Re: Apple's poor positioning for the age *after* x86
- From: Sandman <mr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 23:15:37 +0200
In article <2005092716584016807%danieljohnson@vzavenuenet>,
Daniel Johnson <danieljohnson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > This is insane. The "All programs" menu is one of the largest
> > weaknesses in Windows, since no user can actually benefit from it. It's
> > a HUGE mess of developer names and unsorted application names and
> > finding stuff in a programs list that hasn't been manually resorted is
> > a huge pain.
>
> It is huge if you install lots of software. Since it gives you a list
> of all the software you have installed, this is to be expected.
The names of the applications I've installed only make out some 20% of all the
items found in this menu. Plus, you can't find them in the first place unless
you know the name oft the developers.
> I grant that a better tool for the task could be made: indeed Microsoft
> seems to be applying some of their search technology to this problem in
> Vista.
>
> But even if it is not perfect, it is better than not having such a tool at
> all.
To have applications be tagged and automatically sorted into smart folders
called "Media", "Office", "Graphics" would be neat.
> > The Mac does this so much better since the OS doesn't NEED to put up
> > automatic shortcuts to the installed apps - since they were installed
> > *by* the user by dragging them to the desired location.
>
> This isn't true.
Of course it is.
> It amazes me that Mac users keep saying it is; anyone
> who uses a Mac will know that nearly all non-trivial software is
> installed with conventional installers. Often Apples own installer,
> actually.
And if they are - the application will be put in /Applications - exactly where
all the DMG background images recommend the user put every application.
Point is, the installer doesn't have to add five links to a menu and three
icons in the Dock.
> It's just a better way to do this stuff. Expecting users to know were
> things go is expecting too much.
They all go to the same place.
> > On Windows, most people just type "ok" and "next" in installation
> > wizards and have shortcut icons placed on the desktop and in the start
> > menu
>
> This is how Mac installers work, except for the shortcuts.
And not how most applications in Mac is installed.
> > No one of these have any idea of the "Program Files" folder, and even
> > if they did - it's even *more* messier than the start menu.
>
> The "Program Files" folder is not supposed to be part of the user
> experience. If you have to go in there something is broken. Sort of
> like viewing package content in Mac OS X.
Of course - the file system in Windows is such a mess no one should have to
ever look at it. Too bad that they have to deal with the start menu instead
which is just slightly less messier.
> > Contrast this:
> > http://www.sandman.net/files/macapps.png
> >
> > To this:
> > http://www.sandman.net/files/pcapps.png
>
> The PC version looks nicer to me. :D
Good that you used a smiley to signify that you were joking. Not even Clyde
'Windows Apologist No 1' Stoeckel could claim that with a straight face.
> > And keep in mind that I have *tidied* this start menu so that most
> > games are in the Games folder. But I've selected a menu item that
> > pretty much illustrates my point.
>
> That developers sometimes define folder structures you don't like? This
> happens on the Mac also. Consider that iWork installs into an
> /Applications/iWork folder with two icons in it. This is as lame as the
> nested-menus in the Start menu, except you must explore the filesystem
> to get there.
That's silly. iWork is the name of the suite. Just as PhotoShop and ImageReady
is installed in /Applications/PhotoShop CS2/ and Excel and Word is installed
into /Applications/Office 2004/
I would *recommend* some form of automatic sorting based on keywords, such as
Office, Media, Graphics, Utility and so on. What's idiotic is using the name of
the company that developed the application as the root folder. No user
remembers the developer name of anything but MS, Adobe or Macromedia.
> > You don't have a list of application names, you have a list of folders
> > that have the names of the developer of the applications, here "Valve",
> > which have subfolders of the products they have installed, here only
> > "Steam", which in turn - generally - holds at least three icons. The
> > application, the uninstaller and a read me.
>
> Well, this approach means you can get to the read me without spelunking
> either, though I think better UIs are possible. The uninstaller icon is
> kinda dumb, but I've seen that too.
There are thousands of things related to any given application that COULD be
placed there - but only one SHOULD be placed there - the application. You want
to start applications, not read read me's. But since the normal user wouldn't
fuzz around in the messy filesystem, this is the *only*place in windows a
developer *can* put it with any chance of it ever being read.
> Still, an imperfect program list is better than not having one. The
> problem with the start menu is that it is partly implemented by the
> developers, who can then screw it up. A program list that didn't need
> that support could be better. The technology is coming together-
> Spotlight could be the foundation of something very cool.
Exactly - like I said before.
But that's not even necessary - /Applications is a thousand times more tidy
than the start menu and you can't even beging to comapre it with C:\Program
Files
> But so far it just provides filesystem searches. Oh well.
Applications are filesystem entities in HFS.
> > Second - people want to start things, not find things or browse things,
> > which you need to do in the start menu. It's so disorganized that the
> > only less organized thing on the system is the filesystem itself.
>
> It does not scale up to thousands of installed programs very well but
> it works well for dozens. It gets progressively uglier as you pile more
> and more on.
Advice to the novice - don't install programs. :P
--
Sandman[.net]
.
- References:
- Re: Apple's poor positioning for the age *after* x86
- From: Sandman
- Re: Apple's poor positioning for the age *after* x86
- From: Daniel Johnson
- Re: Apple's poor positioning for the age *after* x86
- Prev by Date: Re: Civil Rights End In Canada
- Next by Date: Re: Beware mac os x if you have a kyocera printer.
- Previous by thread: Re: Apple's poor positioning for the age *after* x86
- Next by thread: Re: Apple's poor positioning for the age *after* x86
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
