What OS X Could Learn From Windows
Okay.
Hard hat? Check.
Flak jacket? Check.
Flame proof vest? Check.
White flag? Check.
Deep breath? Check.
Windows has some features OS X could do with.
There, I said it. Nice and quick and up front. No beating around the bush. So what now? Duck!!!
Is it safe to come out yet? I’ve been burnt before daring to suggest this. But here I am again, sucker for punishment.
1) Compatible control keys. Switching between Mac and Windows this drives me nuts. I have to consciously think “command-C or control-C?” It shouldn’t have to be that way. And if you’re running RDC or VPC and copying and pasting between OS X and Windows!! Sheesh!
The problem isn’t the labeling, it’s the location of the keys used. I had to use a Windows PC today and I kept pressing Alt-C to copy. This is why it’s a problem. If it was simply a matter of labeling, no worries, mate. Apple - and the zealotry - need to concede that this battle is lost.
Implementing this would rock many people’s boats, so if Apple did make this change it’d have some serious domino affect on other keystrokes and applications that use them, but maybe it could be done with the switch to Intel, just to ease the pain slightly.
2) Save button on toolbars. I don’t think any of the Apple software ever gives you the option to include a Save button. Print button yes, Save button no. A little test - raise your hand if you save your work more often than you print it? Ah, so I’m not alone. Good. You can put your hands down. Thank you.
3) A multi button mouse. And you thought I’d say two. Why stop at two? Especially with things like Exposé, Dashboard and Spotlight. They’re just crying out for single click activation from a mouse. Ok. So this isn’t a Windows feature per sé, but still is needed.
4) Only show relevant file types in open and save dialogs. For those who like seeing every file that’s every existed in their Documents folder, give them a checkbox to show all files. But personally, if I am opening a Pages file, I don’t want to see all my iMovie, Excel, iDVD etc files. And OS X already knows which are which because non-related ones are greyed out.
5) Sort folders to top of directory listings I know that we don’t go folder mining as much since we got Spotlight, so I won’t labor on about this one.
6) More context sensitive help. I notice since I first raised this two years ago, more of it has crept into OS X. So I guess at least I can’t be flamed for this one!
Now why is it that I can list all the features I want Leopard to have and as long as none of them are from Windows, its cool? But dare suggest OS X needs a feature already in Windows and the world comes down on you. We can admit that OS X is not perfect, but not that Windows is better in some ways.
But Apple have admitted it in the past. Here’s just a couple of things I’ve seen Windows do that Apple has added:
- Command-tab switching
- Existing files selectable in Save dialog
Last week I suggested changes to the iPod and more people than not, disagreed. And I reckon this week it’ll be a lot worse. But if I added to this list “Change to Intel CPU’s"… two months ago I would have been burned at the stake. Now it seems we all think that change is logical. So before you get the flame thrower out remember, we know Apple make changes, they borrow from Windows and borrow from their 3rd party developers.
Also, I know I’m going to get flamed for this being a “tired old argument that has been done to death”. Sorry if you feel that way. just pretend I didn’t say these features already existed in Windows and that they are new and revolutionary. If we stop asking, Apple may think we don’t want them anymore. Microsoft copied so much from Mac OS, why can’t Apple do a little copying back?
And if you can take the heat, what would you like to see Apple borrow from Windows?
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
I wrote: “This differs from Microsoft’s strategy of trying to be all things to everyone by adding as many features as possible.”
Here’s another example: The refresh item in Windows Explorer.
Windows users wanted Apple to add a Refresh option to Finder views because, when modified outside from the command line, files and directory views didn’t always get immediately updated.
Instead of adding a refresh option, Apple fixed the real problem, which was making sure the file lists in the Finder were always updated in realtime.
Clearly, this is a much better solution than simply adding a Refresh menu item that the user has to invoke when a filesystem view is not up to date.
Seems consistent to me.
I should have learned my lesson a few posts back. Talking to a brick wall is actually much more productive so I think I’ll go do that now.
I think there are some security bug will be
Just for fun, I’m going to retroactively wish that Apple copies the feature “Previous Versions” from Vista, an update of “Volume Shadow Copy” from XP and Windows Server 2003.
What does it do, you ask? The feature allows you to click on any file and restore it to a previous saved version of the file without using a separate backup utility or having to restore volumes of data. These are essentially persistent hidden backup copies of all files on your system that can be called up on demand.
Feature creep? Too complicated a concept for the mythical “average user”? Additional hardware requirements too steep? Hmmmmm.
Also, another previously mentioned feature: per application volume control.
I mention this one again because I can’t come up with any good reasons why I DON’T want this feature, which I obviously don’t because OS X doesn’t have it. And yet I do. See my conundrum?
I leave that to our resident “why you don’t want what OS X doesn’t give you” experts.
Sorry, but this just caught my eye.
Scott, from earlier today: “Why not File > Move, instead?”
Chris from 3 EFFING DAYS ago: “Scott, the way I see it, the core of the problem is terminology. If we had’ve asked for a move command in the context menu, or via keyboard shortcut, then I’m sure you woulda been happy.”
Beeblebrox from 3 EFFING DAYS ago: “I think you’re getting hung up on the whole “cut-and-paste” semantics.
What Chris and I clearly want to do is to move files from one volume to another via the Edit menu, CMD-X and context menu.”
Now, in the interest of making the world’s longest discussion about cut-and-paste come to a merciful end, I’m going to forget all of the reasons why Scott WAS saying that moving files from one volume to another was bad and now it isn’t, and just say that apparently we all agree that this feature would be just fine in Finder in the menu or as a keyboard shortcut or in the context menu and leave it at that.
Beeb wrote: “I’m going to forget all of the reasons why Scott WAS saying that moving files from one volume to another was bad and now it isn’t”
Again, you’re putting words in my mouth. It’s not that moving files from one volume to another was “bad” and suddenly it isn’t.
Perhaps a better explanation is that moving files across volumes is more expensive and has a higher risk than what people usually associate with Cut and Paste.
It’s more expensive in that it could take much longer to move a file than simply cutting and pasting text. And it has a much higher risk than copying text or graphics between documents.
As such, I think it’s poor design to expose it under the guise of Cut and Paste.
Here’s a somewhat contrived example that illustrates this idea.
Imagine you needed a product right away, so you go to the manufactures website to find out where you could buy it. You notice a link that says, “Click here to buy online and pickup at a store near you.”
You click on the link, then buy the item. The last step is to select which store you want to pick up it up from. Since the site knows your zip code, you’re presented with a map that shows five stores near by and allows you to cut and paste the item from the factory to a store.
You cut the item from the factory and paste it on the store you want. Simple right?
When you hit paste, you receive the following message.
- - - - - - - -
“Thank you for selecting the XYZ store at 12345 street, Your City, Your State. Your order will be available under the name John Smith.
Note: The store you selected does not keep this item in stock. Please allow for 5-7 days for delivery to this location. An additional $10 shipping fee will be due at the time of pickup.
XYZ, inc. reserves the right to send your product to another store at its discretion. “
- - - - - - - -
Now, there’s nothing “Bad” about waiting to have something shipped or paying for shipping. And, if the product is rare, you might be willing to go to a different store so you can acquire it. The problem here is that you weren’t expecting to wait 5-7 days or pay a shipping charge. Nor were you expecting the risk of your product being sent to a different store.
Had you known about these issues, it’s quite likely you may have picked another store or decided to purchase the product some other way.
This is why I’m suggesting File > Move, since the name explicitly implies that the FILES will be MOVED.
What part of “I don’t care what you call it, I just want to be able to easily move files, so don’t keep harping on calling it cut-and-paste” is escaping you? Let it go, man. Just let it go.
So tell me, Scott. What do you think about Per Application Volume Control? Are you afraid to come up with a reason for why this feature would be too complicated or unnecessary for the 80%ers and be embarrassed when Leopard includes it in the release? Or are you afraid to admit that there actually IS a feature in Windows that would be good for OS X? Has Steve Jobs not told you what to think about this particular feature yet?
Time Machine will perform the same task as “Volume Shadow Copy”, except with a a visual metaphor. The rollback process can even be visualized and controlled inside applications themselves, instead of having to use the Explorer.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/timemachine.html
Beeb wrote: “What do you think about Per Application Volume Control? ... why this feature would be too complicated or unnecessary for the 80%ers”
Are you referring to the architectural changes Microsoft made in Vista that allows Windows applications to control their own audio levels independently or the UI window that lets you control the individual volume levels of each application as a user?
As application developer, I think it’s about time that Microsoft modernized their audio implementation.
“Before Vista, all of the controls available to applications were system-wide - when you changed the volume using the wave volume APIs, you changed the hardware volume, thus effecting all the applications in the system.” This was a legacy issue that had been around since Windows 3.1 (1992), when only one application could play audio at once.
http://mediacenter.mattgoyer.com/archives/2006/01/13/1055
http://blogs.msdn.com/larryosterman/archive/2005/12/15/504158.aspx
With this change, Windows applications will be able to control their own audio independently in software, instead of changing the hardware volume of the entire system.
Note: Mac OS X had this ability from day one as it was inherited from OpenStep.
As for the UI window with sliders that let you, as a user, override the volume control for each application, I think its a “cool” demo of this new functionality in Vista. However, I don’t see it as being as useful as everyone is making it out to be.
The most common reason people want this sort of functionality is so they can turn down notification sounds from IM apps, email clients, etc., while turning up the volume on individual applications, such as iTunes, Front Row or games.
However, I think a better solution would be provide a UI that allows users to change the volume in the application itself.
Applications that simply play alert sounds should use the Alert audio channel that Apple provides. This allows you to control the volume of all of these auxiliary applications at once, instead of having 3-4 individual sliders to change. Note, the Alert volume is completely separate from the output volume and can be set under the Sound Effects tab in system preferences.
With the release of 10.3 in late 2003, all of Apple’s applications, such as iChat, Mail.app, and the Finder, all started using the Alert channel for all of their notification sounds. This means the volume of each of these applications can be set at once, yet independent of the system volume and other applications.
I think this covers 80% of most users needs. In fact, Rouge Amoeba did make a program that let you tap into the per-application volume functionality in OSX, but discontinued it with the release of 10.3 for this very reason.
However, I think Apple has done a lousy job of educating users and developers of the Alert volume feature. As such, I think few users actual know the Alert volume exists, or what it does. Nor do all apps that play notification sounds use it.
The Icon Factory’s Twitter client, Twitteriffic, is a good example of an application that should the alert channel, but appears not to.
That being said, I’m sure that pro users may find such a window useful in production or custom audio installations environments, such as kiosks, etc.
Beeb wrote: “and be embarrassed when Leopard includes it in the release?”
In the interest of full disclosure. I’m a registered Apple developer and have access to pre-release builds of Leopard.
However, since I’m under a NDA, I can’t confirm or deny if any of the features we’ve discussed are present in the most current pre-relase build.
In the interest of full disclosure. I’m a registered Apple developer
In the interest of full disclosure?! This is post #354 of this thread.
Jesus. I knew I was wasting my time. You’re an Apple kool-aid GUZZLER.
However, I don’t see it as being as useful as everyone is making it out to be.
Shocking.
Another feature, and a bit of a stretch in that I’m actually bringing in specific applications integrated into the OS, would be playlists in Quicktime.
I do believe that WMP and QT could trade a few features back and forth, but I really like the quick playlists in WMP. You can drag and drop several files into the list and it plays them all in the order you select.
And iTunes is not a substitute for this. For one thing, it’s too huge and cumbersome for a quick little group of files that I want to watch and then get rid of. It also does not support everything I can play in QT, like FLV files.
So that would definitely be a nice to thing to have incorporated into QT.
Beeb wrote: “Jesus. I knew I was wasting my time. You’re an Apple kool-aid GUZZLER.”
I’m also an ex Windows developer, so it’s safe to say i’ve had more than a sip of both platforms.
Beeb wrote: “Shocking...”
Perhaps you’d like to enlighten me on why per-appliation volume control *is* as useful as everyone’s making it out to be?
Perhaps you’d like to enlighten me on why per-appliation volume control *is* as useful as everyone’s making it out to be?
You are literally incapable of comprehending any reason not prescribed to you by Apple or created within your own Mac-atronic brain to defend them, so why should I bother? So you can reflexively invoke these 80%ers again when it’s convenient to do so and casting them aside when not?
You don’t want reasons why it’s useful. You just want me to name some so you can shoot them down.
Like I said, I learned my lesson. I’m not going through another 500 posts that accomplish nothing.
Beeb wrote: “You don’t want reasons why it’s useful. “
Actually, I do
I know why it would be useful on Windows.
However, in light of the alert channel functionality I mentioned above, I’m wondering if you still think users need a Vista like UI to access the per-application volume control functionality that Mac OS X already has.
What I’m talking about has nothing to do with the alert channel. Your lack of imagination about why this function might be useful (quick access to volume control for each application) is unsurprising. Apple has no such feature, so you haven’t had to come up with some reason it’s the most awesomest awesomeness EVAH! It’s a Windows feature, so it must be useless and badly implemented.
So such a feature, which as you say seems so obvious to everyone else, elicits a mere blank stare from you.
Again. Shocking.