3 ms·

I actually think it's bad for an OS to include too many features out of the box. Basically every modern platform has already gone too far in this direction, mak

I actually think it's bad for an OS to include too many features out of the box. Basically every modern platform has already gone too far in this direction, making computers more difficult for casual users to understand. Vendors should include only the bare essentials, then let users who want more add their own extras. Imagine an OS similar to the original Macintosh, or maybe early versions of iOS, but with add-ons that can add features to the global UI. New users have a basic system with easily-understood behaviors, and experienced users can enable the features they need. In an alternate universe where I believed it was possible to compete with the major vendors, this is the platform I would build...

na85 5y ago
Disagree. Fancy features are awesome for "normies". iPhones have a feature where you can create PDFs page by page, using the camera as a scanner. After you snap the photo it offers you a crop and transform tool, and does a little image recognition to assist you and make the edges of the crop tool snap to the page within the photo. I've found that feature immensely useful in a professional context and (it was a company device) when I gave the phone back I seriously considered switching away from Android for my personal phone. Little things like that, baked into the OS, make for a really awesome UX.
- Wowfunhappy 5y ago
  Wouldn't it make more sense for the scanning feature to be its own app, so that users can find it, know what it is, and not activate it accidentally?
  - joshgachnang 5y ago
    I've only used this in the Files app, which makes sense because you're making files. I'm not sure if it exists in the camera app as well.
    - Wowfunhappy 5y ago
      This to me is actually a problem with how iOS works versus traditional desktops. Almost everything you create is a file, so you could justify putting almost any feature in the files app. The files app should be exclusively for listing/moving/copying files. Files themselves should be created by and opened with different apps. This isn't to say apps shouldn't be able to talk to the files app. On macOS, for example, apps can install QuickLook plugins.
  - na85 5y ago
    > Wouldn't it make more sense for the scanning feature to be its own app, so that users can find it, know what it is, and not activate it accidentally? It's been a few years since I had that phone so the details are a bit fuzzy but I seem to recall it was very discoverable from the email attachment interface, at the very least. Problem with a separate app is that it's a separate codebase and thus easier for it to fall to neglect.
    - Wowfunhappy 5y ago
      > It's been a few years since I had that phone so the details are a bit fuzzy but I seem to recall it was very discoverable from the email attachment interface, at the very least. That's great if I'm sending an email, but what if I want to upload the documents to a website, or send them via iMessage, or Airdrop them to another Apple device, or print out the scan to effectively make a second paper copy? Do you add the icon to each of these interfaces, taking up screen real estate and adding mental load? (One new icon is never a problem, but do it 30 times and you'll be in a bad spot.) IMO, Apple's strategy significantly railroads users, while making interfaces ever-more complicated. > Problem with a separate app is that it's a separate codebase and thus easier for it to fall to neglect. Yeah, bundling everything into iTunes worked really well for Apple, didn't it? :D I really don't think we should be making UI decisions based on this.
      - na85 5y ago
        >Yeah, bundling everything into iTunes worked really well for Apple, didn't it? :D I'm not really an "Apple Guy" so it's not clear to me what you are referring to.
        Wowfunhappy 5y ago
        Over the course of more than a decade, Apple kept adding features to iTunes until the app become horribly slow, confusing, and buggy. Just about everyone hated it. When Apple finally killed the Mac version of iTunes on stage at WWDC, they basically admitted that they'd tried to cram in too much functionality, by joking that they were considering a Calendar and Web Browser.
krono 5y ago
Windows is so far past that point now, could just as well pile these on too < edit: I'm actually positive about these tools, MS could do with a little less focus on consumer usecases I think.
JadeNB 5y ago
> Vendors should include only the bare essentials, then let users who want more add their own extras. This used to be appealing to me, back when the open-source model seemed to be viable even on macOS and Windows. Now any look at the app store will show you apps performing the most basic, should-be (and often is!) bundled, functionality that cost $5 apiece. No slight against developers, who have a right to make a living, but if I just dropped thousands of dollars on a computer and then had to pay $5 for each small convenience feature I wanted, it would definitely be a significant downgrade in experience. I don't live in the Windows ecosystem any more, but the macOS freeware ecosystem has significantly degraded (and it's not just a matter of “I have to use something old”—due to architecture changes, most of the old stuff doesn't work any more, and, understandably, even if the original maintainer is still keeping it up, they now often charge for the product).
- Wowfunhappy 5y ago
  I absolutely agree about these problems! But, that's why I think it's great that PowerToys is made by Microsoft. Just because a feature isn't included in the base OS doesn't mean the same company can't create it.
ziml77 5y ago
I actually find it strange how many people I'm seeing crap on PowerToys because you get the features out-of-the-box on other platforms. First off, macOS is missing its own features such as three-finger tap to middle click and window snapping, and what you get on Linux is going to vary based on your DE. Second, building something in adds bloat for people who don't use it and can kill off choices of third-party options that might do the feature (subjectively) better (I still see people mad that Apple killed Sherlock by building their own version of it in) I like the idea of something pluggable, but also with sane and disableable default features that 98% of users will be totally fine with.

na85 5y ago

Disagree. Fancy features are awesome for "normies". iPhones have a feature where you can create PDFs page by page, using the camera as a scanner. After you snap the photo it offers you a crop and transform tool, and does a little image recognition to assist you and make the edges of the crop tool snap to the page within the photo. I've found that feature immensely useful in a professional context and (it was a company device) when I gave the phone back I seriously considered switching away from Android for my personal phone. Little things like that, baked into the OS, make for a really awesome UX.

Wowfunhappy 5y ago
Wouldn't it make more sense for the scanning feature to be its own app, so that users can find it, know what it is, and not activate it accidentally?
- joshgachnang 5y ago
  I've only used this in the Files app, which makes sense because you're making files. I'm not sure if it exists in the camera app as well.
  - Wowfunhappy 5y ago
    This to me is actually a problem with how iOS works versus traditional desktops. Almost everything you create is a file, so you could justify putting almost any feature in the files app. The files app should be exclusively for listing/moving/copying files. Files themselves should be created by and opened with different apps. This isn't to say apps shouldn't be able to talk to the files app. On macOS, for example, apps can install QuickLook plugins.
- na85 5y ago
  > Wouldn't it make more sense for the scanning feature to be its own app, so that users can find it, know what it is, and not activate it accidentally? It's been a few years since I had that phone so the details are a bit fuzzy but I seem to recall it was very discoverable from the email attachment interface, at the very least. Problem with a separate app is that it's a separate codebase and thus easier for it to fall to neglect.
  - Wowfunhappy 5y ago
    > It's been a few years since I had that phone so the details are a bit fuzzy but I seem to recall it was very discoverable from the email attachment interface, at the very least. That's great if I'm sending an email, but what if I want to upload the documents to a website, or send them via iMessage, or Airdrop them to another Apple device, or print out the scan to effectively make a second paper copy? Do you add the icon to each of these interfaces, taking up screen real estate and adding mental load? (One new icon is never a problem, but do it 30 times and you'll be in a bad spot.) IMO, Apple's strategy significantly railroads users, while making interfaces ever-more complicated. > Problem with a separate app is that it's a separate codebase and thus easier for it to fall to neglect. Yeah, bundling everything into iTunes worked really well for Apple, didn't it? :D I really don't think we should be making UI decisions based on this.
    - na85 5y ago
      >Yeah, bundling everything into iTunes worked really well for Apple, didn't it? :D I'm not really an "Apple Guy" so it's not clear to me what you are referring to.
      - Wowfunhappy 5y ago
        Over the course of more than a decade, Apple kept adding features to iTunes until the app become horribly slow, confusing, and buggy. Just about everyone hated it. When Apple finally killed the Mac version of iTunes on stage at WWDC, they basically admitted that they'd tried to cram in too much functionality, by joking that they were considering a Calendar and Web Browser.

krono 5y ago

Windows is so far past that point now, could just as well pile these on too < edit: I'm actually positive about these tools, MS could do with a little less focus on consumer usecases I think.

JadeNB 5y ago

> Vendors should include only the bare essentials, then let users who want more add their own extras. This used to be appealing to me, back when the open-source model seemed to be viable even on macOS and Windows. Now any look at the app store will show you apps performing the most basic, should-be (and often is!) bundled, functionality that cost $5 apiece. No slight against developers, who have a right to make a living, but if I just dropped thousands of dollars on a computer and then had to pay $5 for each small convenience feature I wanted, it would definitely be a significant downgrade in experience. I don't live in the Windows ecosystem any more, but the macOS freeware ecosystem has significantly degraded (and it's not just a matter of “I have to use something old”—due to architecture changes, most of the old stuff doesn't work any more, and, understandably, even if the original maintainer is still keeping it up, they now often charge for the product).

Wowfunhappy 5y ago
I absolutely agree about these problems! But, that's why I think it's great that PowerToys is made by Microsoft. Just because a feature isn't included in the base OS doesn't mean the same company can't create it.

ziml77 5y ago

I actually find it strange how many people I'm seeing crap on PowerToys because you get the features out-of-the-box on other platforms. First off, macOS is missing its own features such as three-finger tap to middle click and window snapping, and what you get on Linux is going to vary based on your DE. Second, building something in adds bloat for people who don't use it and can kill off choices of third-party options that might do the feature (subjectively) better (I still see people mad that Apple killed Sherlock by building their own version of it in) I like the idea of something pluggable, but also with sane and disableable default features that 98% of users will be totally fine with.