Product Transition - So whats next ?

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 33
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post


    It's you that doesn't have a clue, being a self-confessed non-user of OS X. I use both OSes extensively, and OS X clearly wins in this area.



    O.K. Nothing stopping you using only the mouse in OS X. Allocate a hot corner to exposé, and ta-da, you have your one-click access to the desired window (corners are very big mousing targets (fitt's law), and an "exposéd" window is a much larger target than a TaskBar button, so it's likely the hot-corner flick + click on desired window would take the same or less time than clicking on a TaskBar button).







    No you can't. You can only see open windows as there's no distinction between windows and applications.







    As it does with exposé. Only exposé is better because you can see what's in each window as well as seeing a text descriptor thereof.





    You're assuming I haven't used OSX, you're incorrect.



    Going to Expose first then going to your program is two moves. Going right to your window of choice is 1 move.



    I don't know what point you are trying to make about windows vs applications, you can group windows by application if you choose in XP, I choose not to use that option on the taskbar because that causes an extra click to open the application stack first before selecting your window.





    I move a lot of data all day long. I'm using a simple gauge to determine which is more efficient:



    Fewest clicks and/or mouse moves to go from any 1 window to any other specific window. 1 move wins.
  • Reply 22 of 33
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,700member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by fixmdude View Post


    You're assuming I haven't used OSX, you're incorrect.



    No, I'm assuming you're not an "OS X user". i.e. someone who's used it for an extensive period of time (at least 6 months as their primary OS) and learnt how to use it properly. You've already said that you "can't use OS X" because it doesn't have a TaskBar alternative. So, you're an XP user, not an OS X user. If I'm wrong then please elaborate.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by fixmdude View Post


    Going to Expose first then going to your program is two moves. Going right to your window of choice is 1 move.



    Indeed, but both are "1 click", which is what you were complaining about. And as I explained, both targets with exposé are considerably larger than a TaskBar button so total time to perform the move would be the same or less in OS X with practice (you are already well practiced with Windows).



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by fixmdude View Post


    I don't know what point you are trying to make about windows vs applications



    That's because you're a Windows user and don't understand the distinction between the two, as it's not properly defined in the Windows OS.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by fixmdude View Post


    you can group windows by application if you choose in XP



    But then you lose your window switcher. Like you, I have determined that Windows grouping buttons on the TaskBar creates more problems than it solves and always turn that feature off.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by fixmdude View Post


    Fewest clicks and/or mouse moves to go from any 1 window to any other specific window. 1 move wins.



    Not necessarily on the "moves" front. It depends on the size of the targets that you have to move to.



    OS X offers you an application switcher and a window switcher. It's difficult for you to appreciate why it's nice to have two distinct switchers, because as a Windows user you've developed efficient methods of using the only switcher available to you. But I'm very, very confident that if you learnt (not hard) and practice (takes time to develop the muscle memory etc.) how to use OS X's switchers properly, you'd get your job done faster on OS X.
  • Reply 23 of 33
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post


    No, I'm assuming you're not an "OS X user". i.e. someone who's used it for an extensive period of time (at least 6 months as their primary OS) and learnt how to use it properly. You've already said that you "can't use OS X" because it doesn't have a TaskBar alternative. So, you're an XP user, not an OS X user. If I'm wrong then please elaborate.





    Indeed, but both are "1 click", which is what you were complaining about. And as I explained, both targets with exposé are considerably larger than a TaskBar button so total time to perform the move would be the same or less in OS X with practice (you are already well practiced with Windows).





    That's because you're a Windows user and don't understand the distinction between the two, as it's not properly defined in the Windows OS.





    But then you lose your window switcher. Like you, I have determined that Windows grouping buttons on the TaskBar creates more problems than it solves and always turn that feature off.





    Not necessarily on the "moves" front. It depends on the size of the targets that you have to move to.



    OS X offers you an application switcher and a window switcher. It's difficult for you to appreciate why it's nice to have two distinct switchers, because as a Windows user you've developed efficient methods of using the only switcher available to you. But I'm very, very confident that if you learnt (not hard) and practice (takes time to develop the muscle memory etc.) how to use OS X's switchers properly, you'd get your job done faster on OS X.









    Maybe this will help explain it to you better:



    Windows = window 1 < move < click < window 4



    OSX = window 1 < move < expose window < move < click < window 4



    Besides there being an extra move, there is an expose window in between the source and the target window, which interferes with one's mental clipboard when looking between 2 work screens.
  • Reply 24 of 33
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by fixmdude View Post


    Maybe this will help explain it to you better:



    Windows = window 1 < move < click < window 4



    OSX = window 1 < move < expose window < move < click < window 4



    Besides there being an extra move, there is an expose window in between the source and the target window, which interferes with one's mental clipboard when looking between 2 work screens.





    not completely true say for instance you have multiple web pages open they become stacked on eachother in wich case it becomes windows1<move<click<move<click. not to mention the fact that expose is much more visual adn there fore makes it much easier to find what you are looking for, and actually the way i ahve expose set up i use the middle mouse button wich makes it:

    windows1<click< move<click. shazzam! the process takes less than a half a second.i prefer it greatly to windows taskbar
  • Reply 25 of 33
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zerfman View Post


    not completely true say for instance you have multiple web pages open they become stacked on eachother in wich case it becomes windows1<move<click<move<click. not to mention the fact that expose is much more visual adn there fore makes it much easier to find what you are looking for, and actually the way i ahve expose set up i use the middle mouse button wich makes it:

    windows1<click< move<click. shazzam! the process takes less than a half a second.i prefer it greatly to windows taskbar



    I've already written twice above that I do not use grouped windows (or as you wrote, "stacked" windows) for that reason of it creating an extra step. I turn that feature off and get a separate tab for each window.



    Whether your extra step is a move, or a click, it's still an extra step, and then an extra screen to look at inbetween your two "working" windows. When comparing data on two screens, the extra screen gets in the way of comparing images directly.
  • Reply 26 of 33
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,700member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by fixmdude View Post


    Maybe this will help explain it to you better:



    Windows = window 1 < move < click < window 4



    OSX = window 1 < move < expose window < move < click < window 4



    You slipped in an "expose window" there to make the OS X list look longer, despite the fact it's not a user action. To be comparable the OS X list should be:



    OSX = window 1 < move < move < click < window 4



    In any case, you do not need to "explain it better" because I already acknowledged that there is an extra move involved with exposé. It's a shame that you cannot acknowledge that the targets involved in the exposé move are larger, and the size of a target is a significant factor in how long it will take to mouse to said target.



    It's also a shame that you continue to ignore the fact that Windows does not separate windows and applications and since you never had the option in Windows of a dedicated application switcher, you cannot possibly have proficiency in using an application switcher to the level of your proficiency of using a window switcher. There are times when the application switcher is the better option, having access and being proficient at using both an application switcher and a window switcher leads to much faster multi-tasking.



    There are plenty of reasons to use XP over OS X; but this is really, really not one of them. I've done my best to make the case for your giving OS X more of a chance, you can of course carry on using XP, I don't care; it's your loss not mine. Having said that, there could be wider issues which we haven't discussed which mean that XP really is the better choice for you.
  • Reply 27 of 33
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post


    You slipped in an "expose window" there to make the OS X list look longer, despite the fact it's not a user action. To be comparable the OS X list should be:



    OSX = window 1 < move < move < click < window 4



    In any case, you do not need to "explain it better" because I already acknowledged that there is an extra move involved with exposé. It's a shame that you cannot acknowledge that the targets involved in the exposé move are larger, and the size of a target is a significant factor in how long it will take to mouse to said target.



    It's also a shame that you continue to ignore the fact that Windows does not separate windows and applications and since you've never had the option of both an application switcher and a window switcher, you cannot possibly appreciate how proficiency in both will ultimately lead to much faster multi-tasking.



    There are plenty of reasons to use XP over OS X; but this is really, really not one of them. I've done my best to make the case for your giving OS X more of a chance, you can of course carry on using XP, I don't care; it's your loss not mine. Having said that, there could be wider issues which we haven't discussed which mean that XP really is the better choice for you.





    I mentioned the expose window because that is at the heart of my complaint. When comparing data on two screens, a third screen in between gets in the way of the mental images you are comparing. You are so closed minded that you'd rather attack me in your responses than think about the points I'm making. That's a shame.
  • Reply 28 of 33
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,700member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by fixmdude View Post


    I've already written twice above that I do not use grouped windows (or as you wrote, "stacked" windows) for that reason of it creating an extra step. I turn that feature off and get a separate tab for each window.



    Whether your extra step is a move, or a click, it's still an extra step, and then an extra screen to look at inbetween your two "working" windows. When comparing data on two screens, the extra screen gets in the way of comparing images directly.



    If you're switching back and forth between two windows comparing images, it would be better to use command-tilde (if both windows belong to the same application) or command-tab (if the windows belong to two different apps) to switch between them. Quicker than using the mouse.
  • Reply 29 of 33
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,700member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by fixmdude View Post


    You are so closed minded that you'd rather attack me in your repsonses than think about the points I'm making. That's a shame.



    I'm not attacking you, I'm responding to the points that you are making. I take particular offense at you calling me closed-minded; I'm reading what you're writing and doing my best to explain why I think your "issues" are not issues, and to explain to you that you could be missing out by not taking the time to learn and become proficient with OS X's tools, which in this case are more powerful and provide many more options than the Windows equivalents. However, you continue to ignore some of the points that I am making.



    See my previous post concerning switching between windows when you are trying to compare the images in the two windows. If I was doing the same thing in Windows, I'd probably use alt-tab rather than the mouse.



    As I said before, there might be some really good reasons for you not to use OS X. I just believe that assuming there aren't any, it's highly likely that you'd be more efficient in OS X with sufficient practice. It's up to you whether you put that practice in or not.
  • Reply 30 of 33
    freakboyfreakboy Posts: 138member
    they will release OSX into the wild for certain hardware configurations sold by 3rd parties. These machines will support the same internal hardware as macs and use mac peripherals.



    Jobs sees the weakness of Vista as a chance to take a gamble to finally put a stake through m$'s cash cow, and with all the other aspects of their business now, it makes sense to push for a huge jump in market share.



    My guess is that they will have HP and a few other big players selling OSX based PCs by the end of the year.



    Apple has the cash reserves and the diversified business now to survive a hit to their hardware sales, and this time, they'll get big players to sell their machines instead of trying to create a clone industry from scratch because the big players already basically sell the same hardware that's in macs.
  • Reply 31 of 33
    mystmyst Posts: 112member
    I really don't post much, but this debate over window management is truly ridiculous. Mr. H, I applaud your patience with this debate and willingness to explain the same thing multiple times. fixmdude, I really believe that if you were to try to do things a different way, instead of look to mimic the old way you did things in Windows, you would enjoy the OS experience much more and lose next to no (if any) productivity.



    I think you would be better off not accusing someone of attacking you who had no intention of attacking you. Yes, he was aggressive in making his point that you had limited knowledge (primarily in his first post), but that shouldn't make you feel the need to dig your feet in on the whole issue and continually find new ways to complain about the OS.



    One thing I take issue to most here is the complete hijacking of a legitimate thread. From my point of view, Mr. H has done an amazing job trying to get across alternatives and fixmdude has taken the lowroad of avoiding valid points and complete hyperbole.



    ------



    On this topic, I think the transition is the move to touch panels on low end iPods (read. nano) and perhaps a screen on the shuffle. The only other viable transition is a transition to non-Intel chipsets, which I believe will happen -- but, it doesn't match the description of significant margin loss, unless they are in-house.
  • Reply 32 of 33
    paprochypaprochy Posts: 129member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by fixmdude View Post


    Then you do the hokey pokey and you turn yourself around?



    You don't have a clue. I do all of my switching in XP with the mouse.



    Highlight what to copy < right-click < copy < click once on the taskbar tab you're moving to < right-click < paste.



    I can see all open windows and programs in a row all the time. Nothing hidden out of sight, nothing requires another hand on the keyboard, no mix of closed and opened programs all on the same bar. No switching to the program first then selecting the correct window. It takes 1 click to go right to the correct open window within the program of your choice.



    Alright, being the multi tasking, power user hotshot that you are, you really should have figured out keyboard shortcuts by now. I mean seriously.



    And you can't just judge the efficiency of something just by counting clicks and moves, there's a whole plethora of factors in the efficiency of an interface. I think Mr. H did the best he could to explain the pros of the Mac OS interface, and I really don't have anything else to add.
  • Reply 33 of 33
    k_munick_munic Posts: 357member
    a 'QuicktimeX' chipset.



    better, faster en- and decoding of media.

    simple copy-protection, to avoid MacOs on Intel(-only) computers ..
Sign In or Register to comment.