deep level of integration into the OS and other programs. Best todo list manager GUI that enabled a Getting Things Done approach that I've been able to find. I realise this is anecdotal but I do know 1 person who uses a mac purely for this application.
- Growl Notification unifier. All programs can send growl content to put in notification form, you can customise how these notifications appear with growl preferences. Has become de facto standard for popup notifications (a la your MSN notifications for those that use MSN) across OSX.
Growl is great too, I'd like Apple to integrate that into OS X as well. Especially considering Growl already has plugins for pretty much every major OS X application.
Something I see from a lot of posters is that you can't customise OSX. Back when I actually cared (When I realised how good OSX is) this used to piss me off. Anyway, any menu item of any application can be configured to have a hotkey. I have hotkeys for bookmarks in safari because bookmarks show up in the menu (via a bunch of submenus but they're accessible through the central hotkey registry). Doesn't exist in windows, kills me when I go back there and find menu items in programs that I can't get a hotkey for.
There's one more major feature of OSX for me, Unix. As a developer, specifically a web developer, if all the rest of the features I've talked about didn't exist, I would still use OSX for this reason. It also puts to bed anyone who says that OSX limits you. Just open up a terminal and start typing. There has been absolutely nothing I wanted to do that I can't do on this machine. This point deserves more, but I suspect it's not relevant to half the people who would read this, so I'll leave it at that.
QFT. You may not be able to customize as much as you want to within the GUI, but you can do it in Terminal. The only thing I haven't figured out how to do yet is turn off the mouse acceleration.
|
Great post.
I recently got a Mac and that read was a bit helpful.
I feel that Windows 7 is windows getting one step closer to trying to get Mac OS and just give up on their own buggy system.
|
I picked up a macbook for work and I use both OS X and Win 7 a lot and so far OS X hasn't offered me anything that I care too much about. I agree with pretty much everything in the OP but none of it is enough for me to really switch over to OS X if I had to choose. I find no problem using Windows.
|
On June 12 2010 04:47 vAltyR wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I am very well-acquainted with both Mac OS X and Windows 7, so I'd like to offer my own opinion, as well as responding to several points. On June 11 2010 20:08 Bockit wrote:
I will also preface this entire piece by saying that as a gaming operating system, at the current time, OSX loses to Windows. Mac OS X will continue to lose to Windows in gaming until they include an option to disable the mouse acceleration. They don't even have to change the current acceleration, but have a way to turn it *off.*
Where this becomes useful is when you would typically alt tab to change windows on a Windows machine, if you have 4 copies of word open, then you'll see 4 word icons.
Interesting thing to point out: I love what Microsoft did with the taskbar in Windows 7. All windows of the same application are gathered under one icon in the taskbar. When you click on that icon, you can then choose which window you want to switch to. Very, very useful. I've actually gotten in the habit of minimizing windows when I change focus because I'm so used to using the taskbar to switch tasks instead of Expose. The difference between alt-tab in Windows 7 and command-tab in OS X is in Windows 7, alt-tab switches between windows, but in OS X, command-tab switches through running applications. This brings me to the point that a lot of concerns Windows users typically have with OSX is that the metaphors they're used to aren't present or are subtly different. Having your habits forcibly changed to work with the new system causes confusion and usually resentment, usually without spending the time to understand the metaphor and trying to use it the way its intended, rather than forcing it to work the way you're expecting, only because of what you're used to with another operating system. Mac users do the same thing to Windows as well. Windows 7 really isn't that bad, if you take the time to learn how to use it.
Almost all software utilises the cocoa framework and benefits from shared UI components, creating a user experience that is unsurpassed in consistency. Elaborating on this, it's very easy to learn how to use new software on OSX. They have shared ui components, the current trend is to have programs that look like this:
[images removed]
Now I'm not going to try and argue why that's the best way for the ui to be (though as someone who is professionally invested in the field I definitely agree with a lot of what they do even if there could be improvements) but what I will say is that the consistency across almost all 3rd party and 1st party software is so, so helpful. Each program has its own little twists on the paradigm, but they keep to the guidelines. Just a little example of how this consistency is nice, every program has the options/settings/preferences window in the same location of the menu, and is almost always accessible by command + comma. No matter where I'm in in what program, I know that if I hit command + comma I'm going to get the settings window, or command + i to get the information window for what I've selected. This doesn't happen with windows software, and I honestly can't explain why other than that they don't have the same ubiquitous development framework for all applications (I realise that it's just a choice of everyone using the same thing, but it's not happening in Windows land. Would be a very interesting world if it was).
Another note about the UI: Mac OS X has a shared menu bar at the top of the screen, that changes when you shift focus to a different application. Windows has menu bars on individual windows. I'll give a comparison of the two ways in the spoiler. + Show Spoiler [Mac OS X vs. Windows 7 menu bars] +The most basic advantage of Windows 7-style menu bars, with menu bars on each window, is that you don't have to change applications before you can click on something on the menu bar. However, the Mac way of doing things has several advantages.
Firstly, having menu bars on every window wastes space. Considering that monitors are usually wider than they are tall, wasting vertical space isn't a good thing to do. This really comes into play on small monitors like those on netbooks (ironic because Mac OS X doesn't run on netbooks anyways, and almost all Linux distributions use Windows-style menu bars).
Secondly, from a usability standpoint, the Mac OS X menu bar is superior. Most of us probably don't notice this since we're all used to very precise mouse movements, but think about the target size of the menu bars in windows. Now, in Mac OS X, the menu bar at the top of the screen is approximately the same size in terms of pixels, but because it's at a screen edge, the target size is actually significantly larger. Because the mouse doesn't move beyond the edge of the display, you don't have to factor in vertical precision at all if you want to choose a menu option quickly.
To illustrate this example, suppose your mouse cursor is in the exact center of your monitor. Suppose you wanted to hit a target that was exactly one pixel large. Where are the five places you could place that pixel and consistently hit it? The answer is the four corners of the screen and the pixel where the mouse cursor currently is. When the target is in the corners, you don't have to worry about any precision whatsoever. Your target is, effectively, a mile high and a mile wide. As long as you don't under shoot the distance, you'll hit it. When the target is the cursor your mouse is currently occupying, you only have to worry about not moving at all.
On the topic of OSX software, the level of integration between programs is a step above what you experience in windows. In windows your programs exist in silos. This is my Word silo, this is my Browser silo, this is my Calendar silo. To interoperate, you almost always have to save a file, and then open that file in another program. Sometimes you can drag and drop between programs. OSX dragging and dropping between program windows is commonplace, also you have situations where one program, for example calendar, will sync its stuff with mail automatically. And if you want to disable/enable/modify this functionality there will be a preferences section to control the behaviour.
If you're familiar with unix you're familiar with the concept of piping input and output between programs. OSX achieves a similar effect with GUI programs though the use of what they call Services. When you run an application it signs itself up for a set of services. Services can be run on a set amount of types of content, be it files, text, images etc. But basically I'll have my todo list manager called Things (one of the previous screenshots I showed) which has signed up for the a text service. OSX then puts into the context menu for when you right click highlighted text an option to make a new todo with highlighted text as an attached note. This is one example, but you can imagine the types of uses this can, and is put to.
[Image removed]
To summarise the last few points, 3rd party software on OSX is simply put, better quality and better integrated into the OS than 3rd party software on Windows. There is an argument that this is independent of the platform, but I would argue that it's the case because OSX does more to enable it. I wish Windows software was more like this, but it isn't.
This is one of the true strengths of Mac OS X, and one that most people don't notice. Most people consider Apple as the best UI designer in the industry. What they don't realize is that this extends to third-party applications as well. Most third-party applications could pass as Apple-designed applications. Also, the level of integration of Apple applications is ridiculously good. I've never found anything close anywhere else, not even in Linux. Even the KDE desktop environment has nothing on OS X in terms of application integration. On top of the OS features, there are some 'killer' applications for me that make it worthwhile: - Launchbar / Quicksilver Application launcher(s) on steroids. Launching an application comes in 3 parts. Application, File, Action. Most of the time I only use Application, but if I know what I'm doing to what I'm doing, in what I'm doing I'll ctrl + space and type it in. Then it happens.
QUICKSILVER! OMG QUICKSILVER! Best third-party application for anything *ever.* I'm surprised Apple hasn't simply taken it and put it in as a standard part of mac os x. - Textmate The best text editor I've ever used. Closest thing I can think of on windows is Notepad++. Some people might prefer vi, emacs or some variant of those two, but lo and behold, you've got them on OSX. Not on Windows (without serious hassle)
- Things Changed my life. Todo list manager with a deep level of integration into the OS and other programs. Best todo list manager GUI that enabled a Getting Things Done approach that I've been able to find. I realise this is anecdotal but I do know 1 person who uses a mac purely for this application.
- Growl Notification unifier. All programs can send growl content to put in notification form, you can customise how these notifications appear with growl preferences. Has become de facto standard for popup notifications (a la your MSN notifications for those that use MSN) across OSX.
Growl is great too, I'd like Apple to integrate that into OS X as well. Especially considering Growl already has plugins for pretty much every major OS X application.
Something I see from a lot of posters is that you can't customise OSX. Back when I actually cared (When I realised how good OSX is) this used to piss me off. Anyway, any menu item of any application can be configured to have a hotkey. I have hotkeys for bookmarks in safari because bookmarks show up in the menu (via a bunch of submenus but they're accessible through the central hotkey registry). Doesn't exist in windows, kills me when I go back there and find menu items in programs that I can't get a hotkey for.
There's one more major feature of OSX for me, Unix. As a developer, specifically a web developer, if all the rest of the features I've talked about didn't exist, I would still use OSX for this reason. It also puts to bed anyone who says that OSX limits you. Just open up a terminal and start typing. There has been absolutely nothing I wanted to do that I can't do on this machine. This point deserves more, but I suspect it's not relevant to half the people who would read this, so I'll leave it at that.
QFT. You may not be able to customize as much as you want to within the GUI, but you can do it in Terminal. The only thing I haven't figured out how to do yet is turn off the mouse acceleration.
If you download a mouse driver called USB Overdrive, it allows you to disable Mouse Acceleration. It also allows you to customize buttons, change sensitivity, etc. Has been very useful, especially for gaming.
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 12 2010 23:54 Archaic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2010 04:47 vAltyR wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I am very well-acquainted with both Mac OS X and Windows 7, so I'd like to offer my own opinion, as well as responding to several points. On June 11 2010 20:08 Bockit wrote:
I will also preface this entire piece by saying that as a gaming operating system, at the current time, OSX loses to Windows. Mac OS X will continue to lose to Windows in gaming until they include an option to disable the mouse acceleration. They don't even have to change the current acceleration, but have a way to turn it *off.*
Where this becomes useful is when you would typically alt tab to change windows on a Windows machine, if you have 4 copies of word open, then you'll see 4 word icons.
Interesting thing to point out: I love what Microsoft did with the taskbar in Windows 7. All windows of the same application are gathered under one icon in the taskbar. When you click on that icon, you can then choose which window you want to switch to. Very, very useful. I've actually gotten in the habit of minimizing windows when I change focus because I'm so used to using the taskbar to switch tasks instead of Expose. The difference between alt-tab in Windows 7 and command-tab in OS X is in Windows 7, alt-tab switches between windows, but in OS X, command-tab switches through running applications. This brings me to the point that a lot of concerns Windows users typically have with OSX is that the metaphors they're used to aren't present or are subtly different. Having your habits forcibly changed to work with the new system causes confusion and usually resentment, usually without spending the time to understand the metaphor and trying to use it the way its intended, rather than forcing it to work the way you're expecting, only because of what you're used to with another operating system. Mac users do the same thing to Windows as well. Windows 7 really isn't that bad, if you take the time to learn how to use it.
Almost all software utilises the cocoa framework and benefits from shared UI components, creating a user experience that is unsurpassed in consistency. Elaborating on this, it's very easy to learn how to use new software on OSX. They have shared ui components, the current trend is to have programs that look like this:
[images removed]
Now I'm not going to try and argue why that's the best way for the ui to be (though as someone who is professionally invested in the field I definitely agree with a lot of what they do even if there could be improvements) but what I will say is that the consistency across almost all 3rd party and 1st party software is so, so helpful. Each program has its own little twists on the paradigm, but they keep to the guidelines. Just a little example of how this consistency is nice, every program has the options/settings/preferences window in the same location of the menu, and is almost always accessible by command + comma. No matter where I'm in in what program, I know that if I hit command + comma I'm going to get the settings window, or command + i to get the information window for what I've selected. This doesn't happen with windows software, and I honestly can't explain why other than that they don't have the same ubiquitous development framework for all applications (I realise that it's just a choice of everyone using the same thing, but it's not happening in Windows land. Would be a very interesting world if it was).
Another note about the UI: Mac OS X has a shared menu bar at the top of the screen, that changes when you shift focus to a different application. Windows has menu bars on individual windows. I'll give a comparison of the two ways in the spoiler. + Show Spoiler [Mac OS X vs. Windows 7 menu bars] +The most basic advantage of Windows 7-style menu bars, with menu bars on each window, is that you don't have to change applications before you can click on something on the menu bar. However, the Mac way of doing things has several advantages.
Firstly, having menu bars on every window wastes space. Considering that monitors are usually wider than they are tall, wasting vertical space isn't a good thing to do. This really comes into play on small monitors like those on netbooks (ironic because Mac OS X doesn't run on netbooks anyways, and almost all Linux distributions use Windows-style menu bars).
Secondly, from a usability standpoint, the Mac OS X menu bar is superior. Most of us probably don't notice this since we're all used to very precise mouse movements, but think about the target size of the menu bars in windows. Now, in Mac OS X, the menu bar at the top of the screen is approximately the same size in terms of pixels, but because it's at a screen edge, the target size is actually significantly larger. Because the mouse doesn't move beyond the edge of the display, you don't have to factor in vertical precision at all if you want to choose a menu option quickly.
To illustrate this example, suppose your mouse cursor is in the exact center of your monitor. Suppose you wanted to hit a target that was exactly one pixel large. Where are the five places you could place that pixel and consistently hit it? The answer is the four corners of the screen and the pixel where the mouse cursor currently is. When the target is in the corners, you don't have to worry about any precision whatsoever. Your target is, effectively, a mile high and a mile wide. As long as you don't under shoot the distance, you'll hit it. When the target is the cursor your mouse is currently occupying, you only have to worry about not moving at all.
On the topic of OSX software, the level of integration between programs is a step above what you experience in windows. In windows your programs exist in silos. This is my Word silo, this is my Browser silo, this is my Calendar silo. To interoperate, you almost always have to save a file, and then open that file in another program. Sometimes you can drag and drop between programs. OSX dragging and dropping between program windows is commonplace, also you have situations where one program, for example calendar, will sync its stuff with mail automatically. And if you want to disable/enable/modify this functionality there will be a preferences section to control the behaviour.
If you're familiar with unix you're familiar with the concept of piping input and output between programs. OSX achieves a similar effect with GUI programs though the use of what they call Services. When you run an application it signs itself up for a set of services. Services can be run on a set amount of types of content, be it files, text, images etc. But basically I'll have my todo list manager called Things (one of the previous screenshots I showed) which has signed up for the a text service. OSX then puts into the context menu for when you right click highlighted text an option to make a new todo with highlighted text as an attached note. This is one example, but you can imagine the types of uses this can, and is put to.
[Image removed]
To summarise the last few points, 3rd party software on OSX is simply put, better quality and better integrated into the OS than 3rd party software on Windows. There is an argument that this is independent of the platform, but I would argue that it's the case because OSX does more to enable it. I wish Windows software was more like this, but it isn't.
This is one of the true strengths of Mac OS X, and one that most people don't notice. Most people consider Apple as the best UI designer in the industry. What they don't realize is that this extends to third-party applications as well. Most third-party applications could pass as Apple-designed applications. Also, the level of integration of Apple applications is ridiculously good. I've never found anything close anywhere else, not even in Linux. Even the KDE desktop environment has nothing on OS X in terms of application integration. On top of the OS features, there are some 'killer' applications for me that make it worthwhile: - Launchbar / Quicksilver Application launcher(s) on steroids. Launching an application comes in 3 parts. Application, File, Action. Most of the time I only use Application, but if I know what I'm doing to what I'm doing, in what I'm doing I'll ctrl + space and type it in. Then it happens.
QUICKSILVER! OMG QUICKSILVER! Best third-party application for anything *ever.* I'm surprised Apple hasn't simply taken it and put it in as a standard part of mac os x. - Textmate The best text editor I've ever used. Closest thing I can think of on windows is Notepad++. Some people might prefer vi, emacs or some variant of those two, but lo and behold, you've got them on OSX. Not on Windows (without serious hassle)
- Things Changed my life. Todo list manager with a deep level of integration into the OS and other programs. Best todo list manager GUI that enabled a Getting Things Done approach that I've been able to find. I realise this is anecdotal but I do know 1 person who uses a mac purely for this application.
- Growl Notification unifier. All programs can send growl content to put in notification form, you can customise how these notifications appear with growl preferences. Has become de facto standard for popup notifications (a la your MSN notifications for those that use MSN) across OSX.
Growl is great too, I'd like Apple to integrate that into OS X as well. Especially considering Growl already has plugins for pretty much every major OS X application.
Something I see from a lot of posters is that you can't customise OSX. Back when I actually cared (When I realised how good OSX is) this used to piss me off. Anyway, any menu item of any application can be configured to have a hotkey. I have hotkeys for bookmarks in safari because bookmarks show up in the menu (via a bunch of submenus but they're accessible through the central hotkey registry). Doesn't exist in windows, kills me when I go back there and find menu items in programs that I can't get a hotkey for.
There's one more major feature of OSX for me, Unix. As a developer, specifically a web developer, if all the rest of the features I've talked about didn't exist, I would still use OSX for this reason. It also puts to bed anyone who says that OSX limits you. Just open up a terminal and start typing. There has been absolutely nothing I wanted to do that I can't do on this machine. This point deserves more, but I suspect it's not relevant to half the people who would read this, so I'll leave it at that.
QFT. You may not be able to customize as much as you want to within the GUI, but you can do it in Terminal. The only thing I haven't figured out how to do yet is turn off the mouse acceleration. If you download a mouse driver called USB Overdrive, it allows you to disable Mouse Acceleration. It also allows you to customize buttons, change sensitivity, etc. Has been very useful, especially for gaming.
The problem with USB Overdrive (aside from having to pay for it) is that it's unreliable and it doesn't actually disable acceleration. It modifies the speed curves so that it's less noticable, but then there's all the other mouse issues that serious PC gamers get rid of (like negative accel and prediction) which you can't touch. I've heard the only true way to disable acceleration is through Microsoft's Intellipoint drivers. :>
About the op, last summer I was using Snow Leopard on a regular basis and I definitely didn't have that experience. Maybe I needed more than two months to get used to it, but even if I had used it the way you describe, I don't think it would've made it faster than how I use Win7.
The 3D alt tab they added in Vista definitely blows, so I've been using Expose (Switcher, in Windows form) since then and I've never had any bugs, slowdowns or crashes (Rocketdock is another issue...) It's nice, but I don't think it's made me more productive. Usually my back and forth switching takes place between two items, which makes alt+tab perfect. If it's more, I actually tend to gravitate towards just using the bottom bar. I think the reason for it is that in Switcher, most windows look similar enough (mostly lots of white/grey space) at a distance that it takes extra work for me to differentiate between them. With the Win7 task bar, you've just go to the application logo and mouseover gives a preview of the different documents.
For some idiotic reason, Internet Explorer separates every single tab into a separate one but Chrome smartly makes things easy to find.
Spaces was designed as OSX's answer to the task bar, and like you said, it does a fine job. Managing multiple windows without it is absolutely horrible, but the thing is, I still think the task bar does it better. If you do happen to prefer the method of spaces, virtual desktops have been around forever. I remember my dad's Acer Travelmate from like 1999 with 2 desktops.
I used to be ambivalent towards Explorer, but the Vista UI change + indexing changed it. For one, it stopped crashing. But two, within folders I have lots of options for navigating, but if I want to open anything, I just open the Start menu and start typing. That's it, 2 step process. I actually grew up on Mac (my first computer was an old Mac Classic) until I built my own PC in 8th grade, but I still had to use MacOS on any computer at all of my schools. I have never liked Finder (which has actually crashed more on me in the past 2 years than Explorer) and the MacOS file structure. I would much rather use the Unix core than what they put on top of it.
I agree with the file bars, and it's actually one of the big reasons I use Chrome over Firefox. I simply get more real estate. One thing I should mention is that even though there's no universal menu between programs like there is in OSX, alt brings up the file menu in all programs and most things with documents have standard shortcuts for things like open, new, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
