5 ms·

It sounds like you expected a clone of Windows and were predictably disappointed. > I got maybe three hours of the supposed 7 hour battery You should have tak

by sjs 14y ago

It sounds like you expected a clone of Windows and were predictably disappointed. > I got maybe three hours of the supposed 7 hour battery You should have taken it back. Seriously. > Perhaps I'm set in my ways You hit the nail on the head here. There's nothing wrong with that but most of your complaints amount to "this is not what I am used to". > the absolute insanse window switching behavior On Windows and Linux I cannot switch to an app bringing all windows to the front, I have to do it one at a time. Anyone used to one behaviour could claim the other is insane just because it is different. > the piss poor excuse for a terminal What on earth are you talking about? The Terminal app? Get iTerm2 or something else then. If you don't like gnome-terminal you don't whine about it, you just install urxvt or whatever. > the fact that apps continue to run in the background after you close the last window The fact that you have to have visible windows for an app to run on Windows and Linux could be perceived the same way. What if I wanted to switch back and use that app again?

lttlrck 14y ago
Much like the Mac OS menu bar; drove me nuts stuck at the top of the screen like that, but a lot of people like it and I can understand that...
- nirvana 14y ago
  That's my point. It's not that a lot of people like it. In fact, whether people like it or not isn't really relevant. It's that this is the correct way to do it. When the menu bar is at the top of the screen, the user is much faster at getting the mouse over a menu item and clicking to open the menu. It works better. This isn't opinion, it's measurable scientifically. When the menu is on a window, you overshoot with your mouse and come down and have to hunt to get on the menu to open it. This slows you down. But the thing is-- people get used to being slower and less efficient and then when on a better solution, they think the better solution is worse because it goes against all the compensations they've had to build up over the years to get around the other, poorer, design. Now, I'm not saying that you can't prefer a windows style UI and menubar, but I am saying it is most likely because this is what you've been taught to use, and thus it feels more natural to you, even though it is less efficient for you.
  - icebraining 14y ago
    Measured scientifically just means it's better for the majority of users; it doesn't necessarily mean it's better for me as a single individual. Not that I'm arguing against the bar on top; in fact, I'll use the keyboard shortcuts anyway, so I don't particularly care.
    - nirvana 14y ago
      I submit that we are talking about a physiological issue, not a preference. Attempting to hit a target in the middle of the screen is more difficult for humans than hitting a target at the very top of the screen. When you overshoot the target in the middle of the screen, you have to come back around to click on it. When you overshoot the target at the top of the screen, the pointer is stopped by the border of the display. Stopped right on the target, and you can just click. It may not feel faster to you-- that's perception. My point is that it is faster. And I haven't seen an argument for why the two things would be reversed for any specific person. It's the nature of the latency between our eyes, mind and muscles.
      - barrkel 14y ago
        There's more to accessing commands in a UI than physically manipulating an input device. I think you've got tunnel vision here.
      - vacri 14y ago
        So you're saying that humans have laser-like accuracy in the horizontal dimension, and sloppy accuracy in the vertical? Your interpretation of the science is poor.
        demallien 14y ago
        I don't know how you get that interpretation from the parent post. Only having to worry about one degree of freedom in your movement is much easier / faster than having to manage two.
jsight 14y ago
> On Windows and Linux I cannot switch to an app bringing all windows to the front, I have to do it one at a time. I'm pretty sure Linux w/ Gnome 3 does it the Mac OS X way by default.
icebraining 14y ago
On (...) Linux I cannot switch to an app bringing all windows to the front, I have to do it one at a time. Sure you can. Just launch (or move) each application to its own virtual desktop. You can even group them logically, like an email reader with an IM client! What if I wanted to switch back and use that app again? Window and Linux applications are not disposable, they can be launched more than once.
- sjs 14y ago
  > Window and Linux applications are not disposable, they can be launched more than once. But when the last window is closed the application quits. What if I want to keep it running because I will switch back and open something in a minute? On Windows & Linux I have to launch the app again. I'm not arguing for one or the other here, just illustrating that this argument is based on familiarity not one actually being better than the other. Each has pluses and minuses.

by sjs 14y ago

lttlrck 14y ago

Much like the Mac OS menu bar; drove me nuts stuck at the top of the screen like that, but a lot of people like it and I can understand that...

nirvana 14y ago
That's my point. It's not that a lot of people like it. In fact, whether people like it or not isn't really relevant. It's that this is the correct way to do it. When the menu bar is at the top of the screen, the user is much faster at getting the mouse over a menu item and clicking to open the menu. It works better. This isn't opinion, it's measurable scientifically. When the menu is on a window, you overshoot with your mouse and come down and have to hunt to get on the menu to open it. This slows you down. But the thing is-- people get used to being slower and less efficient and then when on a better solution, they think the better solution is worse because it goes against all the compensations they've had to build up over the years to get around the other, poorer, design. Now, I'm not saying that you can't prefer a windows style UI and menubar, but I am saying it is most likely because this is what you've been taught to use, and thus it feels more natural to you, even though it is less efficient for you.
- icebraining 14y ago
  Measured scientifically just means it's better for the majority of users; it doesn't necessarily mean it's better for me as a single individual. Not that I'm arguing against the bar on top; in fact, I'll use the keyboard shortcuts anyway, so I don't particularly care.
  - nirvana 14y ago
    I submit that we are talking about a physiological issue, not a preference. Attempting to hit a target in the middle of the screen is more difficult for humans than hitting a target at the very top of the screen. When you overshoot the target in the middle of the screen, you have to come back around to click on it. When you overshoot the target at the top of the screen, the pointer is stopped by the border of the display. Stopped right on the target, and you can just click. It may not feel faster to you-- that's perception. My point is that it is faster. And I haven't seen an argument for why the two things would be reversed for any specific person. It's the nature of the latency between our eyes, mind and muscles.
    - barrkel 14y ago
      There's more to accessing commands in a UI than physically manipulating an input device. I think you've got tunnel vision here.
    - vacri 14y ago
      So you're saying that humans have laser-like accuracy in the horizontal dimension, and sloppy accuracy in the vertical? Your interpretation of the science is poor.
      - demallien 14y ago
        I don't know how you get that interpretation from the parent post. Only having to worry about one degree of freedom in your movement is much easier / faster than having to manage two.

jsight 14y ago

> On Windows and Linux I cannot switch to an app bringing all windows to the front, I have to do it one at a time. I'm pretty sure Linux w/ Gnome 3 does it the Mac OS X way by default.

icebraining 14y ago

On (...) Linux I cannot switch to an app bringing all windows to the front, I have to do it one at a time. Sure you can. Just launch (or move) each application to its own virtual desktop. You can even group them logically, like an email reader with an IM client! What if I wanted to switch back and use that app again? Window and Linux applications are not disposable, they can be launched more than once.

sjs 14y ago
> Window and Linux applications are not disposable, they can be launched more than once. But when the last window is closed the application quits. What if I want to keep it running because I will switch back and open something in a minute? On Windows & Linux I have to launch the app again. I'm not arguing for one or the other here, just illustrating that this argument is based on familiarity not one actually being better than the other. Each has pluses and minuses.