[Spheric Harlot]

Sven G, could you please *link* to those images rather than embedding them?

they're messing up the formatting of this thread, and the sideways scrolling is annoying.

-chris.

[Sven G]

Yes - Microsoft indeed applied a "Mac-like" style to Office 2001 (and the 10 beta)... But, unfortunately, in this case IMO "Mac-like" is the same as Classic-like!

Personally, I think that the final version of Office 10 (and all new Mac OS X-native software, in general) should indeed give the option to choose between "free-floating" and IDE-style layouts (as you also correctly pointed out): of course, I would prefer to reverse your order - IDE (new-X-style) as default, Classic-Mac-style as as a "drag out and place where you want" option (as also happens in some Windows programs today).

And, by the way, why not a formatting pane as an "integrated" (IDE/X) option to the "classic" formatting palette...? The functionality would be exactly the same, with the additional advantage of a better organized working area!

P.S.: The images have been de-embedded and re-linked!

[ 08-03-2001: Message edited by: Sven G ]

Originally posted by Sven G:
<STRONG>Personally, I think that the final version of Office 10 (and all new Mac OS X-native software, in general) should indeed give the option to choose between "free-floating" and IDE-style layouts (as you also correctly pointed out): of course, I would prefer to reverse your order - IDE (new-X-style) as default, Classic-Mac-style as as a "drag out and place where you want" option (as also happens in some Windows programs today).
</STRONG>

Where did you get the idea that a take-over-the-screen "IDE" style environment was the new OS X paradigm? If anything Apple is moving away from that (the app-centric paradigm) and into a window-centric view where you can work with several programs in different windows at the same time. Windows has always been the OS that encouraged users to "maximize" windows to the full screen so the users wouldn't be confused by having to do more than one thing at a time.

[Sven G]

The answer is very simple: you can open as many windows as you like also in IDE apps (see Internet Explorer, for example: having too many Explorer windows open is also one of the most common - and foolish - "arguments" against the Windows Taskbar, by the way...). And, of course, you can use as many apps/windows as you wish at the same time, be they IDE or "Mac-like"...

The main difference is that in the IDE apps the "auxiliary" windows of the application itself (e.g., mainly toolbars and palettes) are integrated within the application window(s) or "area" (as in iMovie, a very particular and interesting kind of IDE), resulting in much less unnecessary clutter and a much more clean, ordered and stylish appearance. And IDE apps don't necessarily take over the entire screen (see iTunes and iDVD), and can also have several *different* kinds of windows open at the same time (as in Outlook Express, with the main windows and the message, etc. windows).

The "necessary" clutter of having several *document* windows open (belonging to the same app or to different apps) can't be removed, of course, and is indeed not even "clutter", IMO; it could indeed be - optionally! - "regulated" very efficiently with the former Single Window Mode button, which they incredibly removed !

To see some very interesting examples of a paradigm change in what "Mac-like" means, look no further than Apple's own Project Builder, iTunes, iDVD and iMovie apps - and I'm pretty sure that also the next revision of AppleWorks and iPhoto (if this will be the name), etc., will all have some form of IDE "stylishness"!

[ 08-03-2001: Message edited by: Sven G ]

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Sven G:
<STRONG>having too many Explorer windows open is also one of the most common - and foolish - "arguments" against the Windows Taskbar, by the way...</STRONG>

Not strictly on topic, but do explain how this is "foolish?"

At work (Win NT), I *need* to have eight windows open *excluding* Netscape (no IE). These are the standard programs we need to have running.

In Netscape, I need to have *at least* one window open at any time (necessary self-updating Intranet screen).

Now, add one Mac news site, a window for these fora, a google search window (for work-related & other research), and two other windows with links.

Is this your definition of "too many" browser windows? Do you seriously suggest I close windows I'm actively using simply because the piece-of-**** Taskbar becomes almost useless by abbreviating every Netscape window with an identical icon and the brilliant label "Ne..." when trying to accomodate them?

..."hello?"

-c.

[Sven G]

Perhaps "foolish" wasn't the best possible term: it should have been better with "superficial"...

... Because there are at least two possible cures to the "icons-and-text-in-Taskbar" problem:

1. Add another row to the bar (drag it upwards, if it is at the bottom of the screen), thus having more place to display open documents (the loss of screen real estate isn't all that dramatic, unless you are at a very low resolution; auto-hide if you don't wan't to lose anything).

2. Move the Taskbar (drag and drop: when will we see that with the Dock? Microsoft that beats Apple on the drag and drop front isn't exactly the best possible thing !) to the left or right side of the screen and widen it as you prefer: there will be more space for the documents' text names to the right of their icons, and also much more space vertically (even if the loss of real estate is more serious this time: auto-hide as an option).

Spheric, I find Microsoft as a company really more and more disgusting as their concentrated "power" infamously increases day after day (see also the incredible "FUD war" against open source); but one must admit that some of Windows' features (especially the Taskbar) are still unparalleled by their Mac (even X) counterparts: see the Dock, for example, which still has only a fraction of the features and customizability of the Taskbar (not to speak about the Linux Panels).

But this indeed looks like an old story...

[ 08-03-2001: Message edited by: Sven G ]

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Sven G:
<STRONG>P1. Add another row to the bar (drag it upwards, if it is at the bottom of the screen), thus having more place to display open documents (the loss of screen real estate isn't all that dramatic, unless you are at a very low resolution; auto-hide if you don't wan't to lose anything).</STRONG>

We have 1024x768 resolution, and our apps are custom-tailored to work best at that resolution.
Er, also, didn't you just complain about the wastefulness of palettes as opposed to the IDE (whatever that stands for) interfaces? Whenever I tried the Taskbar in double rows, I always seemed to end up with massive stretches of empty space / constantly having to re-adjust the damn thing.

Originally posted by Sven G:
<STRONG>2. Move the Taskbar (drag and drop: when will we see that with the Dock? Microsoft that beats Apple on the drag and drop front isn't exactly the best possible thing !) to the left or right side of the screen and widen it as you prefer: there will be more space for the documents' text names to the right of their icons, and also much more space vertically (even if the loss of real estate is more serious this time: auto-hide as an option).</STRONG>

Left or right side is *not* an option; our custom apps do not accept this.

Auto-hide: Wonderful. Do you actually *use* Windows? Because in NT, I naturally had auto-hide switched on - for exactly _one_day._ IT DOESN'T WORK!!!
Several of the programs we use utilize the maximum available screen space and place themselves in the foreground.
The Taskbar may come up when you hit the bottom of the screen, but you have no way of knowing this, because IT'S IN THE ****ING BACKGROUND! So you have to minimize the program window first before being able to access the Taskbar. Right. (No, using a different program is not an option.)


I can really understand that you love Microsoft for implementing so many practical and useful features - you mention this often.

However, you must understand that the reason Mac users HATE Microsoft and Windows with such a passion (at least this one here) is that almost NONE of these ideas are implemented in such a way as to actually work consistently, if at all. This makes them all but useless.

And it makes me really angry, because an ordinary user fights daily with these things, and some idiot UI designer at MS is getting paid many dollars for not doing his job.

-chris.

In reference to the original post. If this was a parallel universe it would say: Stop Platinum from consuming Office 10!! Keep it from using that bland vomit everywhere. This is a case of resistance to change pure and simple. A change I might add that I welcome!

[Sven G]

Well... interesting things come out from discussions: from what you said, your situation is a very "custom" one. But let's see what can be solved...

1. Double-row Taskbar, empty space and "IDE" (which, AFAIK, stands for Integrated Development Environment, or something similar: I found it interesting and took it from a previous thread about 10.1/10.1+): if you add another row to the Taskbar, typically the lower row will be entirely available for displaying open apps/docs, while the upper row will be available for quick launch area elements *and* for additional, customized bars you might want to add (URLs, channels, etc.); so, the space is empty only if you have very few quick launch icons and/or don't want to fully use the Taskbar's customization potential. As for the IDE thing, of course a long gray strip with nothing in it (as typically results from toolbars that don't stretch all the way across the app window) is a waste of space from a purely geometrical point of view, but if you compare that to, say, MS Word 2001/10s "Mac-like" toolbars, you find that the wasted space is exactly the same (if the toolbars have the same length), but the clutter is now much more disturbing IMO (you typically see pieces of the desktop with partially covered icons in the background: ugly, ugly, and again ugly!), while the "recovered" "Mac-like" real estate is of no additional use (you can only click on the "uncovered" desktop areas, which can be achieved in a much cleaner way by going to the Dock/Taskbar, etc.; what else can you do with the narrow stripe resulting from a "partial" Word 2001-style toolbar...?); so, the "classic" Mac-like implementation of toolbars/palettes consumes more "virtual" and "aesthetic" screen real estate, IMO.

2. If I correctly understood your point, probably you must alter a Taskbar preference in order to have it "always in the foreground" (it should be "immer im Vordergrund" in German; in my Italian version it is "sempre in primo piano"): in that way, you won't have to minimize windows before having access to the Taskbar, as it will always pop up from the bottom, regardless of how many programs/documents you have open - at least, for me it has *always* worked (but, then, I also don't use a heavily "customized" environment as you do).

You're certainly right when you say that Microsoft's feature implementations are not the best possible - but that doesn't mean that the features themselves aren't good! And you don't make a feature better by removing it, as Apple seems to like to do nowadays: if there is something I "hate" in Apple, it is the "over-simplifying" trend which doesn't cater for pro users' needs! For example, in order to make the Dock (much) better, Apple could take some of the very best features of the Taskbar (which MS also "copied" from NeXT, if I'm not mistaken: so, it would indeed "return home" with a more powerful Dock!) *and* implement them in the best possible way, à la Apple!

Sorry for the long post; I hope I explained some of my points a little better...

P.S.: I just found that Railhead Design removed the Office 10 screenshots "at Microsoft's request": at least here, Apple and M$ are quite similar!

[ 08-04-2001: Message edited by: Sven G ]

[Boodlums]

Sven,

I assume English is your second or third language, but this is really more a matter of computer terminology. Please don't say "app window" on the Mac -- that is a Windoze MDI thing. An app window is a parent of child windows which cannot move beyond the bounds of their parent ("app") window. We have no such things on the Mac (FoxPro was the only Mac app which had an "app" window, and even then, a configuration option let users switch the behavior on or off).
Also, "IDE" has nothing to do with framed/paned interfaces -- that is not what the word "integrated" refers to (it refers to editor, compiler, and debugger being all part of the same app instead of separate apps).

I, for one, HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE framed/paned interfaces. I'm glad you did finally say that it should be a user preference, as my preference is clear.

thanks,
-Walter
UNIX philosophy: small is beautiful. (Aqua is ugly because it's too big.)

[Sven G]

I understand your points - but I simply used "IDE-style" as an approximate, general idea, of course... And, in effect, AFAIK most implementations of "real" IDE programming environments (Project Builder, etc.) indeed use a framed/paned interface, also because it's more suited for "orderly" thinking and planning.

But I'm really curious as to why many of you say that they "HATE" some of these "Windows-native" (?) interface features? Is it really an usability concern... or does it derive from the equation "M$ as a company = all M$'s products"...? (Personally, I would rather second "M$ as a company &lt;&lt; some of MS's products/features" - that is, a rather "infamous" and contradictory inequality!)

I wouldn't say that I "HATE" the Classic Mac way of doing things - I just find it rather rudimentary (or, better, un-evolved) and unelegant (the Mac, on the other hand, should be the "non plus ultra" in elegance!) in some interface features. (And it's definitely not funny to be forced to move palettes all around one's documents, in order to wholly see them: much easier to move some scrollbars...)

In order to make everyone happy, there should indeed be the option of customizing all major apps to your needs, from the docked/framed/paned interface to the Classic-style one, all the way down to the command line, if necessary!

(Actually, English is my fourth - and mostly written - language, so I apologize if I sometimes make some mistakes: anyway, the concept should always be rather clear...)

Well... I hope this thread can now return on topic (if there are any more new things)...

[ 08-04-2001: Message edited by: Sven G ]

[Boodlums]

The reason I hate the framed/paned interface is that it takes away my choice of how to utilize my screen real estate -- the developer has already usurped everything. It's not a matter of style, it's a matter of ownership. I want to own my screen, and any app which thinks it knows better than I do how to use my screen, that is a rude app and I don't want it.

That's speaking for myself, of course.

-Walter

[Fluffy]

And, of course, IDE apps just don't work right on mulitple monitor systems.

[walrusjb]

Auto-hide: Wonderful. Do you actually *use* Windows? Because in NT, I naturally had auto-hide switched on - for exactly _one_day._ IT DOESN'T WORK!!!
Several of the programs we use utilize the maximum available screen space and place themselves in the foreground.
The Taskbar may come up when you hit the bottom of the screen, but you have no way of knowing this, because IT'S IN THE ****ING BACKGROUND! So you have to minimize the program window first before being able to access the Taskbar. Right. (No, using a different program is not an option.)

Um... no. Start&gt;Settings&gt;Taskbar & Startmenu. "Always on Top" It works like it sounds. Ever since ol' 95 in fact.

[Sven G]

IDE apps like Cinema 4D XL can easily span multiple monitors, as windows, toolbars and palettes can easily be undocked and placed wherever you want.

Full customizability is indeed the real solution; and even in a completely docked, framed and paned default state, there are still plenty of choices also in an IDE application, as you can resize the main window, the individual window panes, customize the toolbars/palettes, etc...

If you add to this the ability to undock everything and place it where you feel best suited... well, everyone should then be happy!

[Fluffy]

Originally posted by Sven G:
<STRONG>IDE apps like Cinema 4D XL can easily span multiple monitors, as windows, toolbars and palettes can easily be undocked and placed wherever you want.</STRONG>

I have no problem with well designed IDE apps. The single window approach is easy for people to use and is better for "browsing" apps such as iTunes and Mail. I just happen to prefer the multi-window/palette approach for apps in which I actually have to perform work. Project builder is an example of what I dislike about IDE apps... it encourages working within a single window when development work doesn't really lend itself to that style (at least for me). I know that you can open seperate windows for additional source files, but you really have to have this big, multi-paned window open for project management (unless I've missed a major option somewhere...). Is that really necessary? The Codewarrior approach just seems to be a better user experience.

Maybe I'm alone in this opinion, but I like being able to see the desktop and other programs and windows "behind" my current app. That is, in fact, my biggest gripe about Windows... the fact that each app seems to encourage the use of full screen mode. When I have docs open for work I rarely think about what application they are using, so it is easier for me to click on the doc in the background than to use the Taskbar or Dock to switch to the app that I am using to edit the desired doc. Maybe that doesn't make much sense... but for me the ease of recognizing the spacial orientation of the windows on the screen is more intuitive than using an application "switcher". Which is probably why most of my windows are in "icon" view and arranged very precisely.

[ 08-06-2001: Message edited by: Fluffy ]

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Fluffy:
<STRONG>Maybe I'm alone in this opinion, but I like being able to see the desktop and other programs and windows "behind" my current app. That is, in fact, my biggest gripe about Windows... the fact that each app seems to encourage the use of full screen mode. When I have docs open for work I rarely think about what application they are using, so it is easier for me to click on the doc in the background than to use the Taskbar or Dock to switch to the app that I am using to edit the desired doc. Maybe that doesn't make much sense... but for me the ease of recognizing the spacial orientation of the windows on the screen is more intuitive than using an application "switcher". Which is probably why most of my windows are in "icon" view and arranged very precisely.</STRONG>

I assure you, you are NOT alone! This is one of the major differences between the Mac and Windows - and to me, it is absolutely vital. I arrange my windows according to tasks and need the sense of depth that this provides - Mac OS X works much more to my liking than OS 9 in this regard, as I can activate single windows without pulling all of the corresponding app's windows into the foreground.

This is also the one point where Sven G and I will *never* agree - he seems to like that Windows hides the "clutter" of the Desktop and background windows/apps, while to me, it blocks access to the computer, giving me less control.

(I am, however, liking column view in the Finder a lot, where I used to be a stickler for precisely arranged icon-view windows, as you say.)

-chris.

[Sven G]

Never say never...

Actually, there is at least *one* (customizable) configuration on which we may agree in OS X: that is, a desktop without icons (everything in the Dock) and a Classic-like use of programs (free-floating windows, etc.); in that way, the desktop would be "clean" (as it will probably eventually be by default in X), and the only "clutter" would be that of partially covered windows. Indeed, what disturbs me most is the partially covered desktop icons thing...

(I hope you tried the "Always on Top" Taskbar feature at work: the result may not be perfect, but it certainly allows you to add another row without too many problems...)

[JLL]

Originally posted by Sven G:
<STRONG>Indeed, what disturbs me most is the partially covered desktop icons thing...</STRONG>

Why?

[Sven G]

I think it's just plain ugly from a "global" aesthetic point of view: for example, in a program like Photoshop I just find it ugly and unelegant to see narrow "pieces" of desktop icons behind the palettes on the right side - but, of course, it's indeed a matter of personal preference (and I never said that everyone should conform to "Windows-style" IDE interfaces if they are not comfortable with them: it should, however, be an *option*, at least in forthcoming versions of OS X)...

(P.S.: Your Danish-only web site is very good and informative: I visit it every now and then, also because I actually lived in Denmark (Århus) from 1970 to 1977, as a kid (yes, I'm that old!); why not also make an English version, so everyone can understand the interesting contents...?)

[JLL]

Originally posted by Sven G:
<STRONG>Your Danish-only web site is very good and informative: I visit it every now and then, also because I actually lived in Denmark (Århus) from 1970 to 1977, as a kid (yes, I'm that old!);</STRONG>

That's not old, because that would make me old too

<STRONG>why not also make an English version, so everyone can understand the interesting contents...?)</STRONG>

I don't have the time since I'm also writing for another Danish Mac web site (mediamac.dk).

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Sven G:
<STRONG>(I hope you tried the "Always on Top" Taskbar feature at work: the result may not be perfect, but it certainly allows you to add another row without too many problems...)</STRONG>

I have returned to it for the last few days, actually... I don't like the hiding so much b/c I have to hit the edge, search, and then mouse over and click, which is tedious. Still testing though; see if it's just mostly habit.

I have it to the left, always in front, hidden. I get plenty of windows listed...BUT:

Bug #1: FUGLY redraw problems when the TaskBar retracts (this is NT 4.0, Service Pack up your whatever)

Bug #2: It is *NOT* available when you've minimized a window - you must first click in the next-up window before you can access the Task Bar. Annoying.

Still collecting bugs and inconsistencies, trying to decide if it works well enough to use...as you can see, it took me two days to get annoyed by stuff *not* working as advertised/expected already. (Why I love Windows)

-chris.