4 ms·

The article misses the mark completely. The main thesis is that Mac OS did change only incrementally, while Windows leaps chaotically between new features and p

by Udo 13y ago

The article misses the mark completely. The main thesis is that Mac OS did change only incrementally, while Windows leaps chaotically between new features and philosophies. That's not true, and in fact the illustrations used contradict the conclusions drawn in the article. For example, when they talk about the introduction of the proto Dock in Mac OS, they say "no major changes in UI". But when Windows introduces the Start menu and task bar that's changing the UI "completely". Then come the incremental UI refinements and color changes that coincide with new graphics capabilities, again this is heralded as being more of the same for Mac but radically different with each version of Windows. Looking at these screenshots which show similar trends in UI development side by side and coming to wildly different conclusions in the face of those similarities is just a stunning display of cognitive dissonance. The change to Metro would be the only big jump where the article is actually right in asserting a real change, if we'd be willing to forget the fact that Metro (or whatever it's called now) is nothing but a thin veneer you have to get past in order to access the real Windows, which is of course pretty much a clone of its predecessor. All this just to explain a conclusion from an anecdote, a conclusion which the article itself proves wrong unwittingly. Even if we accept that OS X users don't buy books about their OS and don't rant as much (which I find particularly out of touch with reality), that's because there are vastly more Windows users around. Because the numbers are so great, there are also a lot of Windows users who lack the tech intuition but want to learn, so they buy a book about it. OS X clientele is just by and large different. That's where the real difference lies.

pit 13y ago
I agree. The GUI changes in Windows (pre-8) are pretty negligible. Your Start button used to be rectangular; now it's a circle. Big whoop. The most frustrating thing for me about Windows over the years is that the path to perform routine tasks is always changing.
- Goladus 13y ago
  Your Start button used to be rectangular; now it's a circle. Big whoop Between versions of windows there are fairly substantial changes in how the start menu is organized and how a user can customize it. I'm using Windows 7 and I'm still not sure how the items in the primary menu are selected to be there. It usually seems to have what I'm looking for so I don't worry too much. But it's not as usable as I remember from older versions of windows. That said, I do think the article sells windows short unfairly. It's true that (pre Windows-8, anyway) key gui features of windows have remained consistent between versions. I haven't ranted about Windows in a long time (other Microsoft products, that's a different story). Incidentally, I believe the particular feature you refer to, the start menu as a general principle, is one of the best design choices microsoft ever made. It's not the most efficient way to organize a UI, but a hierarchical system is a great way to design for incremental discovery.
  - fat0wl 13y ago
    yeah i mean theres a bit of a learning curve in terms of how the menus are arranged but its manageable. All the same basic elements are there (control panel, my computer, etc). I think Mac has changed some of these internal menu/organization too, that's what OSes tend to do. I almost burst out laughing when I got to the Windows page and saw the "COMPLETE OVERHAULSSS" between each release... basically just minor changes to Start button / taskbar. But all in all if Windows 8 is a big change or something I think it's cuz they're trying to now go with "OK. well. people are computer literate now. they know what an OS does. where can we go from here?" It may not be painless but to me the Mac approach has always been a dull wrapper shielding us from the true power of our computers.
  - FireBeyond 13y ago
    "I'm using Windows 7 and I'm still not sure how the items in the primary menu are selected to be there." Most recently used. And by implication, most commonly used. "It usually seems to have what I'm looking for so I don't worry too much." Et voila.
    - Goladus 13y ago
      Most recently used. And by implication, most commonly used. Well, which is it? There appear to be two categories, one on the top and one on the bottom. Both appear to be some formula of recently used, commonly used, and likely to use again but it's not clear what the difference is or what the secret sauce part of the formula is (.exe size, for example?). The only thing it's obviously NOT, is a strict "recently used" formula. Also the submenus are just weird. It would seem to be "recently used files" for the associated application but with putty, for example, there's only a single random .jpg file and attempting to open it causes an error. Obviously I suppose, putty can't open jpgs, but why is it even there and how do I get rid of it? No idea. I can "unpin" it but it doesn't go away. Also, to the main point-- the contents of that menu have changed substantially from windows XP, meaning that I pretty much have to throw away most of what I learned from the previous version. It's really a mess. Some things I launch from the start menu, others I launch from a desktop icon, others I have to search for using the search box. Outlook and firefox are in the quicklaunch area. Even one tool I use all the time (procexp.exe) never gets added to the start menu, yet the videogame LIMBO is there, which I played once last year over the course of a few days and then opened it once for 5 minutes 1-2 weeks ago and haven't touched it in the interim. It's not that it's so horrible I can't get things done, but all this UI change improves nothing about my user experience over windows XP (which still had a section for recently used apps, which was a convenient and useful addition to the core design.). The search is faster, and adding search with a new results UI as the fallback behavior to what used to be the "run..." command window was a very sensible tweak. But the new UI tends to cause some minor annoyances any time I want to do anything of the sort of power-user stuff I used to do when I was younger. My prior knowledge of windows is rapidly becoming useless and I'm getting very little from the OS in return.
erifneerg 13y ago
> Even if we accept that OS X users don't buy books about their OS and don't rant as much (which I find particularly out of touch with reality), that's because there are vastly more Windows users around. I would have assume most mac users who want to learn buy Apple's 'One on One' courses or some other related service.
ollysb 13y ago
I wonder what the response would have been if they'd billed the metro screen as the new start button i.e. when you click start the metro screen appears. Then it would have seemed like more of a stylistic change than a major UI update.
bunderbunder 13y ago
So it's absolutely true that Apple does introduce big new UI features. The real difference is, Apple introduces these big new features as additional features, not as major changes. So, to take your Dock example: Apple didn't yank the Applications folder at the same time that they introduced the Dock. A decade later they introduced Launchpad, and did not simultaneously yank the Dock. In fact, the Dock still works pretty much the same it did back in the '90s, when it only existed in NEXTSTEP. And the Applications folder is still there and still working pretty much the same way, too. I don't bother with Launchpad, personally, because I prefer the old way of doing things. . . and unlike Microsoft, Apple's totally fine with letting me do that. To compare with Windows: When the Start Menu came out, it completely replaced the Program Manager. Over the course of the Start Menu's life, it got rearranged a few times - not a crisis, but obnoxious. Even just switching between XP and Vista, I occasionally find myself hesitating for a moment trying to remember where $widget got moved to. And again, when the Start screen comes out in Windows 8, it doesn't just get added for the benefit of people who want to use it. . . it replaced the Start Menu, so now less-savvy users have to re-learn how to use their computers yet again, and I have yet another source of friction when switching back and forth between versions of the OS.
Pxtl 13y ago
The UI changes with each version of windows before 8 are small, but significant. Look at the taskbar for example. First came item-grouping in XP, then came the merging of the Quicklaunch and the Taskbar in Vista, then they dropped the text-labels in 7. Obviously that's all configurable, but those are all substantial changes in the way we interact with the taskbar. And the user's perception of "windows" doesn't end with the OS. The drastic UI changes in MS Office with every version can't be discounted. There was the move from mdi to one-window-per-document (with utterly broken "close" functionality in Excel) then the buttons were replaced by the Ribbon and that crazy Office Button in 2007 merged the File menu and the Control Box. Then they backed off on that and now there's the weird full-screen File menu in 2012. And with every version they release a completely new suite of icons for each Office app, often with new colour-scheme... which kind of counters dropping text-labels off the taskbar in Windows 7.

by Udo 13y ago

pit 13y ago

I agree. The GUI changes in Windows (pre-8) are pretty negligible. Your Start button used to be rectangular; now it's a circle. Big whoop. The most frustrating thing for me about Windows over the years is that the path to perform routine tasks is always changing.

Goladus 13y ago
Your Start button used to be rectangular; now it's a circle. Big whoop Between versions of windows there are fairly substantial changes in how the start menu is organized and how a user can customize it. I'm using Windows 7 and I'm still not sure how the items in the primary menu are selected to be there. It usually seems to have what I'm looking for so I don't worry too much. But it's not as usable as I remember from older versions of windows. That said, I do think the article sells windows short unfairly. It's true that (pre Windows-8, anyway) key gui features of windows have remained consistent between versions. I haven't ranted about Windows in a long time (other Microsoft products, that's a different story). Incidentally, I believe the particular feature you refer to, the start menu as a general principle, is one of the best design choices microsoft ever made. It's not the most efficient way to organize a UI, but a hierarchical system is a great way to design for incremental discovery.
- fat0wl 13y ago
  yeah i mean theres a bit of a learning curve in terms of how the menus are arranged but its manageable. All the same basic elements are there (control panel, my computer, etc). I think Mac has changed some of these internal menu/organization too, that's what OSes tend to do. I almost burst out laughing when I got to the Windows page and saw the "COMPLETE OVERHAULSSS" between each release... basically just minor changes to Start button / taskbar. But all in all if Windows 8 is a big change or something I think it's cuz they're trying to now go with "OK. well. people are computer literate now. they know what an OS does. where can we go from here?" It may not be painless but to me the Mac approach has always been a dull wrapper shielding us from the true power of our computers.
- FireBeyond 13y ago
  "I'm using Windows 7 and I'm still not sure how the items in the primary menu are selected to be there." Most recently used. And by implication, most commonly used. "It usually seems to have what I'm looking for so I don't worry too much." Et voila.
  - Goladus 13y ago
    Most recently used. And by implication, most commonly used. Well, which is it? There appear to be two categories, one on the top and one on the bottom. Both appear to be some formula of recently used, commonly used, and likely to use again but it's not clear what the difference is or what the secret sauce part of the formula is (.exe size, for example?). The only thing it's obviously NOT, is a strict "recently used" formula. Also the submenus are just weird. It would seem to be "recently used files" for the associated application but with putty, for example, there's only a single random .jpg file and attempting to open it causes an error. Obviously I suppose, putty can't open jpgs, but why is it even there and how do I get rid of it? No idea. I can "unpin" it but it doesn't go away. Also, to the main point-- the contents of that menu have changed substantially from windows XP, meaning that I pretty much have to throw away most of what I learned from the previous version. It's really a mess. Some things I launch from the start menu, others I launch from a desktop icon, others I have to search for using the search box. Outlook and firefox are in the quicklaunch area. Even one tool I use all the time (procexp.exe) never gets added to the start menu, yet the videogame LIMBO is there, which I played once last year over the course of a few days and then opened it once for 5 minutes 1-2 weeks ago and haven't touched it in the interim. It's not that it's so horrible I can't get things done, but all this UI change improves nothing about my user experience over windows XP (which still had a section for recently used apps, which was a convenient and useful addition to the core design.). The search is faster, and adding search with a new results UI as the fallback behavior to what used to be the "run..." command window was a very sensible tweak. But the new UI tends to cause some minor annoyances any time I want to do anything of the sort of power-user stuff I used to do when I was younger. My prior knowledge of windows is rapidly becoming useless and I'm getting very little from the OS in return.

erifneerg 13y ago

> Even if we accept that OS X users don't buy books about their OS and don't rant as much (which I find particularly out of touch with reality), that's because there are vastly more Windows users around. I would have assume most mac users who want to learn buy Apple's 'One on One' courses or some other related service.

ollysb 13y ago

I wonder what the response would have been if they'd billed the metro screen as the new start button i.e. when you click start the metro screen appears. Then it would have seemed like more of a stylistic change than a major UI update.

bunderbunder 13y ago

So it's absolutely true that Apple does introduce big new UI features. The real difference is, Apple introduces these big new features as additional features, not as major changes. So, to take your Dock example: Apple didn't yank the Applications folder at the same time that they introduced the Dock. A decade later they introduced Launchpad, and did not simultaneously yank the Dock. In fact, the Dock still works pretty much the same it did back in the '90s, when it only existed in NEXTSTEP. And the Applications folder is still there and still working pretty much the same way, too. I don't bother with Launchpad, personally, because I prefer the old way of doing things. . . and unlike Microsoft, Apple's totally fine with letting me do that. To compare with Windows: When the Start Menu came out, it completely replaced the Program Manager. Over the course of the Start Menu's life, it got rearranged a few times - not a crisis, but obnoxious. Even just switching between XP and Vista, I occasionally find myself hesitating for a moment trying to remember where $widget got moved to. And again, when the Start screen comes out in Windows 8, it doesn't just get added for the benefit of people who want to use it. . . it replaced the Start Menu, so now less-savvy users have to re-learn how to use their computers yet again, and I have yet another source of friction when switching back and forth between versions of the OS.

Pxtl 13y ago

The UI changes with each version of windows before 8 are small, but significant. Look at the taskbar for example. First came item-grouping in XP, then came the merging of the Quicklaunch and the Taskbar in Vista, then they dropped the text-labels in 7. Obviously that's all configurable, but those are all substantial changes in the way we interact with the taskbar. And the user's perception of "windows" doesn't end with the OS. The drastic UI changes in MS Office with every version can't be discounted. There was the move from mdi to one-window-per-document (with utterly broken "close" functionality in Excel) then the buttons were replaced by the Ribbon and that crazy Office Button in 2007 merged the File menu and the Control Box. Then they backed off on that and now there's the weird full-screen File menu in 2012. And with every version they release a completely new suite of icons for each Office app, often with new colour-scheme... which kind of counters dropping text-labels off the taskbar in Windows 7.