usability

[designer]

Usability btw Aqua and Luna(?)

"If I compare Aqua to Windows XP, ignoring what's under the hood, I tend to think XP is ahead of the Aqua interface in terms of usability," says Marion Buchenau, a senior designer with San Francisco industrial design firm Smart Design.

So XP is more user friendly than Auqa?

What's your thought?

[MacLuv]

[plastic]

MacLuv and the rest of the friends I have made in here... I think the older Mac users have come a long way to discuss Win OS issues and WIN PC Hardware for the longest time. And I have seen more Mac users bash PCs less and learn to look at them and appreciate some of the goodness that is in them to appreciate them as a platform, though some of us hardcore loyal fans will always be standing on Apple's side when push comes to shove in a flame war.

There are things I like about Wintel machines and there are more things I like about Mac and there also things I hate about OS X because I am a very fast worker. And OS X is slowing me down. But unlike OS 9 era, when I get to work too fast, I get major crashes, all I get in OS X is a spinning rainbow ball and after that process is done, I continue again (lots of nail biting at times though, but I come out unscathed).

Thanks for giving me so much insight into both Wintel and Mac OS, everyone here, and I do hope that we move on to learn more about each platform instead of going into war.

Maybe I feeling a little sentimental with the rain pattering on my window at this moment, but I am glad I am part of the community in this forums and I have learnt lots and made lots of friends.

Thanks. And let's learn and grow and stop many of those PC bashing things we do in the past. We have our preferences, and let's put that aside.

I have grown to be more knowledgable on both platforms since.

[serpicolugnut]

I've been a longtime Mac user since my start in Graphic Design back in the early 90's. I've purchased (on average) a new, Pro Mac every year since 1994. Actually, it's probably more than that (what can I say, I like to keep my machines new, it's a curse...).

Since 1999 I have been forced into using PCs at my day job (I'm a web designer). Back in 99 it was on NT4. While NT4 didn't have anything on the Mac in terms of interface and usability, it did have a solid foundation and it was rock solid, something that OS 9 wasn't.

When Windows2000 came out, I deemed it good enough to justify putting together a franken PC and using a Wintel box to get some work done that couldn't be done on the Mac.

I've just bought my first "real" PC, meaning, a PC that I actually built with the intention of it being a serious workstation, not just a helper machine to my Mac (which is now a QS 800 DP).

I've now had a month with XP, and while I still prefer most of OS X to it, it does narrow the usability gap, and does some things right that the Mac does wrong.

XP's low level system has a huge leg up on OS X in maturity. Simply put, in XP, I NEVER get an hourglass spinning when doing mundane tasks like navigating through the system. Keep in mind my XP machine has 512MB of RAM, whereas my G4 has 1.5GB, and is still plagued by random spinning cursor of death outbreaks.

Lightwave runs much better on the PC (again, with 1/3rd the RAM and a much weaker GPU than the G4).

However, OS X is still a heck of a lot easier to use than XP. The iApps trounce anything MS includes with XP, or is available in commercially for that matter.

As MacLuv states, XPs help system is better than OS Xs (why is OS X's help system SO slow?). But of course, under OS X, you shouldn't need to use the help section that much, because it is easier to use.

OS X is designed to be intuitive and logical. XP is completely illogical, but provides built in Wizards that simplify the tasks as best they can.

Another thing that completely IRKs me about XP (and just about every Windows flavor) is that there is no enforcement of common key commands for repeated tasks. Sure, most apps use CNTRL X, C, and V for cut, copy and paste. But what about CNTRL W for close window? Hell, even Microsoft can't standardize this within it's own apps (Outlook still doesn't recognize it).

Bottom line, both machines are nothing more than tools. The Mac isn't always the best tool for every job, ditto for the PC. I'm glad I was finally able to quell the RDF, put away the koolaid, and think CLEARLY and see that true nirvanna is a mixed environment.

Heck, I might even get me a Linux box...

[BBenve]

Well. i admit.. i haven't used XP so much..but i have to say... i really do not believe XP is more friendly than X....not because i am ahuge Apple fan...but becauseof facts..

XP and X are very similar...but XP tent to be more intrusive than Aqua.

XP menus are far too big...yes you can see better...but too intrusive..

The dock..is remarkably useful..not only it lunches apps and minimize icons (like the task bar in XP) but it allows you to see the progress of your apps....like Toast and Photoshop bplug ins...and it enables also live icons...like clock and information on the dock from the internet....it has a Zoom effect that XP lacks of... and you can get rid of it hiding it...without loosing so much...while if you hide the taskbar in XP ...you pretty much lost all your control.

Navigation...well... Apple had a lot to learn from Windows... a back and forward butto are very appreciated....and now.. i do not consider XP better than X ...we have those 2 buttons...plus spring loaded folders plus 3 way of viewing the content.. we can not chose the size...we can choiose where we want the text...and we can have additioonal info on the content without opening the folder.

As for Apple being the computer for the rest of us...well it still is....as someone pointed...UNIX is VERY very hard to digest...
Well...think about it...you re using it everyday..without even noticing...well that is PRETTY amazing...everyone even the common user now can use UNIX....something that everyone would have ever dreamed...Apple made it possible...of course....is gonna take a little time for us to get used to the new features and for the regular user to get used to the changes...but...is a stepo that even Windows users will make one day or another...and we will be ahead of time...
Apple did not used an OS already made and modified it...the completely changed the way that OS worked..BSD was for the GEEKS only till 2 years ago..and now...is probably the most common UNIX ever used.

XP has some good features... Apple has to learn from it...and make it even better... there is no perfect os...

My final Judgement... we re all different people...we all need different things from an OS and especially ...the gui..we have different tastes... i personally hate blue and green together andiask myself...how can that be...friendly??? but some people like it...i respect them for that... but i can bet..no GRAPHIC designer would like to use that GUI while DESIGNING...something you can do using AQUA.

May be the Luna GUI is better for something else....what .. i honestly don't know... but some people probably do.

[drash]

As a support engineer, I cannot give you a fair estimation of either WindowsXP or Mac OS X usability. Except that as far as support goes, Windows XP really did a nice job of moving things around and under several layers, just as I got used to Windows 2000. One thing I don't like about OS X is setting up printers. They buried that one just like they did with the control panels on XP. The Chooser was a lot easier to get to and set up printers than the Print Center. And what the heck came over Microsoft to hide My Computer on XP? Heck at least OS X shows all drives on the desktop. Go ahead and put a USB hard drive or Firewire drive onto an XP system and you'll be perplexed if it really is there. As a Solaris and FreeBSD user, OS X is a far more refined GUI-based UNIX. Several things are different, such as standard locations of files like /etc/passwd or /etc/group. This makes the use of NetInfo mandantory. Things like dragging a folder onto a command line to have its path typed before your eyes is way cool. WindowsNT/2000 has been doing this for years but cd'ing into a directory on another drive still leaves you in the same drive brings chuckles to most UNIX geeks. And speaking of Unix geeks, I found O'Reilly's book "Mac OS X for Unix Geeks" is absolutely indespensible.

Oops, back to user friendliness, another thing I would improve is the Help system. XP's help system is about 5 years ahead of OS X and tons faster. Apple should concentrate on that little item for their next release, big time. As for getting to an application and starting it, I think it's a toss up. For everything, XP makes you click on the Start button and then Programs to see what is there. Of course they only show you what you've used the most and I've had several (dozen) users call me in a panic that they lost all of their applications until you show them that clicking on the arrows will show all of them. That's not greatly intuitive but then Mac OS X makes you first click on the Finder icon, then do a new window under the file menu, and then click on the Applications button. Or double click on the disk, then double click on the Applications icon. Again not very intuitive. I know you'll chuckle when you hear this, but I've had more than one Windows user tell me they don't know where to go on a Mac or how to "start" something. If I were Apple I would probably stick the Applications button right in the Dock. And here's a hint to Apple: if a user installed an Application you think he might want to use it? I believe, if it were me, I would open the Applications window on the Finder with the just installed Application sitting right there. Or maybe just ask if they want a copy of the app in the Dock. Of course once an application is open, Mac OS X is much easier to deal with it via the Dock. I can take a document and drag it right onto an app icon in the Dock to start it up (if I don't want to use the default application). All I get is an error message on XP that says something about not being able to drag a document onto the Taskbar but you have to drag it into an open window. My scorecard so far is:

Printing: XP - Apple?!?!? I hate to tell you this but we seem to have lost about 1,500 printers.
Help System: XP - OS X Users, you might want to budget a couple of books along with that new computer.
Application Launch: XP
Application Installation: OS X - close. I still encounter "DLL hell" and older Apps leaving too much behind on XP.
Existing Documents: Tie
System Admininstration: OS X - This is still easy; when something misbehaves delete its preferences.
Dock/Taskbar usability: OS X - not even close, 7 years and they made the taskbar worse. When Microsoft gets rid of their random Taskbar mover we'll talk.
Networking: OS X - I know I didn't talk about this but all the tools are there and they work correctly.
Existing/legacy tech setup: XP - and not by much. A lot of the drivers for older technology (if they exist) are buggy.
New technology setup: OS X - except for monitors.

[twister]

Aqua is nicer when you take out the horizontal lines. Looks much more professional.

Twister

[fryke]

Usability is a difficult thing to measure. Is an operating system targetted at the first time user, the business user, the professional coder, a graphics artist or a dork?

Windows XP Professional, for example, should be targetted at the professional business user. But then why does it tell him/her to go chatting and using other cool new media features all the time? Why does it urge the user to do this and that? Why doesn't it assume that the user knows what he/she does? Those features might be okay for first time home users, but even those are bound to get angry after some time.

Mac OS X has differentiated targetted user groups from the beginning. Apple is clearly aiming at first time users, moms (no offence meant) and 'PC-haters' with the iMac and the iBook. Those are served quite well with how easily they get going. The second targetted group are design people (graphics design). Those are a bit harder to please, as they have a hard time letting go of OS 9 for various reasons. We _have_ to admit that coming from OS 9, X has a definite learning curve. Same for audio, video and 3D professionals.

Someone mentioned that Windows XP has a better help system. I must say that I never found it very useful. Neither on Mac or on XP. But more importantly, Mac OS X is much more cleanly laid out in what you find where than Windows XP. There are so many inconsistencies in Windows XP that even a long-time computer user (whatever system he/she prefers) will have to find his way around. For example, MS introduced Windows 95 and put network settings to the properties of 'Network Environment' (on the desktop). With Windows 2000, the settings got better. With Windows XP, they tried to simplify a good properties-system with wizards and, mainly, more steps to the same goal. Bad, bad, bad. The OS also has VERY bad manners. For example, it tells you that your network cable has been disconnected. Cool. But most of the time that it tells you that, it's simply not true. Just today I had three calls from users that went like this... User: "Windows tells me I have disconnected my network cable, but I haven't. I'm sure I haven't." I: "Well, sometimes Windows thinks you have, although you haven't. Try deactivating and reactivating the network connection." User: "Okay. Still the same." I: "What exactly have you done just now?" User: "I have taken the cable out of the network card and put it back in." I: "No, no, I meant with the contextual menu. Right-click on the connection..." User: "But Windows said there's something wrong with the cable..." You see? Windows XP is trying to push the user into hardware-related problem thinking. But most of the time, the issue is software related.

Those are the usability issues I have to fight. And I can plainly claim that usability-wise, Apple has done a very good job with Mac OS X 10.2, while Microsoft has produced the usual mix of new features, fixing some that needn't be fixed and making some things worse.