Apple Talk Thread

That's even worse. I'd get sick of seeing AVG pop up on my screen with a loading bar that does everything automatically, but taking up 10 seconds of my life times 365, which is about an hour every year staring at an AVG loading bar.

I see your point, but considering that you do not have to actually click on anything and that it doesn't prevent you from using your PC in the meantime (during the measly 15-20 seconds that it takes), I don't really see how that's an issue.

That's my point. There's zillions of free programs that are used to improve Window's flawed UI design.

It's only flawed if you do feel the need to have your frequently used icons on the desktop, which not everyone necessarily needs. And since there is a way to do it, and it's not like Windows keeps you from doing it, I'd hardly consider that "flawed" at all, it's just not a default feature.

I don't want to install a zillion programs to bloat my programs list, take up RAM, take up hard drive space, and waste my time.

That's not what I said. You only need one program like that running in the background, and most are sufficiently light not to take up any large amounts of RAM. I just meant that there's a large variety of these programs out there to pick from.

Why is OS X "productivity" a concern if you're using Vista at work? And how do you know OS X definitively improves productivity compared to Vista?

If I'm not mistaken, Joe is younger than the average white collar worker so I'm not sure how he came to the same conclusion.

Maybe it's just the Apple marketing?

Do you realize that advertisers make extravagant claims all the time, and that not all of them are completely accurate? I've never seen a Mac user question a claim from Steve Jobs even once.

my god, did you really just bitch about an optional program's update window which can be set to the background?

Sorry Sorry, Ill go back to enjoying my flawed UI design which works perfectly for everyone I know and seems to work great for explaining to noobs here how to install patches.

It's only flawed if you do feel the need to have your frequently used icons on the desktop, which not everyone necessarily needs. And since there is a way to do it, and it's not like Windows keeps you from doing it, I'd hardly consider that "flawed" at all, it's just not a default feature.

I guess flawed isn't the right word. I'd say not optimal. There are better design choices in the UI that could be made. I know I come across as really meticulous, but part of my job is to organize information in a way that is efficient and clear as possible that makes it easier for the user.

Why is OS X "productivity" a concern if you're using Vista at work? And how do you know OS X definitively improves productivity compared to Vista?

I use OS X at home and I use the same programs at work. I actually have to close programs at work because it just fills up the taskbar too much while I can actually hide programs and manage windows better with OS X without closing programs. Factor in my specialization in information design, it's easy for me to pick at design issues that could be improved.

If I'm not mistaken, Joe is younger than the average white collar worker so I'm not sure how he came to the same conclusion.

Not sure what applications he uses, but I've been on Windows XP for years before switching to OS X, and I do notice a big difference in usability. It's not a matter of can/can't do, but what takes longer to accomplish a specific task. I think Joe and Indy notices this too, after all, they were formerly Windows users.

Do you realize that advertisers make extravagant claims all the time, and that not all of them are completely accurate? I've never seen a Mac user question a claim from Steve Jobs even once.

I find the ads humorous and while there are some elements of truth to the message, I don't like how it portrays the characters to represent the PC/Mac audience. I don't use a Mac because of stupid reasons like "it looks cool," or because of Steve Jobs (I heard he's a prick), or because it's different. I use a Mac because it's a well-designed operating system that allows me to get work done more efficiently.

It should be interested to see what exaggerated claims that Vista will make in their advertising campaigns.

my god, did you really just bitch about an optional program's update window which can be set to the background?

Well, an anti-virus pop-up that has a mandatory update where you really can't do anything but wait, while I don't see such things on OS X. I'm picky like that

Well, an anti-virus pop-up that has a mandatory update where you really can't do anything but wait, while I don't see such things on OS X.

Well, except if your CPU is circa 1999, there's really no waiting involved, you can do whatever you want while it updates itself.

Why is OS X "productivity" a concern if you're using Vista at work? And how do you know OS X definitively improves productivity compared to Vista?

If I'm not mistaken, Joe is younger than the average white collar worker so I'm not sure how he came to the same conclusion.

Maybe it's just the Apple marketing?

Do you realize that advertisers make extravagant claims all the time, and that not all of them are completely accurate? I've never seen a Mac user question a claim from Steve Jobs even once.

considering, at times, I am a freelance designer, I need to be able to estimate the time it will take to finish projects in order to give a fair quote. I was using primarily a windows computer not a year ago for most of my design work, and when comparing receipts on similar larger projects (where the time savings more noticeably add up) I found my true production time spent on the computer halved. I think the majority of my time saved was yes due to the user interface, and as well because my mac experienced fewer problems, which meant less time fixing problems (in part due to a closed hardware/software system).

It is quite condescending to imply that all apple users are mindless drones being manipulated by Steve Job's marketing strategy. I can just as easily say that non-apple users support microsoft based partially on those very same advertisements, primarily because they consider apple to be "trendy." And in true postmodern cynical fashion, in order to rebel and feel individual, they choose not to even try apple in an act of faux-autonomy, when in fact they are supporting a company (microsoft) which statistically speaking still at least doubles the apple community. So while it is true apple advertisements may have "affected" me, I would argue they have similarly and equally "affected" you... perhaps in an even more predictable fashion.

To me, I think it is a telling that the majority, if not all, mac users have used a microsoft based pc in the past, while most mac naysayers rarely touch a mac for more than an hour at a time. You tell me who is more in a position to judge the two. It's not that I don't question apple, I would like some small changes, and I do acknowledge that the apple os does give up some things (though bootcamp/vmware/parallels somwhat nullifies that), but, in the end, I have tangibly found that my gain far exceeds that. The biggest negative of an apple vs a pc is the lack of upgrade options (in terms of doing it yourself), but again I am willing to sacrifice that for the closed software/hardware system.

The next biggest negative buying an apple, really, is the cost... but that only factors in the initial price tag... sure a hybrid may be more visibly expensive than a non-hybrid, but, in the end, you do save money. I would argue that the same is true with an apple; I have owned my apple for a year, and it still feels brand new in terms of performance... most pc's slow down noticeably within a year in my experience, unless you constantly reformat/upgrade/defrag/scan for viruses or malware/registry fix, etc.... which costs money, time, or both... the average lifespan of a mac exceeds that of a pc, sometimes without even trying. An apple also retains it's resell value far longer than a custom or even brand named pc does, as well as consumes less energy. Just because something looks cheaper, it doesn't mean it is cheaper.

Sorry Sorry, Ill go back to enjoying my flawed UI design which works perfectly for everyone I know and seems to work great for explaining to noobs here how to install patches.

i am sure it works great, relatively speaking, but is it a crime to prefer something to work greater? What, ten years ago, people made do with dial up, but now with high speed connection can you imagine going back to 56kbps? Not I. And that's how I feel about my switch from pc to apple. I am not saying this is true of all people, I do admit that for some people a pc may be a better option (mostly the power gamer, perhaps the businessman who rarely uses his computer anyway), but the only person I can really speak for is me, take it or leave it.

If I'm not mistaken, Joe is younger than the average white collar worker so I'm not sure how he came to the same conclusion.

I work a lot with pro applications at home. Mostly Photoshop and Illustrator, sometimes Final Cut Pro and iMovie, and they teach us After Effects and Flash at school, so I do notice the difference in productivity and usability between XP and OS X (never used Vista, never plan to).

Do you realize that advertisers make extravagant claims all the time, and that not all of them are completely accurate? I've never seen a Mac user question a claim from Steve Jobs even once.

You mean like 1992 when Microsoft claimed to have invented and to be the first to implement the GUI? Or when IBM claimed to have invented the mouse?

It's only flawed if you do feel the need to have your frequently used icons on the desktop, which not everyone necessarily needs. And since there is a way to do it, and it's not like Windows keeps you from doing it, I'd hardly consider that "flawed" at all, it's just not a default feature.

I prefer to have a shortcut to the Applications folder with all my applications on my dock, or search for the app I need with Spotlight, or even better press a key combo and have Quicksilver open that application for me... but to each his own.

my god, did you really just bitch about an optional program's update window which can be set to the background?

It's the little things like apps running in the background, or multiple minimized windows on the taskbar, or the need to store application shortcuts on both the desktop and the taskbar that make Windows cluttered and less functional, IMO. And forgive if I sound like a whining twelve-year-old girl, but uglier also. I'm not gonna lie to you, I like eye candy, and OS X (as well as Ubuntu and other Linux distributions) offer much more of this than Windows.

It is quite condescending to imply that all apple users are mindless drones being manipulated by Steve Job's marketing strategy. I can just as easily say that non-apple users support microsoft based partially on those very same advertisements, primarily because they consider apple to be "trendy." And in true postmodern cynical fashion, in order to rebel and feel individual, they choose not to even try apple in an act of faux-autonomy, when in fact they are supporting a company (microsoft) which statistically speaking still at least doubles the apple community. So while it is true apple advertisements may have "affected" me, I would argue they have similarly and equally "affected" you... perhaps in an even more predictable fashion.

To me, I think it is a telling that the majority, if not all, mac users have used a microsoft based pc in the past, while most mac naysayers rarely touch a mac for more than an hour at a time. You tell me who is more in a position to judge the two. It's not that I don't question apple, I would like some small changes, and I do acknowledge that the apple os does give up some things (though bootcamp/vmware/parallels somwhat nullifies that), but, in the end, I have tangibly found that my gain far exceeds that. The biggest negative of an apple vs a pc is the lack of upgrade options (in terms of doing it yourself), but again I am willing to sacrifice that for the closed software/hardware system.

The next biggest negative buying an apple, really, is the cost... but that only factors in the initial price tag... sure a hybrid may be more visibly expensive than a non-hybrid, but, in the end, you do save money. I would argue that the same is true with an apple; I have owned my apple for a year, and it still feels brand new in terms of performance... most pc's slow down noticeably within a year in my experience, unless you constantly reformat/upgrade/defrag/scan for viruses or malware/registry fix, etc.... which costs money, time, or both... the average lifespan of a mac exceeds that of a pc, sometimes without even trying. An apple also retains it's resell value far longer than a custom or even brand named pc does, as well as consumes less energy. Just because something looks cheaper, it doesn't mean it is cheaper.

Sir, I couldn't agree more with what you just said.

If I'm not mistaken, Joe is younger than the average white collar worker so I'm not sure how he came to the same conclusion.

I work a lot with pro applications at home. Mostly Photoshop and Illustrator, sometimes Final Cut Pro and iMovie, and they teach us After Effects and Flash at school, so I do notice the difference in productivity and usability between XP and OS X (never used Vista, never plan to).

That would be fine if you wanted to debate Adobe software vs. Apple software, but including that in a Vista vs. OS X debate is silly.

I still don't understand what "usability" is supposed to mean. If I can use it, it's usable.

Productivity-wise, I think someone needs to give examples of what exactly is causing the productivity increase, as I can't really fathom what you might be talking about. Just sounds like a stream of buzzwords to me, as it always has.

Do you realize that advertisers make extravagant claims all the time, and that not all of them are completely accurate? I've never seen a Mac user question a claim from Steve Jobs even once.

You mean like 1992 when Microsoft claimed to have invented and to be the first to implement the GUI? Or when IBM claimed to have invented the mouse?

This is a straw man, much like many of your arguments in response to benji's posts. I said nothing about Microsoft and IBM being truthful advertisers. My point, in fact, is that the logical thing to do is ignore the advertising and judge it yourself. Then explain it to other people using easily comprehensible terminology instead of marketing jargon. Apple chanting "elegant, elegant, elegant, elegant" in my ear is completely irrelevant to my opinion of it.

That would be fine if you wanted to debate Adobe software vs. Apple software, but including that in a Vista vs. OS X debate is silly.

I still don't understand what "usability" is supposed to mean. If I can use it, it's usable.

Productivity-wise, I think someone needs to give examples of what exactly is causing the productivity increase, as I can't really fathom what you might be talking about. Just sounds like a stream of buzzwords to me, as it always has.

Cy and Magius explained this in detail in the previous page. IMO some things you do on Mac OS X in two to three seconds take double that time in XP (again, never used Vista except for browsing the web and other basic stuff so I can't judge). Having five applications open, two to three windows per application, sometimes more, is suicide on Windows.

The taskbar would be full of minimized windows (which also would take up more RAM, even if a little amount, since that is being visualized on the screen as opposed to what happens in OS X) not to mention you have to manually select each window every time you have to switch, while on Mac you can either use Exposé to display all the open windows or just select the window you want to switch to via a key combo (similar to Command/Alt>Tab but you actually select windows, not applications. The key combo is Command + tilde by default but you can change it on System Preferences, under Keyboard Shortcuts).

That's not the only option, though. There are other alternatives, of which I think the best is to go to System Preferences>Spaces and set up as many work spaces as you like (up to 16). Then you can organize yourself as you prefer: one application per workspace, one window per workspace, etc. You switch between Spaces by just pressing Ctrl+arrow keys. While Linux has had this feature for almost a decade, it's never been implemented in Windows, and that's a real shame because it actually speeds things up.

Another thing that makes OS X more functional is the fact that I don't actually have to move my mouse to perform the most basic commands. I can set Keyboard Shortcuts to do almost everything, from switching windows to look up things in the dictionary, to specific application chores. You can even set keyboard shortcuts to run a specific Automator workflow or AppleScript, which is extremely useful and time-saving.

This is a straw man, much like many of your arguments in response to benji's posts. I said nothing about Microsoft and IBM being truthful advertisers. My point, in fact, is that the logical thing to do is ignore the advertising and judge it yourself. Then explain it to other people using easily comprehensible terminology instead of marketing jargon. Apple chanting "elegant, elegant, elegant, elegant" in my ear is completely irrelevant to my opinion of it.

My sentence was meant as a joke. Please elaborate on what you said about my responses to Ben's posts, though.

My point was, though, that no company is ever a truthful advertiser. Also, while Windows users today have to go through the annoying Apple ads, Macintosh users had to go through a then-unknown company from Redmond, Washington named Microsoft taking credit for their contribution to the industry. Just pointing out that Windows users complaining about the ads are just as annoying as Mac fanboys complaining about Microsoft "stealing" from Apple.

I agree 100% about the "ignore the ads, judge it yourself" philosophy. However I wouldn't know when all Apple counted on was "elegance", there's a hundred other reasons Apple thinks it's worth switching to Mac, not just design and elegance.

Having five applications open, two to three windows per application, sometimes more, is suicide on Windows.

That's only an issue if you're short on RAM or CPU speed, not a problem otherwise.

Another thing that makes OS X more functional is the fact that I don't actually have to move my mouse to perform the most basic commands. I can set Keyboard Shortcuts to do almost everything, from switching windows to look up things in the dictionary, to specific application chores.

You can do that with Windows too. In fact, I'm fairly certain that there are much more ways to customize your OS through Windows registry than on a Mac. Regardless what you feel like tweaking, it's pretty much always possible via the registry, or any of the countless free utlities that can be downloaded for this purpose.

Tweaking isn't allowed, it has to be ready out of the box.

Been waiting for that one.

Oh, I get it. So you're allowed to think I'm an "idiot" for having a Mac and yet I can't think people who use Windows just because that's what they've always used are close-minded?

You clearly don't because I never called you or anyone else who has a Mac an idiot.

I'm pretty sure by this you meant every Mac user is an idiot

I'm pretty sure you have no idea what I meant. Cryanide did.

A computer should be ready right out of the box, it shouldn't rely on users changing options and sliders in order for the OS to be less annoying... It shouldn't be annoying in the first place, that's what you don't understand.

Don't you keep talking about how much MacOS can be customized? Sounds like users need to change options.

If you used itfor at least a year, by now you would know it actually improves productivity, since most professionals use it.

This doesn't make any sense. If I used MacOS for at least a year, because select professionals in certain fields use it, I would then suddenly realize it improves productivity? Even though it doesn't improve my productivity because I'm already in the 99th percentile of computer users?

No, it does not. From my personal experience I can say on XP, it takes 5x the time it takes on Mac OS X for the computer to wake.
...
Interesting. When I had XP, 50% of the time, the computer never wakes up from sleep mode, hence, the reason why I stopped using sleep mode because I had to reboot anyway.

And from mine, XP was fifty times faster and worked 100% of the time. While the Mac wouldn't get out of sleep mode twice. Aren't anecdotes wonderful fun?

On a PC, you don't get choices, Windows come pre-installed in 99% of PCs you buy in every retail store.

I don't buy pre-built PC's from retail stores.

So, while on a Mac you can natively (again, legally. There are ways to install OS X on PCs) have OS X, XP, Vista, any Linux distribution, Solaris, BSD, BeOS AND all the other open-source OSes, and choose which one you want to boot at startup, on a PC you only get one version of Windows (unless you hack something, which is not a valid option since we are talking natively), any Linux distro OR any other open-source OS, and you still can't install OS X, which, again in my opinion, is the best OS.

I can't have all of those on a PC? Really? I only get to choose one? How did I ever get two versions of Windows and five Linux distros on my last computer?

This whole time you haven't listed a non-videogame-related application not available for Mac OS X.

So? People keep claiming there's nothing I can't do on a Mac, and I keep listing the important game related applications I run and you dismiss it as "little" and "games." Sorry, I want a PC to use Excel, interwebs and quite importantly, games. Can you really run Steam and more importantly TF2 at max on a $1000 Mac?

As I said, you think ... people who use [Macs] are idiots

Again, I never said this and I don't think this.

If Indy thinks there is no reason to go with PC, why is his opinion less valid than yours?

I didn't say his opinion was less valid, but instead noted them as catalyst for my responding. I do retain my freedom to criticize and respond to his, yours and others opinions.

You have to either buy or download anti-virus software, unless you're ok with viruses and malware.

I do? Because I got rid of all mine or stopped running it as I never found anything in the last decade.

I'm not sure if Macs are that much more pricey, really. If you consider the quality of the hardware of the Mac Pros and the software that comes with OS X, it would be pretty comparable to buying a Dell machine of equivalent value.

I checked the Apple website. To build a computer comparable hardware wise to the one I just bought it is $2800 vs. $992. I don't care about the little and non-useful software that comes with OS X.

Using logic here. If you have a crowded taskbar and the only visual cue is...blah blah blah

Well, I am sorry that I don't fit your user experience theory and have the capability to remember the order of taskbar items especially since they stay in that order. I remove one and somehow my brain is able to note that the closed one is no longer there and therefore they have been reallocated to the space. I do not struggle or even think about the taskbar, which is again my argument for why my productivity does not increase from swapping OSes.

Sure, having a second screen or a larger display will increase productivity, but as magius said, that is unfair. I'm talking about identical monitors with OS X and Windows.

How is that "unfair"? I mentioned it as an example of something that actually does increase my productivity, in comparison to MacOS which leaves my productivity unchanged.

For the love of god, I don't understand why there is no keyboard shortcut in Windows to minimize a single damn window.

Alt+Space+N? (Which I swapped to Win+M as I never minimize all windows.)

I prefer to have a shortcut to the Applications folder with all my applications on my dock, or search for the app I need with Spotlight, or even better press a key combo and have Quicksilver open that application for me... but to each his own.

You mean like a Start menu...or Vista's Run dialog box? (Win+R!)

Having five applications open, two to three windows per application, sometimes more, is suicide on Windows.

Really? Because I do it constantly. (Currently running Opera with 11 tabs, Firefox with three, four Excel windows (two seperate instances of the program as I don't want to have to "paste values"), notepad, Comical with a comic loaded, DBViewer, one Explorer instance and Media Player Classic. Oh, and COMODO Firewall, because it is not my laptop and I didn't turn off anything that loaded.)

it's never been implemented in Windows, and that's a real shame because it actually speeds things up.

Yes, the lone thing I even care about in regards to Windows. Especially since Windows has no clue how to handle two screens properly. I still prefer the "desktop" method in GNOME to MacOS's "workspaces" however. And for some reason prefer it to KDE's even though they're essentially identical. I think I like the rounded edges in the display icon.

Another thing that makes OS X more functional is the fact that I don't actually have to move my mouse to perform the most basic commands. I can set Keyboard Shortcuts to do almost everything, from switching windows to look up things in the dictionary, to specific application chores.

Man, I wish Windows had this. Then I wouldn't have to hit Win+E to launch Explorer, or Win+R to bring up the Run box, or Win+D to see the Desktop I never want to see, or...

Just pointing out that Windows users complaining about the ads are just as annoying as Mac fanboys complaining about Microsoft "stealing" from Apple.

I wasn't complaining about the Mac ads as a Windows user, or even a PC proponent. I was complaining about it as someone who likes an understanding of how to make an argument. The Mac ads are elitist and fearmongering, and actually do a horrible job at selling Macs to people. They're like Barack Obama.

I still don't understand what "usability" is supposed to mean. If I can use it, it's usable.

Usability is more about how well you can use it. Jakob Nielson is one of the more well-known usability expert, and wrote a basic summary on usability. From his site are five keypoints:

Learnability: How easy is it for users to accomplish basic tasks the first time they encounter the design?
Efficiency: Once users have learned the design, how quickly can they perform tasks?
Memorability: When users return to the design after a period of not using it, how easily can they reestablish proficiency?
Errors: How many errors do users make, how severe are these errors, and how easily can they recover from the errors?
Satisfaction: How pleasant is it to use the design?

Although usability experts are information architects, they are not designers, so there's a lot of experts that lack strong understanding of typography (letterforms, readability, legibility) especially since we have to read a lot in interface designs (menus, folders, filenames, etc). Anyway, I'm just rambling on, but usability, information design, and user interface systems are taken more seriously by major companies nowadays, and they really do affect productivity.

I'll answer your question below to give an example of usability.

Productivity-wise, I think someone needs to give examples of what exactly is causing the productivity increase, as I can't really fathom what you might be talking about. Just sounds like a stream of buzzwords to me, as it always has.

The dock vs taskbar is a very good example of a productivity issue:



The issues: The sequence of programs are usually random and there is zero chance of memorability. Differentiation is made by a tiny logo and a title. This is a huge problem when you have more than 1 program open with similar filenames because you have to either blindly check for what you're looking for, or be forced to alt-tab to the window you need. Long title names gets truncated and is impossible to differentiate if they start with the same title. You have to read the title if there are too many similar icons, and reading takes longer to recognize than images. When it gets too crowded and you have to click on to open a group up, you have to scan for the window you're looking for by reading.

Compare to the OS X Dock (with Stacks shown):



Applications are represented by icons, as it is faster to recognize and differentiate images than it is to read and differentiate words. The sequence is customizable by user preference (usually users group icons by type) and it remains static to enhance memorability and learnability as you'll know where your applications are. Running applications are indicated by little dots below the icon, a visual cue to help find and switch to to the application you're currently working with. The beauty of it all is that you can easily hide windows you're not currently working with (alt-click on the icon you want to work with will hide every other window. Or just cmd-h to hide the current window to switch to the next application). You don't need to close and re-open applications, thus saving you loading time. In the example above, you can add a folder to your dock to have it perform as a stack. One click will reveal icons and labels and since there's a thumbnail for virtually everything, it's really easy to recognize and differentiate, and thus, select the file you need.

Here's another example that doesn't necessarily relate to productivity but to poor interface design.

The key is to be in a position of a person who has never used a computer before. This is the best way to assess usability by finding what confuses or frustrates users. Below is an example from Vista:



- It takes a click on the Windows icon to see two icons: presumably "turn off" and clearly "lock."
- It takes another click to see additional options. There are 7 options.
- There are already "Lock" and "Shut Down" listed. This is redundant.
- There are a total of 9 ways to leave your computer, and it is unclear what the difference is with "Hibernate" and "Sleep" as well as Switch User/Log Off/Lock.

Findings: The on/off icon doesn't actually turn the computer off as the symbol should indicate, but rather "goes into a low power state" which doesn't communicate if it's going to sleep or hibernate. There's too many options that are redundant or too closely similar which induces complexity and confusion. It takes two clicks to perform one of two actions, or it takes three clicks to perform one of seven actions. There is no keyboard shortcut.

Compare and contrast with OS X:



- It takes one click on the Apple icon to see a list of 12 options.
- There are 4 options to leave the computer.
- There is a keyboard shortcut to log out.

Findings: Although the user has to scan through 12 options the first time, it is clear that leaving the computer is grouped at the bottom. It takes two clicks to perform one of four actions, which are clearly differentiated by function. A keyboard shortcut is also shown so the user can perform 0 clicks and log out by pressing alt-cmd-shift-Q.

It is ready out of the box.

Don't you keep talking about how much MacOS can be customized? Sounds like users need to change options.

Eh? Though not directed to me, but it is customizable within the OS, yes, but I've haven't the urge to download tweaks or OS changes that OS X doesn't provide.

This doesn't make any sense. If I used MacOS for at least a year, because select professionals in certain fields use it, I would then suddenly realize it improves productivity? Even though it doesn't improve my productivity because I'm already in the 99th percentile of computer users?

Just because you're expert with Windows doesn't mean that you'll be just as productive or less productive with OS X. I'm willing to bet you'd be more productive with OS X

I do? Because I got rid of all mine or stopped running it as I never found anything in the last decade.

Well, you're not a porn surfer, that's for sure.

Well, I am sorry that I don't fit your user experience theory and have the capability to remember the order of taskbar items especially since they stay in that order. I remove one and somehow my brain is able to note that the closed one is no longer there and therefore they have been reallocated to the space. I do not struggle or even think about the taskbar, which is again my argument for why my productivity does not increase from swapping OSes.

Windows still have limitations that affects time: more button clicks, longer scanning. Once your windows gets merged into a group, you're not going to remember the sequence unless you're a freak and memorized the sequence beforehand. When you get to 20 windows open, they will clog up your taskbar while OS X's dock will remain exactly the same as it was. It might be ok for you, but it's not the same for 99% of users, and again, I'm willing to bet you'd be faster managing 20 open windows on OS X than on Windows. I'm even willing to bet you that you could create 5 folders on the desktop, name each one of them, then rename them all 20x faster than you could do on Windows. How? No mouse clicks and minimal keyboard shortcuts: cmd-shift-n, arrow keys and the return key.

You mean like a Start menu...or Vista's Run dialog box? (Win+R!)

Explain the inconsistent shortcut keys used in Vista's Outlook that doesn't function the same way as another program typically would.

Alt+Space+N? (Which I swapped to Win+M as I never minimize all windows.)

Thanks for the tip. All I could find on Google was hide all or bring all to front.

Although usability experts are information architects

Findings: I almost gagged on my Cheerios.

Just because you're expert with Windows doesn't mean that you'll be just as productive or less productive with OS X. I'm willing to bet you'd be more productive with OS X

Why do people keep assuming I have no hands-on time with the MacOS? Because I didn't have the "user experience design" that they did?

I'm even willing to bet you that you could create 5 folders on the desktop, name each one of them, then rename them all 20x faster than you could do on Windows. How? No mouse clicks and minimal keyboard shortcuts: cmd-shift-n, arrow keys and the return key.

Why am I creating folders on the desktop in the first place? Then why am I renaming them all and deciding to use only the keyboard? Creating random desktop folders and arrow keying between them is "productivity" now?

Using right-click (as in just hitting the button, not clicking in any general area, just an empty spot)+w+f I can create five folders in about three seconds. (I don't know if there's a keyboard shortcut and don't really care.) I can name them the instant they're created, then once done arrow key between them hitting F2 to rename. Would MacOS improve my typing speed? Because that looks like the only "productivity" limitation here. I can't hit return to rename them, I can't hit arrow keys to rename them either, but F2 isn't that far away or obscure and hardly "destroys my productivity" of creating random new folders.

Once your windows gets merged into a group, you're not going to remember the sequence unless you're a freak and memorized the sequence beforehand.

Yeah...I don't have mine grouped. And I will remember the sequence, it is the order I opened them.

When you get to 20 windows open, they will clog up your taskbar while OS X's dock will remain exactly the same as it was. It might be ok for you, but it's not the same for 99% of users, and again, I'm willing to bet you'd be faster managing 20 open windows on OS X than on Windows.

Why do I want twenty open windows? I'm not BigKaboom, I want my IMs tabbed, my web browser tabbed. I wish my Excel was tabbed, etc.

I think arguing over irrelevant details continues to be silly (who in the hell cares about making random desktop folders or constantly using anecdotes as support?) and ignores the original cost-benefit reasoning behind my choosing of PC over Mac. A Mac continues to be more expensive and less capable than a PC for me. Talking about people who cannot keep track of simple things or are idiots and thus get viruses off of porn sites does not change this.

Why am I creating folders on the desktop in the first place? Then why am I renaming them all and deciding to use only the keyboard? Creating random desktop folders and arrow keying between them is "productivity" now?

I create new folders on the desktop at least twice a day. I like things organized so when I download stuff, rip movies, etc. I create separate folders for them. Say, for example, that I download the whole eleven seasons of MASH, I'm gonna want eleven different folders, one for each season. Mac OS X's keyboard shortcuts are certainly useful and faster than right click+w+f+arrow keys to swtich between folders+F2 to rename. Because you don't find something to be useful to you, doesn't mean it isn't useful to others.

And I will remember the sequence, it is the order I opened them.

[b][color=brown]That is ridiculous. I work with Photoshop (as well as Illustrator and After Effects) four to five hours a day, and I take breaks in-between those four to five hours (I always leave my apps open). I open other windows and applications while on breaks, tell me how the hell am I supposed to remember, at 5 PM, the order in which I opened the Photoshop windows seven hours before?

Why do I want twenty open windows? I'm not BigKaboom, I want my IMs tabbed, my web browser tabbed. I wish my Excel was tabbed, etc.

Photoshop, Illustrator, After Effects, Corel Painter, as well as QuickTime and other video players don't have a tabbed interface. By working with these apps every day, several hours a day, it's pretty much a given that at some time during the day you'll find yourself with 20+ windows open.

A Mac continues to be more expensive and less capable than a PC for me.

That continues to be just and only your opinion. I'm pretty sure you're happy with what you use, just as I am happy with what I use. There is no way to settle this discussion as it all comes to personal preference in the end.

Why do people keep assuming I have no hands-on time with the MacOS? Because I didn't have the "user experience design" that they did?

I didn't enjoy OS X the first time I used it, but it grew on me. Once I learned how to utilize the OS to its full potential, I found that I could do things more efficiently. You don't need user experience design knowledge. I got into information design and once I learned about that-(oh, a new Windows update popped up. Three clicks later (thanks UAC). It popped up again telling me it's installing, well, of course it is!)-, I started to really analyze usability and it just becomes pretty obvious when working with Vista and OS X.

Information architecture, usability, and user experience design are all studied extensively, tested with real users, and the findings are proven to reveal how things could be less complex than it needs to be (simpler), more efficient, thus more productive. You might be a Windows guru and find no difference, but usability gurus will tell you that there's more flaws in Vista and that it affects the majority of users, whether they realize it or not.

Why am I creating folders on the desktop in the first place? Then why am I renaming them all and deciding to use only the keyboard? Creating random desktop folders and arrow keying between them is "productivity" now?

... Would MacOS improve my typing speed? Because that looks like the only "productivity" limitation here.

Not saying this would ever happen, but this is merely an example of limitations and proof that if you type at the exact same speed, you will still be faster on OS X. How? The mouse. Your hand is on the mouse right clicking+w+f, then you have to move your hand back to the keyboard to type in your folder name. Again, you move your hand to the mouse to right click+w+f to make another folder, then move your hand away from the mouse to type in the folder name. Repeat 3 more times. F2+Enter to rename a folder is pretty awkward when all you need to do is Return+Return. That may be a minor difference, but at least 1 second would likely be lost after renaming all five since F2 is further away than return is. This is one of hundreds of limitations or poor placements that Windows could actually improve to make things just a little bit easier for the user all around-oh, stf Windows Update. Another popup telling me to restart. Well, I already told you not now, so 4 hours until the next one? Oh for fuck's sake. Postpone! Sigh.

And I will remember the sequence, it is the order I opened them...
Why do I want twenty open windows? I'm not BigKaboom, I want my IMs tabbed, my web browser tabbed. I wish my Excel was tabbed, etc.

Damn. You know, most people will not remember the sequence they opened programs in, so you're definitely in the minority. Actually, most people shouldn't have to remember the sequence of programs. The OS isn't there to make things complex for the user.

Thank god for tabbed browsing. IE6 did not support it (at least I don't think it did.) Yeah, I work with a lot of windows, especially since there's a lot of files and artwork in Illustrator, Photoshop, plus the usual internet, email, etc.

It's fine that you use Windows, and you've definitely utilized it to the maximum potential, but I still stand by the fact that OS X has made design choices that enhances usability and makes things simpler so that the user doesn't need to deal with complications, annoyances, or limitations.

There is no way to settle this discussion as it all comes to personal preference in the end.

Correct, but I think it's only fair for PC users who know how to use their machine to show the absurdity of most of the usual attacks on PCs. There's a difference between expecting your computer to work well and being too damn lazy to allow that to happen.
These are just two completely different products and should considered as such. However, if you're gonna make wild statements about how the other machine doesn't work the way it should (or could), you better be able to back it up. So far, all I've seen about how lame PCs are is clearly a matter of preference, mostly about UI, rather than actual flaws.

Apples and oranges I say.

Now that's offensive, burn him!!

Correct, but I think it's only fair for PC users who know how to use their machine to show the absurdity of most of the usual attacks on PCs. There's a difference between expecting your computer to work well and being too damn lazy to allow that to happen.

- Users should not learn how to fix bugs, download/purchase software to protect their OS, or customize their OS to improve functionality/usability. It should be expected of the OS to take care of the user, not the other way around.

- There's a difference between software engineers being too damn lazy, and users having to do something to make their computer work well.

These are just two completely different products and should considered as such. However, if you're gonna make wild statements about how the other machine doesn't work the way it should (or could), you better be able to back it up. So far, all I've seen about how lame PCs are is clearly a matter of preference, mostly about UI, rather than actual flaws.

They're not wild statements. UI is a matter of preference when it comes to the appearance of how it looks, but I'm talking about the functionality of the OS, how efficient it is in organizing, communicating, and enabling. I can mention one flaw: Windows XP doesn't come with a virus scanner and it seriously needs one, while OS X would've come with a virus scanner but it doesn't need one.

The argument about keyboard shortcuts is retarded, imo.
It's not the OS that makes you productive or a time-saver with keyboard shortcuts, it's the user that's productive himself because it's up to the PC/Mac user himself to memorize such shortcuts.

^ Once memorized, how effective can the keyboard shortcuts be when a) one is simpler and more efficient to use or b) one that is more complex and time consuming?

As far as I know most Microsoft programs have the same shortcuts, the variation in some programs are due to a) the userbase of such program is already accustomed to the set of shortcuts, if MS changed it to be uniform with their other programs the userbase will throw a hissy fit (if I remember correctly it happened with a version of Outlook), b) Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly of the software that works with their OS so a program from a different manufacturer may not conform to the uniform shortcuts and apply their own and also see (a).

Most of the keyboard shortcuts in Windows have already been established long ago (Win 3.1?) and most users got accustomed to it. If they made it "simpler and efficient" the geeks will again throw a hissy fit.

Unless you use your computer like a Chinese assembly line worker whose life depends on it, I hardly see the shortcut issue as an argument. Basing the whole Mac>PC thing on shortcuts that open an application in 1.4 seconds instead of 2.2 seems to be a leitmotiv for Mac users, but I really don't see that as a valid point for 99% of computer users, just like you apparently don't think people would like to customize their OS and just need something that does what they want out of the box.

shortcuts that open an application in 1.4 seconds instead of 2.2

It really does that? Holy crap!
Screw you guys, I'm getting a Mac.
Argument over.