Aqua-Soft ForumsAll said MacOSX attractive, actually carefully analyzes, MAC is attractive is produces based on the impractical design idea in: The chart sign big fearfulness, looks like dazzles very much shocks very much, the picture is the person which specially gives has the visual barrier designs, how many but can a such chart sign tabletop put? Natural, you may change into 32x32, but such MAC no longer existed in the chart sign compared to the XP attractive superiority. Also has Dock reproduce by pantograph the effect, said from the technical angle, realizes this kind of effect quite takes the processor resources, but truthfully uses the significance to say, this kind of effect did not say any necessity regarding the vision normal person. The MAC contact surface designers also very much stingy pity to the window control frame, the slender frame and the water-drop shape control button has a liking for is very attractive, but the operating system contact surface is uses to the person, but is not looks to the person, the slender frame and the water-drop shape button uses obviously not to have XP a wider frame and the upright button is relaxed. But uses the window control frame to move the window, with the maximized/smallest/closure window button all is when the use extremely frequent, above this parsimonious space except that in order to attractive not other reason. Also has can not but raise is the MAC screen peak menu, all had known with the true MAC machine people, MAC procedure window itself does not have the menu, because of the menu forever in the screen crown, can have differently according to the focal point procedure different menu, in other words I use when a procedure even if opens a very small window underneath the screen, when I need to select the menu operation, must move the mouse very far away arrives the peak only then to be good, then also must again move very far away moves, obviously is not very convenient. But XP then everywhere gives the person by human nature looking after, for instance, the clicking on rate highest start button does very in a big way, the color very is also striking, has very many people all to think not artisticly, but actually this exactly has manifested XP human nature one side, uses compares Mac that apple shape small menu button not to know relaxed how many time, has not needed the picture to play a spot button which CS resembles also to have to have the excellent aiming skill. Also had "all procedures" this menu by originally in most above to transfer to most under, because this also was an utilization ratio very high menu, has transferred to the position which was easier to click, used to be more convenient. In summary, the MacOSX contact surface is based on the impractical design idea in production, but the WindowsXP contact surface is artistic and is practical (human nature) the perfect union.
Mac Os X And Windows Xp
4 words: use a better translator.
I didn't understand a single sentence. It was, nevertheless, very amusing.
same as taha, I only red half of the text because I didn't understand anything
Originally posted by Taha@Jun 8 2003, 04:06 PM4 words: use a better translator.
I didn't understand a single sentence. It was, nevertheless, very amusing.
Peace!
Originally posted by Aqua-girl@Jun 8 2003, 12:21 PMCristal clear.
Thanks for sharing that,
Cheers
care to share?
I think that makes a lot of sense. The look of XP is a better & efficient design when it comes to using business applications compared to OSX. Eg. If you open Microsoft Excel for the first time and click on maximize, you get more usable spreadsheet and chart spacing compared with clicking on the maximize button on OSX... specially if you have the dock running.
For those unfamiliar with how Mac OSX works, many applications have separate windows for different features. If you open Excel, it has space taken up by toolbars but not within the spreadsheet itself. The blank spreadsheet is a separate entity and when you click on the maximize button, part of the sheet is covered by some other dropdown menus which you have to move out of the way just to see what's underneath. Actually you can turn them off or change the positioning to more or less look like what you see in windows. But for many mac users, they never knew about this or never bothered to set it up differently so they just left it as is and worked a bit less efficiently.
productivity, eh? depends on which interface you are most accustomed to.
Personally, I find the OS X interface to be teh most efficient. Linux would be second (surprisingly, since I'm still new to it). IMO, Windows is only easy for me because I have used it for many many years. Otherwise, I would say it is the MOST INEFFICIENT. e.g. Look at task switching. Similar tasks (eg. 2+ I.E. windows) are not grouped together. When you want to switch apps using alt+tab, you have to cycle through many windows of I.E. before you get to another open app.
Another example would be closing an app. If you accidentally press the x button, the app closes. In OS X, there are 2-4 different window states (open, hidden, minimized, closed, quit-ed). This ensures maximum flexibility.
Personally, none of the interfaces of any of the OS's hinder my productivity. Why? Because I am used to all of them. Being used to the interface is what decides productivity. 
'nuff said.
:rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant:
Taha, I though you were smarter than that. <_<
LINUX DOESNT HAVE A LOOK. LINUX IS A KERNEL, IT DOESNT EVEN HAVE A COMMAND LINE.
People build GUIs for Linux, and there are 1000s of them. You cant "(not)like the way linux look", though you can "like GNOME" or "Like Enlightenment".
Please specify, as there are major differences between, say GNOME and Fluxbox.
I agree though, I like OSXs usability, Its heaven every time I get to use one.
well you can make linux look anyway you want it too... in theory
so linux has the best interface of all (logically)
linux can have a business interface (bluecurve) or an eye candy fest (enlightenment)
the only thing it doesn't have is a proper dock :'(
fissy
and so, logically, OS X wins 
Well, WindowMaker has a dock. Its a NeXT dock though (similar to OSX).
Interface wise, WindowMaker really does come very close to OSX, but thats because of OSXs roots, and not eye candy. :'(
eeeegads..I should give this post to Engrish.com.
Can someone, who's head didnt burst while reading that, try and create a full translation in terms most of us can understand?
Originally posted by Taha@Jun 8 2003, 05:13 PMproductivity, eh? depends on which interface you are most accustomed to.
That is probably the gist of what Undertaker was trying to point out.
The world's business environment is composed mostly of secretaries used to the windows look and feel. Set these same people in front of a Mac to use the same software and watch their efficiency drop. Those who are so used to right-clicking their way through production are frustrated about having to remember to press the control-key instead. The secretaries in our offices, who are so used to working with Microsoft Word and Excel, often look for me (almost everyday) and ask me how to do this or that when they are using Microsoft's OSX version of Word and Excel(they get some sort of mind-block and can't even remember what I showed them the day or week before). I often get frustrated as to why they couldn't put it in their minds that it is the same software that just looks better...
hey, maybe that's it. The OSX looks so good and cool that they just keep on admiring it and suddenly forget how to do stuff. 
Ah well. I love my Macs.
:woot:
Originally posted by godpunk@Jun 9 2003, 01:27 AMI think what he means is...ugh....arghh...
*head explodes*
:blowup:
-godpunk
This smilie sooo rockz...
:blowup:
lolz
The windows interface experienced it's big leap in coolness and productivity from windows 3.1 to 95. Since then the design has just got... well... 'Prettier' I suppose. Just all the lines have been smoothed to make it look nice and make it more appealing to those who know no better. Macs on the other hand, while having the smaller user base, have coninually refined their looks and innovated as well. (I can't comment on productivity cos I don't use them enough). My brother uses OS 9 and swears it's better than XP. I use XP and swear it's better than MacOS. It's all totally subjective. It all depends on how you've been brought up to use a particualr machine. Personally I find OSX's lighter themes too sterile and prefer a cross between Brushed theme, and XP / I-Candy icons when working or playing(I'll post a screenie soon). Anyway. Thats my point. There probably isn't a "better" OS, just depends on your personal deviations :naughty: .
Ludge.
It mostly depends on what you are already used to.
Like me and my keyboard settings... I use Ctrl+Shift to switch languages (in XP, that is), while 99% of people use Alt+Shift. Ctrl+Shift are adjacent keys, both leftmost on the keyboard... But friends that use my PC have a hard time to get used to it.
A clever OS, though, should take into account a lot of things... be attractive, easy for total ****ies to get a few basic things done and at the same time let power users do the most out of it.
Have a nice day!
Ken
Originally posted by Ken@Jun 8 2003, 08:15 PMA clever OS, though, should take into account a lot of things... be attractive, easy for total ****ies to get a few basic things done and at the same time let power users do the most out of it.
Have a nice day!
Ken
did you just say OS X? :D
Seriously though, I think OS X is great for noobs.
Also, the UNIX side of it will ensure power users get their share of the fun too. I played around with telnet in Terminal and I tell ya its loads of fun!
I have to trust you on what you say, my experience with OSX is zero!
Why can't I take a Mac for a few days for a test drive? They allow you to do it with cars, why not with computers?
Yeah, I just played around w/ OSX in CompUSA, and they were shocked that OSX had a command line (I was *nix-ing it up). When I told them that thats what Apples means by "UNIX based", they were amazed! Wow, I should totally work at Compusa, I'd be a genious there.
Want to have some fun, go and ask if you can run Linux on one of their Compaqs. LOL.
man, you SHOULD work there.
It seems their employees aren't too bright. That'll change when they hire you, right?
A little off-topic, but funny;
I went to Frys Electronics last night for a new HSF (I got a Zalman's CNPS6000-Cu, which rocks) and as I strolled by the Mac section I saw the fuunniest display...a G4 look alike PC set up on a 42" plasma display. Turns out the Frys people built a custom PC that looks incredibly similar to a G4, with everything silver and white, all round corners. Stuck an ATI Radeon 9800, an Athlon 3.06 Barton, and over a Gig of memory. All the peripherals matched, and then they stuck a sleek comfy leather chair in front of the plasma display so people could play their favorite cutting edge games on a PC right in the middle of the Apple section.
Even I had to step forward closer to make certain the case wasn't by Apple...incredibly similar.
Think they're trying to make a point?
Originally posted by deadzombie@Jun 8 2003, 09:35 PMA little off-topic, but funny;
I went to Frys Electronics last night for a new HSF (I got a Zalman's CNPS6000-Cu, which rocks) and as I strolled by the Mac section I saw the fuunniest display...a G4 look alike PC set up on a 42" plasma display. Turns out the Frys people built a custom PC that looks incredibly similar to a G4, with everything silver and white, all round corners. Stuck an ATI Radeon 9800, an Athlon 3.06 Barton, and over a Gig of memory. All the peripherals matched, and then they stuck a sleek comfy leather chair in front of the plasma display so people could play their favorite cutting edge games on a PC right in the middle of the Apple section.
Even I had to step forward closer to make certain the case wasn't by Apple...incredibly similar.
Think they're trying to make a point?
I think YOU are trying to make a point.
That PC's are better gaming machines? <_<