Imaginitive Speculation...

I'd like to hear some opinions on why you think that after all these years, all that money, all those employees and all those companies under their wing, Microsoft still can't come up with a single friggin icon worth looking at... let alone a decent interface.

Luna looks like it was designed by Fisher-Price and 'classic' looks like vintage Windows 3.1 on steroids. WTF?

Guys.. HIRE A FRIGGIN DESIGNER WITH SOME COLOUR SENSE AND A SMALL MODICUM OF TASTE!

I'd like to have them all lined up for a damn good ball kicking session, then make them all go to Apple design remedial classes.. followed by another good ball kicking session.

#9638

I think the look and feel of the Windows OS is very deliberate and looks just fine to the majority of the population. Most people that I know couldn't care less what their windows look like or which side of the titlebar the min/max/close buttons are on. Alpha-blended icons and genie-effects and these types of things that seem important to us are meaningless to them. The computer is just a tool. And that's the segment of the population that MS caters to. Those interested in the flashy/trendy type stuff lean toward the Mac.

Just my thoughts.

#9644

I feel that Windows was designed with the middle class in mind.

It's middle of the road, very *safe* looking, nothing too extravagant.

Which is fine for Mom and Pop and perhaps the corporate types, but bored the living hell out of me.

It seems the Apple designed the OS X GUI to make the computer a pleasent tool to work with. Something to induce a feeling a creativity and inspiration.

I'm guessing that MS did hire professional graphic designers for XP, and I'm also guessing that those same designers were gagged by the safe, middle of the road, corporate types at MS. Man, that must have been painful for them! Had it been me working on the project, I probably would have wanted to shoot myself halfway through from frustration!

Where as Apple seem to give the designers free rein to be as bold and innovative as they could possibly be. That would have been a dream account!

I also feel now with the Apple marketing blitz, that more and more people are seeing just how beautiful a well designed GUI can be and are saying "Why can't my desktop look that good!?!". I certainly did once I saw Aqua.

One thing that *really* pisses me off about XP is looking through Shell32.dll with ResHack and seeing the same f**king icons that have been there since Win3.1!

And what really pisses me off even more is seeing companies write new software for XP that still uses Win3.1 icons!

Grrrrrrrrrr...ok, I'm done now!

Peace,

Grusic

#9646

Originally posted by judge@Jan 14 2003, 05:25 AM

1. Its just not important to the majority of people.

Unfortunately I agree with point one.

I've heard alot of people refer to Aqua as "eye candy", a term I find really offensive.

But then again, I look at where it's coming from. Those same sort of people would probably refer to some of us as "artsy fartsy" and other terms that I find too offensive to mention.

I made the recent mistake of showing a screen shot of mine to an associate. I almost punched the guy in the mouth when the only thing he could say was, and I quote, "You must be gay to have a GUI *that* graphical".

My wife and former girlfriends would not agree with him

Almost needless to say, I told the guy to "stop acting like an asshole" and now have *nothing* to do with him!

Then again, my stepson gets freaked out when he sees me with black toenail polish on!

Tis hard being artistic at times!

All the best,

Grusic

#9666

Yes, many people dont really care about the icons.

It is a shame how windows xp can support 32bit icons, and they dont even look like 32bit icons, those can be displayed in 16bit, except for the little shadows.

Something i hate about the windows graphics, is that in windows xp there are graphics, animations, and icons that are form windows 95. Go to your system folder, and you will find a lot of applications with the same icon as windows 95! that is a shame, since they suck, they should remake all the icons in the apps. The animations when deleteing a file or moving a file, are old and UGLY, i hate them. Some graphics on some programs have the windows 95 style, not even the me or xp. I think microsoft doesnt take into consideration the graphics.

Also, the big icon size for windows is 48x48, imagine working at that size in a 1280x1024 resoultion, or on a 1600x1280 one, you will eventually get problems in your sight, those icons are extremly small.

In windows xp they just remade the icons that would should most in the computer, but the rest of the applications have a shame of icons. Compare office xp icons vs office v.x icons, the xp ones suck.

Microsoft should remake all the graphics, icons and animations present in the OS. It might be, because every OS is like a patch from the other, but that gives windows and ugly graphic design.

Just my opinion, but go into OS X, and you will note that there are not os 9, os 8, etc, icons present. This windows icons basically suck.

#9673

Originally posted by jef@Jan 13 2003, 10:52 AM

Those interested in the flashy/trendy type stuff lean toward the Mac.

And by "trendy" you mean, of course, NOT VERY TRENDY.

#9684

Yep, sadly all too true.

A ) People don't care what it looks like.. which is odd as they all decorate their non PC environs!

B ) MS don't care as stated, they go for the nice safe middle ground.

C ) It is just a tool to get the job done.

D ) Anyone who has a nice desktop is Gay! Well, give me a 'pride flag' because I'll be damned if I'm having that sucky Windows look on *my* Gay-Ass machines.

I guess I posted because my wife (Ex Apple) doesn't want any customisation on her PC at all... *nothing* not a single icon. Just a bog-standard gray classic XP. Eeeech!! I tried sneaking a theme and a couple of Icons in there last time I set her machine up but she spotted them right away and insisted I changed them back to the suckiness she was familiar with. Familiarity and lack of gayness seems to be to blame

Some of my co-workers have been spotted with Luna in action and the rest have classic, usually configured to look exactely like Win2k, which was configured to look just like Win 95, which was configured to look......

I am making subtle inroads here though, about 30% now have a dock on their interface, I've made a few custom Icons for them here and there and one of them even has the full Iceman brushed interface going. It's a slow and arduous task but even so, we are an art company. You wouldn't think it'd be so alien to them.

I guess I'll just have to start slipping estro

gen in their coffee

PS. those win 3 icons hidden away in the system files really chaps my ass, as does the 48 max icon size when we all know it can do 128. It's the main OS icons I really hate though, they all have that comic look to them. BLECH!

#9688

I agree with jef. Most people could care less what there operating system looked like or the feel of their computer. They just want it to work. Although they don't know it, a good looking and intuitive operating system with inuitive applications can really improve the experience of using a computer. That is why these are the people that should be using macs. Because whether they realize it or not, macs are much easier to use, and they simplify the experience and make it a lot less stressful. Most of the people that dont care should be using macs. Us that do care should also be using macs, but we can operate fine on the clumsy un-intuitive windows operating system.

But, to be honest, in my view, everyone should be using a mac, and everything should be run on a mac. They are just simply better, smarter, simpler computers. They are the creators of a windows like operating system with icons and menu and buttons and all that stuff. Apple was there well before microsoft even dreamed of creating an operating system like it. The truth is, Windows and Mac operating systems are very similair. If they weren't we wouldn't be here discussing about how we can make windows look like mac os, because it would just be impossible. But, since Windows is so similair to mac in terms of the actual use and operation of the system it is possible to come very close to it.

Think about it. Look at the list of similarities...

- icons

- cut, copy, paste

- windows displaying icons

- menus with drop down menus

- titlebars

- trash and recycle bin

- buttons that do and perform different things

- move around windows and put them away, close them and expand them

- change the size of windows

- the whole idea of the mouse and pointer and how you point and click on things on the screen was copied

- the desktop

- desktop backgrounds

and those are just a few. Mac does all this in a much nicer way and their operating system is much more reliable and well built. Why? Because they were there first. I'm sure many of you know this already. But lets not forget why Microsoft's Windows, is so similair to the Macintosh OS.

#9689

Leaving aside our differing views on which OS is easier to use, Heh Heh fact is, at my company, the only ones who can use Mac's are the non artists, as our software is completely incompatible with OSX. We use 3d software not available on the mac, we use a proprietary custom built 3d engine developed entirely on PC and are aiming largely at the PC market. The Mac factors into things very little here.

Apples use of well below par gfx cards doesn't help it's cause either. Last I looked the standard gfx card for most of the range was a GF 2/4 mx/go or some lowly ATI. Not exactely inspiring. As I said in another thread, they may look pretty and have a nice OS but they don't pack the hardware needed to kick enough ass where it counts.

But that's all besides the point. Mac's definately have their place in the world, just not everywhere. Windows is ubiquitous and as such should have an interface system flexible enough out of the box to satisfy even us artsy-fartsy types

Me in particular LOL!

#9695

And that's why I like theming so much. It doesn't even have to be mac, per say. But that's my flavor of the moment.

There really isn't an all size fits all. That's why we have different types of computers, operating systems, etc. and people using them in different ways.

#9701

Originally posted by smeggy@Jan 13 2003, 04:51 PM

Yep, sadly all too true.

A ) People don't care what it looks like.. which is odd as they all decorate their non PC environs!

B ) MS don't care as stated, they go for the nice safe middle ground.

C ) It is just a tool to get the job done.

D ) Anyone who has a nice desktop is Gay! Well, give me a 'pride flag' because I'll be damned if I'm having that sucky Windows look on *my* Gay-Ass machines.

I guess I posted because my wife (Ex Apple) doesn't want any customisation on her PC at all... *nothing* not a single icon. Just a bog-standard gray classic XP. Eeeech!! I tried sneaking a theme and a couple of Icons in there last time I set her machine up but she spotted them right away and insisted I changed them back to the suckiness she was familiar with.  Familiarity and lack of gayness seems to be to blame

Some of my co-workers have been spotted with Luna in action and the rest have classic, usually configured to look exactely like Win2k, which was configured to look just like Win 95, which was configured to look......

I am making subtle inroads here though, about 30% now have a dock on their interface, I've made a few custom Icons for them here and there and one of them even has the full Iceman brushed interface going.  It's a slow and arduous task but even so, we are an art company. You wouldn't think it'd be so alien to them.

I guess I'll just have to start slipping estro

gen in their coffee

PS. those win 3 icons hidden away in the system files really chaps my ass, as does the 48 max icon size when we all know it can do 128. It's the main OS icons I really hate though, they all have that comic look to them. BLECH!

lol! Good one! Sure seems like its mostly gays and girls who are into macs.. and us of course.

#9704

Originally posted by smeggy@Jan 13 2003, 01:28 PM

Apples use of well below par gfx cards doesn't help it's cause either. Last I looked the standard gfx card for most of the range was a GF 2/4 mx/go or some lowly ATI. Not exactely inspiring. As I said in another thread, they may look pretty and have a nice OS but they don't pack the hardware needed to kick enough ass where it counts.

But that's all besides the point. Mac's definately have their place in the world, just not everywhere. Windows is ubiquitous and as such should have an interface system flexible enough out of the box to satisfy even us artsy-fartsy types  

Me in particular LOL!

They use GF2MX in the all in one models such as the eMac and iMacs. NVIDIA GeForce4 MX in the 17" model and in the laptops (Go version). ATI Radeon 7500 in the iBooks and the towers have either ATI Radeon 9000 Pro, NVIDIA GeForce4 MX or the NVIDIA GeForce4 Titanium. That last one is a decent card.

I would not call these below par when you consider most PC makers out there are still delivering integrated on board Intel Graphics crap by default.

#9712

This goes to show that you just can't win when you choose a computer if you are trying to please others with what you run.

If you run a PC with Win, you are a herded sheep trogolodyte. If you run *nix you are a nerd\geek. If you have a Mac or like it you are "gay".

Well I myself don't try to please others. I just please myself.

#9715

Originally posted by smoke@Jan 13 2003, 07:48 PM

If you have a Mac or like it you are "gay".

No, dammit, if you own a Mac you are a faux-trendy poser.

#9827

They are the creators of a windows like operating system with icons and menu and buttons and all that stuff. Apple was there well before microsoft even dreamed of creating an operating system like it

Jmitch the first "windows" environment was develop by Xerox, copyed/stolen by Apple and then adapted by Microsoft

#9831

Yes, telmo you are right. Apple did steal the idea form xerox, but then they took that idea and made something out of it. They did more with it, they explanded on it. They used their own ideas and thoughts and used their basic idea, but they made it a whole lot better. Microsoft has been copying mac all along each and every step of the way.

And owning a mac doesn't make you gay at all. It makes you a smart person because you know what the real computers are. Plus, if I had the money, I'd go out and buy a mac right now. I dont care what other people think of my computer!! Plus, why wouldn't they like a mac?? Once they see it and use it and see how easy it is to use, they'll probably want one themselves!

#9867

people that consider macs or other systems, apart from windows, gay, they are more gay, because they cant really accept the challenge of using another OS, thwy are sticked with their windows box. I know 2 persons, who doesnt like linux, just because they dont know how to use it, and consider it crap. Its kinda hard, but it seem shard for guys who live always with their windows based computers.

#9871

Woohoo!

Got another request for the dock this morning... the movement is growing, one at a time

Anyway,

there *is* a lot of resistance to other than what we're used to. I don't think, as some do, that the only reason we don't use one over the other is because we think it's for geeks, nerds, gays, drones or otherwise. A lot of it is dictated by what we use the 'puter for, and how the thing operates. I don't use *nix as I have no real use for it and I don't use Macs for similar reasons. I have used CP/M, Dos, Amiga, Gem, Win (nearly all) OS2, *nix (various) Mac (6.x and up) plus sundry other obscure systems.

A PC is a tool, whatever flavour it comes in, and at the end of the day that tool needs to serve our purposes not just be some kind of superiority symbol. The Wintel setup is the one that best suits my needs and no other system can currently fill that slot (program issues). Irrespective of what Unix, Amiga (chuckle) and Mac advocates may say, they are still way behind in software support. I'm not talking general classes of programs, but specific programs that are not available on other platforms, and it has to be said, you don't change your main programs just to accomodate an OS, BZZZZT!!! Wrong. It works the other way around. An OS is a means to an end, not an end in itself as many seem to think.

All systems have their merits, and though most people wouldn't know a PC or Mac from a hole in the ground, there are many of us who do and choose based on whether it will meet our needs, not whether it looks neat and has some 'cool' factor attached. Most mac and *nix users have everything they need in their systems but they don't have what I need.. end of story. No Mac for me, no Linux either.

And as to all this talk of gayness, some of my best friends have been gay and I wouldn't mind one bit being tarred with the same brush as them, 'nuff said.

Now, who's for cakes and hot chocky?

#9897

Hi all,

I'll agree with smeggy that a computer is a tool, but I'm not sure whether a Windows-based system serves more as a tool than a Mac. I have always been a Windows user, and my experience with Macs is very limited, but I feel that a Windows PC is not the easiest thing to get it to work and serve as a tool.

When I bought my last PC, I had to worry about tons of stuff; what kind of memory chips to use, hard drive speed, graphics card, cpu, fans etc. I appreciate the flexibility and expandability of a PC, but it brings so many new worries and can be such a pain to find the appropriate system for you.

And then comes software... The Windows we've used and loved and hated at the same time. With crashes, (not so in WinXP, thank God!) and drivers to care about, and conflicts, and THE Registry, and DLLs, and......

That's why I dought whether a PC servers more as a tool than a Mac. Macs may don't offer the variety in hardware and software that PCs do, but what they do they do it better.

Being a computer junkie, I wouldn't trade my PC for a Mac, as I want to mess with system settings, programming, weird shareware and everything you can do on (to) a computer.

I guess it's my gay side though that stares at apple.com every day and drools in front of new iMacs and iSoftware.

Have a nice day all!

Ken

#9903

It makes you a smart person because you know what the real computers are.

I am a systems administrator, I value a computer based on computer power not in the looks either of the case or the OS. For a real computer I turn to SUN Microsystems. PCs and MACs are not "real computers" they are nice desktop systems.

Sorry if I sound elitist, but I work at an important financial institution where the price of 1 "real computer" is over $1 million (example), reading your post made me think about what is considered a real computer.

besides as smeggy can tell you Amiga WorkBench rules!

#9907

I probably wasn't overly clear on some aspects of that. I wasn't saying the PC is more of a tool than a Mac or other, they are all tools, or rather toolboxes that contain specific tools. The Mac just has a different set of tools than the ones I need.

Yes, wintel is a *****, compatibility issues, never knowing what it wants, moody. Drives me as nutty as the next geek, but isn't that why we love them... just like wimmin!

Come to think of it, the PC might well be more of a 'tool' than the rest hehehe

#9908

about that windows is the easiest os, it might not be true. If it is the system you using during your growth, then it turns to be easy, like language. But if then you try to learn a new "language" in this case, OS, it can turn to be hard. Windows can be friendly, but not necesarly the most simple, ask a user of mac that have used them for his life, to use a windows computer, it can be pain in the ass. Just an opinion.

#9912

i agree with Ken. i personally like having all these options to toy with, i enjoy the overclocking, the fast hardware, etc. However, macs are just prettier... almost every part of them. hence, i skin windows.

however, if OSX ran on an x86 processor, you could bet i'd get myself a copy of it real soon.

-Pax

Felix

#10088

"Macs (PCs) are better." I hear this too often. The fact is the OSs HAVE become very similar in actual operation (not looks) and there is no true answer to which is better. I hate Mac Elitests by the way. I was looking at the (then) new iMacs at Best Buy and a guy asked me if I was going to buy one, and I said I was considering it, and he gave me this long lecture on how superior Macs are (and have always been) and then another guy started arguing with him. I though a fist-fight was going to break out.

PERSONALLY: I bought a new computer in August and I had to make the decision between a Mac and a PC. I had $1400 to spend and that was it. For $1400 (in august) i could get:

MAC: Lowest Level iMac: Pretty(software,hardware), 700Mhz G4(about equal to 1.7Ghz), LCD, Geforce2MX, CDRW, 128MB SDRAM.

PC: 2.0Ghz, LCD, Geforce4Ti4200, CDRW,DVD, 256MB RDRAM.

The choice was obvious. While Macs have the superior OS, IMO, the hardware is waaaay under par. I play lots of Games and Unreal Tournament cant play on the iMac, not even close. I guess my point is that you will pay more for the same hardware (and low end hardware at that: SDRAM, GF2) and hardware was very important to me. If Apple pumps up their hardware or lowers prices, Id be sold. People arent gonna pay $1300 to surf the internet (and inferior to PCs, in August).

Oh, and Apple is become just as much of a jerk as Microsoft, unfortunatly they cant afford to lose 1% of the population. I mean, charging $120 for a POINT release. Charging for .Mac (which was suppose to be free). The list is getting bigger.

That and Macs arent as customizable, and since Im here, I obviously like that.

BOTH ARE SPECIAL,

#10227

You know what I think most people don't realize when they get into a platform discussion is that perhaps the reason why someone argues for a certain platform is because there actually is pluses to using it. I mean, someone probably wouldn't argue for something they don't like right?

But as with anything there isn't a one size fits all. I also really think that replacing one monopoly with the other is not the answer so it's good that there is more than one computer system that people use.

Another thing to think about is all marketing departments are full of it. But that's their job, to paint a nice picture about their product to get people to spend their money and buy it . There aren't any philanthropic (sp) marketing departments for computer companies.

#10233