Apple Event 8/7 - New Macs, not iPods
- Thread starter SuperPac
- Start date
- Status
xsarien said:
At this point, all you're doing is throwing out words and insults. Good job.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_experience
"Getting stuff done", by definition, involves a "user experience".
aaaaa0 said:
Seeing as how user experience and understanding it is a fundamental part of my job, and has been for an ever-increasing disturbing amount of post-collegiate years, I can tell you quite certainly that the goal of "getting something done" is completely, absolutely, positively distinct from "how you get something done." Your Wikipedia copy/paste even states as much, pointing to "satisfaction." They're not talking about "Wow, I finally got that done." They're talking about "Wow, that was pretty painless."
Apple understands this; I understand this; a good number of people in this thread understand this. You seem to think that Microsoft is doing a fine job of it, on par with Apple. Which is, just, you know, crazy. The day Microsoft has as good an understanding of how to execute on UI/UX as Apple will be the day that Apple buys Microsoft.
xsarien said:
A "user experience" can be good or bad. Alone it is just a noun.
"Getting stuff done", by definition involves one or more "user experiences", which can be good or bad. A "good user experience" results in high satisfaction. A "bad user experience" results in low satisfaction.
Doing a series of tasks through a command line is a user experience. Doing a series of tasks through a GUI is a user experience. Doing a series of tasks through a wizard is a user experience.
I freely admit Microsoft doesn't do UX as well as the Mac. But IMHO, it's not WORSE enough for it to matter to me, and to the million and millions of people that do not buy Macs.
Just to throw something in, as pretty as Mac OS X is (if you think it is), it's not the aesthetics that make OS X a great user experience.
I will admit it does have it's flaws and gimmicks - for example, the finder is a bit lacking, particularly as it is perhaps the most predominant 'app' (though I do absolutely love the columns view - it seems so natural), and the magnify on the dock seems to hold no purpose except as a show room wow feature.
But other aspects are actually part of the user-interface. Things like the bouncing icons show you that things are still chugging away. Or minimise genie effects tells a user what happened to their window as opposed to just disappearing. Shadows and highlighting may look cool, but they also help to show which windows are active. Simple clean lines are more proactive to work and productivity than garish ones - the drab grey tones of Mac OS X serve a purpose here. Layout of windows aren't overly flashy like IE7, many media players, making them garish places to find buttons and things you are looking for. The help on Mac seems mostly useable (I find a lot of MS help to require online, or just sends me in circles).
I'm not saying that these are awesome Mac features, or that Windows doesn't have anything like it, but these are things that users tend to take for granted that Apple try to focus on (I say 'try', because they sometimes get stuff awfully wrong too).
The point is, Mac OS X has lots of very deliberate aspects to it that go beyond aesthetics, that AIM to make the whole experience less frustrating. It may not even be a graphical thing. Like I said earlier, I think the file structure makes more sense (the Unix roots -granted though, I haven't explored the windows file structure much). Stuff like spotlight is really revolutionary (I don't care where it was implemented first). I find the search option on XP nothing compared to spotlight.
I will admit it does have it's flaws and gimmicks - for example, the finder is a bit lacking, particularly as it is perhaps the most predominant 'app' (though I do absolutely love the columns view - it seems so natural), and the magnify on the dock seems to hold no purpose except as a show room wow feature.
But other aspects are actually part of the user-interface. Things like the bouncing icons show you that things are still chugging away. Or minimise genie effects tells a user what happened to their window as opposed to just disappearing. Shadows and highlighting may look cool, but they also help to show which windows are active. Simple clean lines are more proactive to work and productivity than garish ones - the drab grey tones of Mac OS X serve a purpose here. Layout of windows aren't overly flashy like IE7, many media players, making them garish places to find buttons and things you are looking for. The help on Mac seems mostly useable (I find a lot of MS help to require online, or just sends me in circles).
I'm not saying that these are awesome Mac features, or that Windows doesn't have anything like it, but these are things that users tend to take for granted that Apple try to focus on (I say 'try', because they sometimes get stuff awfully wrong too).
The point is, Mac OS X has lots of very deliberate aspects to it that go beyond aesthetics, that AIM to make the whole experience less frustrating. It may not even be a graphical thing. Like I said earlier, I think the file structure makes more sense (the Unix roots -granted though, I haven't explored the windows file structure much). Stuff like spotlight is really revolutionary (I don't care where it was implemented first). I find the search option on XP nothing compared to spotlight.
Giganticus
Member
How's that Apple experience when I try and use the hardware I prefer?xsarien said:
xsarien said:
While your point has a lot of merit, I disagree to some extent.
The problem is IMHO a large part of "oh this is intuitive" is really "this is what I am used to".
This is a fact of life, and something you just have to learn to live with as a UI designer.
For example, I actually find it quite irritating to use a Mac. The window gadgets are in the "wrong" place. The menu bar is in the "wrong" place. I hate how there's no "background window" in my apps and the menu bar changes when I click on some window. The point is, I'm not used to the way things are done on the Mac, and hence my satisfaction with the user experience will not be high.
There are a lot of UI decisions that can be argued either way, and in the end IMHO (having been involved in the UI design of some applications that have sold millions of copies) some of the time it just ends up whichever one the majority of your target market is used to is the "right choice".
I'm not saying all UX research is BS, because obviously it isn't, but what annoys me is the arrogant attitude of some "UX Experts" in that there is "ONE TRUE WAY", when people are different and what they like is different.
Giganticus said:
Still great! Just not for you
See, the point is, people value things differently. As aaaa0 says, he realises the differences between the interfaces, but he simply doesn't value those differences much. Xsarien and myself do. You obviously don't, and worry about the hardware more. Nothing wrong with that.
Myself, I prefer to use the hardware that Apple prefers me to use. Yeah, that sounds absolutely retarded, but hear me out - there is definitely something to be said for when software is MADE for particular hardware in mind, and vice versa. Things tend towards 'just working'. Do I have to worry about whether my chipset supports a certain software feature? DO I have to concern myself with whether iChat will work with my isight? No. Of course, whether these things matter to you is something else. I don't use iChat, myself, but I'm trying to demonstrate that because the hardware manufacturer is one and the same as the software manufacturer... there tend to be much less issues with things working. Yes, it doesn;t work all the time, and the hardware from Apple can be less than stellar...but the idea is there.
TerryLee81
Member
Wait, was the 7600gt in the old ones better than the 2600Pro?
If so, damn it Apple, give us the option to have a better card.
If so, damn it Apple, give us the option to have a better card.
aaaaa0 said:
This is an excellent point. I feared when I 'made the switch', that I would get annoyed at all the things in mac OS X that were simply different to MS (not better or worse). Stuff like only one button default, 'smart' maximise, close on the left, changing menu bar, no task bar, mouse acceleration, etc
Truth be told, though, and maybe this is blind bias again (ie forcing myself to like them because I have no choice), but by and large, while I did find them annoying, I found I actually prefered most things that changed.
But to list a few things I prefer on Windows:
Thumbnail view (and lots more view options for general windows).
Maximise to full screen is sometimes useful.
Up a file directory button (I believe there's a shortcut key for it in MAc, but buggered if I remember it). edit: just found it - apple+up.
And som stuff I can't stand on Apple:
The stupid icon system for the modifier keys! For godsake, if you're going to use cute icons, at least put them on the damn keys so I know which ones I need to press! I can never remember the icons for shift, option, or esc.
The numerical keypad on the powerbook key board (compact) is next to useless - the numbers are not easily seen enough.
Something that doesn't bug me from the change:
one button - seriously, the modifier keys are so useful, I tend to have my hand around them so ctrl-click is no different. And click-hold brings up the context sensitive menu on the dock. I actually do appreciate that many programs are useable with one button - it means you know what will happen when you click an item (generally). I know two buttons isn't crazy, but time and time again, I have people in my work asking how to do something, and it's just a right click away - two buttons can be confusing. Of course, some software it is NECESSARY to have 3 or more buttons, like a lot of the 3D graphics programs I use (you need to be able to zoom, rotate, translate on one tool), but for the general OS? Simple can be better (I use a mighty mouse, though, but feel just as proficient with the one button trackpad. I love the two finger scroll on that too, as well as horizontal scroll balls.
Overall, though, a lot of these things are preferences. They're not necessarily better or worse, just different - but I feel convinced that there are lots of changes beyond these simple preferential things, a lot of things simply make more sense.
Benjamin1981
Member
Somewhere in Japan Mr. Iwata is going crazy. Apple is done with white plastic. New DS and Wii redesign using aluminum and glass coming near you very soon.
Hitokage said:
Cool, that's neat - I knew there were other ways of achieving it. I'd prefer if something showed me the full path, though (something in Leopard, I believe).
It's funny -with all the simplicity of Mac OS X, sometimes the feature you really want in front is actually hard to find or not documented well, despite being there. Which can be annoying. So many great shortcuts and tricks to Mac OS X, but I can never remember them all :lol.
Burger said:
Haha, that's great!
I'm so jealous... I'm gonna wait until leopard, but all the bits and pieces are piling up - when I do upgrade it'll be awesome.Hope you love finding your way around Mac OS X. I'll be interested to hear your general opinions about 'the switch'.
Of course, 'the switch' is nearly always biased - people research getting a new computer, particularly when making such a change (even if it's not that big a change), so when they decide to purchase one, they are always willing to praise it (even if it means sometimes justifying your purchase!).
Hitokage said:
Ah that, yes, it's awesome! I didn't know it bounces back when you leave the window (which is really cool -thanks!), but I use that a lot. The number of times I tried to do it in windows after getting used to it in Mac is countless. I feel stupid holding that icon over a folder, waiting for it to open
I also really like clicking and dragging and using expose all at once.
Burger
Member
mrkgoo said:Haha, that's great!
Hope you love finding your way around Mac OS X. I'll be interested to hear your general opinions about 'the switch'.
Of course, 'the switch' is nearly always biased - people research getting a new computer, particularly when making such a change (even if it's not that big a change), so when they decide to purchase one, they are always willing to praise it (even if it means sometimes justifying your purchase!).
Oh I'm not new. I used an iMac at work for 3 years (2 years of power pc, 1 of intel) so no switch impressions.
But this piece of kit is lovely. The thing I am most impressed with is how when I go to close the lid, what I can only assume are tiny magnets pull small metal latches out of the screen to lock it. Amazing, who would of thought of such a simple and elegant idea...
Burger said:
Hmmm..where did I get the idea you were new? :/ sorry.
My brain is all messed up. Some of the stuff I posted a couple hours ago borders on deranged.
Anyway, if you find the magnetic latch fascinating - have you checked out the Macbook? It has no latch, and operates just by magnets! People have been screaming for this to be put on the pros. Strange,seeing as teh metal on metal is not the best. I wonder if future macbook pros will utilise the new keyboard style?
Here's a good deal on RAM for the iMac's if anyone is interested: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820208323
4GB (two 2GB sticks) for around $210. For that cheap I figured might as well max it out. And just for comparison the same amount of RAM would cost $850 on Apple's site - a $640 difference!
And here's how to install it (very simple): http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=306204
4GB (two 2GB sticks) for around $210. For that cheap I figured might as well max it out. And just for comparison the same amount of RAM would cost $850 on Apple's site - a $640 difference!
And here's how to install it (very simple): http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=306204
Crayon Shinchan
Aquafina Fanboy
They need to anodize all the aluminum and dye it black, just like the 8GB nanos.
When they do that, I'll buy one.
When they do that, I'll buy one.
By the way, what would be the best way to transfer over all files, documents & settings from a MB to a MBP? I'm using SuperDuper to backup my disks daily, can I just boot the MBP from the USB disk and use SuperDuper to get the snapshot onto my MBP? Or should I use Apple's tool to transfer over my files using fire wire?
Hope no one minds my somewhat off topic question, figured most mac users would be in this thread
Hope no one minds my somewhat off topic question, figured most mac users would be in this thread
zou said:By the way, what would be the best way to transfer over all files, documents & settings from a MB to a MBP? I'm using SuperDuper to backup my disks daily, can I just boot the MBP from the USB disk and use SuperDuper to get the snapshot onto my MBP? Or should I use Apple's tool to transfer over my files using fire wire?
Hope no one minds my somewhat off topic question, figured most mac users would be in this thread
Dude, you have a Mac. You don't need to worry about that rubbish.
When you get your new Mac, restart your old one holding "T" and connect it to your new Mac with a firewire cable. Boot up your new Mac, and as OS X is installing it will ask if you are moving from an older Mac, say yes.
You then get to chose if you want absolutely everything: all users, all data, all prefs, emails bookmarks, music etc. or just individual users, or just individual aspects of individual users.
Press OK and it transfers it all over. If you do a full copy it's just like swapping harddrives, a complete, seamless transplant. Easiest thing in the world.
aaaaa0 said:
Thats such an idiotic argument, and im sure you KNOW that. You really believe that people who do not buy macs do not do so based on an in depth comparison they've done between the two, and the merits between the two? REALLY? No, you don't. Your comments are getting trollish and illogical. And Ive only purchased one apple product in the past 5 years, so dont try to label me.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=7331954&postcount=317TerryLee81 said:
Slurpy said:
Who said anything about detailed analysis? Stop putting words in my mouth.
All I'm saying is that sure, maybe the Mac is a bit more refined. But if I'm willing to put up with a bit less refined a computer, simply because it costs less, or maybe it's a faster machine for the same amount of money, or whatever other reason I may have, then that's a perfectly valid decision. And it's the same decision I bet millions of people make when they decide not to get a Mac.
zou said:Okay, would using SuperDuper also work, or would that screw up the drivers or anything? The reason I'm asking is, that I don't have a firewire cable right now
I'd get a firewire cable tbh. It's so much easier.
And drivers are rarely an issue on Macs, given that most things run without them or supported by OS X internally. Printers and crap might need them so if you know you've had to install drivers specifically in the past that might be something to think about. I don't know superduper so I'm not sure how it deals with them.
All I know is, firewire transfer alone is reason enough to buy a Mac. It's quick, easy and flawless.
it means that it is compatible with all of DX10's graphic/programming extensions, but doesn't guarantee that the game will run at acceptable framerates, depending on the resolution/features you're running at. an integrated graphics solution like Intel's X3100 is 'DX10 compatible', but only a fool would think it would handle a game like Crysis well at VGA+ resolutions.Yixian said:
Looks like you have to shell out ten bucks... lame.KingGondo said:
scorcho said:
Looking at the low end iMacs specs, with 2gb of ram, would you say that could play it and Bioshock at any decent rate?
I've not really been blown away by Macs gaming hardware, that's why I've got a PS3, but if it can handle Bioshock and Crysis... neither of those are headed to the PS3 yet, and both of those I really want.
According to Wikipedia it meets the recommended requiements for BioShock, but I don't know how well it will run.
scorcho said:
do machines like the imac let you run at anything other than the screen's native resolution? How does that work if you install XP on it? I assume it picks it up as a monitor but will the monitor then support non-native resolutions and scale it up?
I was thinking the 24" because it has a gorgeous resolution, but if you have to always run it in native resolutoin that could come back and bite you in the arse with games if the graphics chip isn't up to it.
In that case, would the base model be a better choice? Is the 2600 enough of a jump to go to the middle 2.4 20"? I'm not overly bothered about the processor speed.
Oh, and why is the base model £800 in the UK!?
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll