My colleague's Mac is TRWTF
-
It was a goddamned typesetting machine
"Line" is a pretty damn important concept in typesetting. One might argue that it was more so in the days when typesetting involved lead-tin-antimony alloy (and especially when dealing with Linotype machines, where doing it wrong could get you a lap-full of molten metal), but even in modern computer typesetting with automatic word-wrap and hyphenation, proper division of the text into lines is important for both the aesthetic appearance of the document and readability of the text. It is not at all unreasonable that someone doing typesetting would want convenient navigation by lines as well as by semantic divisions.
-
I was like a baby when this was all being designed.
So tempting, but I'll take the high road and not succumb to ad hominem, at least not this time.
-
As long as it didn't use the same commands as Cut/Paste. Which are a different operation entirely.
Words/pixels: Cut-paste → Remove this thing from here and put it over there.
Files: Cut-paste → Remove this thing from here and put it over there.Words/pixels: Copy-paste → Make a copy of this thing and put it over there.
Files: Copy-paste → Make a copy of this thing and put it over there.Conceptually, they don't seem "entirely different" to me.
-
But they are, because you're not using scissors!
-
Joel says:
On the Macintosh, when you want to move a window, you can grab any edge with the mouse and move it. On Windows, you must grab the title bar. If you try to grab an edge, the window will be reshaped. When Pete was helping Gena, he tried to widen a window by dragging the right edge. Frustratingly, the whole window moved, rather than resizing as he expected.On Windows, when a message box pops up, you can hit enter or the space bar to dismiss the message box. On the Mac, space doesn't work. You usually need to click with the mouse. When Pete got alerts, he tried to dismiss them using the space bar, like he's been doing subconsciously for the last six years. The first time, nothing happened. Without even being aware of it, Pete banged the space bar harder, since he thought that the problem must be that the Mac did not register his tapping the space bar. Actually, it did -- but it didn't care! Eventually he used the mouse. Another tiny frustration.
Pete has also learned to use Alt+F4 to close windows. On the Mac, this actually changes the volume. At one point, Pete wanted to click on the Internet Explorer icon on the desktop, which was partially covered by another window. So he hit Alt+F4 to close the window and immediately double-clicked where the icon would have been. The Alt+F4 raised the volume on the computer and didn't close the window, so his double click actually hit the Help button in the toolbar on the window which he wanted closed anyway, which immediately started bringing up a help window, so now, he's got two windows open which he has to close.
Another small frustration. But, boy, does it add up. At the end of the day, Pete is grumpy and angry. When he tries to control things, they don't respond. The space bar and the Alt+F4 key "don't work" -- for all intents and purposes, it's as if those keys were broken. The window disobeys him when he tries to make it wider, playing a little prank where it just moves over instead of widening. Bad window. Even if the whole thing is subconscious, the subtle feeling of being out of control translates into helplessness, which translates into unhappiness. "I like my computer," Pete says. "I have it all set up so that it works exactly the way I like it. But these Macs are clunky and hard to use. It's an exercise in frustration. If Apple had been working on MacOS all these years instead of messing around with Newtons, their operating system wouldn't be such a mess."
Right, Pete. We know better. His feelings come despite the fact that the Macintosh really is quite easy to use -- for Mac users. It's totally arbitrary which key you press to close a window. The Microsoft programmers, who were, presumably, copying the Mac interface, probably thought that they were adding a cool new feature by letting you resize windows by dragging any edge. The MacOS 8.0 programmers probably thought they were adding a cool new feature when they let you move windows by dragging any edge.
-
On the Macintosh, when you want to move a window, you can grab any edge with the mouse and move it.
That's changed since then. The grab-edge-to-resize idiom has spread…
-
Conceptually, they don't seem "entirely different" to me.
Yeah, it's definitely one of those things that seems obvious once you have it, but I could see how it might not be at first. But the rationalizations beyond that are tedious.
-
Conceptually, they don't seem "entirely different" to me.
Fine! Good for you! Go away!
-
Go away!
Look, this is an internet based forum. "Going" somewhere doesn't make any sense. It's not a place! I can't understand why you would say such gibberish.
-
"Going" somewhere doesn't make any sense.
there are other places to go to?
:mind_blown:
-
there are other places to go to?
I know for a fact that the wheels on the bus go round and round, which just goes to show that even if you go, you might not really be going anywhere.
-
Dude. That's, like, so deep
-
I know for a fact that the wheels on the bus go round and round, which just goes to show that even if you go, you might not really be going anywhere.
Is that because the bus is short?
-
the wheels go round and round so they stay int he same place....
but the bus moves...
but the wheels stay on the bus....
so that means the bus stays in the same place and the world moves around it.....
duuuuude... that's far out!
-
Is that the bus that drops off at the Hotel California?
-
Pfft. You're no fun.
My other colleagues seem to develop just fine on a mac having used Windows/Ubuntu before. In my opinion it comes down to getting used to one set of controls over another. The main issue people have is that there is no solid standard of controls.
I went with an Ubuntu machine because I had a choice between that and a mac, and I'd used Ubuntu before. I've found that to be more convenient for development than windows. As I understand it, OSX runs on Linux or something anyway, which explains why other people can physically do it.
As for the mouse/keyboard problems, the mouse is fully charged (having been caught at the scene of the crime) and the keyboard problem was fixed with an extension cable, which sounds bizarre to me.
-
-
-
Survival of the shiniest!
-
My other colleagues seem to develop just fine on a mac having used Windows/Ubuntu before.
Ubuntu maybe, but no Windows developer worth his salt would be able to operate on a platform without Visual Studio.
Unless he's just using Apple hardware and plopped Windows on it.
-
I tried out MonoDevelop when I was playing with a Linux VM. It's no VS, but seemed to work OK as a fairly basic IDE for form/console based desktop projects
-
It's one of the better non-Visual Studio IDEs, but.
Slightly annoyed Microsoft didn't port the real Visual Studio to OS X and Linux and instead made that "VS Code" thing, but I also understand it would be a huge port taking a long time and a lot of man-hours.
-
Ubuntu maybe, but no Windows developer worth his salt would be able to operate on a platform without Visual Studio.
:sad_raymond_chen.jpg:
-
Ubuntu maybe, but no Windows developer worth his salt would be able to operate on a platform without Visual Studio.
I have to disagree with you. I'm a Windows developer, and I manage the CLI Unix platform we use to host one of our external web sites. I even have to make code changes without Visual Studio[1]!
[1] Mainly configuration changes, but sometimes the open source guys don't get everything right when they build their updates and I actually have to touch some PHP. Ugh!
-
I actually have to touch some PHP. Ugh!
Immediately flush skin with plenty of water. Remove contaminated clothing and shoes. Get medical attention if irritation develops.
-
Visual Studio irritates the hell out of me.
I particularly liked its recent decision to remove support of the File > Open function, and throw "The operation could not be completed" error messages instead.
Because clearly, opening files is not required.
-
I particularly liked its recent decision to remove support of the File > Open function, and throw "The operation could not be completed" error messages instead.
Dafuq are you talking about?
-
My install won't open files anymore. Anything that should pop up a file chooser throws that message.
Apparently this is a reasonably common occurrence, going by Google and MSDN Social searches. None of the solutions suggested worked for me. Hopefully nuke'n'pave will work.
VS is thus the shittiest software I've ever encountered.
-
Hyperbole much?
-
Nonononono. VS is the best thing visited upon Man since Mac Classic. Right Blakey?
-
It's a blakeythread. Hyperbole is mandatory!
-
I actually have to touch some PHP. Ugh!
At least you're not me. Today's problem was one that I'm debating actually going to Coding Help with... PHP is usually just irritating when it doesn't work correctly because you fell into one of the 3,542 gotchas in the version you have.
-
Also, there's no such thing as "maximize". The green button means just "expand", which every app treats as they please. Chrome, for instance, just expands to accommodate the current content, not all the way to fill the screen. So every time you click a link, you could get horizontal scrollbars and have to click the stupid left-aligned green turd AGAIN. I ALREADY TOLD YOU TO MAXIMIZE, YOU PIECE OF SHIT!!!
Surprise, this is called the desktop metaphor, as in overlapping documents.
This may be new to an ardent user of an operating system that defaults to switching views, rather than managing stacked views, but this is as it originally works.
I'll never stop being amazed by Win-users who expect that every other system would change its behavior and settings, just to mimic MS systems. (Same applies for backspace – mind that there's still no delete key on a MacBook's keyboard –, or expecting the long time used Command+R being replaced by F5, just because this is the way Windows does it.)Also, after 15 fucking years, they finally decided to add any kind of tiling support. How the fuck is that gonna work with their braindead expand concept is anyone's guess.
Again, the traditional desktop metaphor. It bridges the dilemma of switching (views) vs splitting.
Using a system defaulting to overlapping windows, there's no much sense in tiling (being the same as the splitting the screen, the very thing that was overcome by the desktop metaphor).Please mind that WIMP interfaces are about more than just framing the viewport by some pixels. They are essentially about overlapping and freely movable content and objects. Also, they are essentially about a visual connection of objects and the representation of actions that may applied to them, rather than memorizing shortcuts.
One thing that Apple f*cked up tremendously with OS X is the menubar, with the variable width application name as the first item. Before that, with the classic system, the first three menus where the same in all applications, with the major commands in the same order. Therefore, choosing a command via the mouse was more like a gesture, a swipe you had in muscle memory. (This is also, why there's only one menu bar at the very top that you can't overshoot while operating it blindly.) The whole menu system is really worse in OS X from the very beginning – not to mention hysteresis. (Amazingly it never approached the quality that it had in the 1990s in all the 14 years of OS X.)
However, WIMP interfaces are generally on the decline, so …
[Edit] P.S.: I really love moving around in a document just by blindly hitting a key (Home/End). In the old days, I acquired an "Extended Keyboard" just to be able to do this.
-
There's no such thing as "line". A "line" is a virtual construct, created by automatic word-wrapping. It's not something you actively type.
A line is a sixth of an inch. (And a point is a twelfth of a line.)
That said Ctrl+A and Ctrl+E work in most of the modern applications.
-
Surprise, this is called the desktop metaphor, as in overlapping documents.This may be new to an ardent user of an operating system that defaults to switching views, rather than managing stacked views, but this is as it originally works.
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Windows is too primarily a stacking WM. They only added some tiling support in Vista and then expanded it in later versions.
Oh, and just because "this is how it originally works", doesn't make it right. As proven by Apple, by adding a tiling paradigm on top of stacking in El Capitan.
But I don't have to waste time arguing how this is better. Once the next OS X ships, all the Mactards will come out saying how this is the only way to work and poo poo-ing stupid old people stuck with their old fiddly ways. See you in six months, when you try to convince me how Apple was the brilliant innovator who came up with this paradigm in the first place.
-
El Capitan
Apple have finally gone full retard with OS names. What will the next one be called, Sergeant Cuddles?
Even with big cats, they really should have planned it in advance so they got bigger as it went or something. Now it's just random words there's no way to know which version is newer than another
-
Apple have finally gone full retard with OS names. What will the next one be called, Sergeant Cuddles?
No no, you don't understand! You're ignorant! Ignorant!
You see, it's the Californian's landmarks. It all fits together, it's brilliant! You're just ignorant!
-
I'll never stop being amazed by Win-users who expect that every other system would change its behavior and settings, just to mimic MS systems.
Save your breath …Though to be honest, that is pretty much what’s been happening with OS X the last few versions. For example, since Mavericks @Cartman82’s detested green button no longer has the function to expand the window to show all contents, but it maximises the window to full-screen, including hiding the menu bar and dock. The original idea (which I know he doesn’t care about) was that in OS X, like in NeXTSTEP, you wouldn’t work full-screen at all — that’s why the green button’s function was “fit to contents” rather than “maximise”, while NeXTSTEP windows only had “close” and “minimise” buttons — but I suspect given the combination of tablet UIs that always work full-screen, former Windows users buying Macs, and new management with less-firm opinions of the way things are going to be, made Apple give up that idea. The introduction of tiling probably has similar reasons.
A line is a sixth of an inch.
In typesetting, yes. In firearms, it’s a tenth of an inch. Welcome to the wonderful world of English-style measurements ;)
-
TIL. I buttumed Mavericks was about Apple being a maverick who doesn't play by the rules but damn, he gets results.
Probably one of those things that makes sense to Californian Apple employees who assume everyone knows their local landmarks. When I release software I'll start calling it High Rocks, Bewl Water and White Cliffs
-
Probably one of those things that makes sense to Californian Apple employees who assume everyone knows their local landmarks.
At least the big cat names sound cool, but I can’t say the same about landmarks, especially not ones like “El Capitan”.
-
My first thought was the OPM song about getting drunk on rum and getting a girl pregnant. Good association there
-
PHP is usually just irritating when it doesn't work correctly because you fell into one of the 3,542 gotchas in the version you have.
I would love to have gotten as far as PHP gotchas, but I was too busy putting up with SugarCRM gotchas, management gotchas and development environment gotchas which seemed to be localised to the companies I worked in.
Ultimately I removed it from my CV mostly because other people didn't like it, but also because it might lead back to SugarCRM, whose entire community support seems to be based on companies that rely on SugarCRM as a legacy system and the limited number of developers who would put themselves though using it.
-
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Windows is too primarily a stacking WM. They only added some tiling support in Vista and then expanded it in later versions.
Oh, and just because "this is how it originally works", doesn't make it right. As proven by Apple, by adding a tiling paradigm on top of stacking in El Capitan.
So, any other vendor is obliged to follow Windows practices?
Still, most Windows setups default to opening any documents, directory views, etc, full screen, making this essentially about switching using the task bar, rather than a true example of the desktop metaphor.BTW: There have always been numerous add-ons (including free ones) to add tiling to Mac OS.
If your life depends on it, no problem. Also, most "serious" applications support split document views.
-
The original idea (which I know he doesn’t care about) was that in OS X, like in NeXTSTEP, you wouldn’t work full-screen at all — that’s why the green button’s function was “fit to contents” rather than “maximise”, while NeXTSTEP windows only had “close” and “minimise” buttons —
To dwell a bit in history, the original implementation in (classic) Mac OS was a bit erratic.
"The Macintosh Bible" (1987) – a then popular users guide written by users – states the following on the zoom box (the official name of this widget):«Some programs don't actually expand the window to fill the entire screen. In the Finder, for example, a "full" size window stops about an inch short of the right edge of the screen, so you can still see disk icons and the Trash. (You can make it larger by manually sizing it to cover the screen.)»
The "bible" commences by tagging this a "bad feature", owed to the times of 9"-"toaster Macs":
«(…) the whole thing could be implemented better. On a large monitor, the whole-screen option is almost always ridiculous, whether it goes all the way to the edge or not; it looks as if someone has suddenly opened a bedsheet in front of the screen.»
Eventually, Apple unified this to the maximize (fit to contents) behavior in System 7 (1991) to adjust for the larger screens now commonly in use. This is how it has been for the last quarter of a century since.
[Edit] In other words, zooming to the full size of the screen as in Windows is a cargo cult from early Mac OS on the 9" toaster Macs.
Moreover, since early Windows didn't support overlapping windows by default, zooming was here originally about switching between a tiled view and a single document full-screen view.
Opposed to this, the Mac behavior since System 7 is about toggling between fit-to-content/show-all and the view/window size used previously.
-
but I suspect given the combination of tablet UIs that always work full-screen, former Windows users buying Macs, and new management with less-firm opinions of the way things are going to be, made Apple give up that idea.
Or, you know, they might have just realized their original idea was stupid and Microsoft's idea was better.
So, any other vendor is obliged to follow Windows practices?
Apple certainly seems to be.
Still, most Windows setups default to opening any documents, directory views, etc, full screen, making this essentially about switching using the task bar, rather than a true example of the desktop metaphor.
Nothing's stopping you from using Windows in the same fiddly way as Mac. The fact that most users work the way you described tells you something about which workflow is better.
BTW: There have always been numerous add-ons (including free ones) to add riling to Mac OS.If your life depends on it, no problem. Also, most "serious" applications support split document views.
I know, those made working on Mac tolerable.
-
> Still, most Windows setups default to opening any documents, directory views, etc, full screen, making this essentially about switching using the task bar, rather than a true example of the desktop metaphor.
Nothing's stopping you from using Windows in the same fiddly way as Mac. The fact that most users work the way you described tells you something about which workflow is better.
The fact that most serious users are using at least two, if not three, screens with Windows is also telling some about this workflow. (Most Windows users never change the default setting, even the desktop background is changed rarely. They just go on as-is. Opposed to this, a typical Mac power user is traditionally apt to setting up the machine to her likes.)
-
and the One True Keyboard
That one I have and will keep untill I die. It is easy to repair (imporant) gives huge amounts of tactile feedback and has a reasonalble ergonomic design (since I use 8 fingers to type, and they invade each others keyspace I have never gotten used to those split keyboards). It is an absolute beast if you have to carry it but man do I love my keyboard.
-
> I'll never stop being amazed by Win-users who expect that every other system would change its behavior and settings, just to mimic MS systems.
Save your breath …
Now, this is really some kind of OS-imperialsm … ;-)
-
Once the next OS X ships, all the Mactards will come out saying how this is the only way to work and poo poo-ing stupid old people stuck with their old fiddly ways. See you in six months, when you try to convince me how Apple was the brilliant innovator who came up with this paradigm in the first place.
I'll never stop ranting on how Mac usability has degraded ever since after OS X 10.6.
Great thing, Jony Ives is in charge of the UI no more …
-
Is anybody making a keyboard with the same IBM clicky switches that also includes logo and menu keys? Because that would be sweet.
Mavericks, California - Wikipedia
