Why Not Just be Happy?

[tkermit]

These things are tools.

So what? It can still be more or less satisfying using different tools. Sure, I would like to get my work done in an efficient way, but I also care about the way I feel while doing so. Humans aren't perfectly rational beings. In fact, emotions will have an effect on how efficiently you can do a task. Studies have even shown that more beautiful interfaces will actually often be easier to use, all other things being the same.

you can really objectively compare them and that's when you realise they all have their pros and cons.

Of course they do. And then you have to make a decision depending on what factors are most important to you. At the end, you still have to account for taste and personal preference and certain human flaws. You can objectively compare fuel efficiency between cars, but you can't objectively compare how satisfying it is to drive one and how relaxed or frustrated you are after the drive.

 

[KnightWRX]

So what? It can still be more or less satisfying using different tools. Sure, I would like to get my work done in an efficient way, but I also care about the way I feel while doing so. Humans aren't perfectly rational beings. In fact, emotions will have an effect on how efficiently you can do a task. Studies have even shown that more beautiful interfaces will actually often be easier to use, all other things being the same.

Again, I don't feel anything when using OS X, because I don't sit there using it. I adapt to any UI really easily, and most have their perks and cons, including OS X. None is "delightful" or more "efficient", they are just different with a learning curve and in the end, all pretty much take the same time to get me into my applications, where I get my work done.

Of course they do. And then you have to make a decision depending on what factors are most important to you. At the end, you still have to account for taste and personal preference and certain human flaws.

Yes you do, but that doesn't change the fact that the OS is a tool and they are all the same at the end of the day : A means to get to your applications, which all share the same UI from OS to OS. The time you spend "using" the OS is minimal if not down right inexistant (they all have CMD+TAB or ALT+TAB really).

You can objectively compare fuel efficiency between cars, but you can't objectively compare how satisfying it is to drive one and how relaxed or frustrated you are after the drive.

Because that has nothing to do with the car but with the road and what you encounter on it. My bike is fun to drive, a nice cruiser but with enough suspension and chassis engineering to make it fun around the twisties. However, I can feel downright frustrated sometimes getting home after a ride if I happened upon a complete idiot hogging the left lane or sat in traffic warming my thighs from the engine heat.

And my daily commuter which I would never take for a "fun" ride can leave me totally relaxed after a nice sunday commute to the farmer's market.

But again, failed analogy. I actively use the vehicle, sometimes even to have fun rather than as a tool. Something that doesn't happen with the OS. So drop this analogy, it just doesn't work.

It's not about the tool, it's about the "experience" like you put it and for OSes, there is mostly no such thing. They are means to get into applications to perform tasks.

 

[eawmp1]

You know you've been too much into electronics when you start to describe them with terms like "delightful" or "gorgeous" or "beautiful". I've heard even "Magic!" is starting to catch on.

I've ajusted my workflow to any OS that lets me perform the tasks I want out of it. OS X has been the most limiting as far as adjustments goes in my experience. Either you do it the Apple way or you get some other OS (or 3rd party hacks to make OS X work like it should from Apple).

It's not like you need to sit there and "use" the OS though, it's the apps. And applications these days are mostly the same from platform to platform, especially when you're talking about webapps. Facebook is facebook, no matter the browser or OS you're using. Same for things like Office, Adobe's stuff, etc.. It's very rare that I sit there and use the "OS" so I can't quite share your sentiment of "delightful".

These things are tools. Once you drop the charade of pretending they are more than that (lifestyle choices!), then you can really objectively compare them and that's when you realise they all have their pros and cons.



Exactly. Except not exactly because those aren't just tools you use.

For someone that uses a car to commute, yes, basically they are all the same with pros and cons. "Boring" or "Exciting" is not something one uses to describe his commuter vehicle. Choices in this realm aren't based on "delightful" experiences at the steering wheel, but on practical decisions based on the type of commute required of it.

Same for clothes. You chose the wrong guy to make this argument. I wear jeans and t-shirts and hoodies. My jeans cost about 20$ each, my T-shirts sub-10$. As long as they don't cause me skin rash and hide my privates, I'm good to go. Warmer clothes for colder days, more breathable for warmer days. Functional is the name of the game for clothing for me, I don't do "styles" that are "delightful!" (really, think about it for a second).

However, I do have a motorbike and that is something I will pick based on how "exciting" and "fun" it is. But you know what ? That's not a friggin tool. That's something I use specifically to use it. Unlike OS X where I don't just sit there clicking through Finder and mucking around Spaces and Expose, I actually just sit on my bike, start it up and ride it just for the heck of it. I actively use the bike, I don't use the OS. That's the difference.

If you can't wrap your head around that, then be happy mucking around Mission Control and marveling at Launchpad, I'll be busy writing code or playing a game or reading something on the Web instead, things that the OS enables me to do.

I beg to differ...anything you use to perform a function can be defined as a "tool."

A car is a a tool for transportation.
Clothes are tools to provide warmth, adaptation to a particular climate/sport, etc.
A hammer is a tool.
A computer is a tool.

In addition, there are enthusiasts for all of the above.
Car enthisiasts/gear heads.
Fashionistas.
Craftsmen.
PC or Mac geeks.

I drive a car that feels right for me. I wear socially/environmentally appropriate clothes that are comfortable. I have a garage full ov tools I rely on and use when needed. I operate in a PC world at home but have grown up with Apple since the Apple ][, and use Apple products at home.

I don't judge others by their choices, nor do I feel superior/inferior to others because of those choices. This, as well as MANY other threads on this topic, are an interestins insight into human psychology and maturation (or lack thereof).

 

[tkermit]

It's not about the tool, it's about the "experience" like you put it and for OSes, there is mostly no such thing. They are means to get into applications to perform tasks.

The OS will have an effect on the way applications present themselves to the user. That's obviously true for apps only included with a specific OS, but it is also relevant for other apps written in a system framework and adhering to the system's HIG etc.

Yes you do, but that doesn't change the fact that the OS is a tool and they are all the same at the end of the day : A means to get to your applications, which all share the same UI from OS to OS.

That's the thing. They don't. They don't even share the same functionality (think of Autosave/Resume/Versions…, or even free stuff provided by Cocoa in text fields etc.)

The time you spend "using" the OS is minimal if not down right inexistant (they all have CMD+TAB or ALT+TAB really).

I'm relying on certain functionality that not every OS provides. Am I "using" the OS when I use OS X's services, or launch an AppleScript workflow, or look up a definition directly from a Cocoa app?

Because that has nothing to do with the car but with the road and what you encounter on it. […]

The right car can make a bad road bearable.

 

[KnightWRX]

I beg to differ...anything you use to perform a function can be defined as a "tool."

Never said the contrary. Don't know where you "beg" to "differ" in that.

In addition, there are enthusiasts for all of the above.

PC or Mac geeks.

Something I am. Actually, I'd go a step further, as I don't limit myself to "PCs" or "Macs" (I have a Sun workstation laying around and geek out on HP Integrity and 9000 series these days at work, having moved from Sun hardware or simply more server-grande x86 boxes).

But again, I'm not "enthusiasming" over the OS. That is just a tool that lets me actually perform my "enthusiastic" task. Right now, this is mostly coding. I code for a hobby. The underlying OS ? Irrelevant. You can write code to do anything on pretty much any hardware/OS platform these days.

I drive a car that feels right for me. I wear socially/environmentally appropriate clothes that are comfortable. I have a garage full ov tools I rely on and use when needed. I operate in a PC world at home but have grown up with Apple since the Apple ][, and use Apple products at home.

We're saying the same thing really.

----------

The OS will have an effect on the way applications present themselves to the user. That's obviously true for apps only included with a specific OS, but it is also relevant for other apps written in a system framework and adhering to the system's HIG etc.

Very few and far between. Vendors mostly just ship a unified UI for their multi-platform apps if they even bother to ship multi-platform. This is why things like wxWidgets and QT are very popular in software development.

That's the thing. They don't. They don't even share the same functionality (think of Autosave/Resume/Versions…, or even free stuff provided by Cocoa in text fields etc.)

Autosave/Resume/Versions is brand new and frankly, for Resume, I think that's a con against OS X and will disable it as soon as I get Lion.

Like OpenCL or GCD, we'll have to see if the vendors pick up on it, and seriously, unless a feature is multi-platform, vendors rarely invest the energy in doing so.

I'm relying on certain functionality that not every OS provides. Am I "using" the OS when I use OS X's services, or launch an AppleScript workflow, or look up a definition directly from a Cocoa app?

Every OS pretty much provides the same services as OS X in a different manner. Again, tools with pros and cons. The OS matters little, you'll adapt to it. It's the applications and the work they let us do that matters. The little distractions Apple throws into their UI and OS don't.

 

[garybUK]

You can't be serious. MSFT technologies = junk. Just get on OS X and learn XCode with Objective C. The best graphics library on earth.

Yeah right, OpenGL on mac's is almost a generation behind, (3.2 in lion iirc) 4.0 is where it'll start to even be on the same hymn sheet as DirectX 11.

 

[tkermit]

Vendors mostly just ship a unified UI for their multi-platform apps if they even bother to ship multi-platform. This is why things like wxWidgets and QT are very popular in software development.

And there's a reason why multi-platform GUIs are often frowned upon by users.They usually just don't work and behave the way other apps on the platform do.

The OS matters little, you'll adapt to it.

Of course. You can adapt to anything. In fact, I do. It's not that I don't use Linux and Windows as well, even for programming. But what can I say: I just enjoy OS X the most.

 

[RWinOR]

When I switched to Macs (from Linux as a desktop), I didn't find any need to go spread the "gospel". There is no "this!" to RWinOR's response. Seriously, it's a laptop/desktop. It performs tasks. Who cares about the OS as long as it works ?

I find that if you don't get in people's face, they don't call you a fanboy. If someone asks my opinion on Macs, he sure won't call me a fanboy after I'm done giving it. There's positive and negative to everything and I always give out a balanced opinion. "Switching" to Macs is not all positive, same as running Linux as a desktop isn't just some big party, just like running Microsoft stuff isn't like a wedding day.

Macs aren't any easier or don't plain "Just Work!" more than anything else. They're different.

I am glad your experience is so similar. However I started my response with windows to mac not unix to mac.

I use a windows box at work. It use to take 20 minutes to boot, an 5 to shut down. Now with win 7 it is about 5-8 to boot and 2 to shut down. It is a pleasure to come home turn on my Lion OS and had it up and running in less then 30 seconds, and power down almost instantly.

My windows PC is always crashing, I have to reboot often. My IT department has to re-image it several times a year because it is so wonderful. (Now in fairness to Windows some of my poor experience at work is do to company security scripts that auto load). My Mac never seems to crash, never needs to be rebooted, and does not require re-imaging to keep it running and avoid the blue screen of death.

I had a few windows boxes on my home network. Constant tweaks, to keep it running on network, They were XP boxes, needed to have their OS re-imaged a few times over the years of ownership, because of windows rust that causes slow downs. Had to run virus scans which took hours, or disc defragmentations. This is all OS stuff, not to mention it would forget where a printer was. This is all before I could even use a program. So I beg to differ the OS does make a HUGE difference in user experience. The OS needs to perform before you can be productive.

 

[KnightWRX]

And there's a reason why multi-platform GUIs are often frowned upon by users.They usually just don't work and behave the way other apps on the platform do.

Really, I see no problem in using QT or wxWidgets or XUL applications. Frankly, they behave the same way on every OS which gives me continuity when moving OSes.

Even vendors that don't use these type of libraries have been known not to reinvent the UI wheel, you know, like Apple does.

Of course. You can adapt to anything. In fact, I do. It's not that I don't use Linux and Windows as well, even for programming. But what can I say: I just enjoy OS X the most.

I don't enjoy using an OS, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I enjoy using the applications that run on top of the OS itself.

I use a windows box at work. It use to take 20 minutes to boot, an 5 to shut down. Now with win 7 it is about 5-8 to boot and 2 to shut down. It is a pleasure to come home turn on my Lion OS and had it up and running in less then 30 seconds, and power down almost instantly.

You know what ? That has nothing to do with Windows. My work PCs are both the same, the corporate image is just a big piece of junk filled with crap and tons of security checks and useless policy pushing applications and inventory systems that just get in the way.

If I install Windows myself, it boots as fast as OS X and shuts down quite as fast also. Of course, I don't junk it up. I could also junk up OS X so it takes a year to boot and a lifetime to shut down, but I don't.

It's not quite a fair comparison you're doing there. The problem is IT corporate OS images, no matter the OS.

 

[tkermit]

Really, I see no problem in using QT or wxWidgets or XUL applications. Frankly, they behave the same way on every OS which gives me continuity when moving OSes.

Yes, well, we seem to have different expectations when it comes to GUIs and a great user experience.

 

[KnightWRX]

Yes, well, we seem to have different expectations when it comes to GUIs and a great user experience.

Yes, I like to think I'm more inline with Apple on this, where I'd rather my applications work the same accross multiple OSes rather than having to relearn them all over again each time I use them on a new OS.

 

[tkermit]

Yes, I like to think I'm more inline with Apple on this, where I'd rather my applications work the same accross multiple OSes rather than having to relearn them all over again each time I use them on a new OS.

From my perspective, the choice isn't between having applications work the same across multiple OSes or not, but between having a great user experience on one OS vs. an awful (but relatively consistent) user experience on all OSs.

 

[KnightWRX]

From my perspective, the choice isn't between having applications work the same across multiple OSes or not, but between having a great user experience on one OS vs. an awful (but relatively consistent) user experience on all OSs.

I think it's pretty awful having to relearn all my clicks in an app I've always known because the developer decided to follow some 3rd party HIG.

I don't particularly find anything useful or so great in the Apple UI or the KDE UI or the Gnome UI that I actually miss any features from them. I mostly tend to ignore and not use platform specific features anyhow.

 

[TheSideshow]

I am glad your experience is so similar. However I started my response with windows to mac not unix to mac.

I use a windows box at work. It use to take 20 minutes to boot, an 5 to shut down. Now with win 7 it is about 5-8 to boot and 2 to shut down. It is a pleasure to come home turn on my Lion OS and had it up and running in less then 30 seconds, and power down almost instantly.

My windows PC is always crashing, I have to reboot often. My IT department has to re-image it several times a year because it is so wonderful. (Now in fairness to Windows some of my poor experience at work is do to company security scripts that auto load). My Mac never seems to crash, never needs to be rebooted, and does not require re-imaging to keep it running and avoid the blue screen of death.

I had a few windows boxes on my home network. Constant tweaks, to keep it running on network, They were XP boxes, needed to have their OS re-imaged a few times over the years of ownership, because of windows rust that causes slow downs. Had to run virus scans which took hours, or disc defragmentations. This is all OS stuff, not to mention it would forget where a printer was. This is all before I could even use a program. So I beg to differ the OS does make a HUGE difference in user experience. The OS needs to perform before you can be productive.

Lets start of with mentioning that enterprise images are majorly messed up much of the time with all their policies and stuff loaded. Comparing a work station to a home station isnt fair at all. Let me remind you that OS X has no place in enterprise anyways so if anything, thats a +1 for Windows. I posted an article in this section earlier about the huge secuirty flaws in OS X for enterprise.

Next, comparing an 11 year old OS to a modern OS sounds like a completely baised way to make a point.

If you want to make a fair judgement, run a clean Windows 7 install with the same knowledge of Windows 7 as your knowledge of OS X. There will be minimal differences, and IMO, Windows 7 will actually be more productive with the superbar versus using Expose and searching every open window for the one you want.

Instead of trying to tweak Windows 7, just install it, grab MSE, and use it. Dont install all the crap that tries to speed up your PC but ends up just mucking it up.


BTW I timed my Windows 7 shutdown and startup. 21 seconds from clicking restart to being able to load up my browser. Ive also had to reformatt the Mac because it was running so poorly with beachballs constantly. I have back up Windows hardware with worse specs that actually still runs faster than the reformatted Mac also. And thats with worse hardware also.

 

[notjustjay]

So what? It can still be more or less satisfying using different tools. Sure, I would like to get my work done in an efficient way, but I also care about the way I feel while doing so. Humans aren't perfectly rational beings. In fact, emotions will have an effect on how efficiently you can do a task. Studies have even shown that more beautiful interfaces will actually often be easier to use, all other things being the same.

The same logic applies to everything else. You might drive a BMW to work and I drive my Toyota. They'll both get us there. They're both probably about equally reliable. The BMW cost a ton more. But those leather seats, that power under the hood, they make you smile as you drive. You look forward to getting into the car. That's what you're really paying for.

I own a bunch of DeWalt power tools when Ryobi or Craftsman or Harbor Freight would probably have done the job. But I wanted to buy tools that would last, and take abuse, and work well, so I spent a little more. These tools are a pleasure to use, and I get compliments from other people about how smooth and powerful my miter saw is whenever they use it. You've not appreciated the difference between a professional grade tool and the cheap stuff until you've driven in hundreds of 4" screws using a heavy duty impact driver. Then dropped your impact driver 10 feet off a ladder onto the ground below -- and picked it up again completely undamaged. That's what you're really paying for.

 

[RWinOR]

Next, comparing an 11 year old OS to a modern OS sounds like a completely baised way to make a point.

OK, How about my 2008 windows box which shipped with XP (i.e. current shipping OS) and my 2008 iMac running leopard.

The experience was still better on OSx. No virus scan, no defrag, no blue screen of death, no problems. Windows is just not the same no matter how you spin it. I have run dos/windows boxes since the 8088 was introduced. I have designed motherboards, and whole computers. I jumped to OSx in 2008. Best move I ever made. I do not regret my decision nor do I second guess it. My windows experience has always been lack luster. Although I had no idea how lack luster it was until I upgraded to a Mac.

Sure I can configure the snot out of it, but what good is that if it is always crashing and the hardware is always needing upgrades?

The OS is the base of all users experience. I agree it should be about the programs you run, and there are many good ones on both OS's. However a program crashing, should not bring down the entire system if the OS is stable, I can not say that with Windows. I reboot regularly with any and all versions I have run.

 

[KnightWRX]

no defrag

Wait, you used a FAT32 filesystem on your Windows XP partition ? Because otherwise, NTFS is as resilient to fragmentation as HFS+ or any other Unix filesystems really.

 

[RWinOR]

Wait, you used a FAT32 filesystem on your Windows XP partition ? Because otherwise, NTFS is as resilient to fragmentation as HFS+ or any other Unix filesystems really.

I used it the way it was set up at purchase (home machines), or from my IT department (work machines). So yes they needed defraging regularly.

 

[KnightWRX]

I used it the way it was set up at purchase (home machines), or from my IT department (work machines). So yes they needed defraging regularly.

Your IT department uses NTFS in all probability, otherwise, there is no reason to lock down anything as FAT32 doesn't support ACLs or filesystem based security.

And really, there is no reason to defragment NTFS. It is as resilient as HFS+ to fragmentation. Do you also defragment your OS X partition ? No of course you don't, even though files are probably as non-continuous as on your Windows box from your company.

 

[RWinOR]

Your IT department uses NTFS in all probability, otherwise, there is no reason to lock down anything as FAT32 doesn't support ACLs or filesystem based security.

And really, there is no reason to defragment NTFS. It is as resilient as HFS+ to fragmentation. Do you also defragment your OS X partition ? No of course you don't, even though files are probably as non-continuous as on your Windows box from your company.

What you say may be true, but my experience seems to be different.

I am even defragmenting my windows 7 (work) machines. It comes with defrag tools, and it seems to make a tremendous difference with speed.

You are correct I do not defrag my OSx machines.

 

[KnightWRX]

What you say may be true, but my experience seems to be different.

I am even defragmenting my windows 7 (work) machines. It comes with defrag tools, and it seems to make a tremendous difference with speed.

I don't fight holy wars and defrag tools and defragmentation is one of those. It stems from habit mostly. Heck, Microsoft didn't even bother shipping a defrag tool in the early days of NTFS and only caved to people wanting one.

You are correct I do not defrag my OSx machines.

You should then, it would make the same tremendous difference with speed.

 

[RWinOR]

I don't fight holy wars and defrag tools and defragmentation is one of those. It stems from habit mostly. Heck, Microsoft didn't even bother shipping a defrag tool in the early days of NTFS and only caved to people wanting one.

No holy war, I would rather not waste my time defraging. But now I am confused. My only experience with Win 7 is at work. My IT department tells me I need to defrag. They had us defrag regularly with XP as well.

This is the first time I have heard that you do not need to defrag xp or win 7.

Thanks for the advice and I will check into this. I still need to understand why it made a difference if it is not needed. Maybe something else is going on?

 

[roadbloc]

You should then, it would make the same tremendous difference with speed.

Never noticed any speed decrease in OS X to want to do so. But then again, I have yet to experience the usual Windows slow down in Windows 7.

 

[RWinOR]

I don't fight holy wars and defrag tools and defragmentation is one of those. It stems from habit mostly. Heck, Microsoft didn't even bother shipping a defrag tool in the early days of NTFS and only caved to people wanting one.



You should then, it would make the same tremendous difference with speed.

I have done a little research and this comes straight from the Microsoft website. Now I am really confused, can you tell me where you learned that Defragging was not required?

 

[Love]

Why Not Just be Happy?

Because I haven't a person I can ****.