Microsoft, Palm take on Apple at WSJ event

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 57
    vinney57vinney57 Posts: 1,162member
    My immediate thought was al those dodgy D&D movies where the wizard looks into the font water and sees the future* - see, there's no such thing as magic; its all just technology.



    *oops, that includes Lord of the Rings!
  • Reply 42 of 57
    kd86kd86 Posts: 42member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by walshbj View Post


    Here's what irks me. Bill has been talking about this table for a long time. Maybe he should fix Windows first. I'm not even talking about the big stuff. I'm talking about the little things that make it hard to use. Explorer's interface is brutal. Try to explain to your grandma why the New Folder link is only there sometimes. It might be intuitive to you and me - but it's not to everyone else.



    People don't know how to manipulate windows on the desktop - after how many years of MS Windows? They have failed completely in their efforts to educate. The average user works maximized all the time, and has no idea how to arrange windows so they can drag from one to the other.



    They want to introduce stuff like this table? Good luck with that. I'm not just talking about MS here. My LG phone doesn't work with my Mac. I have to spend all this time using shareware and scouring the web to make it remotely useful with my Mac.



    This is 2007! It's ridiculous that products are being released that don't work with my Mac and my Windows without having to jump through hoops. But all these companies are releasing half baked products that don't work for the average user. Try to remember the average user isn't interested in computers and phones - they just want them to work. Without tricks and hacks. Without spending a whole weekend screwing around with it.



    We're not even close yet.



    The whole maximize every window irks me too. I've seen newbies to the Mac say "where is the maximize button on these windows?" And they get mad when I tell them it's more of an optimize button. I ask them why they need some windows with such little content to fill the entire screen. They say it's distracting to them to see the desktop or other things going on and I've even heard from some people that they could never get a Mac because of this. Like they can't just manually resize the window to fill the screen. Good grief!
  • Reply 43 of 57
    stevehsteveh Posts: 480member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by digiology View Post


    Finally, a scroll-wheel on a laptop, listen up apple!



    Why in the world would you want to put a scroll wheel on it? You can already scroll vertically and horizontally by sliding two fingers on the laptop's trackpad.



    Which is a much more elegant solution, since you don't have a mechanical wheel getting jammed up with crumbs, for starters.
  • Reply 44 of 57
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by KD86 View Post


    Like they can't just manually resize the window to fill the screen. Good grief!



    If the point is to minimize the number of clicks it takes to perform the task, then that method fails the metric. There are a lot of actions that require more clicks and button presses than it would with Windows to do the same task.
  • Reply 45 of 57
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    If the point is to minimize the number of clicks it takes to perform the task, then that method fails the metric. There are a lot of actions that require more clicks and button presses than it would with Windows to do the same task.



    Like kernel panics, virus infections, spyware installations....
  • Reply 46 of 57
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Kickaha View Post


    Like kernel panics, virus infections, spyware installations....



    That's a different issue, but the number of kernel panics I get on Windows is not much different than what I get on Macs. One time it was worse because there was a bug in early versions of Tiger that caused the machine to panic on occasion if I plugged my USB scanner in.
  • Reply 47 of 57
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    The point was that not all tasks are created equal. Sure, you *can* maximize with a single click on Windows, but the real question is... why? What is so compelling about maximizing on Windows? What problems does it solve (or seem to)? Do those problems exist on the Mac? Are there other, possibly superior solutions available? Bottom line is: is maximize wanted on the Mac because it is better, or *simply because it is reflex*?



    If the latter, then there's no point in making it any more efficient on the Mac, is there?
  • Reply 48 of 57
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    That's a different issue, but the number of kernel panics I get on Windows is not much different than what I get on Macs. One time it was worse because there was a bug in early versions of Tiger that caused the machine to panic on occasion if I plugged my USB scanner in.



    Really? I haven't had a kernel panic since Panther, I think. I have several Macs, I am even using Leopard. I admit that Leopard has many problems but I have yet to see a single kernel panic. Hell, I even have a friend who has OS X running on a PC via the OSx86 Project who hasn't had a single kernel panic. He says it's actually quite stable though network drivers could be optimized more for his system.
  • Reply 49 of 57
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Wanting OS X to have a maximize button is like wanting Windows to have a Dock. The zoom button has been a pivotal aspect of the Mac OS GUI for a long time. There is little merit warranting a radical departure from that.



    To free up clutter, there's "Hide Others". There's also a full screen mode in applications where it makes sense.
  • Reply 50 of 57
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Kickaha View Post


    The point was that not all tasks are created equal. Sure, you *can* maximize with a single click on Windows, but the real question is... why? What is so compelling about maximizing on Windows? What problems does it solve (or seem to)? Do those problems exist on the Mac? Are there other, possibly superior solutions available? Bottom line is: is maximize wanted on the Mac because it is better, or *simply because it is reflex*?



    If the latter, then there's no point in making it any more efficient on the Mac, is there?



    If that was really your point, then your previous reply was a total distraction from that point.



    The Mac way of doing this works fine until it doesn't work. On Finder, it's a total crapshoot. I've had Finder successively shrink with each click until only one icon shows and stays there, even if there might be hundreds of items in a folder. The button for iTunes only switches between two modes. It even submarines part of the iTunes window under the dock such that it needs to be manually moved and resized to expose the necessary parts. iTunes definitely could use a full screen click (preferably one that doesn't submarine part of the program under the dock), as I would expect that most people would have far more items in their library than one screen can show.
  • Reply 51 of 57
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    If that was really your point, then your previous reply was a total distraction from that point.



    Sorry, but this topic has been discussed, argued, and flamed about to *death* on this forum. Figured it was obvious that "less clicks == better" isn't really true all the time, in every context. I'll be sure to be much more explicit next time.



    Quote:

    The Mac way of doing this works fine until it doesn't work. On Finder, it's a total crapshoot. I've had Finder successively shrink with each click until only one icon shows and stays there, even if there might be hundreds of items in a folder.



    So what you're saying is... apps have bugs. Agreed. Leaving Zoom behavior in the hands of the developers has led to some... odd implementations over the years. Finder is just plain buggy.



    Quote:

    The button for iTunes only switches between two modes. It even submarines part of the iTunes window under the dock such that it needs to be manually moved and resized to expose the necessary parts. iTunes definitely could use a full screen click (preferably one that doesn't submarine part of the program under the dock), as I would expect that most people would have far more items in their library than one screen can show.



    Chalk this one up to wanting a common UI experience on MacOS X and Windows. I don't agree with it, but I can understand the rationalization.
  • Reply 52 of 57
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    iTunes definitely could use a full screen click (preferably one that doesn't submarine part of the program under the dock), as I would expect that most people would have far more items in their library than one screen can show.



    I fail to see what problem a full screen song list solves. Full screen visualizations, full screen video playback and full screen cover flow I can see; all three of them are implemented.
  • Reply 53 of 57
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Chucker View Post


    I fail to see what problem a full screen song list solves. Full screen visualizations, full screen video playback and full screen cover flow I can see; all three of them are implemented.



    Why does it have to be a problem? Is it such an unreasonable thing to want?
  • Reply 54 of 57
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Kickaha View Post


    Sorry, but this topic has been discussed, argued, and flamed about to *death* on this forum. Figured it was obvious that "less clicks == better" isn't really true all the time, in every context.



    Maybe not all the time, but in this case, I don't see how more clicks helps.
  • Reply 55 of 57
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    <kersnip>
  • Reply 56 of 57
    avoravor Posts: 44member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    They say that they can get them down to consumer pricing in 3-5 years. The first ones are going to Harrah's, Sheraton and the like, those two are named partners on the Microsoft Surface site.



    Yeah, I know. But we have smaller, flat touch screens now that could easily be incorporated into tables as menus but most restaurants don't use them. Even as low as $300 a table is expensive; it's too "futuristic" right now and not cost effective.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    A simple flat surface should be easy to clean. People are too germ-o-phobic. There are 10x as many "germ" organisms in a human as there are human cells in the same body. The world is starting to see some "blowback" from being too germicidal, antiviral & antibacterial where the buggers evolve such that the techniques and drugs don't work anymore.



    It's amazing the stuff my Grandparents did - example, cook a giant feast for lunch, cover it up with a blanket (for bugs), and eat it over the course of the next day and a half. I've got a nearly 100 year old great grandma so it didn't kill her. We've got bodies that build immunities - we should start using them again!
  • Reply 57 of 57
    I must say that the Microsoft Surface looks like it possesses an incredible technology, and seems to have through the roof potential. The camera recognition feature is simply amazing. I remember seeing something like this on a larger scale in Quantum of Solace, and was totally blown away by it.



    Having said that, I see the technology being used as more of an entertainment/media machine at this point in its development (based on the video in the related article); for example, the hardware version of iLife; or to be used with the government/military. While pro creative use could be possible, it seems as though a huge adjustment in workflow would need be made on the user's part. Surely it could be a welcomed change to some.
Sign In or Register to comment.