NationStates Jolt Archive

So, what do all of you think? Which is the best OS out there? Is it Windows, OSX, Linux, Sun OS, what?
Give your opinions here!

I'm pretty sure this depends on what you have in mind for your operating system to accomplish. For instance, if you want a gaming machine, look no further than Windows XP. If you want a pure server machine, something with Debian ought to be nice.

I'm sure UpwardThrust can continue this post with much more clarity and information than I can.

not that it really matters all that much as linux and osx are based off of unix anyway.OSX is nothing more then a clone of Darwin with the Aqua GUI on top.
sooner or later some clevor geek is going to rip a copy of aqua out of OSX and reprogram it for the x86+ linux core:D.

anyway which is better well that depends

windows=games,has a little prob with malware though
linux varrious distros=great server,deceant everything else(as long as you want to work at it,and have several reather large books handy:headbang:)
mac osx=well to tell the truth i prefered the older mac os, but otherwise fairly deceant os (as long as you accept that the majority of programs are designed for PC's:p)

sun,debian,redhat,kern,etc are all distro's of linux. so pick which you like and run with it:cool:

XP seems excellent to me, I haven't used a gaming Vista before. *starts to drool, then realizes he is*

Like I can play NFS Carbon (what's sitting right in front of me) and NHL 07. Those are the most high-tech games I have, and I'm thinking of buying Tiger Woods PGA 08.

The OS is a tool and it all depends what you want your OS to do. For games, Windows would be the choice. For print and music, a Mac with OSX is probably a good choice and for server enviroments Unix/linux is often the way to go. I don't use a hammer to to tighten the screws and I don't use a screwdriver to hammer in the nails, 'nuff said.

Schwullunde;12999362']not that it really matters all that much as linux and osx are based off of unix anyway.OSX is nothing more then a clone of Darwin with the Aqua GUI on top.
sooner or later some clevor geek is going to rip a copy of aqua out of OSX and reprogram it for the x86+ linux core:D.

anyway which is better well that depends

windows=games,has a little prob with malware though
linux varrious distros=great server,deceant everything else(as long as you want to work at it,and have several reather large books handy:headbang:)
mac osx=well to tell the truth i prefered the older mac os, but otherwise fairly deceant os (as long as you accept that the majority of programs are designed for PC's:p)

sun,debian,redhat,kern,etc are all distro's of linux. so pick which you like and run with it:cool:

Linux is a programming machine, Windows is a gaming machine, and Mac OS X is trying to appeal to both markets (Power users and noobs). So, it really depends on what you're gonna do.

Depends on the purpose

General Desktop productivity I still use windows (vista)

Servers, Debian

Clusters, Sun

Odd hardware, netBSD FreeBSD or sometimes gentoo

Where security is a concern FreeBSD

Networking tools and projects, debian

I own a Mac, so the best system for ME is the Mac OS.

Your mileage may vary.

So, what do all of you think? Which is the best OS out there? Is it Windows, OSX, Linux, Sun OS, what?
Give your opinions here!
When I can get it working properly, I find one of the end-user-oriented distributions of Linux to be the most pleasant OS to use. Unfortunately I've never been able to get XWindows working properly on a widescreen and/or dual display system, even after much tampering with xorg.conf. The rest of the time I use WindowsXP, which once sufficiently customised is usable enough.

I'm pretty sure this depends on what you have in mind for your operating system to accomplish. For instance, if you want a gaming machine, look no further than Windows XP. If you want a pure server machine, something with Debian ought to be nice.

I'm sure UpwardThrust can continue this post with much more clarity and information than I can.

You got the right stuff there though :) the idea is that a one size fits all solution is bunk and that there are different OS's with different primary concerns. SOME of the various solutions I posted but a lot of that is opinion

Me I would focus in FreeBSD Debian and Windows for the most part, the reason is thoes are the ones I am most familiar with and it makes sense to maximize my productivity (I mean when you are paying someone 85 + k a year you make sure that they are productive)

It depends on what I want to do. I have Linux for most everything now, my computer runs faster, it makes more sense to me, I can do stuff on it easier. I have Windows XP for a few programs that won't work on my Linux, when I am working within those programs, Windows is better because I can work. I have a program that I have to use during tax season that I got from the IRS.........and it runs..........on DOS! (yeah, really.)

So, in short, it depends on what I want to do.

It depends on what I want to do. I have Linux for most everything now, my computer runs faster, it makes more sense to me, I can do stuff on it easier. I have Windows XP for a few programs that won't work on my Linux, when I am working within those programs, Windows is better because I can work. I have a program that I have to use during tax season that I got from the IRS.........and it runs..........on DOS! (yeah, really.)

So, in short, it depends on what I want to do.

Hmmm can it be emulated in WINE? ... WINE normally does good at dos based applications

Hmmm can it be emulated in WINE? ... WINE normally does good at dos based applications

my husband did something so I can open it in my Win XP I didn't ask what......I don't care, it's much easier to use it now.

Linux (Ubuntu, to be more specific). Given, I'm still new to the whole Linux thing and still use Windows to do the stuff that I don't yet know how to do in Linux, but if you can find a good guide (Beginning Ubuntu Linux 2nd Edition is particularly useful), you'll be hooked in no time.

That being said, it's already been pointed out that Windows is by far the best gaming OS, so if you're a gamer, it'd be a good idea to install Linux without deleting Windows (which is quite possible to do, and often recommended for this and a couple other reasons). However, it should also be known that many game companies are now developing their games for Linux as well as Windows, with Id (of Doom and Quake fame) being a perfect example.

DOS, on the old 5.25 floppies, back when they were floppy!

For nearly all cases, GNU/Linux. Distro depending on your taste, skills and usage, Debian for servers, Ubuntu or Debian for desktop for me.

On some specific cases, proprietary Unix (like Solaris or AIX) will provide features and performances that no other OS provides (like handling CPU removal without downtime or such), but that's for very specific, high-end servers, cases.

DEFINITLY NOT MAC OS

They're crap! You can't have MSN or anything!!!
Garage Band's quite good though.

But I think Windows Vista is the best.

DEFINITLY NOT MAC OS

They're crap! You can't have MSN or anything!!!
Garage Band's quite good though.

But I think Windows Vista is the best.

They make MSN messenger for OSX

Edit: adium too

CP/M or Tru64.

On a bad day OS2:warp

Still better than anything else that came out of MS in the last 15+ years.

If you need a current OS. Dual boot XP (MCE) and VISTA 64 Ultimate with a Live CD/DVD Linux. Best of 3 worlds.

http://www.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2007/01/1155002950.jpg
Leopard.
October 2007.


( for those of you are staring at your monitor blankly, wondering what the hell I'm on about...

http://www.apple.com/ca/macosx/leopard/

...and for those of you that aren't... ARE YOU AS EXCITED AS I AM?! :p )

http://www.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2007/01/1155002950.jpg
Leopard.
October 2007.


( for those of you are staring at your monitor blankly, wondering what the hell I'm on about...

http://www.apple.com/ca/macosx/leopard/

...and for those of you that aren't... ARE YOU AS EXCITED AS I AM?! :p )

No. Not really!

I liked the OS on my old Adam Coleco computer http://oldcomputers.net/adam.html :)

Linux could be cool, but only ugly people are using it.

Mac OS X? Nah, once Apple was king in usability, but those days are clearly over...

Something from the Windows family? Nah, not really, but Windows2000 wasn't that bad.

I posted in a thread EXACTLY the same as this only a few weeks ago. And I say again XP Pro SP2.

Best for games, not a resource hog, supports everything.

Besides, for Vista you need a fairly fast processor and 12 million GBs of HDD space.

Mac OS X? Nah, once Apple was king in usability, but those days are clearly over...

rofl...

Something from the Windows family? Nah, not really, but Windows2000 wasn't that bad.

... and again...

I liked the OS on my old Adam Coleco computer

Old??? Very, Very old more like!;)

rofl...



... and again...

Well I'm working as a usability engineer since 1993, I think I can decide what is user-friendly and what is not.

About Windows2000, I had several servers at that time. I rarely had a problem and if something occurred a simple reboot did the trick.

Of course Linux is so much better…

The problem is that only a few ugly people are using it.
The sexy people go for Windows or Mac. That’s more than 92% of the computer world.

Currently I have a few XP servers and I suffer more problems than in those Windows2000 times. And it is slower as well.

So for ME and for the tasks I need it for, Windows2000 is far superior.

Personally, I am a Windows fan, at least the vast majority of programs can work on it, unlike certain operating systems. Yes, it does have its problems, however, I can generally bear with it - if I can play my games, then I am sweet

Well I'm working as a usability engineer since 1993, I think I can decide what is user-friendly and what is not.

About Windows2000, I had several servers at that time. I rarely had a problem and if something occurred a simple reboot did the trick.

Of course Linux is so much better…

The problem is that only a few ugly people are using it.
The sexy people go for Windows or Mac. That’s more than 92% of the computer world.

Currently I have a few XP servers and I suffer more problems than in those Windows2000 times. And it is slower as well.

So for ME and for the tasks I need it for, Windows2000 is far superior.

For having been a doohicky-whatzit since whenever, you can form your own opinion about what's user-friendly or not. You don't get to 'decide' jack.

But you seem confused, for all your years of doohicky-whatzing. 92% of the computer world are 'the sexy people'? Have you seen most of the inhabitants of teh interwebs?

Well I'm working as a usability engineer since 1993, I think I can decide what is user-friendly and what is not.


And yet your choices fail my test for "usability" for some operations.

I guess it can not be "decided" by you alone and that there are different interfaces for different usages...

DEFINITLY NOT MAC OS

They're crap! You can't have MSN or anything!!!
Garage Band's quite good though.

But I think Windows Vista is the best.

Because the true test for the functionality of any OS is whether the competition port their proprietary software for it. :rolleyes:
Which, as UpwardThrust pointed out, they do.
Try again.

Because the true test for the functionality of any OS is whether the competition port their proprietary software for it. :rolleyes:
Which, as UpwardThrust pointed out, they do.
Try again.

Yup and office 08 is slotted to come out as well (though I actually was kind of pissed between the release of 07 on the windows platform and 08 on the mac)

Most good points on which OS is good for what have already been mentioned. I'll try to come up with something else to add, hmm...

Windows XP for using specialized applications. Name any common task and there are apps for that task on all major OSes. For example mIRC is Windows only but X-Chat handles IRC on Linux and Colloguy does it on Mac, there are always alternatives for MSN, image editing, spreadsheets, music composition, anything... Except for specialized one in a kind applications that performs some odd task nobody else has thought about like a strategy calculator for some game, tax software or designing annoying Macromedia Flash banners. Then you have to use the OS the only existing app for the job is written for and that is usually Windows. Sure you can use Wine but that is a weird way to do it and unnecessary trouble. If you want to use Windows programs why not just use Windows.

Linux for low maintenance costs, specially on corporate workstations. No virus outbreaks, hdd defrag, Windows regristry mess or reboots needed and few other randomly occuring problems. After you set it up properly with automatic backups and all it just keeps working until it's time to upgrade or replace it. Users can't cause a mess in anything else then their own personal documents. Mount parts of the filesystem like /usr where apps are installed from a network share on your server and you only need to install and update apps on one server instead of hundreds of workstations. I could go on. Someone will mention you can maintain Windows workstations properly but my point is only that it's less troublesome to do so with Linux.

And yet your choices fail my test for "usability" for some operations.

I guess it can not be "decided" by you alone and that there are different interfaces for different usages...

Please forgive me, English is not my mother tongue.

Better would be:

"Well I'm working as a usability engineer since 1993, I think I am capable to decide what is user-friendly and what is not."

You are right. Nerds & the average Joe look different to computer software.

That's why not everybody is using *nix.

No virus outbreaks on Linux?

That's an urban legend. There are a few nice viruses around for Linux.

I recently found one that is working on Apple, Linux and Windows....
It's open source ! :)

Truth is that 'nobody' is using Linux. There is just a smaller ‘programmers’ base for creating virus stuff and, important, a much smaller target!

Why would one do the effort and damage almost no one while he could target Windows systems where the audience is 100 times bigger.

And to be honest, less careful as well.

Linux people in general, know their computer, know the risks about viruses and know what to do when they are infected. Windows people are in general lamer about such stuff.



Most good points on which OS is good for what have already been mentioned. I'll try to come up with something else to add, hmm...

Windows XP for using specialized applications. Name any common task and there are apps for that task on all major OSes. For example mIRC is Windows only but X-Chat handles IRC on Linux and Colloguy does it on Mac, there are always alternatives for MSN, image editing, spreadsheets, music composition, anything... Except for specialized one in a kind applications that performs some odd task nobody else has thought about like a strategy calculator for some game, tax software or designing annoying Macromedia Flash banners. Then you have to use the OS the only existing app for the job is written for and that is usually Windows. Sure you can use Wine but that is a weird way to do it and unnecessary trouble. If you want to use Windows programs why not just use Windows.

Linux for low maintenance costs, specially on corporate workstations. No virus outbreaks, hdd defrag, Windows regristry mess or reboots needed and few other randomly occuring problems. After you set it up properly with automatic backups and all it just keeps working until it's time to upgrade or replace it. Users can't cause a mess in anything else then their own personal documents. Mount parts of the filesystem like /usr where apps are installed from a network share on your server and you only need to install and update apps on one server instead of hundreds of workstations. I could go on. Someone will mention you can maintain Windows workstations properly but my point is only that it's less troublesome to do so with Linux.

Please forgive me, English is not my mother tongue.

Better would be:

"Well I'm working as a usability engineer since 1993, I think I am capable to decide what is user-friendly and what is not."

You are right. Nerds & the average Joe look different to computer software.

That's why not everybody is using *nix.

No, but different software is understood differently by users.

I'm a Photoshop artist. Also since 1993.

A computer is a tool for achieving a task. What I need from a computer is completely different from what you need.

In my experience, the Adobe suite works best on Macs. Because the Mac was originally invented as a desktop publishing machine, and has always had useful graphics integration features. And the main graphics application authors started out writing for Macs, because they were originally invented as desktop publishing machines. Etc.

So for my purposes, the Mac OS is "the best OS".

I am simply more productive working on a Mac, because I simply don't need uber-nerd skillz to make the thing work. It does what I need it to do, it does it well, and easily. I'd call that 'user-friendly'.

I really get tired of this idea that computers have to be esoteric and scary.
They're a tool. Just a tool. Some are more specialised to certain tasks, others are more broadly adaptable. But they're only as effective as our use of them, so an OS that I can easily navigate, because I'm an illustrator not a technician, means I'm getting better usage of the tool.

Therefore a 'better OS'. For me.

I've only used Mac and Windows, but out of the two I prefer Windows by far. I've had significantly less stability problems using Windows, it's a better gaming machine, and it seems it's finally surpassing Mac on video and graphics too.
That and I don't know if Mac finally moved beyond a one-button mouse, but that was annoying as hell. It significantly reduced what you could use a mouse for, both in regular office applications and in games.

Also, I don't want to hear "Macs are better protected against viruses." because if you could say they are, you could also say New England is better prepared for an earthquake than California. After all, while California builds it's buildings specifically to handle an earthquake, when was the last time you even heard of an earthquake in New England? But it's okay, 'cause California's still better prepared for a hurricane than Florida.

Windoiws XP can handle pretty much any program, it's easy to use, and it runs fine on almost every computer they use these days.

And no, linux isn't any safer from viruses than XP is -- jerks simply don't make linux viruses because there are so few computers to infect.

Windoiws XP can handle pretty much any program, it's easy to use, and it runs fine on almost every computer they use these days.

And no, linux isn't any safer from viruses than XP is -- jerks simply don't make linux viruses because there are so few computers to infect.

Saying it does not make it true... care to prove that assertation when I can get down and dirty and customize every single module on my kernel. Customize every piece of software and have a much more comprehensive user rights scheme then windows

The stability of windows does not even approach that of linux sorry

No, but different software is understood differently by users.

I'm a Photoshop artist. Also since 1993.

A computer is a tool for achieving a task. What I need from a computer is completely different from what you need.

In my experience, the Adobe suite works best on Macs. Because the Mac was originally invented as a desktop publishing machine, and has always had useful graphics integration features. And the main graphics application authors started out writing for Macs, because they were originally invented as desktop publishing machines. Etc.

So for my purposes, the Mac OS is "the best OS".

I am simply more productive working on a Mac, because I simply don't need uber-nerd skillz to make the thing work. It does what I need it to do, it does it well, and easily. I'd call that 'user-friendly'.

I really get tired of this idea that computers have to be esoteric and scary.
They're a tool. Just a tool. Some are more specialised to certain tasks, others are more broadly adaptable. But they're only as effective as our use of them, so an OS that I can easily navigate, because I'm an illustrator not a technician, means I'm getting better usage of the tool.

Therefore a 'better OS'. For me.



For me, computer software should be as simple as possible but not simpler.

I’m not an expert in illustrating software, but I know that for the usability of some application, the operating system doesn’t play such a big role. What can be written for Mac, could be written for Windows or Linux. With the same level of usability.

And from what I hear, from people that are using Pagemaker or Quark Xpress the versions on Mac and Windows are almost equal.

But I dare to state that the usability on system stuff is degrading on the Mac.

By instance, on Mac the 3 colored round buttons, to minimize, maximize or restore a window…

A graphical icon is much easier recognized and correlated by the desired task (if a nice visual representing the task is available…). The cognitive workload would be less.

Sure, most Mac users will use their Mac frequently and adapt themselves to the color buttons.

ADAPT themselves…

I repeat: Adapt themselves….

In the past, Mac software was adapting to humans. Those days it’s becoming vice versa.

It’s just one example, but I could give you dozen…

If Windows XP is so unstable, how come I've used my main PC since I got it in 2005 without it crashing even once?

If Windows XP is so unstable, how come I've used my main PC since I got it in 2005 without it crashing even once?

I have more then that on single machine uptime UPTIME I am not just talking crash time but from the last reboot on 10 year old hardware (p3 4.33 ghz) with a freeBSD machine of mine

I am talking server class operating systems as that is what I DO with BSD and Linux, even windows server does not stack up to something like FreeBSD

For me, computer software should be as simple as possible but not simpler.

I’m not an expert in illustrating software, but I know that for the usability of some application, the operating system doesn’t play such a big role. What can be written for Mac, could be written for Windows or Linux. With the same level of usability.

And from what I hear, from people that are using Pagemaker or Quark Xpress the versions on Mac and Windows are almost equal.

But I dare to state that the usability on system stuff is degrading on the Mac.

By instance, on Mac the 3 colored round buttons, to minimize, maximize or restore a window…

A graphical icon is much easier recognized and correlated by the desired task (if a nice visual representing the task is available…). The cognitive workload would be less.

Sure, most Mac users will use their Mac frequently and adapt themselves to the color buttons.

ADAPT themselves…

I repeat: Adapt themselves….

In the past, Mac software was adapting to humans. Those days it’s becoming vice versa.

It’s just one example, but I could give you dozen…

Okay Mr Shouty, calm the fuck down.

First of all, Pagemaker has been out of development officially since 2004, but hasn't existed as a serious market product for a lot longer than that. ie, it's never been updated for OSX, meaning it hasn't had a major update since 1999! Quark is becoming a niche product these days, due to its ridiculous pricetag and non-existent customer support. You're really showing just how much you aren't an expert about what I use a computer for.

Second, you mean the red graphic icon with the 'x' representative, the yellow icon with the '-' representative, and the green icon with the '+' representative? basically the same iconography as Windows... don't bother with your other pedantic 'examples', anyone who has never used a GUI before has to adapt themselves !!!ii!i1i1i1iI!I as well.

But my main point remains, it's the ease of use for a primarily application-based user, especially a graphics application based user, that makes OSX favourable to me.

I don't know how many more ways, or times, I can emphasise that I'm NOT arguing that Mac OSX is ideal for everyone, just for what I use a computer primarily for, which is graphics applications.

As a gamer, I'm constantly bummed at how lacking the Mac is in this area. I'm not stating, nor would I ever, that the Mac is a gaming machine. But this is not because of a fundamental flaw in the OS either, it's just a lack of marketshare, and therefore effort vs profit payoffs.

But as you can't get OSX without having a Mac to run it on, it has to be a factor.

The OS may not play as big a part in the specific running of a single stand-alone application, but the Adobe suite is constantly interchangable - sketch a shape in Illustrator, drop it into Photoshop to create selections for imagework, apply finished image to InDesign for a page layout, then shift the lot into online pdf format, or Flash or Dreamweaver content... The OS's ability to natively swap graphics formats between apps in a suite does have an impact on the effectiveness of the suite as a whole, and OSX does this the best, in my experience.

I'll call upon just as many years experience as you (started in 1993). And I'll state once more that, for my purposes, OSX is 'best'.

PS the hint to reading the above post is to pay attention to the emphasis.

For me it's Linux. I can do almost everything I can under other OSes, but the programs are more configurable. Traditionally a Unix would never assume it knew better than the almightly root and in the normal users. Windows however does have an attitude of not letting users do things. From UAC to WGA, it controls the user. or tells him it does not trust him. It is a question of taste, I guess, but I like Linux better. Oh, and Tux is so cute and cuddly!

I despise Mac on principle alone. Steve Jobs is the sucker of Satan's cock.

I mean, seriously, the iPod is the biggest scam ever. "Hey let's make it necessary for people to return the iPod to us when their battery dies! And let's make that something that happens soon after they buy it! But, let's be nice about it and charge ten bucks less than the cost of a brand new iPod to replace the battery. Corporate America roxxx!"

Assholes.

No virus outbreaks on Linux?

That's an urban legend. There are a few nice viruses around for Linux.

I recently found one that is working on Apple, Linux and Windows....
It's open source ! :)

Truth is that 'nobody' is using Linux. There is just a smaller ‘programmers’ base for creating virus stuff and, important, a much smaller target!

Why would one do the effort and damage almost no one while he could target Windows systems where the audience is 100 times bigger.

And to be honest, less careful as well.

Linux people in general, know their computer, know the risks about viruses and know what to do when they are infected. Windows people are in general lamer about such stuff.
Thank you for going into detail on that point. I should have been more detailed then 3 words about it but my focus was on overall maintenance costs instead.

As you say there are Linux viruses but they are very rare compared to Windows viruses and the risk of getting infected is ridiculously small. The reason for this is not the number of systems as Linux is dominating on the server side (I bet this forum is on one or several Linux servers) and popular in embedded systems such as network routers too. Thats too many systems with too much bandwidth for spambots to simply ignore. The reason is as you mentioned that the administrators of most Linux systems are IT professionals who knows what they are doing while the administrators of most Windows systems are home users who don't even want to know. Non technical users will do something stupid to get themselves infected on any OS regardless of how intelligent they are away from computers so they are the target.

I mean, seriously, the iPod is the biggest scam ever.

Too true! My mum thought they were so crap that she bought a chinese lookalike one for my sister instead of a proper one.

(She still hasn't found out it's fake!!!)

Thank you for going into detail on that point. I should have been more detailed then 3 words about it but my focus was on overall maintenance costs instead.

As you say there are Linux viruses but they are very rare compared to Windows viruses and the risk of getting infected is ridiculously small. The reason for this is not the number of systems as Linux is dominating on the server side (I bet this forum is on one or several Linux servers) and popular in embedded systems such as network routers too. Thats too many systems with too much bandwidth for spambots to simply ignore. The reason is as you mentioned that the administrators of most Linux systems are IT professionals who knows what they are doing while the administrators of most Windows systems are home users who don't even want to know. Non technical users will do something stupid to get themselves infected on any OS regardless of how intelligent they are away from computers so they are the target.
Add to that the fact that not only is the standard user more capable the OPERATING system is more capable of flexability

So not only a high skill level but the TOOLS to take advantage of that skill

For me it's Linux. I can do almost everything I can under other OSes, but the programs are more configurable. Traditionally a Unix would never assume it knew better than the almightly root and in the normal users. Windows however does have an attitude of not letting users do things. From UAC to WGA, it controls the user. or tells him it does not trust him. It is a question of taste, I guess, but I like Linux better. Oh, and Tux is so cute and cuddly!
To be fair the standard rout to increased privileges in unix (sudo) itself does not let "users" do things

But I get your point they are also annoying to us administrators lol

Dear God, I'm so afraid of new operating systems; I'm probably going to have to replace my laptop soon because the charging pin broke, and I don't want to have to go to Windows Vista. I wish I knew enough programming to go to Linux and upgrade away. For what I use, Linux would be better.
Right now I'm stuck on Windows XP, which I actually like.

For my purposes Mac OS X is the best. The day-to-day stuff(and somewhat beyond) is quick and easy, and if I really need to get under the hood for the seriously geeky stuff we have unix which is more powerful than the M$ quick-and-dirty-OS.

For heightfield editing work I have to use windows. Ugh! I need to learn how to compile for X11 so I can start running hflab on my mac.

Besides:

Steve Jobs, meh, who cares:rolleyes: ?
Bill Gates:headbang::upyours::mp5::sniper:

YMMV:fluffle:

http://www.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2007/01/1155002950.jpg
Leopard.
October 2007.


( for those of you are staring at your monitor blankly, wondering what the hell I'm on about...

http://www.apple.com/ca/macosx/leopard/

...and for those of you that aren't... ARE YOU AS EXCITED AS I AM?! :p )Between Linux and Windows, no new feature is new.

No virus outbreaks on Linux?

That's an urban legend. There are a few nice viruses around for Linux.What, like 20 of them?
I recently found one that is working on Apple, Linux and Windows....
It's open source ! :)Name please.

Truth is that 'nobody' is using Linux. There is just a smaller ‘programmers’ base for creating virus stuff and, important, a much smaller target!Google uses Linux. So does wikipedia, and allot of other 'sexy' websites. IMHO, they would make great targets for your virus. Especially Google -- it would be one problem you couldn't Google the answer for.

Why would one do the effort and damage almost no one while he could target Windows systems where the audience is 100 times bigger.Like I stated above. Taken down a webserver affects eveyone who accesses it, regarless of the clients OS choice. Allot of those 'sexy' servers run Linux.

Yup and office 08 is slotted to come out as well (though I actually was kind of pissed between the release of 07 on the windows platform and 08 on the mac)

On the topic of Microsoft Office, I bought iWork '08 the day it came out, for $79 (minus the education discount), and it's capable of opening, by my count, about 40 file types across its three programs. I've fiddled around in all three programs (Pages, Keynote and the new Numbers) and absolutely LOVE it and everything about it. And like every other piece of software Apple releases, you pay one very reasonable price for the full, standard version, the only version available.

That said, I have tried Office 2004:Mac, the new Windows-format Office 2007 and hated them both. Reviews for Microsoft Office 2004:Mac are abysmal. There are no indicators Office 2008:Mac is going to be any better. And 2004 was $219 on a good day, and still fetches at least $200 for the basic ("student/teacher") edition depending on which site you're on. I know Newegg has it on for $149 but that's because they're constantly out of stock. ;)

Frankly, I'd rather spend $79 on something I know will be amazing (and be proven right when I install it and test it out), especially if it's compatible with every other program's word processing file formats anyway, than spend $219 on something that I know is going to be crap from past experience. If I recall correctly, even Walt Mossberg himself (the Wall Street Journal's computer whiz) says he isn't really expecting to be wowed when Office 2008:Mac arrives at his door for the ritual test-drive.

On another note, I totally agree with what has been said regarding "to each his/her own". If Windows works for you, more power to you. If you are a hardcore programmer, Linux looks solid. But for those of us who prefer core productivity and efficiency, without looking like the PC in the Apple ads, Macs are the way to go.

Thank you for going into detail on that point. I should have been more detailed then 3 words about it but my focus was on overall maintenance costs instead.

As you say there are Linux viruses but they are very rare compared to Windows viruses and the risk of getting infected is ridiculously small. The reason for this is not the number of systems as Linux is dominating on the server side (I bet this forum is on one or several Linux servers) and popular in embedded systems such as network routers too. Thats too many systems with too much bandwidth for spambots to simply ignore. The reason is as you mentioned that the administrators of most Linux systems are IT professionals who knows what they are doing while the administrators of most Windows systems are home users who don't even want to know. Non technical users will do something stupid to get themselves infected on any OS regardless of how intelligent they are away from computers so they are the target.Jolt is a LAMP server.

For my purposes Mac OS X is the best. The day-to-day stuff(and somewhat beyond) is quick and easy, and if I really need to get under the hood for the seriously geeky stuff we have unix which is more powerful than the M$ quick-and-dirty-OS.

For heightfield editing work I have to use windows. Ugh! I need to learn how to compile for X11 so I can start running hflab on my mac.

Besides:

Steve Jobs, meh, who cares:rolleyes: ?
Bill Gates:headbang::upyours::mp5::sniper:

YMMV:fluffle:Steve Jobs makes is to Gates as Hitler is to Lester B Pearson (generally considered the best Prime Minister in Canadian history). We are lucky that MS has the monopoly and not Apple.

Although, MS has Ballmer...

:D
I like you. You're funny!

What is the best OS? I'd have to go with Windows for compatibility reasons, though I'm thouroughly disapointed with the difficulties I've had with Vista so far. To be honest I've been on one windows machine or another for so long that I have a little trouble navigating in a Mac. Add to that the fact that so few programs are written to run on a Mac and it shapes up to be a poor choice in my opinion, past its prime.

Linux is something else all together. Nothing good ever came out of open sores.:D

As for my opinion on the subject.

Windows Vista is a great gaming OS. Miles more stable than XP and faster too when you exceed the minimum specs, which is pretty much necessary to run games in the first place. Networking has been made both simpler and more powerful and it has done much to resist registry bloat. They still haven't gotten rid of their depreciated API's which would cure the majority of their security concerns (but spreadsheets from 1986 would run! :eek:).

IMO, Vista is only good for gaming. For everything else there is Linux. I use Linux, and so do my two computer illiterate sisters. I like it because I find that I don't have to do shit all to maintain it. No defragging, disk cleanup, spyware, adware, anti-virus. I only have to install updates, like Windows, but unlike Windows, it will update all software on the system, instead of just Windows components. This means I have to spend allot less time on my sisters computers which is good. It literally takes me ten seconds a week per computer to keep them up to date and stuff, and I have yet to have to sit down and fix it. Neither of them has root privileges so neither of them can do anything to fuck it up. They also like it because they say it isn't as slow as Windows. To me, their computer is just slow regardless of OS.

I called myself a non-expert about DTP, so? I don’t have to, to assess the usability of the modern Macs.

I’m making a pretty nice living as a usability consultant, that would be enough.

No, the colors and icons (-,x, etc) are NOT the same.

With the colors you have to memorize their purpose. Sure, you get really fast adapted cause you use your Mac pretty often. But again, you have to adapt.

There's no clear correlation between a red icon and an action.

Colors have different effects in diverse cultures. In the West, when we have a marriage our wives are mostly dressed in white. In some Asian countries, it’s black. The emotional feeling you feel when seeing something in red could be entirely different in Pakistan.

But there's a clear correlation between the X and eXiting a window and the X is used pretty much to show something is canceled. And not only in computer interfaces. Also, we already adopted ourselves since a long time. The X is used in almost every graphical OS to make clear you can close a window. We already learned by ourselves the purpose of the X.

Suddenly the people at Apple changed this. And no, it’s not better.

I said I could give you dozen examples why the usability on the Mac is less than in the past.

I’ll give you another.

Bootcamp. When you install it, you are forced to print a manual. The main goal is, when something goes wrong, that you have access to critical help sources. If it is THAT critical, it would be better to make sure it’s available online whenever I want. I don’t like it to waste paper, and not everybody is having a printer…

To make you feel happy: In general the Macs are still better in matter of usability than any other system.

But that won’t say that everything is perfect. Some things are better worked out on Windows and even on Linux than on Mac.

The Old Macs, despite their old technology are scoring better than the new samples, in matter of usability.

If you are really interested in the issue usability, I can recommend you the excellent website:

http://www.usability.gov/






Okay Mr Shouty, calm the fuck down.

First of all, Pagemaker has been out of development officially since 2004, but hasn't existed as a serious market product for a lot longer than that. ie, it's never been updated for OSX, meaning it hasn't had a major update since 1999! Quark is becoming a niche product these days, due to its ridiculous pricetag and non-existent customer support. You're really showing just how much you aren't an expert about what I use a computer for.

Second, you mean the red graphic icon with the 'x' representative, the yellow icon with the '-' representative, and the green icon with the '+' representative? basically the same iconography as Windows... don't bother with your other pedantic 'examples', anyone who has never used a GUI before has to adapt themselves !!!ii!i1i1i1iI!I as well.

But my main point remains, it's the ease of use for a primarily application-based user, especially a graphics application based user, that makes OSX favourable to me.

I don't know how many more ways, or times, I can emphasise that I'm NOT arguing that Mac OSX is ideal for everyone, just for what I use a computer primarily for, which is graphics applications.

As a gamer, I'm constantly bummed at how lacking the Mac is in this area. I'm not stating, nor would I ever, that the Mac is a gaming machine. But this is not because of a fundamental flaw in the OS either, it's just a lack of marketshare, and therefore effort vs profit payoffs.

But as you can't get OSX without having a Mac to run it on, it has to be a factor.

The OS may not play as big a part in the specific running of a single stand-alone application, but the Adobe suite is constantly interchangable - sketch a shape in Illustrator, drop it into Photoshop to create selections for imagework, apply finished image to InDesign for a page layout, then shift the lot into online pdf format, or Flash or Dreamweaver content... The OS's ability to natively swap graphics formats between apps in a suite does have an impact on the effectiveness of the suite as a whole, and OSX does this the best, in my experience.

I'll call upon just as many years experience as you (started in 1993). And I'll state once more that, for my purposes, OSX is 'best'.

PS the hint to reading the above post is to pay attention to the emphasis.

I already posted saying that I clearly prefer XP Pro SP2, but I like Linux Ubuntu as well...It's good for dual-booting, isn't really a resource hog...AND IT'S FREE!!!!!

Fail again.

The red button has an 'x' in it. Go take a look for yourself. Not so esoteric and impenetrable.

It's a pedantic, petty and subjective 'flaw' to build the point of your case around. "The user has to memorise three little buttons".
Do you have icons on the footpedals of your car?

The colours mimic a traffic light. Are you seriously suggesting traffic lights in Pakistan don't follow the international standard red, amber, green? Or that the three colours in sequence aren't universally recognisable?

This is a piss-weak argument.

As I said before, everyone has to adapt to an OS. There's nothing 'innate' about moving a mouse and clicking buttons, we all have to learn how to interact with a GUI at some point.

By your own admission, ("To make you feel happy: In general the Macs are still better in matter of usability than any other system.") that means you consider Mac OSX to have a faster and easier learning curve.

At best, you're arguing that moving from another OS to OSX is harder because of these icons. I can think of many cosmetic differences that make going to Windows from OSX harder, but none of them would form the basis of an argument against Windows itself.

Fail.

Bootcamp is an unsupported beta. Apple didn't set out to make Intel machines that could also run Windows, it just happens that they can so they released a free beta to allow it, which will be integrated into the next OS release.

From the Apple website: "The public beta of Boot Camp is available immediately as a download at www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp, and is preview software licensed for use on a trial basis for a limited time. The final version of Boot Camp will be available as a feature in the upcoming Mac OS X version 10.5 “Leopard.” Apple does not provide support for installing or running Boot Camp and does not sell or support Microsoft Windows software. Apple welcomes user feedback on Boot Camp at bootcamp@apple.com"

Still more fail.

Have you considered actually knowing something about a subject before sooking over it?
Some consultant you must be. :rolleyes:

Unix is probably the best operating system, but it's mainly for corporate use and is usually expensive.

Linux, however, is free. It is an open-source system based on the design of Unix. It does require some minor computer skills to run (info that you can just look up anyway), but the overall level of control and depenablility is vastly superior to all the alternatives.


On the evil side, Windows is one of the worst systems ever put into commonplace usage. If you want your computer to freeze or altogether crash whenever a program runs away, Windows is the one for you. In addition, the level of control in the hands of the user is pretty much nonexistant when compared to something like Linux or Unix.

What, like 20 of them?

Yes, for each linux user one.

Name please.

Virus.Linux.Bi.a/Virus.Win32.Bi.a

Google uses Linux. So does wikipedia, and allot of other 'sexy' websites. IMHO, they would make great targets for your virus. Especially Google -- it would be one problem you couldn't Google the answer for.

Yes and there are more Googles than people in the world, really!

Like I stated above. Taken down a webserver affects eveyone who accesses it, regarless of the clients OS choice. Allot of those 'sexy' servers run Linux.

Everything is possible, but it isn't that easy to close down a Google sized company.




Why do Linux people often react like sect members? It's allowed to say something ‘bad’ about their nice OS. Really!

For the record. I don’t hate Linux, Windows, Mac or whatever OS.

It’s just an OS. A piece of code. Nothing more, nothing less.

On the topic of Microsoft Office, I bought iWork '08 the day it came out, for $79 (minus the education discount), and it's capable of opening, by my count, about 40 file types across its three programs. I've fiddled around in all three programs (Pages, Keynote and the new Numbers) and absolutely LOVE it and everything about it. And like every other piece of software Apple releases, you pay one very reasonable price for the full, standard version, the only version available.

To be honest I was not all that impressed with iWork

As far as price goes the university which I work at offers office 04 (and 08) along with 07 for $72 after tax


That said, I have tried Office 2004:Mac, the new Windows-format Office 2007 and hated them both. Reviews for Microsoft Office 2004:Mac are abysmal. There are no indicators Office 2008:Mac is going to be any better. And 2004 was $219 on a good day, and still fetches at least $200 for the basic ("student/teacher") edition depending on which site you're on. I know Newegg has it on for $149 but that's because they're constantly out of stock. ;)

I actually do like 07 it just takes some re-learning on how you do things

As far as it goes one of the biggest draws to office for me is outlook which runs my life. And so far every apple attempt to make a solid exchange platform has failed miserably in comparison.


Frankly, I'd rather spend $79 on something I know will be amazing (and be proven right when I install it and test it out), especially if it's compatible with every other program's word processing file formats anyway, than spend $219 on something that I know is going to be crap from past experience. If I recall correctly, even Walt Mossberg himself (the Wall Street Journal's computer whiz) says he isn't really expecting to be wowed when Office 2008:Mac arrives at his door for the ritual test-drive.

Personally I would rather have something do what I want it to do and do it right. I am not a big MS fan but they do office productivity and exchange software well in comparison to any competitor.

The best OS is the one you're most comfortable using.

There is no objective best OS available as the 'bestness' depends on the viewpoint of the subject, be it security, usability, familiarity or available programs and games.

snip
Yes and there are more Googles than people in the world, really!

Thats not what he said at all

He said that taking down a public service effects everyone that uses that service (which in googles case is in the millions of people)

That MAKES them a big target.

Fail again? What are you? A piece of software with a bad usability design?

Humans say something as 'I think you are mistaken'

I assume you do not have a Mac. I do.

The X isn't there. It's only available when you hoover your mouse cursor above the red icon.

As a new user you have to hoover stuff, before you know the purpose...

Marvelous design! Why not showing the X all the time? That would be better.
We are used to the X for years. We finally learned it and now they changed it. And it isn't an improvement, not even close.

Again. There's no correlation between the colors and the actions. You suggest it is mimicking a traffic light.

Green=Drive
Orange=Carefull and Stop if no car is close behind
Red=Stop

The red/orange/green buttons aren't used like that in a Mac window.

On a Mac:

Green is not driving ahead.
Orange isn’t ‘take care’
Red isn’t stop but quit.

What they did is choosing the wrong metaphor.

I didn't suggest they use another color scheme for traffic lights in Pakistan, not even close.

What I really said is that the perception of color is different in Pakistan (or any other culture) than in the west.
As an example I gave the white wedding dress which is commonly used here, while in Asia (I believe it was Japan) they use a black one.

Our perception for black is in general correlated with death. In other cultures they correlate it with birth, new lives...

And that's another reason why Apple is making a mistake. They are designing software for an international audience and they use colors as the only cue to make a separation in actions...


No you don't have icons on the foot pedals of your car. You are supposed not to look at it, while driving.

So the use of colors or any icons on those pedals is waste of effort. But I do look on my screen.

I don't know which OS you master the fastest. About such things, I would have to do a study first.

But from my experience it will be Windows. Not cause it is having the best design (which it isn't), but because people already know the system. Windows XP is looking more closely to Windows 98 than it is to any Mac OS.

And since most people use Windows...

It's very difficult those days to find people that never worked with computers and are prepared starting using one.
Some companies offer money to retrieve such people. Really.

Boot Camp is a beta, but I don't care. It's just an example of a bad usability design. And that's the point.

Odds are high that they will keep the current, bad designed (from a usability point), procedure.

I believed that Boot Camp is having a near final status.

I think I do know something about usability. Companies pay me for practicing my skills and very important they like the outcome.

What you do is just defending your lovely Mac at all costs.

You're quoting me wrongly. About the Pakistan traffic lights.
You're even lying. About the X.
You're using lame examples, such as icons on foot pedals.
You're rude and impolite just to underline who you are.
You're promoting yourself as thé expert and in the same move, me as the obscure idiot.

Oh well. If it gives you a nice feeling, I don't mind.
You always have people who know it better about just everything.

I know some girl who knows more about laws than any lawyer, diseases than any doctor, painting than any artist, bookkeeping than any accountant, business than any CEO. In fact she know everything better than anyone else about just *everything*.

Most people hate her.

I don’t because I know she is suffering from bulimia. And one of the sidekicks of this disease could be behavior like that.

And now, if you don't mind, I have to cash another pay check (really !) for some usability job.




Fail again.

The red button has an 'x' in it. Go take a look for yourself. Not so esoteric and impenetrable.

It's a pedantic, petty and subjective 'flaw' to build the point of your case around. "The user has to memorise three little buttons".
Do you have icons on the footpedals of your car?

The colours mimic a traffic light. Are you seriously suggesting traffic lights in Pakistan don't follow the international standard red, amber, green? Or that the three colours in sequence aren't universally recognisable?

This is a piss-weak argument.

As I said before, everyone has to adapt to an OS. There's nothing 'innate' about moving a mouse and clicking buttons, we all have to learn how to interact with a GUI at some point.

By your own admission, ("To make you feel happy: In general the Macs are still better in matter of usability than any other system.") that means you consider Mac OSX to have a faster and easier learning curve.

At best, you're arguing that moving from another OS to OSX is harder because of these icons. I can think of many cosmetic differences that make going to Windows from OSX harder, but none of them would form the basis of an argument against Windows itself.

Fail.

Bootcamp is an unsupported beta. Apple didn't set out to make Intel machines that could also run Windows, it just happens that they can so they released a free beta to allow it, which will be integrated into the next OS release.

From the Apple website: "The public beta of Boot Camp is available immediately as a download at www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp, and is preview software licensed for use on a trial basis for a limited time. The final version of Boot Camp will be available as a feature in the upcoming Mac OS X version 10.5 “Leopard.” Apple does not provide support for installing or running Boot Camp and does not sell or support Microsoft Windows software. Apple welcomes user feedback on Boot Camp at bootcamp@apple.com"

Still more fail.

Have you considered actually knowing something about a subject before sooking over it?
Some consultant you must be. :rolleyes:

Yes, for each linux user one.
Still better than the virus per user rate Windows offers.
Virus.Linux.Bi.a/Virus.Win32.Bi.a
I remember you saying it was also capable of infecting Apple computers.
Yes and there are more Googles than people in the world, really!
Well no, but you missed the point. Windows users use Google. Apple users use Google. Hurd users, BSD users, Solaris users, etc all use Google. You infect Google, you infect all those that use Google, which is people from every operating system made.
Everything is possible, but it isn't that easy to close down a Google sized company.
Well yeah, they use a secure OS.
Why do Linux people often react like sect members? It's allowed to say something ‘bad’ about their nice OS. Really!
Because its only the Linux users that react like sect members that are ever known as Linux users. Me, UpwardThrust, and Rej are the only people that most people know as Linux users (Fass might be in that list, but I doubt it). There are others, but they do not participate in an OS religion wars, so they are just assumed to use Windows like everyone else. The users that flame away also tend to be techies that are on the internet all day and have the time to participate in such wars. That and allot of the flame warriors on the Linux side actually programmed something used on Linux so you are not criticizing just their OS but also there work.

But these Windows vs Linux religion wars are nothing. If you are really interested in fun, look at KDE vs Gnome or Emacs vs Vi.
It’s just an OS. A piece of code. Nothing more, nothing less.Just the most important code on the computer. It determines what the computer is capable of. That is important to some people. Others may care that their computer is lime green and has lights that can be seen from space, I care what my computer does.

Posi,

I'll check it out about that multiple OS virus for Mac/linux/Windows.
I have read about it, in some local magazine.

It's a new approach. The current viruses that can attack several operating systems are rather harmless. It's a kind of try-out-source code, but that will say that soon the hardcore animals will arive...

At Google they are not only using Linux. And when Google is down, that's for most companies not that hard. They are not the only search engine in the world.

I do not have critique on Linux as an OS, but sometimes people talk really nonsens about it. Such as:

* There are no viruses available on Linux.
* It will never crash!
* It's cheap (no it isn't, you have to hire expensive consultants, which are harder to find, you recieve Windows system admin people for 'free' when you buy a 9-pack bottles of Coca Cola and you find them everywhere)

Oh the religious OS wars! Those were the times :)

I am not that interested in the actual technique of a computer. I'm more interested in the interaction between software and people.




Still better than the virus per user rate Windows offers.

I remember you saying it was also capable of infecting Apple computers.

Well no, but you missed the point. Windows users use Google. Apple users use Google. Hurd users, BSD users, Solaris users, etc all use Google. You infect Google, you infect all those that use Google, which is people from every operating system made.

Well yeah, they use a secure OS.

Because its only the Linux users that react like sect members that are ever known as Linux users. Me, UpwardThrust, and Rej are the only people that most people know as Linux users (Fass might be in that list, but I doubt it). There are others, but they do not participate in an OS religion wars, so they are just assumed to use Windows like everyone else. The users that flame away also tend to be techies that are on the internet all day and have the time to participate in such wars. That and allot of the flame warriors on the Linux side actually programmed something used on Linux so you are not criticizing just their OS but also there work.

But these Windows vs Linux religion wars are nothing. If you are really interested in fun, look at KDE vs Gnome or Emacs vs Vi.
Just the most important code on the computer. It determines what the computer is capable of. That is important to some people. Others may care that their computer is lime green and has lights that can be seen from space, I care what my computer does.

The X isn't there. It's only available when you hoover your mouse cursor above the red icon.

As a new user you have to hoover stuff, before you know the purpose...

Marvelous design! Why not showing the X all the time? That would be better.
We are used to the X for years. We finally learned it and now they changed it. And it isn't an improvement, not even close.

From what I could see from this thread, you were arguing that Mac OS is going downhill with respect to usability.

Y'know that the previous versions of Mac OS didn't have "the X" at all, right? Not when you hovered over the area, no colours, nothing. Surely adding in the option of seeing said "X", albeit when the mouse is near it, is better than nothing at all.

I don't pretend to be an expert on such matters, but I do feel that you're mistaken in trying to accuse the Mac OS of not conforming to Windows standards. To my knowledge, every window in OS X has the same three buttons in the same place. They do the same operation, regardless of the program. Can the same be said about Windows? Is consistency not one of the most important factors in usability?

So it's not the same as Windows. There's no Start bar, either.

I was not comparing Mac to Windows.

But you can bet there are tons of usability flaws in Windows as well. Or in any other piece of software or website.

Better something than nothing is not enough.

I’m sometimes amazed why companies like Microsoft (yes they too!) and Apple who have the money, the knowledge and the work power to give us the ‘best’ design, choose for less.

Do you assume it really cost more to have those icons visible permanently in the Mac screens?

No it doesn’t. Replacing it by the colored ones was actually costing more. You can’t imagine how many task groups had meetings about such ‘silly’ things. And they all need a salary…

The Mac thing, is not a decision of a usability engineer, I’m rather sure about that one.

On the other hand usability is a very difficult branch. It seems easy and everyone has an opinion about it, but believe me, it’s very complicated.

It’s not only a matter of practicing proven design guidelines.

Most of the time I work for factories, a Bridgestone, car manufactories, etc…

Those companies have tons of money as well to create the best solution which is actually making more profit for them.

Sometimes, I am confronted with software that is in use for a decade by laborers in the factory. And not one annalist, developer or whatever guy of the development team ever talked with one single laborer…

It is designed to use in an office and not for use in a noisy dark factory hall.

The outcome is software which is ‘userfriendly’ for programmers but not for unschooled people.

In one occasion the user base were pretty old. By getting older, your vision is dropping. By enlarging the font size a little, those people created fewer mistakes and actually they liked the software more. (We didn’t change anything else at that time).

Sometimes it is hidden in small corners, unknown by the usual suspects.




From what I could see from this thread, you were arguing that Mac OS is going downhill with respect to usability.

Y'know that the previous versions of Mac OS didn't have "the X" at all, right? Not when you hovered over the area, no colours, nothing. Surely adding in the option of seeing said "X", albeit when the mouse is near it, is better than nothing at all.

I don't pretend to be an expert on such matters, but I do feel that you're mistaken in trying to accuse the Mac OS of not conforming to Windows standards. To my knowledge, every window in OS X has the same three buttons in the same place. They do the same operation, regardless of the program. Can the same be said about Windows? Is consistency not one of the most important factors in usability?

So it's not the same as Windows. There's no Start bar, either.

I was not comparing Mac to Windows.

But you can bet there are tons of usability flaws in Windows as well. Or in any other piece of software or website.

Better something than nothing is not enough.

I’m sometimes amazed why companies like Microsoft (yes they too!) and Apple who have the money, the knowledge and the work power to give us the ‘best’ design, choose for less.

Do you assume it really cost more to have those icons visible permanently in the Mac screens?

No it doesn’t. Replacing it by the colored ones was actually costing more. You can’t imagine how many task groups had meetings about such ‘silly’ things. And they all need a salary…

The Mac thing, is not a decision of a usability engineer, I’m rather sure about that one.

You seemed very fixed on pointing out that there is no obvious "X" in the button and that this was an example of Mac OS getting less user-friendly. My point is that previous versions of Mac OS never had an "X", and that this is (mainly) a Windows phenomenon. Hence my concluding that you were comparing the two.

The only reason I can think for having the icons invisible is to make the top of windows more sleek and friendly on the eye. I've never noticed it as a particularly obtuse system, myself.

Posi,

I'll check it out about that multiple OS virus for Mac/linux/Windows.
I have read about it, in some local magazine.

It's a new approach. The current viruses that can attack several operating systems are rather harmless. It's a kind of try-out-source code, but that will say that soon the hardcore animals will arive...

At Google they are not only using Linux. And when Google is down, that's for most companies not that hard. They are not the only search engine in the world.

I do not have critique on Linux as an OS, but sometimes people talk really nonsens about it. Such as:

* There are no viruses available on Linux.
* It will never crash!
* It's cheap (no it isn't, you have to hire expensive consultants, which are harder to find, you recieve Windows system admin people for 'free' when you buy a 9-pack bottles of Coca Cola and you find them everywhere)

Oh the religious OS wars! Those were the times :)

I am not that interested in the actual technique of a computer. I'm more interested in the interaction between software and people.Yes, I saw the specs for it on the internet. I think I was just nitpicking so that I had something to post. Non abortion/religion/Muslims/gays threads are rare in these parts.

I know Google isn't the only search engine in the word, but you never hear "Live Search is your friend" or "Just Yahoo! it!". Also Google (whether it be the search or maps or whatever) is incorporated into a fair bit of software and other websites.

It's funny how some people can go from "Every app I opened on Suse crash within a couple minutes" to "On Linux, you will never see your apps crash." Quite funny indeed.

I liked the OS on my old Adam Coleco computer http://oldcomputers.net/adam.html :)

Linux could be cool, but only ugly people are using it.

:eek:
That hurts, man. It hurts deep...

Fail again? What are you? A piece of software with a bad usability design?

Humans say something as 'I think you are mistaken'

I assume you do not have a Mac. I do.

The X isn't there. It's only available when you hoover your mouse cursor above the red icon.

As a new user you have to hoover stuff, before you know the purpose...

Marvelous design! Why not showing the X all the time? That would be better.
We are used to the X for years. We finally learned it and now they changed it. And it isn't an improvement, not even close.

Again. There's no correlation between the colors and the actions. You suggest it is mimicking a traffic light.

Green=Drive
Orange=Carefull and Stop if no car is close behind
Red=Stop

The red/orange/green buttons aren't used like that in a Mac window.

On a Mac:

Green is not driving ahead.
Orange isn’t ‘take care’
Red isn’t stop but quit.

What they did is choosing the wrong metaphor.

I didn't suggest they use another color scheme for traffic lights in Pakistan, not even close.

What I really said is that the perception of color is different in Pakistan (or any other culture) than in the west.
As an example I gave the white wedding dress which is commonly used here, while in Asia (I believe it was Japan) they use a black one.

Our perception for black is in general correlated with death. In other cultures they correlate it with birth, new lives...

And that's another reason why Apple is making a mistake. They are designing software for an international audience and they use colors as the only cue to make a separation in actions...


No you don't have icons on the foot pedals of your car. You are supposed not to look at it, while driving.

So the use of colors or any icons on those pedals is waste of effort. But I do look on my screen.

I don't know which OS you master the fastest. About such things, I would have to do a study first.

But from my experience it will be Windows. Not cause it is having the best design (which it isn't), but because people already know the system. Windows XP is looking more closely to Windows 98 than it is to any Mac OS.

And since most people use Windows...

It's very difficult those days to find people that never worked with computers and are prepared starting using one.
Some companies offer money to retrieve such people. Really.

Boot Camp is a beta, but I don't care. It's just an example of a bad usability design. And that's the point.

Odds are high that they will keep the current, bad designed (from a usability point), procedure.

I believed that Boot Camp is having a near final status.

I think I do know something about usability. Companies pay me for practicing my skills and very important they like the outcome.

What you do is just defending your lovely Mac at all costs.

You're quoting me wrongly. About the Pakistan traffic lights.
You're even lying. About the X.
You're using lame examples, such as icons on foot pedals.
You're rude and impolite just to underline who you are.
You're promoting yourself as thé expert and in the same move, me as the obscure idiot.

Oh well. If it gives you a nice feeling, I don't mind.
You always have people who know it better about just everything.

I know some girl who knows more about laws than any lawyer, diseases than any doctor, painting than any artist, bookkeeping than any accountant, business than any CEO. In fact she know everything better than anyone else about just *everything*.

Most people hate her.

I don’t because I know she is suffering from bulimia. And one of the sidekicks of this disease could be behavior like that.

And now, if you don't mind, I have to cash another pay check (really !) for some usability job.

I'm rude? Awwwww, I can feel my lower lip trembling already...

You accuse me of misquoting you, then say I am claiming to be "the expert". Show me where I claimed this.

I'm using lame examples? Your example of three little coloured buttons is, I repeat, pedantic and trivial. It doesn't make the basis of a solid argument against the OS. It's entirely cosmetic.

You are comparing OSX to Windows. Directly. You say "we" got used to 'X's? Who's "we"? Why, "we" turns out to be *gasp* Windows users!

Bootcamp is a free, download-only, pre-release, unsupported beta, released in order to get feedback for the full release coming up, and your complaint is the lack of a hard-copy manual? It doesn't even make sense.

You're the one grasping at straws.

I'm 'defending my lovely Mac' against the incredibly tired and ignorant argument that 'most people use Windows so Mac should emulate it'. This is the most pathetic argument of all.
Apple is older than Microsoft. The Mac GUI is older than Windows GUI. OSX as a next-generation OS has been around for years, Microsoft only got theirs to market this year. But Mac should imitate Windows? Give me a break!

"Fail" is common 'net vernacular. You're failing to make a solid argument, and now attempting to generate sympathy by acting hurt. If I'm rude, then you're a coward.

And I highly doubt the girl friend you refer to really knows "everything better than anyone else about just *everything*". Yet again you state your opinion as fact.
And what the hell does bulimia have to do with information retention? Is it in inverse correlation to her ability to retain food?

Finally, yet again, my assertion is that OSX is the best for me, as a graphic artist. Because it requires the least maintenance, or knowledge of the OS, beyond running the software I use for art. That makes it better for me from a 'usability' perspective - I can just sit down and use it! Simple.
I'll add to that, that the coloured buttons and other features of the Mac GUI are more aesthetically pleasing to me than grey old Windows, which is important to me as my computer is also my primary art tool. Environment influences art.

Unlike yourself, I have made no blanket claims, about any operating system.

And now, if you don't mind, I have to gasp in awe at your superhuman pay-check-cashing leet skillz. Clearly this makes you the superior being.

'98! '98, I say!:D

I'm rude? Awwwww, I can feel my lower lip trembling already...

Ah don't act as a spoiled child. Yes you're rude. Am I really supposed to be impressed by your Hillbilly trailer trash attitude?

Your words:

"Okay Mr Shouty, calm the fuck down."

For having been a doohicky-whatzit since whenever, you can form your own opinion about what's user-friendly or not. You don't get to 'decide' jack.

But you seem confused, for all your years of doohicky-whatzing

don't bother with your other pedantic 'examples', anyone who has never used a GUI before has to adapt themselves

This is a piss-weak argument.


You accuse me of misquoting you, then say I am claiming to be "the expert". Show me where I claimed this.

You really do. Look at the tone of your posting, the word choice. Like pedantic 'examples' and others...

That’s what I wrote:

Colors have different effects in diverse cultures. In the West, when we have a marriage our wives are mostly dressed in white. In some Asian countries, it’s black. The emotional feeling you feel when seeing something in red could be entirely different in Pakistan.


This is your misquote:

The colours mimic a traffic light. Are you seriously suggesting traffic lights in Pakistan don't follow the international standard red, amber, green? Or that the three colours in sequence aren't universally recognisable?



I'm using lame examples? Your example of three little coloured buttons is, I repeat, pedantic and trivial. It doesn't make the basis of a solid argument against the OS. It's entirely cosmetic.

Yes you showed lame examples...

Your words:

Do you have icons on the footpedals of your car?




You are comparing OSX to Windows. Directly. You say "we" got used to 'X's? Who's "we"? Why, "we" turns out to be *gasp* Windows users!

'We' is more than 90% of the people that is using a computer. Like it or not, 'we' all use a Windows.
Maybe you will soon use Windows as well. :)


Bootcamp is a free, download-only, pre-release, unsupported beta, released in order to get feedback for the full release coming up, and your complaint is the lack of a hard-copy manual? It doesn't even make sense.

I did'nt complain about the lack of a hard-copy manual. I did complain that I have to print one. Another misquote!I suggested that the needed help file should be available online because not all people do have a printer and some people do not like wasting paper.


I'm 'defending my lovely Mac' against the incredibly tired and ignorant argument that 'most people use Windows so Mac should emulate it'. This is the most pathetic argument of all.

No, I did not. Not even close. By accident Microsoft is having a better solution for resizing, minimizing and maximizing a window. And it's not their invention. I forgot, but it's possible that GEM, GEOS, Amiga, Atari ST or others had already something like that.

Mac should not emulate Windows, except the good parts.


Apple is older than Microsoft. The Mac GUI is older than Windows GUI. OSX as a next-generation OS has been around for years, Microsoft only got theirs to market this year. But Mac should imitate Windows? Give me a break!

No, they should not. Again.

Apple didn’t invent the GUI either.

Apple & Microsoft bought the technology at Xerox Palto Alto.


"Fail" is common 'net vernacular. You're failing to make a solid argument, and now attempting to generate sympathy by acting hurt. If I'm rude, then you're a coward.

Well for the rudeness, have a look at the beginning of this post. And you're doing it again. Failing solid arguments...

I can't help it, that you are not prepared to understand that well chosen icons work better than just colors when correlating it with an action.
I think I argumented it very clear, I'll not repeat myself again.

Btw, THAT's not even my invention. The credits goes to usability labs and experts around the world that invest time, effort & money in creating emperic evidence for such things. I'll already provided you the link http://www.usability.gov/ as a nice start.

There's a free e-book on that side about usability. I'm rather sure you'll find something about "don't use colors as the only cue of information".

Btw, there is another reason why only colors isn't enough: about 10% of the male population is color blind...


And I highly doubt the girl friend you refer to really knows "everything better than anyone else about just *everything*". Yet again you state your opinion as fact.
And what the hell does bulimia have to do with information retention? Is it in inverse correlation to her ability to retain food?

She knows more about diseases than any doctor...

Well I'm not a doctor, but I married that girl later. So I know her pretty well and I know what bulimia is all about. I have reading tons of books about the subject, had countless talks with doctors and psychologists.

In short, bulimia is more than only a food disorder, it's a personality disorder as well.
There's not ONE type of bulimia, the types you see at random TV documentaries are not the average bulimia girls. (Yes, most of them are girls, it's rather rare that boys suffer from this disease). Those are the extremes. TV is blowing up the subject, they make a kind of freak show to attract viewers. It’s difficult to recognize an average bulimia girl. Sure they are slim. But not all slim girls are having this disease.

The personality disorders can be diverse:

• Extreme perfectionist for themselves and for others (and I mean really extreme)
• Very low self esteem
• Are often the targets from bullies at the office or school
• Extreme competitive (They often have the highest grades at school).

When we went dancing, she was actually not enjoying it for real. She is an excellent dancer (followed dance school for years), but she was not having a good time. She was just comparing herself against the other people. And of course in her opinion she was the dance queen of the universe. It’s related with the low self esteem.

• The I-know-it-always-better attitude is also related with the low self esteem, it’s a kind of defense action.

• Some girls become promiscuous. (No, not my girl)
• ….

With lots of patient and courage she managed to get cured. Which is good news, about 20% of the girls is not surviving this ugly disease. Half is committing suicide, the others die because physical/medical reasons (often heart related).

Sorry, we’re going off topic. Search the internet for more…


Finally, yet again, my assertion is that OSX is the best for me, as a graphic artist. Because it requires the least maintenance, or knowledge of the OS, beyond running the software I use for art. That makes it better for me from a 'usability' perspective - I can just sit down and use it! Simple.
I'll add to that, that the coloured buttons and other features of the Mac GUI are more aesthetically pleasing to me than grey old Windows, which is important to me as my computer is also my primary art tool. Environment influences art.

Well I know some Mac Software that isn't sit-and-work.

In my opinion the Mac OS is scoring better on usability than Windows, but the application software is similar.

You can design Windows software as user-friendly as any Mac software. The OS doesn't play such an important role. The controls and features both OS are offering are rather similar.

While the grey color scheme is dominant in the Windows world (another usability mistake - the low contrast between (grey) back- and (black) foreground makes it harder to read the pages), but as a software designer you're not stuck to that scheme.

Is Windows old? You said before that Mac is older. So in one occasion old is good, in another it is bad. :)

It’s possible that YOU like the 3 colored buttons more.

But the Mac isn’t designed especially for you. Not even only for graphic artists.

I believe the Mac is designed for people. And in general people prefer usability before esthetics.


Oh btw, this is what Apple is saying about closing a window:

On Windows, I used to...
Click the close box to close windows.

On a Mac...
Click the close button (the round, red one in the upper-left corner) to close windows.

Source:
http://www.apple.com/support/switch101/switcher/2/

Hilarious! :)

Btw, Apple is not even using this bad red button consistent, which is another usability flaw:

In Windows you are sure what will happen if you close the closebox: your window will close and terminate the application.

On a Mac, you have to figure out what kind of application it is, because when you hit the round, red button in the upper-left corner then it can:

* Quit and Close the application, as like the calculator

or

* Just Close but NO quit like with the Terminal application.




Unlike yourself, I have made no blanket claims, about any operating system.

And now, if you don't mind, I have to gasp in awe at your superhuman pay-check-cashing leet skillz. Clearly this makes you the superior being.

Thank you.

In general,
- Windows is for gamers and people who don't know about Linux. It's a good OS, the only choice for gaming (I tried running games on Linux with Wine and it's problematic at best), but it's the only OS that's prone to viruses, and from my experience, crashes exponentially more than Linux
- OSX is for newbs. Not in a bad way, but it's made to be very user-friendly and look nice. The trade-off is when it crashes (yes, it does crash, about as much as windows, but whereas Windows programs autosave, Mac programs like iMovie don't :mad:)
- Ubuntu Linux is, in my opinion, the best all-around distro. Other distributions are difficult for anyone but power users, but Ubuntu, for me, has been exponentially easier than windows. With windows, you constantly struggle to make things work. You just don't realize it because you're so used to it. I've never seen a program in Ubuntu crash besides Beryl (which is not a fully finished program) and EVERY program in Windows has a top-notch counterpart for Linux. The Apt library of programs alone is huge and has everything the average person needs. For newbs, almost all hardware just works, and most Linux programs are programmed beautifully to avoid and are user-friendly. For power users, everything is customizable. Ubuntu is the true best of both worlds (except for games :( ) and is the easiest OS I've ever used.

Plus, even if you have a problem with Linux, instead of talking to incompetent tech support, you just head over to an IRC channel with the messenger included with your OS install, post an error message or a question, and you'll usually get a response. Or, you can just google an error message and instead of getting complaints like you would with windows errors, you get solutions.

The error messages are weird, yes, but they're concise to people who know what they're doing (and there are lots of those on the internet). Mac crashes without telling you anything. Windows crashes by telling you the application failed (no shit, sherlock). Linux tells you what went wrong, albeit in code.

Why do Linux people often react like sect members? It's allowed to say something ‘bad’ about their nice OS. Really!

For the record. I don’t hate Linux, Windows, Mac or whatever OS.

It’s just an OS. A piece of code. Nothing more, nothing less.

I agree with you to a certain extent. I know there are pros and cons to every OS. But the reason Linux users act like Linux is a religion is because we see a great OS that so few people have tried because they're too stupid to download a free LiveCD, and it's really frustrating.
People who get fed up with Windows crashes and viruses go and buy an expensive Mac, but that's only because of advertising. And Macs still crash! If they got a user-friendly Linux distro, they'd save money and get a more reliable distro with a simple way to do everything they need to do for free (Go into Synaptic, search for something and automatically download and install it)

The majority of people can't handle any OS that isn't advertised. They don't do their own research and instead they let that guy from Diehard 4 tell them what they need. Linux users have to fight corporations just to explain to people that Linux wasn't made by a Soviet scientist, and that makes us more defensive.

It was a Danish scientist? :)

While I'm not using Linux, I like the concept.

I like the Mac as well. And I even like Windows.

All 3 of them are very complicated to build OS. Respect!



I agree with you to a certain extent. I know there are pros and cons to every OS. But the reason Linux users act like Linux is a religion is because we see a great OS that so few people have tried because they're too stupid to download a free LiveCD, and it's really frustrating.
People who get fed up with Windows crashes and viruses go and buy an expensive Mac, but that's only because of advertising. And Macs still crash! If they got a user-friendly Linux distro, they'd save money and get a more reliable distro with a simple way to do everything they need to do for free (Go into Synaptic, search for something and automatically download and install it)

The majority of people can't handle any OS that isn't advertised. They don't do their own research and instead they let that guy from Diehard 4 tell them what they need. Linux users have to fight corporations just to explain to people that Linux wasn't made by a Soviet scientist, and that makes us more defensive.